Provisional suspension prior to testing the B sample is allowed per WADA code.

The January 20th announcement of the provisional suspension was not a leak. Any athlete under provisional suspension has their suspension subject to public disclosure per WADA Code.

Maybe it was leaked in some way prior to January 20th, but I'm not aware of it.

There is the possibility the tests didn't yield different results as such. Bols lawyers were pushing for a different test to be used. The older test no longer used as it isn't as sensitive to the smaller levels used in micro dosing. If they got their way, then his b test may have definately been different. No fault to Lab, just a very good lawyer trying to create loopholes and create public support to help his client.

Aus media have now stated he had an atypical recombinant epo test result a few years ago also. I did think his statement that he had been tested 20 times since the test that was positive seemed way to many to be normal in the off season. This can happen when the tests are showing something is likely going on but the timing of tests hasn't been able to actually show a positive, just atypical results . Testing randomly, much more often, in the hope the timing would be right to catch a micro doser.

Now he is claiming the high EPO is caused by genetics.

One theory that has been expounded for the Sudanese-born Bol's elevated EPO level is his ethnicity.


"It's in our genetics of course," he said.


"We're fitter, we're faster, we're more resilient because of how much we've been through and gone through.


"It's our genetics; it's who we are.


"We can get back in shape pretty fast [but] it doesn't mean we are cheating.


"It's how we're born."


Peter Bol says he will always have a cloud over his name after EPO test - ABC News

I was happy to give him some benefit of doubt, but not so much now, after reading that rubbish.

I would have thought that any synthetic EPO found in a sample could not be explained away by ethnicity.

Yeah, the cases with plausible excuses are so confounding - like Katerina Nash and her dog meds. (she's effectively a recreational cyclist now, though plays with the young women still at times for fun) .

The Bol camp did a nice courtesy here of relieving me of all confusion and hesitation in throwing him under my proverbial bus.

Seems like there are lots of techniques / tactics that are used to deflect. Someone should write a book about it. The first is as you said - 'plausible' excuse (contaminated blender etc). Others are statements along the lines - I've had to spend all my own money to clear my name - appeal to sympathy; I just dont know how this got in my system; legal challenge (even unsuccessful) and using that as a cloak of innocence; putting in the public domain the views of the experts you would rely on (here it was some Norwegian doctors w doubts about the EPO testing). Haven't come across the ethnicity contributing to EPO being more present in the body's system before (synthetic EPO for that matter as a poster mentioned above).

I understand why - most of these athletes have a shelf life and unless hugely wealthy like LA, will need to get a job at some point and need to be taken seriously / respected by employers and customers.

Despite all this it is unclear to me how the provisional result was issued (the A sample) if the B sample had not been tested. Is that standard? If it was a political / personal attack to prevent him getting the award (young Aus of the year) that is not someone who I would to have as my enemy! Originally I read that it was based on an anonymous tip that he was tested at the time the A sample was taken, which makes me think of someone in the know who isn't happy. Also expers would know but I don't what the discrepancy is between the A and B and what that means

Doesn't the athlete have to request the B sample be tested once they have a failed A sample? That then is sent off at a later date to a separate lab. Bol had also had a similar result back in 2021, positive A, negative B and so he was on the "radar".

Re "discrepancy is between the A and B and what that means" - not sure what you mean. Why did he have a positive A and a negative B sample? A number of reasons, one of which is he could have been microdosing.

Sorry - wasn't writing in the 'most clearest' way.

Issue 1 - does the athlete need to request the B be tested once they have failed an A?

I am not sure and I will take your word for it. It seems that was what happened in this case - he requested a B sample be tested after the A result. What I was referring to was that the A sample result was made public before he was given an opportunity to request the B sample be tested - seems like someone could have leaked that for the reasons I mentioned.

Issue 2 - the A and B samples differing

Apparently the B sample comes back as an atypical finding. An extract from the Sports Integrity page:
The results of the Part B Sample analysis is an Atypical Finding (ATF) for recombinant EPO.
The relevant rules require a WADA-accredited laboratory to obtain a second opinion from an expert on the WADA EPO Working Group before any AAF or ATF for Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (such as recombinant EPO) can be reported.
An ATF is not the same as a negative test result.

