Is it a BCCI climbdown or another farce?

Cricket is not a dope-driven sport. It comes very low down in the hierarchy of dope-affected sports. By its illogical and obstinate stand against the attempts of the International Cricket Council (ICC) to get cricket compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has brought undue focus on the sport in the doping sphere through the past decade. If recent reports are any indication, the BCCI seems hell bent on maintaining that position, giving a special status to itself in the world of sports organisations across sports and at the same time trying to run down the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

The latest report about the BCCI suggesting a “trial run” to allow the NADA to carry out tests on cricketers is yet another farce it is going to attempt to cling onto its illogical argument. It is being reported as some sort of a climbdown by BCCI as though it is a body that can get away with anything.

It cannot be up to the BCCI to make an offer and for the ICC to accept it or for NADA to welcome it. The Code compliance issue is the sole responsibility of WADA. We don’t know what all WADA found out of ICC, its regulations and the functioning of its affiliates to be Code compliant and not compliant or what WADA advised the ICC to rectify if the latter wanted not to be named ‘non-compliant’.

ICC clause that breached Code

At least one particular clause in the ICC anti-doping code was surely unacceptable to WADA since it questioned the very authority of a national anti-doping organization (NADO) and provided an exception to the rule to accommodate the BCCI:

"13.2.2 Persons Entitled to Appeal In cases under Article 13.2.1, the following parties shall have the right to appeal to CAS: (a) the Player or other Person who is the subject of the decision being appealed; (b) the other party to the case in which the decision was rendered; (c) the ICC; (d) subject to Article 13.2.3 below, the National Anti-Doping Organization of the Person’s country of residence or countries where the Person is a national or license holder; (e) any other Anti-Doping Organisation under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed; and (f) WADA. 13.2.3 Notwithstanding Article 13.2.2(d), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the National Cricket Federation for the territory of India) does not recognize the authority or jurisdiction of the National Anti-Doping Organization for India. Therefore, the right of appeal for National Anti-Doping Organizations under Article 13.2.2(d) shall not be available to the National Anti-Doping Organization in India in respect of decisions taken pursuant to the ICC Code."

It is not clear when these rule changes were made. They are not there in the ICC rules up to January 2012. They are available since at least 19 June 2017 when the existing ICC anti-doping rules have come into force.  Article 13.2.2 was changed then and a fresh one, Article 13.2.3 brought in to legitimize BCCI’s refusal to recognize NADA’s authority. They continue to be available in the ICC rules that do not in any case provide much importance to NADOs.

The main problem of course is BCCI’s refusal to allow Indian cricketers to be tested by NADA or in a broader perspective accept NADA’s authority to be in charge of all testing and ‘results management’ in all sports including cricket in this country as stipulated in NADA rules and notified by the Government of India through the Gazette. This authority stems from the WADA Code as well as from the UNESCO Convention on Doping in Sports. India is signatory to both these international protocols.

Top players concerned about privacy

Back in 2009 when the BCCI objected to the ‘whereabouts’ clause in the Code that the ICC, which became a signatory to the Code in 2006, also had to adopt, it was explained that leading Indian players were wary of their privacy being intruded into. An argument was also floated that it would be against the Indian Constitution to subject the players to ‘whereabouts’ requirements.

"We need to find a solution to the practical problem India is having, which is a constitutional issue of the country, which is why we decided to suspend the 'whereabouts' clause," ICC CEO Haroon Lorgat was quoted as saying by 'Cricinfo' in October 2009.

That Constitutional issue has not affected other sports and other sportspersons some of whom have been under some ‘whereabouts’ requirements either at the international level or the national level for the past 10 years. It was just as well that other sport did not come up with this ludicrous suggestion to stall “whereabouts” because any refusal to come under any of the Code provisions would have attracted immediate sanctions by the international federations concerned, leading to resultant sanctions by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Cricket is different; Indian cricket more so. ICC can only request the Indian Board to fall in line, to allow NADA to do testing and results management in cricket domestically. It cannot enforce its own rules without pleading. That pleading has become necessary since ICC has ambitions of campaigning for cricket's inclusion in the 2028 Olympics. The sport is also likely to get the nod for 2022 Asian Games. If the ICC is declared non-compliant of the Code, this cannot come through. Once in the past, in 2008, the ICC had become non-compliant but came back to join the mainstream after correcting itself with out-of-competition testing that was non-existent in the early years of its anti-doping exercise.

WADA has to come in

This is not an issue between NADA and BCCI as has been made out. That stage was over long ago. Now it is a question of the WADA declaring ICC as ‘non-compliant’ since one of its member units has rules that are in breach of the Code.

That is why it is difficult to understand that a tripartite agreement is going to be reached among ICC, BCCI and NADA to carry out a six-month trial by which NADA would test 10 per cent of the samples of the Registered Pool of players of the BCCI.

If one has understood the reports, they are saying NADA would get to have authority to collect 10 per cent of the out-of-competition samples under RTP to be tested by the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL).

The immediate question that arises is, what about the rest of the authority, to test in-competition, to do other out-of-competition tests, to conduct ‘results management’ and to draw up registered testing pool etc?

More surprising is the response of the NADA Director-General, Navin Agarwal.

“It is a good move, though we haven’t received any official communication from the BCCI. If the BCCI is willing to work with NADA, we are willing to (support). It is the right thing,” Agarwal said

“We go by the WADA guidelines and we handle all the federations and we are willing to accommodate whatever (concerns) the BCCI (may have)," he added. .

The BCCI has been arguing through the years. “We are not a national sports federation”. That might be true, but it makes no difference to the anti-doping structure.

If you are the national body recognized by the international federation controlling a particular sport you are liable to come under the WADA Code and the National Anti-Doping Organization’s rules. There should be no escape from that. There is no requirement for a body to be registered or recognized as a National Sports Federation.

After having taken a tough stand initially in November 2017 about bringing Indian cricket under NADA’s authority, the Union Sports Ministry softened its stand thereby allowing BCCI to have misleading notions about its own powers and infallibility.

The goof-ups cannot be an excuse

Of late, the BCCI had also started changing its tune further. It had started pointing out “goof-ups” by NADA in some cases that has led to a few negative reports being re-opened. In the latest case, javelin thrower Devinder Singh Kang has been exonerated by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and WADA after NDTL withdrew its 15-month-old ‘positive’ report.

