Peter Bol's doping suspension lifted - B sample comes back "atypical"

That was meant for comparison, as gel electrophoresis is imho less known. And of course many have seen spectroscopy as UG; I didn't say a majority. Just trying to help with some comparisons here, but never mind.

To be blunt, if he wasn't of African extraction he wouldn't be getting off. This is bunk.

You may be absolutely right. I am not contesting that.

But you still want him to be guilty, regardless of what he has or has not done.

Look at your last sentence; you think he is guilty because he hasn't had a negative test, even if his "positive" was shown to be unreliable.

You just don't want Peter Bol to be innocent.

Witch hunting is what you are doing.

Before replying, re-read my first sentence on this post.

for me the issue is beyond whether Bol is innocent or guilty. Unlike most of what i have read today, i would not know if Bol is innocent or guilty, so do not dare defend either position in public.

As an Aussie sports fan, however, I am glad he gets to fight another day. I hope he can match or surpass his OG fourth. If he is clean, i cant see any reason why he cannot match his best ever times this season, barring injury. Anger can be a marvelous tonic to motivate your future.

But i am really fascinated with the testing of A and B, what it means to have an atypical finding, and how successful WADA now is with regard to EPO testing.

Eloquent and forthright comments from Justin Rinaldi. His conduct during this event has been exemplary. No bizarre explanations, excuses or outbursts. I am impressed.

Guilty feelings. All this belief that scientists are not publish or perish people. They are more like expert testimony in criminal cases, and go where the money is

The Norwegian scientists were involved in analysing the test results in cases of three athletes who tested positive and were banned: Irish sprinter Stephen Culvert, race walker Erik Tysse and Czech triathlon athlete Vojtech Somme.
Greene has said there are similarities between Bol’s case and the Culvert and Tysse cases.
The scientists have raised concerns about the subjectivity of EPO testing previously. In 2016 the then chief executive of the World Association of Anti-Doping Scientists – the umbrella organisation for the testing laboratories – Christiane Ayote, wrote a spirited piece in a science magazine defending the laboratories against the criticism that challenged the labs’ credibility.

WADA/AIU are not easily bullied despite what some seem to insinuate. If they had Bol actually guilty they’d follow through like with Shelby, Kiprop and so on. But it seems they had a marginal positive case that wasn’t backed up. Bol will be tested a lot from now on, and I think the sensible view is I’d rather a possibly guilty Bol compete than a possibly innocent Bol banned.

Since A sample positives aren't meant to be announced unless the athlete waives the B, you don't know the denominator and therefore don't know how rare it is.

The idea that one manager figured out how to game the system 10 years ago, and nobody else knows how to do it, strikes me as hilarious.

If the truth is that it isn't then that would be great, but it really doesn't feel that way.

Look before Shelby, I thought BTC was clean. I thought most American athletes outside of NOP were clean. But then she gets popped, and suddenly you have to cast doubt on not just her performances/progression, but her training partners too. If 14:23 is doped, what about 14:26? Is Karissa really good enough to run THAT fast? What about Elise's sudden fast times? Courtney, Evan and the like. That bleeds into other American performances and it keeps going.

Well if it is the truth that it's not as systemic as in cycling, then you will be forever waiting for a Landis that doesn't exist, no?

Is there a Landis for swimming?

You know people can get upset at this but it’s actually the facts of this situation.

At a first principal level failing a doping test is down to “atypical” results seen in urine (or blood) analysis right? There is a sample analyzed and someone in a lab decides if there are abnormalities in the results that would indicate performance enhancing drug use. For Peter Bol the first half of his sample analyzed came back with abnormalities from clean urine that pointed to synthetic EPO. The second half of his sample was then tested and its also showing “atypical” results or abnormalities from clean urine. You can vote this down or get upset all you want but it’s not the same as saying “there are no atypical findings and therefore it’s a completely passed test”. So one person decided the atypical makers the first time were because of synthetic EPO, the second person decided the atypical makers weren’t and now his provisional suspension is lifted because they those results didn’t align. Is that the situation or results a clean athlete gets from a doping test? Draw your own conclusions.

Again, get upset all you want - but the fact remains the same sample of his urine was tested twice by different labs and the results were not in line with regular findings that would constitute a passed test as thousands of WADA tests do for thousands of athletes every year. Period.

td2022epo_v1.0_final_eng.pdf (wada-ama.org)

can anyone explain this, especially table 1. Do they test for a minimum concentration of synthetic EPO.

Peter Bol’s B sample was tested over three days at a
laboratory in Melbourne and some of it was also sent to Europe to be tested
under the supervision of the WADA head of the committee on EPO testing.
Sport Integrity Australia confirmed the results of Bol's B
Sample had been reported from a WADA accredited laboratory with the sample
returning an Atypical Finding (ATF) for recombinant EPO.
"The results of the Part A Sample analysis for the
Athlete was an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) (positive doping test) for
Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (ERA):rEPO (recombinant EPO, or rEPO),"
the statement read.
"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.
"An ATF is a report from a WADA-accredited laboratory
which requires further investigation as provided by the World Anti-Doping Code
- International Standard for Laboratories 2021 or related Technical Documents.

Quit wasting time and money testing.

looks like Bol had a similar result in 2021

Further complexity has been thrown on the situation with the
Sydney Morning Herald reporting that Bol had contradictory EPO testing results
in 2021 – with one lab identifying a minor positive, and another concluding the
same sample was negative. Bol was reportedly unaware of this until now; it may
suggest naturally-occurring high levels of EPO within his body.

theguardian.com

Peter Bol: what does an atypical doping test result mean for the Australian athlete?

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/kieran-pender

The Olympian says a B sample has exonerated him but for Sport Integrity Australia the case is not closed and for Bol his race is not yet run

Open link

They're testing for synthetic EPO. There should be none in his system.

Yes this is why a couple things should happen. First, the lawyer is correct and Bol/his team should be notified about the A sample but there’s no need for an announcement by Australian anti-doping. He’ll just not compete and train alone mysteriously until the B…it’s fine. Second, clearly Bol is a nuanced case and extra attention is warranted. So, you can be transparent with that and lean on the ABP and your chief experts to make the call vs the dog-and-pony show.

pretty hard to catch anyone on EPO. 2021 50,940 tests urine for epo, 52 AAfs

*waves hand vigorously*

you mean Nic?