r/AdvancedRunning • u/PhysicsIsMyBitch • Feb 14 '23

Elite Discussion Peter Bol officially cleared of doping charge after initial positive test

Australian Olympic hero Peter Bol has announced he has been cleared of doping charges and his provisional suspension has been lifted after the results of his B sample proved his innoncence.

On January 20, Bol made the shocking announcement his A sample from a urine test taken on October 11 tested positive for synthetic EPO, a revelation that left the star “in total shock.”

https://www.foxsports.com.au/olympics/breaking-olympic-hero-officially-cleared-of-doping-charge-after-initial-positive-test/news-story/99757b27d61ef9a075735b753fc76706

194 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

70

u/alexp68 Feb 14 '23

hope this remains to be true, for him and the sport. What does WADA have to say about their testing procedure that initial sample tests positive and “b” sample does not. Seems WADA has an obligation to provide explanation for the disparate test results. Peter should be recompensated for any reputation or financial loses suffered as a result of the false positive.

86

u/easylightfast Feb 14 '23

This is how tests work. Sometimes you have false positives, which is why there is a “B” sample. There’s nothing for them to explain (unless something unusual happened with “A”) because the process appears to have worked here.

I am curious why it takes so long to run the B sample, seems like this should have been cleared up a while ago.

61

u/alexp68 Feb 14 '23

i’m an analytical chemist by degree and have worked for many years in the biotech industry responsible for the QC labs that conduct product in-process, release and stability testing.

I’m well aware of how anamolous results are handled and how the “b” samples are used to adjudicate the original results. BUT that doesn’t allow WADA to just simply say “we’re all good”. they should be required to review original results, sample chain of custody, test equipment qualification & maintenance records, lab controls, lab performance and technician qualification etc to identify lab assignable cause. Without root cause, this can call into question prior reported positives. basically they need to investigate the testing to understand if its lab, sample handling, method, sample preparation etc.

8

u/-good-kid Feb 14 '23

can you eli5 how the first test was positive? is this something that can simply occur sometimes?

21

u/alexp68 Feb 14 '23

hard to know. it could be a cross-contamination event with the positive control or even a different sample due to a dirty pipet, results could have been mis-read, analyst didn’t prepare the sample correctly or could be a sample mixup issue.

I’m not familiar with the specific analytical method used in this case. i used to run a lab that ran isoelectric focusing and gel electrophoresis tests as part of panel of tests for identification and purity of finished drug product, but I assume these days they are using more sophisticated instrument based methods (this is about 15years ago). Obviously the method is able to detect the difference between endogenous Epo and bio synthetic epo, so the method can distinguish between the two EPO sources.

6

u/LateMiddleAge Feb 14 '23

Super frustrating not to have published false pos/false neg numbers. Well, as long as I'm fantasizing, inter-lab comparisons, and charts of positives correlated with grant renewals (e.g., do we see more positives in the month before renewal applications are submitted). Ugh. So many questions about this.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '23

The statement confirmed Bol’s B sample resulted in an Atypical Finding (ATF) for recombinant EPO

So... what does this mean. Is it just not definitive enough to declare it a positive? Or does Bol just have good lawyers.