WADA’s responses to queries on NADA’s Anti-Doping Rules 2021

 

Question: Can NADA India test an athlete and if found positive, not report the case to WADA, not proceed with its rules based on WADA Code 2021, apply different sanctions other than those stipulated in the WADA Code 2021?

Answer: If the testing is conducted based on NADA’s anti-doping mandate and program under the Code and its Anti-Doping Rules, then all procedures and consequences provided for in the Code, the International Standards and the Anti-Doping Rules must be applied.

If NADA conducts other activities (including testing) outside of its anti-doping mandate, for example a public health mandate, such activities do not fall under its Anti-Doping Rules and the Code, and the Code does not need to be applied. As mentioned earlier, the Code requires the Anti-Doping Organizations to focus their anti-doping programs and results management on International and National-Level Athletes (and WADA monitors how this is done). It is NADA’s discretion to include – or not include – athletes below the National-Level into their anti-doping programs under the Code.

Q: Can NADA India test an athlete, and if found positive, not take the matter to a hearing panel but decide within its own administration or competence without the aid of any written down rules? Has NADA suggested to WADA any such procedure for adoption and whether WADA has given its approval?

A: If NADA’s additional activities are not based on the Code, WADA has no mandate to assess the compliance of such activities or the applicable adjudication procedure with the Code. Nonetheless, NADA is bound by the national law requirements.

Q: Can NADA India refuse to test an athlete or in a competition where national-level athletes or even international level athletes may be participating and justify such action saying it is within its authority to do so since WADA has given it the freedom to decide what is lower level competition or who is an athlete below national level?

A: The Code and NADA’s Anti-Doping Rules apply to specified persons due to their specific characteristics (for example, membership with any National Federation in India) or due to their participation in the specified events.

NADA has the discretion to define what a National-Level Athlete is. If an Athlete falls under NADA’s jurisdiction according to the Code and the Anti-Doping Rules (e.g. the Athlete is a member of any National Federation), then NADA’s anti-doping program applies to him/her notwithstanding the event such Athlete participates in.

In the same vein, if the lower-level athlete is nominated to participate in the national-level event organized by the National Federation, he/she becomes a National-Level Athlete and is subject to NADA’s Anti-Doping Rules and the Code, and the respective consequences under the Anti-Doping Rules and the Code apply should a test be positive.

Q: Can any rule other than what is stipulated in the Code apply to any positive case reported by an accredited laboratory following a doping control carried out by NADA India?

A: Anti-doping activities of NADA based on its Anti-Doping Rules and the Code shall follow the procedures and consequences provided for in the Code and the Anti-Doping Rules.

Q: Is it true that all positive cases from tests conducted by a WADA-accredited laboratory are reported to WADA by the laboratory and by the ADO?

A: Results of all tests conducted by the ADO under their Anti-Doping Rules and the Code are reported by the laboratory and by the ADO via ADAMS.

Q: Can NADA India conduct tests in a non-accredited laboratory?

A: For testing conducted under the Code and the Anti-Doping Rules, the applicable principles are set out in Code Article 6: for purposes of directly establishing an Adverse Analytical Finding under Code Article 2.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample), Samples shall be analyzed only in WADA-accredited laboratories or laboratories otherwise approved by WADA.

Q: Can anti-doping authorities decide on doping cases on unwritten rules? Can they adopt their own rules without the knowledge of WADA?

A; If doping cases result from NADA’s anti-doping mandate and program under the Code and its Anti-Doping Rules (which are reviewed and approved by WADA), then all procedures and consequences provided for in the Code, the International Standards and the Anti-Doping Rules must be applied.

For other (additional) NADA activities that are not based on the Code, WADA has no mandate to assess the compliance of such activities or the applicable adjudication procedure with the Code. Nonetheless NADA is bound by the national law requirements.  

Q:  Is it not the responsibility of an accredited laboratory that an anti-doping organization follows up correctly with a positive report reported by it to that organization as per Code and International Standards?

A: Results of all tests conducted by the ADO under their Anti-Doping Rules and the Code are reported by the laboratory and by the ADO via ADAMS as required by the Code and the International Standards.

If the laboratory provides other services to the organizations which are not based on the Code and the Anti-Doping Rules, the results of such services cannot be reported via ADAMS. The International Standard for Laboratories provides for further limitations to such services.

 

NADA must apply process & consequences provided for in the Code & Anti-Doping Rules for tests under its mandate: WADA

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has further clarified the position regarding the categorisation of athletes by a National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO) for the purpose of testing and subsequent results management and procedures leading to sanctions.

In response to a fresh set of questions posed by this journalist following its answers to an earlier batch of questions, WADA stated that if the testing was done under the anti-doping mandate of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), all procedures and consequences as provided for in the Code must be applied.

“If doping cases result from NADA’s anti-doping mandate and program under the Code and its Anti-Doping Rules (which are reviewed and approved by WADA), then all procedures and consequences provided for in the Code, the International Standards and the Anti-Doping Rules must be applied” said WADA in its communication.

Thanks to WADA’s Manager, Media Relations and Communications, Maggie Durand, who gathered the relevant information from concerned colleagues and compiled this latest response, we are in a better position to understand the rules and regulations regarding the so-called ‘new category’ of athletes.

In at least two news reports published on Feb 9, 2021, NADA Director-General, Navin Agarwal, had stated that under the revised Code 2021, NADA had the authority to devise new rules that would, among other things, allow NADA to bring in a new category of athletes who, if they test positive, could be given a milder sanction than normal.

Here is the The Indian Express report quoting Mr.Agarwal on various aspects related to new rules to be either formulated by NADA or having already been implemented. He was also quoted as saying that NADA would not be required to inform WADA about such positive cases and these cases would not be taken before the hearing panel.

