Povetkin has NOT been cleared

This WADA statement is pursuant to their April notice that "the results of ongoing excretion studies are needed to determine the time of the ingestion". October 1st has simply replaced March 1st as the cut off point.

From the new notice:

"To summarize, this means that for urinary concentrations of meldonium: below 1 μg/mL, for samples collected on or before 30 September 2016, results management may proceed and a finding of no fault may be made unless there is other evidence indicating use of meldonium on or after 1 January 2016."

Do 3 negative tests in 2016 prior to the positive not constitute evidence indicating use of use after 1st Jan?

The possibilities:

a) Test 1, 2 and 3 were erroneous
b) Test 4 was erroneous

Or, the tests were accurate and either:

a) Meldonium has weird excretion patterns, which as yet neither WADA, nor anyone else reputable has made a statement on.
b) Povetkin was using the whole time and failed to mask it properly for test 4

WADA need to clear this up. Ryabinsky is either thick as ****, or out of line saying this exonerates his boy.

 

I'm not saying he's dirty, just showing that it's yet to be determined.

Certainly do seem to be a lot of scientists here though, telling me "it was definitely in his fat cells, someone told me on twitter" :think

 

Nonsense, I'm not guessing anything. The possibilities listed are deliberately broad to avoid getting into pharmacological details. Anything constituting specific qualities of meldonium that could lead to anomalous test results is covered in one option.

Can you proffer any scenario leading to the sequence of 3 negatives followed by a positive, which would fall outside of the possibilities I've suggested?

 

Efimova hasn't been cleared. Her suspension has been lifted while under ongoing investigation.

The FINA Doping Panel hearing is being conducted right now.

And the IOC will undertake an "evaluation of the situation" before allowing her into the Olympics.

 

Thanks for this info, and correcting some terminology
A statement to this effect from WADA would help clear up a lot of cases. Someone mentioned Efimova, and I see she's planning to sue the lab responsible for her tests.
You think they will when they're satisfied they have enough knowledge to do so accurately? Or is it a bit late now, and that would be too much of an admission of a colossal **** up?

 

Maybe nothing further will come of it. Consensus seems to be that Povetkin has been given some sort of pardon by wada. I'm just pointing out that isn't the case.