A group of Norwegian scientists analysing tests for the Peter Bol drug case say they were amazed that two World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited laboratories could conclude the Australian Olympian’s first sample was positive.
Four professors of biochemistry and molecular biology from Oslo – Jon Nissen-Meyer, Tore Skotland, Erik Boye and Bjarne Osterud – also said Bol was lucky the same laboratories in Australia and Cologne, Germany did not analyse his second test sample.
Peter Bol’s name was smeared, but he was eventually cleared of sports doping.Credit: AAP
“One and the same lab usually gives the second opinion for both the A and B test. Luckily for Bol, this was not the case this time; the Oslo lab gave the second opinion for the B test,” said Professor Nissen-Meyer in an email on behalf of the group, who are not connected to the Oslo lab.
“Bol would most likely still have been considered guilty (and not been able to compete in the coming world championship) if the Cologne lab had also given the second opinion for the B test!
“I must say that I do not trust the Cologne lab’s EPO testing.”
Bol was suspended after returning a positive result to his first, or A sample, after testing by WADA-accredited laboratories in Australia and Cologne.
He asked for his B sample to be tested, and it was sent to Europe for testing. The B sample came back inconclusive – neither positive nor negative – which led to Bol’s provisional ban, imposed after the A test result, being lifted.
But Nissen-Meyer said in the email that “Bol’s test results (both the A and B sample) were all CLEARLY negative and it is amazing that two WADA labs – the Australian lab that carried out the test and the Cologne lab that gave the second opinion – thought otherwise”.
He also pointed out that another independent expert, Dr David Chen from the University of British Columbia, agreed with him and his colleagues.
Sport Integrity Australia this week announced that a review of Bol’s test results by more scientists had concluded the A sample should have been negative for EPO. Consequently, Bol should not have been provisionally suspended and facing a doping rule violation.
After that announcement, WADA said it would investigate “the current review process in light of the particularities of this case”.
But WADA said it had no reason to question the method of testing for EPO and would only review what happened in the Bol case.
The four Norwegian scientists have been long-term critics of EPO testing by WADA laboratories and have been expert witnesses in the defence of other accused athletes. They believe the testing for EPO is too reliant on interpretation of test results and the Bol case is further evidence of a flaw in testing methods.
They say WADA must review not just the Bol case, but also the EPO testing methods which they say are flawed and lead to false positives because they are too reliant on the interpretation of results by individual analysts.
“The SDS-PAGE technique for analysing proteins was developed more than 50 years ago and has since then been in use in most biochemical research laboratories.
“But it nevertheless seems that some WADA laboratories still now do not recognise some problems and uncertainties that may arise when interpreting SDS-PAGE results, especially when the two proteins being analysed are very similar (such as is the case with natural EPO and synthetic EPO), and thus behave similarly upon SDS-PAGE analysis.”
Bol won a silver medal at the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games.Credit: Getty Images
Our Breaking News Alert will notify you of significant breaking news when it happens. Get it here.