Mr. Agarwal also listed competitions in Schools Games, University meets and Khelo India as those where athletes would be given milder sanctions based on a fast-tracked hearing process conducted by NADA. These cases could be attracting a maximum of two-year suspensions and, in some cases, they may even end up in much milder sanctions, it was stated. There was no elaboration about the rules under which these sanctions could be imposed or the hearing process if any that might determine such punishments.

Here is my blog piece following the first set of answers received from WADA:

There are areas that are still left in the realm of conjecture even after the elaborate clarifications provided by WADA in its second response. For example, WADA saying ”If NADA conducts other activities (including testing) outside of its anti-doping mandate, for example a public health mandate, such activities do not fall under its Anti-Doping Rules and the Code, and the Code does not need to be applied.”

What other activities could NADA be having or intend to have other than anti-doping within the purview of the Code and its own anti-doping rules for which it was established by the Government of India in 2004?

WADA also mentions NADA’s ‘additional activities’ and WADA’s inability to assess the compliance of such activities.  What other activities could NADA be having that WADA would not be knowing or would not be able to assess?

Contradictions

Despite the clear announcement of bypassing the Code in handing out reduced sanctions to a set of athletes who would be categorized below “national level”, NADA had practically ruled out enforcing these rules in respect of Khelo India Games by stating this in its anti-doping rules 2021:

“Within the overall pool of Athletes set out above who are bound by and required to comply with these Anti-Doping Rules, the following Athletes shall be considered to be National-Level Athletes for the purposes of these Anti-Doping Rules, and, therefore, the specific provisions in these Anti-Doping Rules applicable to National-Level Athletes (e.g., Testing, TUEs, whereabouts, and Results Management) shall apply to such Athletes:

• Athletes who are members or license holders of any National Federation in India or any other organization affiliated with a National Federation including associations, clubs, teams or leagues;

• Athletes who participate or compete at any Competition, Event, or activity, which is organized, recognized, or hosted by a National Federation, by any affiliated association, organization, club, team, or league or by the Government in India”.

If exclusion of Khelo India athletes was the primary objective of introducing a new category, then it is ruled out by the mention of  ‘Government of India’ in the above para. For, Khelo India is organised by the Government and its agencies. It is fully funded by the Government; it is conducted in collaboration with National federations under their rules and technical supervision. In fact, many of the other heads of expenditure under sports are routed through the Khelo India budget.

It is a fact that since the start of the Khelo India programme, there have been many doping cases reported of the youngsters.  There was no option but to proceed with due processes including imposing of sanctions.

Now, it would seem, there is a desire to give a “second chance” to the youngsters, not to spoil their careers. The coming weeks and months would provide us a clear picture of what NADA has in store for young dope cheats.

(This was first published in the Circle of Sport on March 2, 2021)

Click here for the complete set of questions posed to WADA and its answers on the topic

The new NADA rules to “protect” young athletes: Discussions are ongoing, says WADA

 

Two articles appearing in the Indian Express and the Times of India on Feb 9, 2021 created a bit of confusion and controversy among those who follow anti-doping in our country.

The articles referred to a new set of rules the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) had formulated based on the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Both quoted the NADA Director-General, Navin Agarwal, to convey that from this year the young Indian athletes, if they test positive, would be dealt with by a separate set of rules that could impose a maximum two-year sanction instead of the standard four for serious offences. There were quite a few other implications as well.

Not having come across such important changes in the Code, when it was published in November, 2019 (To be effective Jan 1, 2021) one was surprised, to put it mildly, at the conclusions drawn by the NADA DG in deciphering these “new rules”.

To one’s surprise some of the portions mentioned by the NADA boss were incorporated in the NADA anti-doping rules of 2021 which were placed on its website much later than January 1 as it should have been

Now, comes an explanation from WADA on a set of queries posed by this journalist, which says the 2021 NADA anti-doping rules are still under its consideration and they have not been finalized.

We will leave this part for a while and concentrate on the main theme that the NADA DG elaborated in the above two articles.

The Indian Express quoted the NADA DG as saying:

“As per the new rules, which we have implemented from January 1 under the new WADA Code, there will be separate criteria for dope control of athletes below the national level. These tests will not be reported to WADA and will be governed by our regulations,” Agarwal said. “There will be milder penalties and quicker disposal of cases as they will not have stringent protocols required under the WADA rules.”

Had he only suggested a third category of athletes below international level and national level was being formed from 2021 to be dealt with differently it would have been all right. The “milder penalties” part was incomprehensible. There is no such mention in the Code, more importantly, there is no elaboration of what these penalties could be in the NADA anti-doping rules themselves. How will these penalties be decided? Who will decide which cases to be proceeded against and which ones to be all but ignored?

The Express report further said:

“Agarwal said the cases of this group of athletes will no longer be referred to NADA’s disciplinary panel. Instead, he added, there ‘will be a short procedure and a summary disposal of these cases so there is no delay.’

"The purpose of reducing sanctions for the dope offenders, he said, was to give them a second chance. “The whole idea is that upcoming athletes should not be ineligible for life at such an early age because of any misinformation they get. We realised we are unnecessarily finishing careers of sportspersons at an early stage,” Agarwal said. “We need to control doping and for that, we will conduct tests on national-level athletes. But these rules are to give them another chance to renew their sporting career.”

The Times of India report also said that the hearing panels would have no roles to play in deciding the cases against the young athletes.

The athletes in school games, university meets and Khelo India games would be brought under this bracket to hand out reduced sanctions. Since these sanctions were not specified and there was a hint that some of these cases could be disposed of quickly without even any sanctions, one delved further into these assertions.

