It’s not that sample
Doping allegations against Australian runner Peter Bol have dented his reputation and also called into question the procedures and protocols around testing for banned substances.
It’s an awful mess, the first signs of which were broadcast on Melbourne’s Radio 3AW on the morning of January 20. On his Rumour File segment, Ross Stevenson announced: “Yes, I am bringing the sad news that a highprofile Australian sportsman has returned a test, a positive test, to a banned substance. His B sample is not back yet, so at this stage it is just the A sample, it should be noted, [and] he himself vehemently denies it.”
Late that afternoon, it was confirmed: 28-year-old Olympian Peter Bol had returned a positive drugs test: “Athletics Australia has provisionally suspended 800m runner Peter Bol after an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) was detected in an out-of-competition doping control test on 11 October 2022.
“Sport Integrity Australia informed Athletics Australia on Tuesday 10th
January that Peter’s A Sample from the test had returned an AAF for [recombinant] Erythropoietin Receptor Agonists (ERA): REPO. Peter was informed by both Sport Integrity Australia and Athletics Australia of the finding on 10 January 2023.”
The allegedly discovered substance – detected on the lower end of the scale – was a synthetic form of a naturally occurring protein that stimulates red blood cell production. When Athletics Australia and the country’s anti-doping agency, Sport Integrity Australia (SIA), notified Bol of the result, they also told him of his provisional suspension – provisional in that a positive result must be corroborated by a second test, or B sample. The sanctions were temporary, until further notice.
In a statement, Athletics Australia’s chief executive Peter Bromley said: “There are procedural fairness and investigative considerations that constrain how much we can say, and at this point it would be inappropriate for Athletics Australia or anyone else to speculate about the specific details or pre-empt any outcome.
“However, what we can say is that learning about this adverse analytical finding was both extremely concerning and completely out of the blue, and we will support Sport Integrity Australia who are leading the investigation into the matter.”
It was extremely concerning for Bol too, and his many supporters, and the athlete was immediate and vociferous in declaring his innocence: “It is critically important to convey with the strongest conviction I am innocent and have not taken this substance as I am accused,” Bol wrote in a statement. “To be clear, I have never in my life purchased, researched, possessed, administered or used synthetic EPO or any other prohibited substance. My career hopes and dreams are literally hanging in the balance over these next few weeks.”
Peter Bol fled Sudan’s civil war with his family when he was just four years old. The family found refuge in Egypt until, four years later, they secured a humanitarian visa and settled in Perth, Western Australia. Bol excelled at sport at school but was surprised when an early coach suggested to him that he might make a career out of it.
He did just that. Three times has
Bol broken the Australian record for the
800 metres, and in the Tokyo Olympics he became the first Aussie to reach the finals in the event in more than half a century. He did so by twice beating his personal best in the qualifying heats. With three million Australians watching the telecast of the final, Bol led for much of the race, before, agonisingly, slipping to second, then third and then, ever so slightly, fourth.
There was a silver medal in the event at last year’s Commonwealth Games, and then, in November, Bol was awarded the
2023 Young Western Australian of the Year, in recognition of his athletic success but also his mentoring of younger athletes. Less than two months later, he took the fateful call from Athletics Australia.
Peter Bol was now anxiously awaiting the results from the B sample, the one he promised would vindicate him. His lawyer, the American Paul Greene, who runs the firm Global Sports Advocates, had already unsuccessfully pleaded with Australia’s two agencies not to release the results, and was now speaking publicly of the procedural unfairness against Bol – his client’s reputation was now stained, despite the return of conclusive results.
Bol was supported elsewhere. Olympian Raelene Boyle, who won silver in the
100 metres and 200 metres at Munich in 1972, being beaten by drug-boosting East Germans, said she believed in Bol’s innocence. Meanwhile, the athlete’s coach spoke of the stress that he felt. There seemed to radiate from Bol’s professional circle a sincere wave of insulted disbelief.
And then, on February 14, word came of the second test results. Bol immediately expressed his profound relief in a written statement: “Last month I told everyone that I was innocent and asked that everyone in Australia believe me and let the process play out,” he wrote. “I was hopeful that the process would exonerate me. This morning I am relieved to report that it did.
“I was just informed that my B sample did not confirm my A sample. My provisional suspension has been lifted by Sport Integrity Australia. The relief I am feeling is hard to describe.”
His lawyer, who has pugnaciously defended Bol’s innocence so far, and questioned the governance of the sporting bodies investigating him, was emphatic: “The sun is shining for Peter Bol.” Greene went on to tell Perth’s ABC Radio: “I knew he was telling the truth, he had never taken this, there was something wrong with this test. [But] the fact that they announced this is a disgrace. The fact that they didn’t keep this confidential, he was never charged … he was never shown a lab document. He was told he was positive and then it was announced. It’s unbelievable what happened.”
Bol, his lawyer and his coaching team weren’t the only ones celebrating vindication. The WA minister for Sport, David Templeman, cheered the news: “I think all of Western Australia was deeply saddened when the announcement was made about the test, but he’s been exonerated now,” he said.
But unhappily for Bol, there remains – fairly or not – the murk of ambiguity. The sample B results, released on February 14, were not “negative”. Nor did they confirm the original positive result. Rather, they were “atypical” – “which is neither negative nor positive, and requires further investigation”, a statement from Athletics Australia read.
Bol’s lawyer refused to concede a distinction: “An atypical finding is the same as a negative finding in one very important respect – neither one provides any evidence that Peter did anything wrong,” he told Fox Sports last week.
To be sure, there seems something inherently unjust about publicising something so damaging and yet so inconclusive. But it’s also difficult to see, regarding disclosure, what SIA might have done much differently.
Under the World Anti-doping Agency’s (WADA) code, they are compelled to provisionally suspend an athlete who has returned a positive A sample. An athlete’s sudden absence from training or competition would be conspicuous and become suspicious (and fodder for media reporting) without an authority’s statement explaining it. Similarly, were an athlete permitted to train or compete after an initial positive result, and then have that result confirmed later, an administrative scandal would result.
Complicating things still further is the fact – reportedly not revealed to Bol until recently – that of tests taken of Bol in 2021, another returned a faint positive, only for a second test, undertaken by a separate lab, to return negative. Thus, authorities treated the first test result as a false negative, no action was taken and Bol wasn’t told until the later positive test was returned and he was notified on January 10 this year.
If they had assumed a false negative in earlier testing, why didn’t they assume the same here? Does a second, separate positive test – even one that’s uncorroborated by a B sample – skew the balance of probabilities away from the athlete?
There may be substantial questions asked about the reliability of the testing itself, if it can yield, in Bol’s case at least, two ambiguous or contradictory pairs of results. As there may be questions asked about the disclosure policy: Athletics Australia may have had their hands tied, but their statement was unfortunately heavy on scientific and governance jargon – forgivable from a lab, perhaps, but not from a sporting body simultaneously responsible for the integrity of its sport but also the welfare of its athletes. They are bound by WADA’S rules, and have good arguments for the disclosure, but clearer language emphasising the provisional nature of the first result, and their duelling obligations, should be standard. Finally, there’s the matter of the result – in some form or another – ending up in Ross Stevenson’s rumour net.
While Peter Bol returns to training and celebrates his “exoneration”, and Bol’s coach and lawyer both express fury and demand consequences for the chief executive of Athletics Australia for muddying Bol’s reputation, the investigation continues. Many may crave finality and resolution, but it’s not here yet.