The results which were released on Tuesday, February 15, 2023, revealed that Peter Bol's B sample was a case of an Atypical Finding (ATF).
Follow Us
Peter Bol, the Australian middle-distance runner, was placed on indefinite suspension on January 10, 2023. He tested positive for synthetic erythropoietin (EPO) in a urine test conducted outside of competition in October 2022. EPO is one of the most widely used performance-enhancing drugs in endurance sports. It is a substance that the kidneys secrete and which increases the synthesis of red blood cells in the bone marrow. Since the early 1990s, EPO has been prohibited as a performance-enhancing substance by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
Bol insisted that he had not used drugs after supposedly passing 20 tests following the positive sample in January. A positive initial sample called an A Sample, temporarily suspends competition until a second confirmation sample, known as a B Sample, is used. As a result, he then sought for his B sample to be examined. The results which were released on Tuesday, February 15, 2023, revealed that it was a case of an Atypical Finding (ATF). Bol’s A sample proved positive for recombinant EPO, an artificial type of naturally occurring substance. However, his B sample included an ATF.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) releases comprehensive technical standards governing testing for several prohibited drugs. When the results of a B sample do not meet the quality and indication criteria established in the technical standards, the outcome is reported as negative. A positive A sample becomes a false positive as a result. On the other side, an ATF is noted when testing results are unclear, such as when interferences are present or when band(s) strength is/are too low to ensure meaningful identification. It is not completely accurate. Yet, an ATF is not necessarily a negative thing, as well.
However, the SIA stated that an ATF doesn’t mean that the result is negative. According to SIA’s statement, their inquiry is still proceeding. A hearing being is set for next month which won’t include a timeframe. There are two potential results. The SIA can conclude that Bol did not break any anti-doping rules and end its inquiry. If not, SIA might conclude that there was a probable violation based on Bol’s combined positive and ATF results and continue to take appropriate action.
Amid the current inquiry against his client, Paul Greene, the lawyer of Peter Bol, has launched the attack against Sports Integrity Australia (SIA). Greene was shocked by the decision to carry with the probe. According to Greene, in an interview with Sunrise, there is no difference between an atypical result and a negative finding from an evidentiary standpoint. Both do not offer any proof that Peter did anything improper. The world today is built on facts. No urine test is available to support any claims.
Greene continued by saying that he was still awaiting the documentation including Bol’s positive A-sample. They have not received any laboratory records. And they haven’t even been given the chance to examine the documents that they claim caused the A-sample positive. Paul had earlier criticized Athletics Australia and Sport Integrity Australia for stating Bol’s positive A sample, claiming that they ought to have waited until his B sample was returned.
Read more: What is Peter Bol’s net worth, salary and brand endorsements?