For one thing, it is the laboratory under scrutiny here and not NADA. For another, even if NADA had faltered, it is not the BCCI’s job to issue a certificate of “competence” and agree to join the rest of the sports fraternity in allowing NADA to conduct testing. Any adverse opinion should come from WADA. National federations do not have the luxury of picking its testing agency or laboratory as per competence and reputation. Moreover, the BCCI also has been using NDTL for its sample testing requirements and it cannot now be saying “sorry, we were using sub-standard facilities”. As for sample collection etc, again it is not strictly a choice for BCCI to fall in line or not.

This is where the BCCI and possibly the ICC have apparently not grasped the situation. NADA is not an agency like the IDTM that the BCCI and several other international federations and anti-doping agencies have engaged for their sample collection. It is a National anti-doping authority having jurisdiction over the entire sports structure in the country. Its rules are non-negotiable and so are the WADA rules.
Just imagine if the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) were to say, "we are not happy with NADA DCOs, their sample collection process and result management. Now onwards, we will do our own dope-testing and hearing process!" That is not an option available to any national federation or for an international federation to accommodate in its rules. 

“IDTM has been doing a good job, ICC is WADA-compliant, so we too are WADA- compliant and we need not be NADA-compliant” is a refrain only the anti-doping illiterate will express.
The BCCI's hearing process and some of its decisions in the few doping cases that it has handled should also come into scrutiny when it talks of NADA's "inefficiency". Of particular interest to those following anti-doping was the decision in the Yusuf Pathan case. He was deemed to have been under suspension when he actually competed! An earlier piece on that is here.

The ICC has a ‘whereabouts’ policy that is based on team training venues and team hotel. It does not require individual players to provide ‘whereabouts’ in order for testers to spot them at specific locations throughout the year. NADA’s requirements may be different though it would be extremely surprising if NADA was to pick a leading player who is already on the ICC ‘whereabouts” list. Even if this was to happen, what harm would be done if an Indian cricketer’s whereabouts are made known? Will security be compromised? Is it difficult to know in these Googling days where M. S. Dhoni stays or where Virat Kohli’s residence is?

(Updated 19 March 2019)

The proposed anti-doping law might scare none

The draft National Anti-Doping Bill 2018 is ready and waiting to receive suggestions and comments.

Much of the wordage in the 11-page PDF document is devoted to a) Definitions, b) Composition of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) and its powers and functions, c) Objectives and composition of the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL), d) Appointment and powers of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) and the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (ADAP), e) Powers of the Doping Control Officers, f) Ethics and Ethics Panel and g) awareness.

Just two clauses under Section 13 deal with offences that may lead to imprisonment; just two paragraphs for sanctioning athletes or coaches and support personnel after all the talk since 2017 of sending violators to jail.

Of course, the Justice Mukul Mudgal (retd)-headed committee did well to resist the temptation of sending athletes to jail despite demands to resort to such a punishment in order to curb the widespread doping in India. Former Sports Minister, Vijay Goel, had talked about prison term for athletes testing positive while the Amateur Athletic Federation of India (AFI) president, Adille Sumariwalla was keen to get the jail clause implemented.

However, the lack of details on offences and sanctions in the draft Bill, other than through the well-established anti-doping machinery under the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), is appalling. So, too, the inclusion of several provisions related to administration, powers and functions in a proposed law that all but replicates the anti-doping rules of the NADA instead of incorporating them by reference. By laying down the composition of the NADA Governing Body and Executive, the proposed law has legitimized the all-government nature of an independent body without a single former athlete as a representative. In leading democracies elsewhere in the world they dominate such composition.

NADA will recommend to CBI

The criminal offence involving persons indulging in trafficking in banned substances will need to be referred to the CBI by the Director-General of NADA, “subject to approval by the Executive body, by a majority decision.” This is going to be time-consuming, just the recommendation part itself.

The draft Bill says:

“Any person who indulges in supply of prohibited substance on a regular basis for commercial purposes, to an athlete, shall be guilty of the offence of trafficking and shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year and shall also be liable for a fine which may extent to rupees ten lakhs.

“Any person who is part of an Organized Crime Syndicate shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to four years shall also be liable for a fine which may extend to rupees ten lakhs.

“Any person who fails to comply with duty under section 21 of this Act shall be fined which may extend to rupees twenty thousand for the first offence and if the offence is repeated, it may extend to rupees two lakhs for each offence.” (Section 21 deals with labelling of medicinal and supplement products)

Supply of “Prohibited substance on a regular basis for commercial purposes” would be an offence. Can he or she be not guilty under the various drug supply acts if the drugs are being sold without prescription? Anabolic steroids, the most widely misused drugs in sports, for example, are prescription drugs in India. Sale of such drugs without prescription can attract punishments but rarely does one hear of such actions. Will the proposed law stop the supply and sale of steroids?

Companies are required to put a warning on labels of medicines whose consumption/administration may lead to an anti-doping rule violation charge. Breaches will be liable to be punished. Some of the corticosteroids like cortisone if being sold may require such labelling while a cortisone injection administered intra-articular (into the joint) is allowed under WADA rules. The same goes for a set of inhaled asthma medications for which thresholds have been prescribed, say salbutamol, formoterol and salmeterol. Should they also be carrying warning labels?

For that matter, caffeine, now in the monitoring group of WADA's list can make a comeback into the Prohibited List in future. And then it can go right out of it as well perhaps. Will coffee products then be forced to carry a warning label?

NADA’s rules, banned substances and methods, labelled and unlabeled products etc could have been best left to NADA, WADA and drug and food control agencies, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and State Food and Drug Administrations.

“Any person” may suggest anyone who is a supplier. He or she could also be a coach or a physiotherapist or a doctor or even an athlete. If these people including the athletes can get banned drugs including steroids without a prescription from the chemists almost all across India, what could be the relevance of the proposed Act? Should the supplier be dealing in large consignments? 
Moreover, it has been shown during hearing procedures, that athletes are able to easily get prescriptions for prohibited drugs. Some of them get away with 'fabricated prescriptions' also. The draft Bill does not deal with either of these two situations.
With athletes more comfortable in foreign locations for months together before major championships, with Government support, it is to be seen whether any attempt would be made by NADA or any other agency to find out whether there is a “supply” of banned drugs to such centres abroad.