The NADA anti-doping rules 2021 state:

"The following athletes shall be considered as Other Athletes for the purpose of these Anti-Doping Rules who shall be governed by the Anti-Doping Regulations:

"(a) Any other Athlete who by virtue of an accreditation, a license or any other contractual arrangement, falls within the competence of a National Federation in India or any affiliated association, organization, club, team, or league in India for the purposes of fighting doping in sport in India;

"(b) Athletes who participate in any activity organized, recognized, or hosted by a National Event organizer or any other national league and which is not otherwise affiliated with a National Federation.

"(c) Athletes who participate in any National School Games, National University Games, National Winter Games organised by National Sports Federation, Sports Council, Sports Boards, State Government.

"However, if any such Athletes are classified by NADA as National -Level Athletes then they shall be considered to be National Level Athletes for purposes of these Anti-Doping Rules."

But can there be any reduced sanction if found positive?

There was no clarity in the rules though the DG did assert this was the case, a two-year sanction at the worst or else something that could be decided within NADA without hearing panels coming into the picture.

Was this possible at all?

Today, Feb 23, 2021, this reporter received a reply to some of these questions from the Media Relations and Communications Department, WADA:

Question: Has WADA been in touch with NADA to find out how exactly they have arrived at the conclusion that Article 2.1 could be interpreted different in the case of some athletes whom they would classify below national level?

Answer: WADA and NADA discussions on NADA’s Anti-Doping Rules are still ongoing. However, as mentioned above, should NADA elect to bring lower-level Athletes within the definition of “Athlete” under its Anti-Doping Rules, and should such lower level Athlete commit an anti-doping rule violation under Code Articles 2.1, 2.3 or 2.5, then the consequences provided under the Code must be applied.

(Article 2.1 is presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites in an athlete’s sample;

Article 2.3 is evading, refusing or failing to submit to a sample collection;

Article 2.5 is tampering or attempted tampering of any part of doping control)

So, forget reduced sanctions for School Games, University meets, Khelo India and departmental and other yet-to-be-specified meets.

A hearing process is a must under the Code. NADA cannot take over that process and decide all by itself whether an athlete is guilty or not. “Independent” hearing panel is the key to transparent anti-doping measures. It cannot be decided “in-house”. Even if a prompt admission or a substantial assistance to unearth other doping cases is provided by an athlete, WADA would come in in any mutually agreed upon sanctions.

Question: Did WADA approve the revised NADA anti-doping rules based on Code 2021? If so, what was WADA’s advice on the changes proposed?

Answer: NADA Anti-Doping Rules based on the 2021 Code are not finalized yet. We are not in a position to comment on ongoing discussions.

WADA does agree that every NADO would have the right to determine who could be in the group below “national level”. Accordingly, they could be subject to lesser testing or no testing at all, and testing need not be for all substances.

Says WADA: “The Code definition of “Athlete” in Code Appendix 1 refers to any Person who competes in sport at the international level (as defined by each International Federation) or the national level (as defined by each National Anti-Doping Organization).

 “An Anti-Doping Organization has discretion to apply anti-doping rules to an Athlete who is neither an International-Level Athlete nor a National-Level Athlete, and thus to bring them within the definition of “Athlete.” Therefore NADA has discretion to decide whether to consider lower level athletes as “Athletes” for the purposes of the Anti-Doping Rules. If such lower level Athletes are included in the scope of the NADO’s anti-doping rules, the NADO still has a discretion to conduct limited Testing or no Testing at all; analyze Samples for less than the full menu of Prohibited Substances; require limited or no whereabouts information; or not require advance TUEs. However, if an Article 2.1, 2.3 or 2.5 anti-doping rule violation is committed by such an Athlete, then the Consequences set forth in the Code must be applied.

“If such Athletes are not included in the scope of the NADO’s Anti-Doping Rules, they fall outside the scope of the Code as well.

"In the same vein, the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (Article 4.3.1) clarifies that “in recognition of the finite resources of Anti-Doping Organizations, the Code definition of Athlete allows National Anti-Doping Organizations to limit the number of sportsmen and sportswomen who will be subject to their national anti-doping programs (in particular, Testing) to those who compete at the highest national levels (i.e., National-Level Athletes, as defined by the National Anti-Doping Organization”.

Even in the previous Code there was a provision for “recreational athletes”. The new Code gives more elaboration and more freedom to NADOs. They need not test those athletes in School Games, University meets, Khelo India and an assortment of departmental meets. Problem solved!

This option was available in earlier years as well. In fact several national and junior national meets were either totally ignored or only partially covered in many years in the past. Avoiding testing or reducing sample numbers is not the most important strategy an anti-doping organisation can come up with to show a “clean image” of the country’s athletes.

As for not unduly penalizing young athletes, the current practice is to reduce sanctions to the minimum possible. The argument goes: Athlete being minor he or she does not need to prove how the prohibited substance entered the body as per rules. Since the athlete did not know how it happened, athlete’s sanction can be further reduced by “no significant fault or negligence”.

 

Increased numbers of positive cases probably prompted NADA to interpret rules in such a way it could not only reduce numbers but also provide, in its interpretation and wisdom, a “second chance” to young athletes.

Khelo India, across all levels, provide young athletes chance to gain Government assistance apart from setting up a launching pad for international exposure and TOPS funding under developmental category. Athletes cannot be receiving Government funding and still be considered “recreational” or below “national level”.

On the one hand, NADA had encouraged testing at State-levels and departmental levels in recent years in order to curb the menace of doping. Now, NADA wants to bring in these categories into "below national level" by which it thinks it can hand out reduced sanctions. In the 2019 testing figures, India has topped the world charts with 225 cases. The anti-doping rule violations lists are likely to show India again at No. 1 for 2019. Obviously, concrete action is called for to avoid this dubious distinction in future. But the proposed structure will make a mockery of anti-doping in our country.

