Track star Peter Bol is demanding Australia's anti-doping agency do better after independent tests revealed he never took performance-enhancing drugs.
And Bol's lawyer Paul Greene is calling for Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) to admit they bungled a "sham" case against Australia's highest-profile track athlete.
Bol says he's disappointed in SIA and also Athletics Australia (AA) for a lack of support during his doping saga.
The runner was told on January 10 of a positive result to the banned drug erythropoietin, known as EPO, in his A sample from a test three months prior.
He was provisionally suspended by AA but the ban was lifted when results of secondary testing, on the B sample, did not confirm initial findings.
Bol's lawyer Greene sent the results for independent analysis which revealed no trace of any banned substance, he says.
"It's nothing worth celebrating because it shouldn't have happened to start with," Bol told radio station 2GB on Wednesday.
"It's brutal ... I am completely innocent.
"(I) never used any performance substances, never used any drugs - I am just a good athlete, I train and I put in the work."
A dual Olympian and a Commonwealth Games silver medallist in his pet event the 800m, Bol was bewildered why SIA said he had failed a drugs test and how that finding was leaked.
"Do better. Just do better," he said of his message to SIA.
SIA had no comment at this stage, a spokesman said.
Bol was also frustrated at a lack of support from AA.
"It has been pretty disappointing from my own governing body to not stand behind me ... just check up on me, I don't think it's that hard to do," he said.
Lawyer Greene said he sent test results to independent experts.
"We had two of the most world-class analytical chemists in the world look at his results and they say this wasn't even a close call, these were just negative tests," Greene told the Nine Network.
He called on SIA to admit their errors.
"They had no idea what they were doing," Greene said.
"And the worst part of it now is: one, it was announced first of all which it never should have been.
"Two, now they ... obviously are wrong, they are refusing to drop this sham investigation."
In February when the B sample finding was released, SIA said the Bol case wasn't closed because it showed an "atypical finding (ATF) for recombinant EPO".
"The relevant rules require a WADA-accredited laboratory to obtain a second opinion from an expert ... an ATF is not the same as a negative test result," SIA said in a statement at the time.
But Greene insisted SIA had "absolutely no evidence at all" of any wrongdoing.
"They just need to say 'we have no evidence, we messed this up, this was a mistake'," Greene said.