NADA has not been able to proceed against coaches who have been implicated in doping instances by athletes. Despite athletes telling hearing panels of stories about coaches being suppliers of prohibited substances, NADA had failed to initiate action.

Now, NADA will need to go in-depth into such allegations with a strong investigating team if the proposed law has to gain some relevance. First, it will have to establish there could be a case against a coach, masseur or doctor or athlete and then recommend it for further investigation by the CBI and co-ordinate the efforts. Is the new law going to scare anyone at all?

The 'dope chart-makers' may yet escape

Foreign ‘experts’ had prepared “dope charts” for the benefit of Indian athletes in 2002 and 2004. Those charts were published and yet no action was taken eventually, perhaps not even an attempt to match hand-writing.

Justice Mudgal himself was given a chit purportedly recovered from the room of a foreign coach at the NIS, Patiala, when he went into the circumstances leading to six international-level woman quarter-milers testing positive in 2011.

Suppose there were to be incidents like these yet again? Is there any provision to probe in the proposed Bill in order penalize such coaches or support personnel? None. Deterrence should have been the key in this respect. Foreign coaches and recovery experts need to be circumspect in advising even supplements because of the doping angle.  The fear of a prison term in India may deter such foreign ‘experts’.

Unless they are supplying on a “regular basis” for “commercial purposes”, these persons may be in the clear under the clause dealing jail terms even if they prescribe Winstrol and Menabol (stanozolol) or Nuvir (testosterone) or “white tablet”!

‘White tablet’ cropped up in the ‘dope charts’ of 2004 and in the slips that were given to Justice Mudgal during his enquiry into the 2011 scandal. That mystery could be solved in future if such instances crop up again and if the law has a provision to pursue the authors of such charts and notes and bring them to trial and punish them without compunction.

The proposed law also does not have a provision dealing with illegal import of prohibited substances from abroad by trainees and coaches returning from coaching camps. No provision either for NADA to co-ordinate efforts with Customs authorities and having the power to search and confiscate banned drugs at airports.

There is also no provision in the proposed law to search the rooms of athletes and coaches and confiscate banned substances if being stored. NADA does not have the powers for ‘search and seizure’ at present, it was established during the appeal hearing last year of an international hurdler who was caught with a bag of meldonium at the NIS. It needed police support, the panel ruled. He was exonerated on appeal after he was slapped with a four-year suspension.

But suppose the law brings in that much-needed authority? Let NADA officers search rooms of athletes and coaches at training camps, do the same during competitions and bring to book erring individuals. Let there be a provision for fine and or jail in such instances. It will send shivers down the spines of athletes and support staff. “My coach gave me” may then mean jail for the coach. Of course, only with irrefutable evidence to back such accusations.

Tampering, complicity to be dealt with by NADA rules

What is available in the proposed Bill is this: Sanctions: “The anti-doping (rule) violations pertaining to Tampering, Complicity, Prohibited Association, Trafficking, use of prohibited substance or possession shall be dealt with in accordance with sanctions enumerated in ADR” (anti-doping rules).

Then how can they have another clause that can send a person to prison for “trafficking”? Support personnel could be tampering with evidence or provide encouragement to doping. Even federation or SAI officials may be caught providing inducements to athletes. Will they be allowed to go scot-free under the new law simply because the law-drafters feel that can be taken care of by the anti-doping rules?

There is no mention of online sale of banned substances in the draft Bill; no suggested methods by which NADA or any other agency can pursue the origin, sale and receipt of such products by athletes or support personnel. If Government or federation funds are utilized to purchase drugs or supplements abroad, as it happened in 2011, can there be action initiated. After all, these agencies are not “supplying for commercial purposes”!

For the better part of the proposed Bill, it is silent on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which gets mentioned only in three places which is strange. Even while mentioning

International Standards, there is no mention of WADA or the Code.

Is there an innate antipathy towards WADA here?

More surprisingly, there is no mention of the UNESCO Convention against Doping in Sports 2005 that should have been the basis for this legislation.

The Convention states:

“Article 5: In abiding by the obligations contained in this Convention, each State Party undertakes to adopt appropriate measures. Such measures may include legislation, regulation, policies or administrative practices.”

In 2017, the late Justice G. C. Bharuka, a former Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, who had served the ADAP as its chairman, had stated that India needed to have a law to go in tandem with the UNESCO Convention to which it was a signatory.

Opportunity lost

The Mudgal committee seems to have lost a great opportunity to establish the authority of NADA over all sports in the country through legislation. There is no provision to enforce mandatory adoption of the NADA anti-doping rules by all National federations as prescribed by the Code and the NADA rules so that NADA derives its power to enforce rules across the board including testing and results management.

The proposed legislation provides judicial authority to the ADDP and ADAP. These panels can summon witnesses who would be required to depose under oath.

“Every proceeding before the ADDP and ADAP shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193, 196 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The ADDP and ADAP shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973”.

However,” the process of appeals from decision of the ADDP and ADAP shall be as per ADR (anti-doping rules)”

The writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India “shall not be affected”.

The judicial powers being given to the hearing panels is a major deviation from the WADA Code and existing NADA rules. Will this amount to a breach of the Code?

Surely, the section dealing with the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL) should raise some doubts and concerns.

Chapter III: National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL): “The Laboratory in India recognized by the Government of India shall be called the National Dope Testing Laboratory. It shall conduct its operations in compliance with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), WADA Code and NADA Code, as applicable from time to time”.

And we always thought any laboratory which had gained accreditation from WADA alone would be a valid laboratory to conduct dope tests that would be acceptable to international agencies including WADA and International federations, as well as NADA!

One of the primary objectives of the NDTL, going by the draft Bill, is to do testing as per the directives of the ADDP or ADAP.

"Objectives of laboratory: 1)   To provide accurate & reliable testing services for testing of samples and other substances as directed by ADDP or ADAP."

What about NADA? Does it not provide the main job to NDTL and co-ordinate all efforts towards the testing of Indian sportspersons? What about foreign clients? Do they not provide the bulk of the revenue to NDTL?