NADA still has the 2021 anti-doping rules on its website. WADA says discussions are going on and it is not a finalized document.

We have a suspended laboratory; we are Number one among positive doping cases. We look headed for a unique set of rules to pardon “young athletes” or to treat them with kid gloves. Recent Khelo India events have shown that doping is popular among the young athletes. Many junior athletes in the past have been caught a second time proving that some advice from elders alone would not guide them through the right path. Hopefully, WADA would straighten this out in the coming weeks.

 

NADA's out-of-competition testing falls short again

Who should India’s National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) be testing the most during the course of a year?

The obvious answer would be those in the registered testing pool (RTP).  

According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) definition the RTP is the pool of “highest priority” athletes who are subject to “focused in-competition and out-of-competition testing”.

The RTP is aimed at ensuring that anti-doping agencies have the chance to test top athletes unannounced at a designated place preferred by the athlete. A one-hour slot has to be provided to the testers for every day of the year by an athlete where he/she would be available for testing. Failure to be at the venue or to file the “whereabouts” may attract a sanction depending on the circumstances.

Doping is not about consuming steroids and other substances just before competition and hoping that testers would not catch. It is more about a systematic consumption to ensure that one is not caught even if tested. If one is taking steroids one will need a “safe period” of a month or two to be away from testers. It depends on the substance the athlete is taking, the mode of ingestion and the dosage.

“But wouldn’t he be tested in the competition?” This is a question often heard in the context of doping suspicions concerning an athlete.

If the athlete is wise enough he would not be caught even if he is tested. That is the way his doping cycles would have been designed to avoid detection.

This is where RTP comes in. At least theoretically that is the idea. Catch the cheat when he or she is building for the competitions ahead, giving a safe period to avoid turning in a positive test.

WADA wants agencies to carry out more out-of-competition tests than in-competition. But that often does not happen. Rules require an anti-doping authority to test its RTP athletes at least three times a year. That also, it seems, is a tough task, it would seem, at least for NADA India.

In 2018, NADA failed to test out of competition five of the six individual track and field gold medallists from India in the Asian Games before the games. It also failed to test ten of the 25 athletes in its RTP through the course of the year.

The record was better in 2019, but only marginally. This was not a multi-discipline games year. For athletics, the big meeting was the World Championships in Doha in September-October.  The NADA had enlarged its RTP from 25 in 2018 to 44 athletes by around mid-2019 (exact dates are not known since NADA does not indicate a date on the changes in its RTP on its website).

As per figures made available by NADA, in athletics it did not test at least eight of its RTP members up to November 11, 2019. Another 11 RTP athletes were subjected to just one out-of-competition test with a urine sample. Seven others were tested twice out of competition.

Only ten RTP athletes were put through the stipulated three out-of-competition tests based on urine samples.

The 10 athletes in the Target Olympic Podium (TOP) scheme (Neeraj Chopra, Tajinder Toor, Seema Punia, Arpinder Singh, Muhammed Anas, Hima Das, A. Dharun, Jinson Johnson, M. Sreeshankar and Avinash Sable) were subjected to a combined total of 15 out-of-competition tests in 2019 (up to Nov 11). Seema and Arpinder were not tested at all out of competition in this period.

One would have expected NADA to concentrate more on its RTP athletes in athletics for out-of-competition testing in 2019 following revelations about inadequacies the previous year. That did not happen.

The test distribution plan (TDP) should have been so devised as to have a sensible mix of in-competition and out-of-competition testing. That would have meant spacing out three out-of-competition tests for RTP athletes in such a way that they would be well away from the in-competition period unless NADA was testing for erythropoietin (EPO) or growth hormone or similar substances.

Though the number of RTP-based out-of-competition tests among top athletes increased in 2019 compared to 2018, NADA’s choice of periods for such testing defied logic in many cases.

Those in the RTP who were tested out of competition from one to five days prior to a competition in 2019 included Arokia Rajiv and Muhammed Anas (400m);  Jinson Johnson (800m/1500m); Hima Das and M. R. Poovamma (400m);  Shivpal Singh and Annu Rani (javelin) and Tajinder Pal Singh Toor (shot put). All these athletes were also tested ‘in-competition’, making it all the more debatable.

If out-of-competition tests just before a competition happened to be the only ones under the ‘whereabouts’ programme, then the purpose was all but defeated. 

Only ‘non-specified’ substances that include steroids, metabolic modulators and certain stimulants are prohibited out-of-competition. Only ‘non-specified’ substances are tested for out-of-competition samples. In-competition testing will be for the entire list of prohibited substances though not all samples are subjected to certain tests, EPO for example.

It is rare that an athlete would come into a competition with steroids within his/her system till a day or five days prior to a competition. Those who do test positive for steroids in ‘in-competition’ testing might have possibly made a mistake in their intake of drugs so as to be caught while competing or else the laboratory is so advanced that it can detect the minutest quantities of metabolites over a longer period of time.

Since all substances are tested for in ‘in-competition’ testing, it becomes almost meaningless to test out of competition, a day or a few days before, such athletes who are likely to be tested in-competition.  The exception can come in the case of targeted testing for EPO and related substances since the window for detection of such substances is very limited, often a few days. Generally, endurance athletes, in any sport are targeted for EPO.

In 2018, NADA managed to test some athletes training abroad, though all tests were bunched together closer to the Asian Games, making it almost a formality being gone through. Yet, in terms of deterrence, it was a good effort away from our shores even if these tests might have been done by other agencies on behalf of NADA. In 2019, though, there was to be no testing of track and field athletes abroad.  Was there a cash crunch?