Now what are the reasons for an ATF and what are the causes? I am not sure but it seems a Sports Integrity process is ongoing perhaps which Bol needs to provide information to try to rule out how the EPO was detected in the A sample.

They did a good job covering some of the details on the science of sport podcast. The important thing to know is that the epo test is a little subjective. The result is a series of "blotches" where there can be some overlap between a positive and negative (https://www.researchgate.net/...-types-of-EPO-to.png)

They implied that Bol had an "inconclusive" test a while back. With the implication being an inconclusive test is probably doping, but the results are not clear enough to be 100% sure. Because of this he was put on a kind of "high risk" list and got tested more frequently.

He then failed the recent test for EPO. When they tested the b sample it was "inconclusive" and based on that they had to overturn the positive a test.

Let's just say it looks very suspicious.

‘What a load of Bol-shit!’

Stolen from Twitter but that pretty much sums up the dribble from Bol camp. I hope SIA find a way to pin him to this.

NEWS 29 March
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/29/peter-bols-lawyers-claim-blunder-of-epic-proportions-after-independent-labs-find-no-epo




A 'catastrophic blunder': Two independent laboratories have cleared Australian runner Peter Bol of ever using the banned substance EPO. Peter Bol's legal team claims “inexperience and incompetence at the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory led to an incorrect determination”.3 hours ago

Chen concluded: “The [data] showed absolutely no evidence for the presence of any rEPO in the two samples tested.”
The Norwegian research group reached the same conclusion. “We conclude that there is no scientific evidence provided by the laboratory which proves the presence of recombinant EPO in Bol’s urine,” they said.
The legal letter outlines a number of alleged errors in the laboratory testing process which led to the interpretation of a positive result. It alleges “this was not even a close call. Instead, this was a blunder of epic proportions.”
Sport Integrity Australia was contacted for comment.

It'd be nice to get the version not from Bol's legal team. :)

I thought the A sample tested positive for rEPO as did his A sample back in 2021. Two failed A samples, 2 inconclusive B samples.

No idea. Just reading what’s in the papers.

It unlikely that the lab is going to announce that they are incompetent.

I'm just curious how this worked. It sounds like the labs/experts referred to by the defense had full access to all the details of the lab work. How did they get that access? Did they release reports independently of the defense, or were they "hired" by the defense. Is all that information public?

It'd just be nice to have some neutral party lay out the evidence and interpretation of that evidence.

Canadian Running Magazine has got a good informative article about it.

Apparently, they used the maximum allowed sample size without adjusting for where the result should be in the band according to the sample size.

Additionally, when the tests were rerun it appears that there were no synthetic irregularities.

Right royal cock up by the sounds of it.

This is "his" lawyers front-footing it.
I would be waiting for the reports and final findings to come through.

And now having read the article,
There is no mention of whether they actually tested his urine samples. Some sloppy reporting says they sent his urine samples to these labs, they talk about the two different techniques but no where in the article does it say that the two groups used the second method of testing. Just that they criticise the first method which led to the adverse finding.

Yeah, the Canadian article is better (maybe this is the one referred to above), but lots of things are still fuzzy to me.

However, overall, I am ready to accept that this is (finally!) a genuine false positive instance, pending some more transparency.

Well said. Today's media is a very strong PR front. I wonder what he is working to here to preserve? Does anyone think he has a shot at a medal next year? Or is he potentially trying to preserve a future in sports media, book deals, speaking engagements etc after his career?
The media from today is quite a contrast to the sad zane robertson story.

He lives in the same state in Australia as me.
There is news everywhere of his strong denials right from day one.
Has a massive supporter base here.
I think most of us on here have been burned by the truth of where there is smoke there is fire far too many times….

It seems to me that Peter Bol just needs to turn up to an official meet and run.

Just to prove he’s not still banned to those that think he still is.

Which has been stated here on the doping police website.
Pursuant to the relevant provisions in the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy 2021 and World Anti-Doping Code 2021, the Mandatory Provisional Suspension which was imposed on the Athlete following the AAF from the Part A Sample on 10 January 2023 is lifted.

https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/...ent-peter-bol-matter