By picking selectively from NDTL’s “Mission and Objective” above, the law-makers have obviously mistook the clients to be ADDP and ADAP!
It would seem there may be two sets of anti-doping rules, one existing under the NADA, and the other that may be brought forward by the Government through a notification.
For, the final section (Section 24) of the draft Bill says: "The Central Government may by notification amend, modify or repeal the existing ADR so as to make them compliant with the Act. The existing ADR shall continue to be in force till the Central Government amends, modify or repeals them."
The NADA anti-doping rules are based on the WADA Code and the model rules for NADOs prescribed by WADA. Some of the model rules are mandatory, some others optional. There is no provision in the Code to amend the NADA rules mid-stream until the Code itself completes a revision process. That is expected in 2021 only. Once the existing ADR (anti-doping rules) are amended in India that would mean consequences and sanctions for an anti-doping rule violation would necessarily have to be changed. NADA may have lot to answer when the amdended ADR goes to WADA.

(Amended 22 Jan, 2019)

Making a mockery of Govt directive!

One of the conditions laid down by the International Association of Athletics Federations in its revised anti-doping rules that came into force on January 1, 2019 is the incorporation of those rules into the rules of the national federations.

This provision is nothing new. It has been there for quite some time. But with the new categorization of countries and new set of obligations for each group of countries in the fight against doping, this provision assumes more significance than ever before.

The IAAF has categorized member nations as per its own assessment about doping in athletics across the world, with category ‘A’ that includes Kenya and Ethiopia being considered as that having the “highest risk” for doping in the sport. India is in category ‘B’ along with 56 other countries. Those 56 include practically all leading nations in athletics in the world including the US, Britain, Jamaica, France, Germany and South Africa. Any country may be in danger of being sanctioned if it has three or more international-level athletes who have committed anti-doping rule violations during a 12-month period.

Has the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) amended its constitution to fall in line with the IAAF regulations? Since some of these regulations were part of the IAAF anti-doping rules in the past, did the AFI get them into their constitution or make a reference to it in its constitution?

Reference to IAAF rules is there in the AFI constitution, but not about following the latest IAAF anti-doping rules or that of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

Outdated rules

In fact, the AFI constitution, amended up to 14 April, 2013 contains a mixture of IAAF anti-doping rules and its own rules that may date back to the 1990s! As per these rules, the AFI units and the AFI are competent to deal with anti-doping measures in the country and the AFI tribunal would be the competent hearing authority. The truth is, individual federations have had practically no role to play in anti-doping exercise in India since the advent of NADA in 2009.

These are outdated that need to go out of the AFI constitution. But that alone is not the issue now. Should AFI be incorporating the IAAF anti-doping rules either directly or by reference into its constitution? If that is accomplished, then where will the NADA rules come in?

The AFI can always argue that it had long ago put up a note on NADA on its website, as mandated by the Ministry of Sports, but that note does not say much about anything. It says AFI "liaises" with IAAF and NADA on all issues connected with anti-doping. It also says AFI is in “compliance with IAAF rules for anti-doping and WADA Code”. Both are wrong assumptions.

The IAAF in its revised rules has provided a provision to such National federations that may have to delegate the anti-doping task to another organization because of a legislation or government order that it could achieve its obligations through such organization. But the federation would be held “in breach” if the relevant organization fails to meet the requirements of the National federation under the IAAF rules. In short, if NADA errs, AFI would be held responsible!

No change in more than three years

Back in November, 2015, one had written a piece on AFI and other National Federations being in breach of NADA anti-doping rules and the WADA Code in not incorporating the rules into their constitution by reference or directly in their constitutions. There has not been any appreciable change in the attitude of the federations through the past three years.

The AFI has stuck to its constitution though it is one of the few federations that have placed on record on its website some anti-doping rules, even if outdated and inadequate, and some provision to acknowledge the existence of NADA. By no stretch of imagination can this be construed a delegation of authority to NADA to manage anti-doping activities or an admission that NADA rules would apply. Now that the IAAF has also insisted that its rules need to be incorporated by the National federations, the AFI has its task cut out.

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has a page on its website that mentions anti-doping. It is a token statement about doping and its ramifications and could have been presented in a more detailed, meaningful manner. But at least the IOA has something over there rather than having nothing at all.

What about other leading federations?

Hockey India the lone exception

As one found in 2015,  Hockey India is the only federation among Olympic sports in India to have clearly delegated the authority to NADA to carry out anti-doping measures and results management,

One wished HI could have displayed these anti-doping rules under a separate ‘anti-doping’ head rather than buried it under HI rules on its website. It also has another set of rules under ‘technical’ that includes FIH anti-doping rules.

The following federation websites have no mention of anti-doping rules: Archery, fencing, football, handball, swimming, rowing, basketball, volleyball, wrestling, table tennis, judo, yachting, equestrian, tennis, triathlon and shooting.

The following have some reference to anti-doping rules though no mention regarding the authority to test etc having been delegated to NADA: Athletics, boxing, cycling, weightlifting and golf.

The following federations have either quoted WADA rules or given links to WADA Code or international federation rules: Canoeing and kayaking and badminton.

Gymnastics, Modern Pentathlon, taekwondo and rugby were not assessed for want of available data in public domain.

Some of the federations do not have any mention at all about doping on their websites while many have fulfilled the requirement ordained by the Sports Ministry in 2015 to include a note on anti-doping as part of its 23-point formula needed for transparency.

The ministry’s points included one that read: “Note on efforts for having dope free sports and compliance to WADA/NADA Code along with details of cases found positive during the last calendar year and action taken thereon.”

The ministry could have instead sought a clear statement on the following lines: “Our federation has incorporated the anti-doping rules of NADA into our constitution. We agree to abide by the anti-doping rules laid down by NADA from time to time and will follow the WADA Code and the anti-doping rules of the International Federation”

There is no need to give an account of the cases of the past year and “action taken thereon” since that should be the responsibility of NADA. A federation can of course provide a list of suspended athletes with duration and dates. But more than all that every federation should be told to upload the WADA Code and Prohibited List and the NADA anti-doping rules.

Anti-doping section needed

Every federation should have a section on its website devoted to anti-doping that may include latest literature on anti-doping, athlete-friendly information like sample-collection procedures, rights and responsibilities of the athletes, formalities involved with filing ‘whereabouts’ information if the athletes are in the registered testing pool of a national body or an international one, hearing procedures in first-instance and appeal stages, information about supplements, anti-doping education material, links to important websites including NADA and WADA and messages from former internationals urging the athletes to stay clean.

