Sport Integrity Australia clears Peter Bol, says his A sample should have been recorded as negative

Red Vinny wrote:

Peter Bol should sue the balls off of whoever listed him incorrectly.

Red Vinny wrote:

Peter Bol should sue the balls off of whoever listed him incorrectly.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

Big news down under as Sport Integrity Australia (the Australian anti-doping agency) has concluded its investigation into Peter Bol and has ruled there is no anti-doping rule violation.

The really interesting thing here is that SIA is now saying that after further analysis -- including by a different WADA lab and an EPO expert -- there were varying opinions about whether the sample was positive or negative and they've now reported the A sample as negative.

Remember, before the A sample was reported as positive and the B sample was "atypical" -- not positive, but not definitively negative either.

The other big takeaway for me is that WADA is now going to review its current EPO process -- which it definitely should given how this case has played out.

Link:www.sportintegrity.gov.au/news/media-s...

still unsure wrote:

I find it interesting that there is no overt "it was negative, this was wrong". Just "there were varying opinions".

While that may again fit the remit for a negative (not 100% sure, so err on the side of caution) it still strikes me as odd that an athlete is consistently testing on the "atypical" side of things.

I am Sam wrote:

'still unsure'? Where is the consistent 'atypical' tests? The A test was leaked as positive, the B test was 'atypical' and the retest or review of A test 'had varying opinions of positive or negative' thus negative. End of story. The A and B tests were both from samples at one time, split into two. So why would you be 'unsure' about the 'consistency'?

If anything, it re-affirms the subjective nature of the EPO test used. People. athletes, are not 'typical', no two people have the same blood composition. Add to that a subjective test for synthetic vs natural EPO, what do you expect?

pupil3142 wrote:

this is a disaster for everyone

Let's stick to the facts wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

'still unsure'? Where is the consistent 'atypical' tests? The A test was leaked as positive, the B test was 'atypical' and the retest or review of A test 'had varying opinions of positive or negative' thus negative. End of story. The A and B tests were both from samples at one time, split into two. So why would you be 'unsure' about the 'consistency'?

If anything, it re-affirms the subjective nature of the EPO test used. People. athletes, are not 'typical', no two people have the same blood composition. Add to that a subjective test for synthetic vs natural EPO, what do you expect?

He had an 'atypical' test result the year before the one in question.

Let\'s stick to the facts wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

this is a disaster for everyone

Yes it is. I hope people are realizing that this could open the floodgates and we could be back in the full throttle EPO era shortly.

oyd wrote:

It's almost like you wanted him to test positive...

Let's stick to the facts wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

this is a disaster for everyone

Yes it is. I hope people are realizing that this could open the floodgates and we could be back in the full throttle EPO era shortly.