USADA’s one-year suspension of Tyson Gay leaves too many questions unanswered

So, Tyson Gay gets one year for a steroid! There are others who have served or are serving two-year suspensions for the use of cannabis!

Is this fair?

The attempt here is not to condone the use of recreational drugs, but to delve into the issues that surround this curious case of this American sprinter, the second fastest man in athletics history (9.69s for 100m), who had been an ambassador for the USADA in its ‘Project Believe’ programme in which athletes offer themselves to be tested additional times.

We do not have all the facts leading up to this one-year sanction imposed by the USADA and unless the US anti-doping body reveals all that contributed to this decision, there is going to be speculation only.

Amidst speculation, we can analyze the rules and see whether the USADA decision can fit into the WADA Code and the rules of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and what could be lying ahead in case there is to be an appeal by these bodies to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Gay tested positive for_we now know_a steroid on three occasions in June, 2013, two out-of-competition tests and one in-competition test at the US championships that served as the trials for the 2013 World Athletics Championships in Moscow. Since all the three tests were conducted in quick succession, the offence has been treated as just one, as per rules.

Could it be testosterone or nandrolone?

The fact that an IRMS (isotope ratio mass spectrometry) analysis was done to determine whether the substance came from within the body or outside may indicate that it could be testosterone or nandrolone or any of their metabolites or precursors.

We don’t know whether there was a disciplinary panel hearing. The USADA statement simply says, Tyson Gay accepted “loss of results dating back to July 15, 2012 and a one-year suspension for his anti-doping rule violation”.

Gay has returned the 4x100m relay silver medal from the London Olympics. The US team as a whole stands to lose its medal.

The admission by the athlete he had started using a product that contained a prohibited substance on and subsequent to July 15, 2012, raises the question, “how could he have avoided a positive test since then, through the London Olympics, and up to June, 2013?”

Obviously, there is more to this story. So, we should wait for the complete facts to be brought out either through a detailed USADA statement or through an appeal.

The USADA statement says Gay was eligible for up to three-quarter reduction of the otherwise two-year sanction under the Code (or a six-month suspension) for the “substantial assistance” provided to it in investigating the circumstances of his positive test.

What the rules say

This is where the interpretation of the rules could get blurred.

Article 10.5.3 (substantial assistance) of the Code says  an anti-doping agency may “suspend a part of the period of ineligibility imposed in an individual case” where the athlete has provided substantial assistance which results in establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person or leads to establishing a criminal offence.

After a final appellate decision, the agency can suspend a period of ineligibility only with the concurrence of WADA and the concerned international federation. In this case, the IAAF rules say that its Doping Review Board has to agree to the contention.

“Suspend a part of the period of ineligibility imposed in an individual case” can only mean, a panel would have imposed a sanction and an agency, in consideration for the ‘substantial assistance’ provided by the athlete, was “suspending” a portion of the period pending a final appeal by agencies having the right of appeal.

That Gay stayed away from all competitions and withdrew from the US team for the Worlds when he was notified of his positive dope test should not mean anything. A provisional suspension, after an initial review, is mandatory under the rules when an ‘A’ sample returns positive.

A dope doctor or a rogue company?

It is possible that the USADA may have tracked down someone or some company engaged in some illegal activity and may hand over the case soon to relevant authorities or is poised to charge another athlete or athletes.

It is a different matter whether that sort of ‘culmination’ of ‘substantial assistance’ would satisfy the IAAF or WADA.

There had been reports in the US media suggesting that Gay could have used a ‘cream’ prescribed to him by an Atlanta-based “anti-ageing specialist”.

An agency that painstakingly pieced together a mountainous volume of evidence against Lance Armstrong resulting in his life ban can only be expected to come out with the ‘whole truth’ in this case at some point of time. We shall wait for the USADA to complete its 'ongoing investigations'.