Contrary to what was being given out by the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had come 11 times to test Indian athletes in Europe in 2018, it is now confirmed that WADA went only once. It collected six Indian samples in that single ‘mission’ in 2018 on Indians training in Europe. In all, WADA did 39 out-of-competition tests in athletics around the world in 2018.

The Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now World Athletics) did collect a substantial number of urine and blood samples from the Indians in 2018 including those out-of-competition samples from Doha before the Asian championships. Exact numbers of visits in Europe are, however, not available, though AIU confirmed that 88 urine samples were collected from the Indians in out-of-competition testing outside India in 2018. There were 25 Indian athletes initially at Spala, Poland.  Javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra was the lone Indian athlete in AIU’s RTP through 2019.

NADA’s in-competition and out-of-competition testing in athletics has rarely taken the logical route. It often misses the first couple of days of a national championship or else may collect 20 or 30 samples from 40-odd events. With the National Dope-Testing Laboratory (NDTL) under suspension by WADA, there is an obvious resource crunch that NADA faces in getting tests done in foreign labs. This should not result in its attempts to test Olympics-bound athletes this season.

To get some idea about how lop-sided testing had been in 2019 in certain cases in athletics, we have to look at the nine in-competition tests that the  World University Games sprint champion Dutee Chand went through last season at home while noting that amazingly she did not undergo a single out-of-competition test by NADA!

Someone like Gajanand Mistry who figures below 15 in Indian lists for 400m in 2019 was tested three times out of competition while some of the better-rated quarter millers were not even tested twice.

Of course, it is NADA’s prerogative to choose athletes for testing as per RTP, performance, intelligence reports etc. Among the other prominent athletes tested out of competition were: Jisna Mathew and Saritaben  Gayakwad (400m) two each, V. K. Vismaya (400m) one, K. S. Jeevan and Noah Nirmal Tom (400m) one each, Jithu Baby and Alex Antony (400m) three each and Vipin Kasana (javelin) one.

Seema Punia, multiple international medal winner in discus, who is a TOPs beneficiary and RTP athlete, has undergone  just one test in two years! Keeping her in the RTP and at the same time being unable to do any test at all since she is probably abroad most of the time, is illogical.

NADA has to shed its testing philosophy. Target-testing should not mean testing an athlete out of competition a day before his event at a National meet. “We have done enough tests in athletics” should also not mean NADA can skip the next National championships which may be the final selection trial for a major global meet. More tests at university level and Khelo India and Schools Games would go a long way in curbing the doping menace among young athletes.

 (This first appeared in the Sportstar dated March 24, 2020)

Rest in peace Saini Saab

Photo_G. Rajaraman

In the death of Joginder Singh Saini, Indian athletics has lost its acknowledged Guru and a father figure. The 92-year-old coach passed away at Patiala on Sunday, March 1.

A man with an abiding love for athletics, Saini saab, as he was popularly known, showed his willingness to contribute to the sport well into his 80s and even in his 90s. Whether as a coach, NIS chief coach, the senior National chief coach or the Junior National Coach or later as an advisor to the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), he showed a commitment that many a younger coach or administrator might have found hard to match.

A National meet without him being around was unimaginable. Old age never dampened his enthusiasm. He travelled across the country to be at the spot where athletics action was. Whether it was Delhi or Ranchi or Hyderabad or Visakhapatnam or Bangalore or Chennai, he made it a point to be there to witness athletes perform and to lend a helping hand to the federation and the organizers.

Those days

He would often compare performances in such meets with those of the Indian stalwarts of the 1960s through the1980s and 1990s. Milkha Singh, Makhan Singh and Gurbachan Singh Randhawa, Sriram Singh and Edward Sequeira and Hari Chand and Shivnath Singh often figured in such conversations. So, too, T. C. Yohannan and Suresh Babu and  P. T. Usha and Shiny Wilson.

“Remember, Eddie (Sequeira) did 3:43.7 (1500m) in 1966. No one could better that for nearly 30 years,” he would remind one often.  (Bahadur Prasad bettered that mark in Madras in 1995 with 3:38.00 and it was later bettered by Jinson Johnson at the Commonwealth Games in 2018 with 3:37.86. In 2019, Johnson improved it further to 3:35.24).

He was always full of admiration for Hari Chand and Sriram, too. He would often recall their feats in the Montreal Olympics whenever one brought up the topic of middle distance and distance running, his favourite area in athletics. (Hari Chand’s 10,000m record of 28:48.72 stood as National record for 32 years before being bettered to 28:02.89 by Surender Singh at Vigo, Spain, in 2008. Sriram’s 800m record of 1:45.77 at Montreal lasted for 42 years before it was bettered by Jinson Johnson with 1:45.65 at Guwahati).

Mr Saini romanticized athletics and athletes of an era when facilities were rudimentary, incentives meagre, information about the sport scanty and recognition hard to come by. He was also fully familiar with the current Indian athletics standards and the often-fluctuating form of the leading contenders.

The one great quality he had as a coach or chief coach was his ability to communicate, with athletes and with other coaches.  Almost everyone acknowledged this ability of his, none more than the former junior national coach, the late Suresh Babu.

“He is an excellent communicator, not many have that quality to drive home a point while addressing a group of athletes,” Suresh once told me. Sadly, Suresh’s life was cut short at 58 and what many of us looked forward to in having the former Asian Games long jump champion as the chief national coach of the senior Indian side did not materialize.

