wejo wrote:
What is an "atypical finding"?
But sorry Australian anti-dopers, he has to be positive on both tests to be convicted.
This just confuses the sh-t out of me. So the A is positive. The B is neither positive but also not negative - it's "weird enough" (irregular, abnormal by absolute definition) that nobody can say for sure.
This is where I struggle - in clean urine, free from any chemicals, anything etc - how often does testing it for doping show up "weird enough" results that they can't confirm or deny illegal substance use. You see I would be guessing that given the amount of urine that WADA test, we should be seeing a lot more "atypical" results - but maybe they do and just don't need to disclose it (shrugging shoulders).
I will say this too - I'm not sure how one half of Peter Bols piss comes back testing positive for synthetic EPO and the second half of the same piss comes back atypical, abnormal, irregular, "weird enough they can't say" and the assumption is he is clean and good to go. Somebody needs to explain that to me.