Most of the federations have dismissed the Ministry fiat contemptuously, it would seem. Only some of the federations have completed the format of 23 points. On doping some of the points that came out glaringly on checking up websites are:

Yachting Association of India: The federation has reproduced the Ministry’s letter of 26 Feb 2015 asking the federations to upload the 23-point fact-sheet. There is no other mention of meeting the requirements as instructed by the ministry.

National Rifle Association of India: “WADA/NADA compliance: We conducted dope tests during 61st National championships and ISSF World Cup final. No positive case was found.”

All India Tennis Association: “Compliance with WADA as per ITF Guidelines”

Wrestling Federation of India: Has 13 of the points listed. There is no mention of anti-doping! 

Rowing Federation of India: “Regular testing was done during out of competition and in competition. No positive cases were found. Annual report is being submitted to FISA. Regular contact Meetings with the Rowers at every championships.”

It is appalling that a ministry directive of 2015 has been ignored by some of the federations and not fully implemented by many others. It is also unfortunate that at a time when the Internet has become part of our lives, the federations either do not have a section on anti-doping or have outdated rules and practically nothing of use to the athletes in this field.

With doping continuing to show no signs of abating in this country, it is imperative that the IOA and the NSFs make all-out efforts to educate and inform the athletes about the subject. It is also essential to keep the media and the public informed about what the federations are doing. Having outdated anti-doping rules in the constitution will not help no matter how many references a federation might make of other rules in separate, disjointed documents. Having no mention of doping at all in a constitution is something the concerned international federation and the WADA may have to look into.

The understanding of the Ministry and NADA and possibly the IOA and the federations that a Gazette notification in 2010 was adequate to take care of the requirement to have the federations incorporate the anti-doping rules into their governing documents, is erroneous. Even if we accept that nothing more needs to be done in this regard, the federations will ideally have to prominently display an ‘anti-doping’ section on their websites including NADA anti-doping rules and the latter's authority over the entire gamut of domestic testing in all sport, not just a note on “WADA/NADA Code compliance”.

WADA perhaps has realized that not all countries have NADOs that have got the national federations to incorporate their rules. Thus, it has brought in an ‘athlete consent form’ in which the athlete has to accept the WADA rules and agree to subject himself/herself to the jurisdiction and authority of the international federation/national federation/NADO as the case may be.

The IOA and the NSFs have to wake up. More importantly, the ministry has to enforce its 23-point guideline of 2015 to ensure that the information it had sought to be placed in the public domain is actually available on the websites. After nearly four years of the ministry directive, if some of the federations still have information related to 2014-2015 on their websites, it is nothing short of mockery.

Asiad relay squad composition comes into focus (rankings part II)

On the women’s side, Hima Das improved dramatically through the season before settling with a national record of 50.79s for the 400m silver in the Asian Games. With a ranking score of 1215, she was way ahead of the rest of the Indians in the 400m to occupy the 19th slot. Nirmala Sheoran, now under provisional suspension on a doping charge, had 1174 points for the 40th rank while M. R. Poovamma (1121) was joint 92nd.

If one were to exclude the dope-tainted Nirmala, Poovama comes in second in the world rankings among the Indians. Who is third?

That position brings to light the unfair manner in which Jisna Mathew as kept out of the Asian Games relay squad after a hurriedly-convened trial at the games venue. Jisna, ranked 135th (1100) in the world is (was) way above V. K. Vismaya at joint 223rd (1072) and Saritaben Gayakwad at joint 290th (1057). Hima Das, Poovamma, Vismaya and Gayakwad formed the relay team that won the gold in Jakarta.

One can justifiably argue that Vismaya got into the team as the fourth runner in the 4x400 relay as she edged Jisna in the Jakarta trial. But what about Sarita? Why was she not fielded in the trial? Was she so way above or so senior and so established that she could be considered an automatic choice while Jisna, Vismaya, Soniya Baishya and  G. K. Vijayakumari were asked to slug it out on track to fill in the lone slot that was made available in the relay team?

For all the above girls, the timings taken into account for scoring have come prior to the Asian Games. Jisna had 53.32 (final, Asian championships 2017), 53.26 (Asian juniors 2018), 53.18 (heats, Asians 2017), 53.86 (heats, World under-20) and 54.20 (inter-state). Jisna scored 130 placing score for her third place in the Asian championships last year and 40 for her gold in the Asian Juniors this year. Category of a particular meet determines the placing score, the higher the category the more points you gain. Heats and semis do not score.

Vismaya had 53.30 (Gliwice), 53.55 (Wroclaw), 53.52 (Kladno), 53.74 (Jablonec) and 53.88 (Nove Mesto nad Metuji). Vismaya scored a total of 38 points for her placing in four of the meets. In one she scored nothing since that race happened to be a heat.

Gayakwad had 53.24 (Kladno), 53.67 (7th, inter-State), 53.72 (heats, inter-State), 54.31 (Kladno) and 53.87 (6th, Fed Cup). She scored a total of 10 placing points from the meet at Kladno.

It is obvious, Gayakwad’s 53.24 clinched her an automatic place in the relay team. Jisna, P. T. Usha's trainee, was 0.02s slower with her season best. But if that argument were to be given credence, then Vijayakumari had a far better time of 53.03s at the Fed Cup.

Need fair and unbiased selection

If relay teams are finalized on the basis of a season best alone such an imbalance as the one that came about in the Indian team composition in Jakarta is bound to arise. Coaches and the federation have to be fair and impartial in this team selection business at the spot.

Incidentally, Chhavi Sharwat is ranked 215th while Prachi Singh who went to court along with the former questioning their exclusion from the relay squad, and lost the case, is surprisingly not ranked.

In the women’s sprints, Dutee Chand, who bagged two silver medals in the Asian Games, is ranked 59 (100m) and 56 (200m). There is quite a prominent presence of Indian women in the middle and long- distance events, too, with P. U. Chithra (joint 37th in 1500m), L. Suriya (54th in 5000m and 31st in 10,000m) and Sanjivani Jadhav, now under provisional suspension for doping (55th in 5000m, 80th in 10,000m) being the leaders among Indians.

