Confirms that the A results were leaked after Sports Integrity Australia agreed not to publish results until B test confirmation (but that they did give Bol a heads up they had been leaked!). Also, SIA states "atypical finding is not the same as a negative test result" and "further investigation would be needed."
A National Treasure on the Rise Is Hit With a Doping Allegation
maybe his A sample details should not have been released, but they were and should be investigated thoroughly.
New York Times wrote:
The drug Mr. Bol is accused of having used is near-identical to a molecule found naturally in the body that stimulates the production of red blood cells. The test for it yields columns of black streaks of varying thicknesses and densities.
Antidoping agencies typically analyze the results from those tests using the human eye, a worryingly fallible method, said Erik Boye, a Norwegian scientist. Along with fellow professors of biochemistry and molecular biology in Oslo, he has long been calling for a change in how these tests are conducted.
“There are scientific methods whereby you can measure exactly the density in the profile that you’re analyzing,” he said. “You can have a machine do it. And then the answer is obvious.”
In the early 2010s, Dr. Boye and his colleagues sought to rally support within the scientific community for such machine analysis. At first, they attracted signatories from significant colleagues, including Werner Franke, who exposed details of East Germany’s state-sponsored athlete doping program, and Peter Agre, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2003.
But these efforts were scorned by antidoping agencies, who said that they were highly experienced in analyzing the tests and would not change their methods.
Eventually, Dr. Boye said, the fight began to feel unwinnable. “It’s just so unfair,” he said. “You think that antidoping is a worthy, glorious undertaking, but it’s not, unfortunately.”
This was probably the most interesting part of the article for me since I had not heard a lot previously about the methodology for EPO testing. I'm guessing their is a significant financial component to the argument of "naked eye" vs. machine-based testing?
i completely forgot the whole thing with peter bol and thought this was about femke bol and i almost sh*t myself when i saw bol and positive in the title
If Femke married Peter she'd be Femke Bol Bol.
Are you following the HSV doping case? Sounds eerily similar.
malmo wrote:
If Femke married Peter she'd be Femke Bol Bol.
Well I, uh, I'm not sure how you pronounce it or anything, but I, uh, I believe it's ménage à trois?
Chris lewis wrote:
maybe his A sample details should not have been released, but they were and should be investigated thoroughly.
"Maybe"?
The "I" in SIA is Integrity isn't it? Whomever leaked the test should be permanently banned from the sport.
Deutsches Land wrote:
Are you following the HSV doping case? Sounds eerily similar.
I live in Hamburg, so naturally I've been following. But in Vuskovic's case, both samples tested positive. He's attacking the validity of the test, but has a much steeper mountain to climb for sure.
