Lawyers for the Australian Olympic superstar Peter Bol have blasted anti-doping frame Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) as “completely wrong”, in a letter alleging that Bol’s pattern which examined sure for artificial erythropoietin (EPO) by no means if truth be told contained the performance-enhancing drug .
The letter pronounces that Bol “is innocent and always has been”. It calls on SIA to publicly finish the continuing anti-doping investigation and admit its mistake.
Bol, who rose to prominence together with his heroics on the Tokyo Olympics, examined sure for the prohibited substance in his A pattern in January. But final month his B pattern returned an odd discovering, which noticed his suspension from pageant lifted, even supposing SIA’s investigation stays ongoing.
The saga has now been reignited by way of the letter, from Bol’s American legal professional Paul Greene of Global Sports Advocates. In the correspondence, despatched to SIA final week, Greene alleges that the federal government frame used to be “wrong” to conclude that Bol’s A pattern contained artificial EPO, “wrong” to conclude that the trying out had complied with world requirements, and “wrong” to proceed the investigation “when there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr Bol ever used synthetic EPO”.
The newest building within the Bol saga used to be first reported by way of Nine newspapers, and has been independently verified by way of Guardian Australia.
The claims are in line with two knowledgeable experiences equipped to SIA by way of Greene, from Professor David Chen on the University of British Columbia and 4 Norwegian researchers, Professor Jon Nissen-Meyer, Professor Erik Boye, Professor Bjarne Østerud and Tore Skotland. Both experiences conclude, in keeping with the letter, that “there is no evidence to show the presence of synthetic EPO in [Bol’s] urine”. Guardian Australia has observed the experiences.
EPO is a naturally going on hormone produced within the kidneys, however can also be synthesized (every now and then known as rEPO) to assist functionality and restoration in athletes. The controversy within the Bol case has highlighted ongoing war of words amongst scientists about the most efficient option to take a look at for rEPO.
The SARS-Page gel take a look at measures EPO ranges throughout 5 other bands, depending on subjective visible research of the depth of the bands, whilst the IEF-Page way makes use of isoelectric focusing. The preliminary sure take a look at used to be reached the usage of the SARS-Page way, and Professor Chen’s record is significant of the failure to adopt additional trying out.
Chen concluded: “The [data] showed absolutely no evidence for the presence of any rEPO in the two samples tested.”
The Norwegian analysis staff reached the similar conclusion. “We conclude that there is no scientific evidence provided by the laboratory which proves the presence of recombinant EPO in Bol’s urine,” they stated.
The criminal letter outlines numerous alleged mistakes within the laboratory trying out procedure which ended in the translation of a favorable outcome. It alleges “this used to be no longer even a detailed name. Instead, this used to be a blunder of epic proportions.
Sport Integrity Australia used to be contacted for remark.
Bol has returned to coaching, however won’t compete within the Australian Track and Field Championships, which start in Brisbane on Monday. He is known to be eyeing a go back to pageant in Europe in May.
Bol himself says he used to be “innocent and waiting for it to be proved”.
“I knew it would come,” he informed Nine newspapers. “The individuals who analyzed it had no thought who I used to be, and it presentations intimately how [ASDTL] reduce to rubble. I would like them to recognize that. I do not wish to combat, however I do not wish to pass quietly both. We wish to strengthen the entire recreation. You cannot have blameless athletes getting finished for one thing they have got by no means used.”