Other creditable Indian rankings:

Men: 3000m steeplechase: Avinash Sable (80); 110m hurdles: Siddhanth Thingalaya (74); High jump: B. Chethan (55); Discus: Dharamraj Yadav (90). 20km walk: K. T. Irfan (41); 50km walk: Sandeep Kumar (38).

Women: 400m hurdles: Anu Raghavan (45), Jauna Murmu (69); 3000m steeplechase: Chinta Yadav (98); Long jump N. V. Neena (29), Nayana James (61); Triple jump: N. V. Sheena (68); Discus: Seema Punia (26), Navjeet Kaur Dhillon (51); Hammer: Sarita Romit Singh (88); Javelin: Annu Rani (40); Heptathlon: Purnima Hembram (48); 20km walk: Khushbir Kaur (35), Ravina (44), Shanti Kumari (64). (National record setter in 2018, Baby Soumya is not ranked in 20km walk probably because at the time of drawing up these lists she did not have the minimum number of competitions).

Come New Year, there will be some minor movements in the rankings. As the year progresses, performances will drop off, some of them will get lesser points depending on how far away they were from the ranking date and some others will bring in new personal bests and better placings in major competitions. 

The Indian season is scheduled to begin in February. But the real test for the Indian athletes will come in the Asian championships in Doha in April when many of them will be under pressure to retain their places and performances achieved in the last Asian meet in Bhubaneswar in order to maintain their rankings.

After having decided to base World Championships qualification this year on rankings, the IAAF has had a change of heart. The old pattern will continue, that is based on of qualification standards, world lists, rankings lists, Area champions qualification etc. However, for the Tokyo Olympics, the world rankings will come into play. A top-60-80 ranking,, depending on the event, will be of help to an athlete in his/her qualification bid. The IAAF is yet to announce the details of the rankings-based qualification system for the Olympics 

Right now, the mood in Indian athletics should be one of celebration notwithstanding the doping cases this year, culminating in five of the international-level athletes being caught in re-tests in Montreal ordered by WADA of samples that had turned up negative in the New Delhi lab. That only showed many of our athletes were escaping detection probably because of lack of more sophisticated equipment at NDTL. The moment such equipment is installed in the lab and our scientists acquire the expertise to use them, the athletes could be in for more shocks!

(Concluded)
Part I here

Six Indian athletes in World top-20

M. Anas is ranked an impressive 19th in the world in the 400m
_Pic courtesy G. Rajaraman

Indian athletics is on the upswing again!

The world rankings, which will come into effect from January 2019, and which are in the testing stage at the moment, show six Indian athletes in the top-20 bracket for 2018.

Javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra is the highest ranked in the rankings up to December 25, 2018, at No.4 in the world, a remarkable achievement for the 21-year-old Indian who broke through only in 2016 with a world junior record (86.48m) and the world under-20 title. Since then, he has not looked back with a series of outstanding performances culminating in the Asian Games gold last August with a personal best and national record of 88.06m.

 Chopra has 1347 points and is behind two Germans, ranked joint No.1, Andreas Hoffmann and Olympic champion Thomas Rohler, both at 1417, and Estonian Magnus Kirt (1374). World champion Johannes Vetter of Germany is at fifth, just seven points behind Chopra. Vetter topped the 2018 season with 92.70m. Hoffmann has thrown over 90 metres four times this season with a best of 92.06m.

Rankings are based on a complicated set of criteria that take into account performance, placing, category of competition etc. The highest category has Olympics and World championships while Area championships (Asian championships for example) are rated higher than Area Games (Asian Games for example).

Diamond League finals will come in the second category followed by a set of IAAF World events plus Diamond League meetings. The average score of five meetings in a 12-month span would be taken into calculations. Points accruing from meets in the previous season would drop off as the new season progresses. (10,000m, road events, racewalking and combined events would be scored over an 18-month period).

Area championship given prominence

Performance in the latest Area championships would be counted irrespective of whether they fall into the ranking period or not. The minimum number of performances in 5000m, 3000m steeplechase and road running events other than marathon is three while in 10,000m, marathon and combined events it is two. In racewalking it is three for 20km and two for 50km.

Apart from Chopra, the other Indians in the top-20 rankings for the year are: Muhammed Anas, 400m (19), Arpinder Singh, triple jump (13); Hima Das, 400m (19), Sudha Singh, 3000m steeplechase (20) and Swapna Barman, heptathlon (15).

This is indicative of the progress made by the Indian athletes over the past year. Not in terms of a solitary, record-breaking performance as it often happened in the past but through consistent performances through the season. Of course, someone like Barman is ranked exceptionally high at 15 thanks to the policy of the IAAF to retain the Asian championships score (5942) of 2017, which is more than a year old, to add to her Asian Games tally of a personal best 6026.

It may be recalled, in 2016, triple jumper Renjith Maheswary was fourth in the world lists (as different from rankings since a single performance in a year could gain an athlete such a distinction) with his 17.30m performance at Bengaluru in the run-up to the Olympic Games. It is a different matter, he could manage only 16.13m in the qualification round in Rio, finishing overall 30th.

The highest ranked Indian in the old IAAF world rankings was long jumper Anu George at fourth, in phases in 2004 and 2005.

In the Olympic year, Neeraj Chopra, with his world junior mark of 86.48m, was 11th among the seniors in the world lists, long jumper Ankit Sharma (8.19m) was 20th and woman steeplechaser Lalita Babar (9:19.76) 13th. They were lists, not rankings which are based on a set of performances rather than a lone mark.

From being around the 75-76-metre bracket in 2010 and 2011, Indian javelin throwers have joined the 80-metre club with Chopra threatening to breach the 90-metre mark. His success has seen a bunch of young javelin throwers striving to reach world standards. So much so, today India has four javelin throwers, other than Chopra, in the top-100 of the world.

Vipin Kasana (47), Rajender Singh Dalvir (59), Sahil Silwal (87) and Shivpal Singh (94) are the other Indian javelin throwers in the 2018 rankings who have got into the top-100. Davinder Singh Kang, the lone Indian to make the World championships final in 2017 also would have been in this list had he been competing but he is under a provisional suspension for doping.