It was Saini saab who brought Suresh back from a period of inactivity on the coaching front. He was very keen that the transition from junior coach to senior would be smooth and at the earliest for the outstanding athlete of the 1970s. Suresh’s untimely death in 2011 when he was acting as the chef de mission of the Kerala contingent in the National Games, brought an end to such plans. Saini grieved along with the rest of us in the death of a dedicated, knowledgeable and capable coach.

Amidst the “bashing” that Indian coaches received from the top administrators of the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) in recent years, Saini backed them. He was proud of many stalwarts of the past and at the same time always remembered the contribution of the Indian coaches, too.

“I told our coaches, speak up now. If you don’t you may never be able to. When they belittle your efforts, it reflects on the whole lot of us, it was humiliating for me since most of them had graduated under me or had worked with me,” he said after a meeting that analyzed the 2018 Asian Games performance.
(Five of the six individual gold-medal-winning Indian athletes in 2018 had trained under Indian coaches).

Respect for other coaches

He had high regard and respect for coaches of his era, late Ilyas Babar (Sriram’s coach), Ken O. Bosen (Throws expert at NIS). He would often also praise the contributions of O. M. Nambiar (P. T. Usha’s coach) and the late A. K. Kutty (M. D. Valsamma’s coach).

“Nambiar and Kutty were good assets for Indian athletics”, he said once.

He would seek information about coaches and athletes, their welfare. He kept in touch with C. M. Muthiah’s family till the latter breathed his last in Bangalore last December.

It was Mr. Saini who advised Gurbachan Singh Randhawa to give decathlon a try, Randhawa, who was to place fifth in the 110m hurdles in Tokyo Olympics 1964, beat Muthiah in the decathlon in 1960 National in Delhi. Randhawa went on to win the Asian Games gold in decathlon in Jakarta in 1962.

“He was sharp, he remembered everything from the past. He had this capacity to get across a point to people”, said Randhawa as we talked about Saini saab the other day.

One episode stands out for me. It was Asian Games year 2018. One was writing about India’s athletics prospects. Naturally, a chat with Saini saab was a must. As I started recalling medals from the past games, he reminded me about the 1978 Games in Bangkok where Indian athletes took eight gold medals, the country’s best to date.

“Let me recall our medal winners”, he said. I had the list, but wanted to listen to him. He reeled off not only all the names of the gold winners but also that of the silver (7) and bronze (3) medal winners. He was the head coach with the team. “We had just two coaches including myself”.

“Such memory sir?” one posed. “Of course I do remember all of them”, he said.

Saini saab was concerned about the doping menace among Indian athletes. As the junior national coach he had once in the 90s dumped more than a dozen athletes from an Indian team for doping offence when it was scheduled to compete in the Asian junior championships.

Much later, he realized doping had come to stay in Indian athletics. Just like many of the keen followers of the sport at home, he put much of the blame on foreign coaches though he did accept that some of the Indian coaches, too, had gained “specialization” under them.

Despite having done a course in Berlin in the 1960s and gained from it, he was not a fan of “training abroad” or foreign coaches.  He was concerned about the stagnation levels, especially among the 400 runners despite training in Europe in 2016 and 2019.

Punjab Chief Minister Capt Amarinder Singh honours J. S. Saini at a function in November 2019

He was conferred with the Dronacharya award in 1997. He was honoured, along with several other Punjab sports personalities by the Punjab Government last November.

“I have received more honours than I deserve”, he said a day after the he was honoured by Chief Minister Amarinder Singh at Kapurthala. He made light of the seven-hour up and down road travel needed for the awards ceremony.

But then that was nothing compared to the regular 12-hour up and down road travel he undertook rom Patiala fto attend selection committee and other meetings of the AFI in Delhi for years, even after turning 90. He didn’t attend the last one in February, though.

In November, 2018, he was advised to have a pacemaker. He managed quite well after that, cheerful and ready to engage one in athletics talk. Alas, it was not his heart that failed him eventually. A bull attacked him near his residence when he had stepped out for a walk. He suffered serious injuries, was hospitalized and passed away a few days later.

I have lost a friend and guide, Indian athletics its Bhishma Pitamah.  Rest in peace Sir.

(Updated March 13, 2020).

Five gold medal-winning athletes in Asian Games not tested by NADA, many others too spared!

Muhammed Anas (leading here) and Arokia Rajiv at the Asian
championships in 2017. Both were among those not tested by
NADA in 2018 before Asian Games_Pic G. Rajaraman

Five of the six individual gold medal winners in athletics at the Asian Games were not tested out of competition by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) prior to the event in Jakarta-Palembang last year.

Ten of the 25 athletes in the NADA Registered Testing Pool (RTP) were not tested at all out of competition in 2018. Nine other athletes in the pool were tested once out of competition through the year in clear breach of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regulations.

These startling revelations in the testing statistics, made available by NADA, has strengthened the belief that NADA has been either trying to “protect” the leading athletes or is disinterested in catching the dope cheats among the top track and field athletes of the country. Whether the malady extended to other sports as well or not will require detailed review by a competent authority.

Out-of-competition testing is the foundation on which anti-doping measures have to be built. Leading athletes have to be monitored and tested so that they keep away from the temptation of consuming performance-enhancing drugs.

In the majority of cases in 2018, NADA seemed to have allowed the top athletes an out-of-competition dope-test-free window of four to six months in the run-up to the Asian Games. Was it done unwittingly, or was there complicity? These are questions that come up the moment one is struck by the staggering statistics of out-of-competition testing in athletics in 2018.

Anti-doping is a cat-and-mouse game. The element of surprise in testing an athlete is the key to catching a dope cheat. An anti-doping authority has to draw up the best possible test distribution plan (TDP) to ensnare the offenders. It is often a difficult task since the dopers know when to make themselves available for testing so that they would not get caught.

