Peter Bol: A case study in the need for interpretation & transparency in WADA's testing policies

Given the turmoil this year caused by “varying expert opinions” disagreeing as to why World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) accredited laboratories returned different decisions on Peter Bol’s urine sample, it would have been surprising if Bol was able to run at anywhere near his peak in his favourite 800-metre event at the Budapest 2023 World Championships last month1.

This case involves an allegation that Peter Bol breached the anti-doping rules of his sport (athletics) by injecting synthetic Erythropoietin (Recombinant EPO or “rEPO”) into his body with the aim of obtaining a performance-enhancing benefit. This allegation is strenuously denied by the athlete.

In anticipation of what turned out to Bol’s poorest result in recent years, former WADA Director-General, and now Head of the Athletics Integrity Unit, David Howman, isreported to have observed in a press conference prior to Bol’s heat2:

“The worst thing that could happen is what happened in that [Bol] case. . . . What we must do is to ensure that the process can be reviewed and re-conducted in a way that doesn’t end up in such a disaster. It’s not fair on the athlete. We accept that. . . .What we have to do is ensure that WADA does its work in reviewing the whole process as they said they would, and I think the [sport] minister in Australia has asked them to do that. We are waiting on that review, we will partake in it if we’re asked. . . .We do feel the distress that the athlete felt.”

On 1 August, Sport Integrity Australia (“SIA”) announced that it had: “taken the decision not to progress an anti-doping rule violation for this sample. The investigation into this sample is finalised.”3 Simultaneously, WADA released a statement stating that: “While we have no reason to question the validity of the analytical method used for recombinant EPO, WADA will assess the current review process in light of the particularities of this case.”4

To date, WADA has provided no explanation for the inconsistent findings, or any update on the timing or scope of its review. At very least, Peter Bol, his family and the athlete community, are owed a comprehensive explanation of why his world was turned upside down this year. The Athletics Integrity Unit alone claims to have five or six EPO cases annually5. To maintain trust in the system, it is crucial that WADA’s testing processes are transparent and reliable.