Shivpal Singh (82.28m), Dalvir (90.63m) and Kasana (80.04m), apart from Chopra, have thrown beyond 80 metres this season. It may be mentioned here that Shivpal could manage only a 74.11m for eighth place in the Asian Games.

The throwers in both sections will need to substantially improve their performance in major international meets if Indian athletics has to live up to its new-found stature of having a number of top world-ranked athletes.

The Indian athletes have done exceedingly well on track also this year as can be seen from several of them figuring in the top-100 rankings.

Anas ranked 19th

Right on top of that list comes Muhammed Anas. The 19th rank is an enviable position for the Kerala man who has been bettering the 400m national record regularly since 2016.  He clocked a national record of 45.24s in an all-India race in a meet in the Czech Republic in July last.

Arokia Rajiv, former national record holder, gives Anas company in the top-100, being ranked 54.P. P. Kunhumohammed (183) and Amoj Jacob (187), injured during the relay in the Commonwealth Games, are two other Indian quarter-milers in the top-200.

Jinson Johnson, who bettered Sriram Singh 1976 national record in the 800m (1:45.77) with an awesome 1:45.65 at the Gwahati Inter-State meet, is ranked joint 43rd in the 800m though he could manage only the silver behind team-mate Manjit Singh in the event in the Asian Games. Manjit is at joint 83rd. In the 1500m in which Johnson won the gold in the Asian Games, he is ranked 46. Johnson had bettered Bahadur Prasad’s 1995 mark (3:38.00) in the metric mile with a 3:37.86 for fifth place in the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.

Ayyasamy Dharun’s progress in the 400m hurdles has been nothing short of spectacular this season. Even when he was far from fit, he had clocked 49.45s for a national record in the Fed Cup at Patiala in March, bettering Joseph Abraham’s 2007 record of 49.51s clocked in the Osaka World championships. He followed that up with another NR of 48.96s for second place in the Asian Games final behind Aberrahmane Samba of Qatar. Dharun is ranked 33.

Depth in hurdles

Interestingly, India has two more athletes in the men’s 400m hurdles rankings who are within the top-100, M. P. Jabir (59) and T. Santhosh Kumar (61). Such talent and depth in an event in which India’s best last year was the 128th place for Santhosh (50.16s) in world lists. Jabir was at 138th place (50.22s) and Dharun (50.81s) at 237th. This year, Santhosh has clocked 49.66 (5th Asian Games) and Jabir 50.02 (Open National). India has two more athletes in the sub-51 bracket this season, Vijay Singh Malik and Jashanjot Singh.

Prominent Indians to be ranked in the field events, apart from Arpinder Singh, included shot putter Tejinder Pal Singh Toor who is 23rd. Toor had a national record of 20.75m for his gold in the Asian Games that fetched him a whopping 1362 performance score. He average a ranking score of 1197 over five meets. He had one other effort of more than 20 metres, 20.24 in the Fed Cup. His slump to 19.37m in the Inter-State at Guwahati was a surprise but he compensated with the national record and gold in Jakarta.

Two of the most promising youngsters to get into the top-50 in the world are high jumper Tejaswain Shankar (35) and long jumper M. Sreeshankar (40) who posted a national record of 8.20m in winding up the season at the Open.

Arpinder Singh scored heavily from the Jakarta Asian Games (16.77m, 1st, 1280 points) and Ostrava Continental Cup (16.59m, 3rd, 1271). He had 16.62m in the Open in Ranchi, 16.46m in CWG and 16.33m in last year’s Asian championships for a highly satisfying 13th rank in the world. Rakesh Babu was 63rd.

(-Contd. Part II)

How did hockey become top priority for NADA after it rated it at No. 12?

Representative pic_Courtesy G. Rajaraman

One of the most curious aspects of anti-doping measures being carried out this year, was the top position hockey had acquired among leading “dopey sports”. Many of us questioned the wisdom of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) in spending its precious resources on a game that had produced just six doping cases through nine years of NADA’s existence, two of them for recreational drugs, while a sport like athletics had churned out 210 and weightlifting 197 (as per available data on the NADA website.)

But NADA had its explanations for why hockey was pushed up the ladder for more tests and, though unconvincing, we had to believe it. It will also have answers ready for overall numbers at the end of the year since it has started adding sample numbers at a furious pace though seemingly there are not many major events around. From a total of 2062 tests by July-end, it has moved to 3188 by Oct-end. Hockey will soon be dumped and athletics brought back into the top of the lists.

In his revealing report in the Indian Express dated 4 November 2018, titled “How NADA rested as athletes trained”, Mihir Vasavda quoted NADA Director-General, Navin Agarwal, as saying hockey was a “very high-risk sport”. The report went onto quote him: “Apart from the psychological impact of doping, points like probability of winning medals and popularity of game in the country are also considered. Hockey ranks very high in both, so the number of tests that were to be conducted as pretty high.”

Hockey in front

Tests up to July-end, 2018 showed hockey had provided 92 samples while athletics had two less. Even if, let us say, hockey was 92 and athletics 100, it still wouldn’t have made sense. At least to those of us who follow sports and, more importantly, follow doping and anti-doping. There were sports like weightlifting (63 samples), boxing (69) and wrestling (70) which should have been high on the “high-risk” chart but were well behind hockey at that point of time.

It was not just a matter of hockey beating athletics by two tests up to July, but several other ‘vulnerable sports’ being downgraded, from an anti-doping perspective, while keeping up this illogical chant about hockey being “high risk” that rankled.

Not unexpectedly, NADA did not keep quiet on the Indian Express report. It put out a “facts and figures” chart on its website in an apparent attempt to rebut the report point by point. It proved a futile attempt to wriggle out of the hole it had dug for itself. (These points were also discussed in a two-part blog piece here).

On hockey, this is what NADA said on its website: “Scientific assessment of various risk parameters such as strength, endurance, popularity etc, form the basis of determining the numbers to be tested. Hockey is now getting more funding in India and has become high in popularity with probability of medal winning; all these have moved it up in our risk assessment and thereby increase in the numbers to be tested.”

Now the goalposts were widened. From “probability of winning medals and popularity of the game”, the point about “funding” was added.

Since many of the arguments that the NADA DG put forward in the newspaper report centred around the regulations, guidelines and prescribed parameters of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), a set of questions were posed through e-mail to the Montreal-based agency in an effort to get a better idea about “risk assessment”.