Those who fall easily into the trap are amateurs or else the odd experienced elite athlete who might have made a slight miscalculation in the “tapering off” process to fall into the trap. Positive tests during competitions are rare. The dopers are clever enough to avoid a positive test.

It is foolish to imagine that athletes would come into competition stuffed with steroids or take a shot of stimulant mephentermine just before “call room” entry. Professionals know when and how to do it and escape detection, often with the help of support staff.

‘Whereabouts’ testing

 Fie of the six individual gold medal winners in athletics at the Asian Games were not tested out of 

One of the instruments that the WADA has devised for the purpose of taking a prospective cheat by surprise is the RTP. It allows an authority to keep track of an athlete every day of the year at a pre-designated place so that the athlete does not evade testers. In theory, at least, that is the idea. In practice, we do know there are many loopholes to evade and explain an absence.

This is called “whereabouts”-based testing. Athletes are required to provide locations they would be available at for at least one hour every day so that testers can come and take samples if required. Three missed tests or filing failures can attract a suspension ranging up to two years.

The Asian Games year should have been crucial in terms of tracking the top athletes who had the best chance to bring home medals. NADA not only failed to effect changes in its outdated testing pool but also failed to test those in the RTP with any meaningful periodicity in mind.

Ten of the 25 athletes in the pool were not tested out of competition, four of them not undergoing any test at all through the year.

Ten others in the 25 were tested once out of competition, most of them after the Asian Games or just weeks before the Games, making it meaningless for the purpose of catching them by surprise if they were into doping.

Surprisingly, javelin thrower Annu Rani was tested five times out of competition last year, the most in track and field. She was also tested at four competitions. Initially rejected by the selection committee since she failed to come up to expectations in the confirmatory trials, she was included in the squad at the last moment but finished poorly with 53.93m for sixth. She was selected on the basis of her Inter-Railway meet performance of 58.17m.

No test in April

Amazingly, NADA did not conduct a single out-of-competition test in athletics in April last year. That should have been the beginning of a concerted effort to chase the dopers down in athletics in the build-up towards the Asian Games. From May, NADA managed 38 tests up to 31 July with 11 of them coming from the relay camp in the Czech Republic on 29 July and four from Thimphu, Bhutan, where the middle distance and distance runners were based, a day later.

The July-end testing, with the Asian Games athletics events scheduled to begin on 28 August, was of very little relevance from an anti-doping perspective. If NADA was looking for the red-blood-cell-boosting erythropoietin (EPO), it was ill-timed. No one wanting to use EPO would have done it with 25 days to go for the competition. It would be of little use. The closer to competition the better it would be. The fact that Monika Chaudhary, a middle-distance runner at the Thimphu camp was caught for EPO doping in the retrials in Delhi, indicated that EPO was much relevant in the Indian scenario.

The July and August out-of-competition testing by NADA looked a desperate measure, either to fulfill the requirement of testing all the competitors before the Games or to boost number of samples. It was a failure.

NADA went into overdrive in the month of December. It looked to achieve two targets – increase the overall number of tests, and show somehow that the leading athletes were indeed tested out of competition during the year, forget for a moment the Asian Games were over.

From August to December NADA did 162 out-of-competition tests in athletics with the last month of the year contributing a whopping 111. Had these 162 tests come in May-July, there might have been a different tale to tell. One is not suggesting that Indian athletes were on drugs. Far from it. Often, we are told, our athletes do not know what doping is, and what the names of the drugs are! This might be difficult to believe in today’s world of dope-driven athletics.

But NADA is expected to do its duty all the same. Instead of concentrating on junior athletes as it did in its out-of-competition testing in May last year for no apparent reason, NADA should have been expected to focus its attention on senior campers, at home and abroad. They were left alone.

NADA, which became functional in January 2009, started its domestic RTP in May 2015. The RTP took its own time to evolve. At first, there was no clear-cut policy in adding or excluding athletes in the list. From an original list of 40 track and field athletes, it grew to a total of 178 sportspersons including 64 athletes in November 2017.

This looked good on the eve of the Asian Games and Commonwealth Games year. NADA was tightening up the screws against dope cheats, one thought. But suddenly, it whittled the list down to 113, which was 65 less than the previous figure. Worse, athletics was cut down from 64 to 25.

Why should there have been extra focus on athletics? Both in 2017 (21 positive cases) and 2016 (23), athletics had topped the dopers’ charts. Weightlifting was always a close second if it was not on top among the Olympic disciplines. Athletes needed closer monitoring and so, too, weightlifting.

NADA, unfortunately, had an outdated RTP list in May-June, 2018 (whittled down from 64 and updated from Nov 2017) a list that contained many an inactive athlete or athletes who were no longer leading in their events or those whose inclusion in the first place defied logic.

It should not have been too much of a problem to compile a list of athletes who were prominent and among the medal-contenders in the Asian Games, at the beginning of 2018, based on the list of campers, NADA’s own RTP at that time (2017) and current performances, if any available. NADA apparently bungled.

An invitation to dope?

Overconfident much of the time in its own approach, having a philosophy “let’s not hound the athletes” and “you can’t test the same athlete over and over again”, NADA left a huge vacuum in its out-of-competition testing in the lead-up to the Asian Games that looked an invitation to dope.

Most of the leading athletes were not tested between 5 March and 25 June, the gap between the Fed Cup and the inter-State meet, the two competitions that formed the final selection trials for the Commonwealth Games and the Asian Games respectively. One would have thought they would have been tested at least twice during the intervening period.

There is a catchy line that the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) has adopted: “Our athletes do not dope, they don’t have a chance to dope in camps since testers arrive every other day.”

