Is it common for a urine sample to evidence gross hematuria, ( baring some traumatic injury ) yet soon after show no trace of blood in a follow-up test soon there-after? Given such an alarming amount, obvious to the naked eye, would not, at least, some residual trace of that bleed still be detectable soon after the first sample?
Furthermore, whatever fluid consumed later came back the color of that liquid; water/ water, tea / straw color, etc.
Again, when I say blood I mean a deep, rich PINK , not seen as consequential to beet/pomegranate/green tea fluids the evening, before.
All the more odd, since no extra physical activity is in the picture.