Of course, “risk assessment” as WADA has explained in its reply to me, and as most of us knew previously, and had tweeted about, is based on Article 4.2.1 of the International Standards for Testing and Investigations.

What is 'risk assessment'

WADA quoted the rules below to re-emphasize what “risk assessment” was in a recent communication:

“As set out in Code Article 5.4, the starting point of the Test Distribution Plan must be a considered assessment, in good faith, of which Prohibited Substances and/or Prohibited Methods are most likely to be abused in the sport(s) and sport discipline(s) in question.

This assessment should take into account (at a minimum) the following information:

a) The physical and other demands of the relevant sport(s) (and/or discipline(s) within the sport(s)), considering in particular the physiological requirements of the sport(s)/sport discipline(s);

b) The possible performance-enhancing effects that doping may elicit in such sport(s)/sport discipline(s);

c) The rewards available at the different levels of the sport(s)/sport discipline(s) and/or other potential incentives for doping;

d) The history of doping in the sport(s)/sport discipline(s);

e) Available research on doping trends (e.g., peer-reviewed articles);

f) Information received/intelligence developed on possible doping practices in the sport (e.g., Athlete testimony; information from criminal investigations; and/or other intelligence developed in accordance with WADA's Guidelines for Cordinating Investigations and Sharing Anti-Doping Information and Evidence in accordance with Section 11.0 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations; and

g) The outcomes of previous test distribution planning cycles.”

NADA also probably knew these rules. But one had to pose a few specific questions to get more clarity. So, one asked and got the answers (WADA’s answers in Italics and blue):

Q: Did WADA suggest any particular grading for sports disciplines to be categorized as per “risk assessment” after it did the last audit of Indian NADO?

 The NADO was asked to focus on high risk sports and athletes participating in upcoming major events, for example the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games and World Championships.

Q: What was the order of priority suggested by WADA, if any, for sports to be considered in grading “risk assessment” as far as Indian anti-doping efforts were concerned? If no particular grading was suggested, then what was the grading provided by the Indian NADO after the WADA audit? Where did hockey figure in that grading?

 Hockey is ranked 12^th in the list of sports in India in terms of doping risk as contained in NADA’s Risk Assessment.

So, hockey was ranked 12th only in that “risk assessment” exercise. By NADA and no one else. Yet, NADA DG and his agency repeatedly tried to give the impression that hockey indeed was “high risk” and they had to consider so many factors while drawing up their priorities, all as per WADA guidelines.

NADA might have gone after hockey to boost numbers easily since the players are bunched together at one camp. But it obviously did not want to concede that point or the one about athletics and weightlifting numbers being down instead of going considerably up with Asian Games round the corner.

Q: Where did the following sports disciplines figure in that grading: Athletics, weightlifting, wrestling, boxing, cycling, swimming, powerlifting, bodybuilding?

All were identified in the top 10 sports based on the risk factors applied out of 63 sport disciplines assessed.

  

Another topic that keeps coming up these days is the number of samples being tested by NADA every year. So, it was prudent to ask the following question:

Q: Has WADA given a target of sample numbers to the Indian NADO for the year 2018? If so, how many?

WADA does not provide a target number for NADOs to meet. 

The Test Distribution Plan (TDP) should reflect the risk assessment and the level of testing among the sports and athletes identified to be “at a higher risk” than others. 

The ISTI requires that the majority of tests are conducted out of competition (OOC). Note that the TDP is a living document and not a static one, it is intended to be an ongoing process that changes based on variations within the athletes competing in the sports identified.

The TDP should be amended based on risk factors, test results, information/intelligence received, athlete performance, Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) profiles etc.

Missing RTP athletes altogether at crucial period

NADA missed testing out-of-competition plenty of athletes in its Registered Testing Pool in the run-up to the Asian Games. NADA, however, keeps denying that many were missed. It has even suggested that during the rest of the year it would complete the minimum three tests on such athletes. Like its drive towards a target of 3500 tests a year this is another farce it goes through, test RTP athletes a few times after the major championships of the season are over.

 In this context, a question was put to WADA:

 Is it all right to miss testing athletes listed in the Registered Testing Pool in out-of-competition testing altogether for a year?

Following the risk assessment outlined above, such high profile/risk athletes identified should be part of an RTP which requires the NADO to plan to test the Athletes a minimum of three times OOC per year.

The one point which WADA seemed to agree with NADA was the need to limit in-competition samples even from major championships.

Q: When WADA expects more out-of-competition tests than in-competition in a sport like athletics there is a possibility of the NADO cutting down in-competition numbers, say from 1000 to 400 in order to meet the OOC requirements which may lead to a complete mockery of testing in-competition. This is what we have started witnessing in India, either skip an athletics meet altogether or else collect just 20 or 30 samples. Would WADA suggest a remedy?

As outlined above, testing at the same event becomes predictable. Therefore, reducing test numbers at a particular event and using the resources to test an event not normally tested is a good way to spread the effectiveness of a program and to instill some levels of unpredictability to athletes.

One cannot agree with either the NADA policy or the WADA argument here. NADA has been spreading out its testing to all sorts of events in all types of sports, and when it comes to an Asian Games selection meet like this year’s Inter-State at Guwahati, if the numbers are down to 40 or 60, athletes and coaches do ask the question: But who are being tested? When adequate out-of-competition tests are also not done, and NADA keeps sending teams to test at state-level meets and college meets, this question gains a different connotation.

NADA and WADA need to understand that in the Indian context, an Olympic qualification in a majority of cases is the ultimate aim for a track and field athlete and the so-called selection trials have to be strictly put through the anti-doping grind. This should not mean that the out-of-competition testing programme could be diluted. That should remain the main plank on which NADA directs its anti-doping efforts.

With the latest developments related to WADA re-testing some of the samples it took custody of last September and five track and field athletes and a weightlifter being caught in the dope net, there is all the more reason for NADA to be more vigilant in the coming season when athletics will have the Asian championships and the World Championships in Doha.

NADA has to shed its philosophy “we don’t want to bother athletes again and again” and eventually not test them at all out-of-competition through a crucial period of their preparations. NADA needs experts to determine its RTP and Test Distribution Plan and a sincere effort to take on its primary task_keep dope cheats away.