AFI President Adille Sumariwalla on 2 August last year tweeted: “AFI has always said that in national camp athletes are tested every few days and if they are stupid to dope, they will get caught. Hence the extra smart ones either don’t dope or avoid camp.”

Three of those who competed in the Asian Games (quarter-miler Nirmala Sheoran, distance runner Sanjivani Jadhav and discus thrower Sandeep Kumari) tested positive after the Games in re-tests ordered by WADA. Two others who were part of the national camps at some stage or the other, middle distance runner Jhuma Khatun and shot putter Naveen Chikara also tested positive. Jadhav has since been handed out a two-year suspension by the IAAF. This May, Asian Championships gold medallist Marimuthu Gomathi tested positive. AFI can no longer say athletes in camps do not dope.

As for the NADA testers whom AFI keeps referring to, they might have spent time in camps, but did they actually test the elite bunch of athletes there? ‘No’ is the unfortunate answer. Manjit Singh (800m), Jinson Johnson (1500m), Tejinder Pal Singh Toor (shot put), Neeraj Chopra (javelin) and Swapna Barman (heptathlon), the eventual gold medallists in the Asian Games, were not tested out-of-competition prior to the Games.

Could NADA have foreseen the gold medals in the Asian Games and concentrated on the above athletes? No.

Could it have focused at least on its RTP athletes among them and tested them more? Yes.

Johnson, who was in the Bhutan camp but was not tested though a few others were tested there, along with Chopra and Barman were among the registered pool athletes. Going by the WADA guidelines and the logic behind whereabouts-based testing, they should have been subjected to at least three tests during the course of the year. They were not.

Johnson was tested out of competition once on 22 December and Chopra twice, on 21 October and 21 December. Barman underwent no out-of-competition test at all through 2018. In fact, the only in-competition test that she was subjected to in the year (outside of any test she might have undergone by an international agency) was at the inter-State meet in Guwahati on 29 June last year, when she took the title, got selected for Asian Games and went onto win gold in Jakarta despite an assortment of injuries that she had suffered.

Triple jumper Arpinder Singh was the lone gold medallist tested out of competition before the Asian Games. He was tested on 7 March, a day before his competition in the Fed Cup. He was tested again in-competition. It was illogical but it prevented a clean sweep of the eventual gold medal winners in Jakarta being omitted for out-of-competition testing prior to the Games.

Among the silver medallists at the Asian Games, Dutee Chand (100m, 200m) and Muhammed Anas (400m) were not tested out of competition by NADA through the year. It must be noted here that Anas (also shot putter Tejinder Toor) was in the registered pool of the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) in 2018 and might have been tested. That also could have been the reason behind NADA not testing him on 29 July in Jablonec, Czech Republic, where it tested almost all the campers preparing for the Asian Games. There was no bar on NADA testing him there, however.

Tests poorly timed

Considering that the athletics events were starting on 25 August, the tests conducted by NADA in Europe prior to the Asiad, probably outsourced to another agency, were not ideally timed. That it did arrange for tests abroad was laudable. More such ‘missions’ especially during a long Europe training programme of athletics, an integral part of the preparations nowadays, will assure ‘clean’ athletes that NADA means business.

Long jumper Neena Varakil (one out-of-competition test in August 2018) and steeplechaser Sudha Singh (one test in January 2018) were among the silver medallists tested before the Asian Games. The relay team members, both male and female, except Muhammed Anas and Arokia Rajiv, were tested at Jablonec, Czech Republic, on 29 July, 2018.

The two bronze medallists in the Asian Games, discus thrower Seema Antil Punia, and middle-distance runner PU Chithra, were not tested out of competition before the Asiad. Punia was tested once, on 8 March, at the Federation Cup at Patiala, and it was shown as out of competition which it was not. She underwent no other tests throughout the year. She competed in only one competition at home in 2018. Nothing has been heard of Antil Punia this year except that she had been training in Russia. Chithra was tested at Patiala in March and at Guwahati in June, both in-competition tests.

The oft-repeated claims of AFI about constant testing at camps become mute when one asks the number of times each athlete had been tested. “NADA will know that,” is the stock reply.

Now, we have numbers.

In a meagre total of 252 out-of-competition samples in athletics (13.07 percent) out of 1927 samples across all sports, NADA could not test 78 among 137 campers (base number from February 2018). That is nearly 57 percent of the athletics campers went without an out-of-competition test in 2018!

WADA wants NADA to do more out-of-competition tests than in-competition testing. That simply looks beyond the capacity of NADA. In 2018, it did 4194 samples in total in all sports, out of which 1927 (45.94 percent) were out of competition. There are plans to target more this year, perhaps even double last year’s count. But the positive results are also steeply climbing. This is where NADA and the government’s dilemma comes in. More adverse results would mean the dubious distinction of being among the top-three or top-six as had been the case in the past.

Will WADA be tempted to investigate the lack of adequate out-of-competition testing in India in the crucial months of April-July 2018? It had done an investigation into the Jamaican anti-doping commission (JADCO) doing just one random test between March and July in 2012 in the run-up to the London Olympics, as revealed by the former JADCO Executive Director, Renee Anne-Shirley. Nothing was known about the outcome of the “extraordinary audit” done by WADA following the allegation. WADA had done a ‘compliance audit’ of NADA in March 2018.

Should India go all out and catch more cheats or should NADA apply the brakes and bring the numbers down? That question will keep coming up for NADA and the sports ministry, especially when multi-discipline games or World Championships are round the corner. The recent statement in Parliament by the sports minister, Kiren Rijiju, that 187 positive cases were reported during the 2018-2019 financial year is an admission that doping goes on unabated in the country.

(This story was first published in Firstpost on July 23, 2019)