CWG athletics preview (part 2)

Glasgow (Indian) preview-Part II

Women

Saradha Narayana and M. R. Poovamma have been entered in the individual 100 and 400 respectively. Invariably the team management prevents such runners from competing in the individual events, once the time comes for confirming entries on the spot, saying that they would be better off preserving their energies for the relays. Poovamma, with a PB of 51.73, is in a position to make the final in the one-lap race.

800m-The Kenyans have been strong in this event and with World champion Eunice Sum in great touch this season, it doesn’t look to be going different in Glasgow. There are a clutch of women behind the Kenyans (the other being former world champion and Olympic silver medallist in 2008, Janeth Jepkosgei) who are all capable of gunning for the medals. In such company Tintu Luka might yet again find it tough to make a dash for a minor medal. P. T. Usha’s trainee has been prepared well this season and she is confident of bettering her National record. But that alone may not be sufficient to get a medal. Invariably, the pace in an 800 metres is dictated by the favourite unless a ‘rabbit’ is allowed to take the rest through a fast first lap. Tintu often tries to keep pace with the leaders nowadays instead of front-running. Yet, on the backstraight it still becomes a struggle for her to keep pace. And by the time the last 200 metres comes Tintu starts drifting a bit, losing touch with the leaders. Her lack of finish has been her Achilles at the international level and it continues to stall her in her quest for greater glory.  It will be a great achievement if Tintu can grab a medal in such company. Ugandan Winnie Nanyondo (SB 1,58.63),  Scot Lynsey Sharp (1,59.67), Canadian Melissa Bishop (1,59.70) and England’s Jessica Judd (1,59.77) are likely to be the other contenders with whom Tintu will have to slug it out through the final 150 metres. Will she produce a finish hitherto unseen? Prelims July 30, Final July 31.

400m hurdles- Ashwini Akkunji, returning to big-time competition after her doping suspension in 2011, is more determined than ever before to prove herself, if media reports are any indication.  With her season best 57.43, not a bad effort considering the time gap from her last competitive hurdles, Ashwini is not among the top 12 entries in these Games. Since she is only a reserve in the 4x400m relay, she would be allowed to run her individual race and it should do her some good towards her preparations for the Asian Games where she is the defending champion and might stand a better chance. Heats July 30, Final July 31.

High jump-At the Commonwealth level this is one of the women’s events where there is only a limited world-class talent on display. And that should certainly help India’s Sahana Kumari aim for a medal, provided she jumps at her best (1.92) or close to that. She had disappointed in the Olympics in 2012 by clearing just 1.80 in the qualification round after having set that National record of 1.92 in Hyderabad. She jumped a season best 1.83 in New Delhi in the last CWG to be joint fourth when the title went for 1.92. The top contender this time is the 18-year-old World Youth champion from Australia, Elenor Patterson who has a season best of 1.94 and PB of 1.96 achieved in 2013. She has seven career marks over 1.92. Cypriot Leonita Kallenou has jumped a National record 1.92 this May and also has two other marks of 1.90 or better this season. England’s Isobel Pooley is a 1.91 jumper. The others are either in the same range this season as Sahana (1.89) or lower.  The 33-year-old Karnataka star can surely make a determined effort to be among the medals. Prelims July 30, Final July 31.

Difficult for Mayookha

Long jump-Mayookha Johny’s young career has seen ups and downs like no one else’s has in recent years. Touted as the most outstanding talent since Anju Bobby George, Mayookha is yet to realize her potential. At least that is what coaches say. She missed a medal in the last CWG when M. A. Prajusha pulled of a surprise silver in long jump. The gold went for 6.50 while Mayookha had jumped  6.64 in New Delhi just three months earlier.  Mayookha managed only 6.30 for the sixth place. Nerves perhaps.

This time it will be more difficult for the Kerala athlete to snatch a medal. The field is expected to contain Nigerian Blessing Okagbare who took a surprise bronze in the 2008 Olympics  and claimed the silver at the 2013 World Championships.

It will also have Englishwoman Shara Proctor (SB 6.82), Canadian Christable Nettey (6.73), Australians Brooke Stratton (6.70) and Margaret Gayen (6.62), Nigerian Esa Brume (6.68) and Bianca Stuart of the Bahamas (6.65). (The entries here are taken from the Glasgow 2014 website. These are not from start-lists). Mayookha’s best this season is  6.56.

Prelims July 30, Final July 31.

Samuels looks favourite

Discus-This is the event where India expects to get two medals, from both its contestants, the defending champion Krishna Poonia and Seema Antil. India had swept the medals last time at home, with Harwant Kaur taking the silver. Harwant did not compete in Lucknow, nursing a back injury. Otherwise there was a good possibility of her name being included in the squad.

The difference between 2010 and now is the presence of former World champion Dani Samuels of Australia. She had opted out of the New Delhi Games and, post-Games, almost clashed with Poonia in a winner-take-all duel that failed to come off eventually. She has her chance to prove a point. For that matter Poonia has her chance to prove that she is the best in Commonwealth.

Samuels is in the form of her life this season and should start firm favourite to win a title she might have been eyeing in 2010 when she missed even coming to Delhi. She touched a PB of 67.99 at Wiesbaden, Germany, on May 10 this year and has two other marks over 67 metres this season apart from four other results over 65 metres. These are impressive credentials as she stages a comeback into the top four bracket in the world after having struggled a bit during the past three years.

Poonia, a finalist at the London Olympics, has also coped with injuries for some time. She has a best of 59.17 for the season which was good enough to cement her selection (even when she was short of the standard she was picked) but the fact that she has not crossed 60 since 2012 should be a cause for worry in the Indian camp.

The tussle between Poonia and Seema Antil is too well known. Seema, who also has trained in the US this season, like Poonia, has a season best 59.72. She crossed 62 in 2012 for the first time since 2004 but was down to a best of 56.37 last year.

We are in the dark about Poonia and Antil’s form this season since both have not competed in many meets. In fact Antil has done only one while Poonia has participated in three.

Jamaican Kellion Knibb (PB 61.34 this May), New Zealnder Siositina Hakeal (59.65) and Jamaican Danniel Thomas (59.38) are the other contestants who may spoil India’s target of two medals from discus, which, outside of Samuels, does not have a top-20 performer in the world this season.

Prelims July 31, Final Aug 1

Javelin- Annu Rani’s National record of 58.83 set at the Lucknow inter-State, which ranks 36th in the world for the season,  is dwarfed by the Commonwealth topper this season, Kim Mickle’s 66.83. The Aussie will have two more from her country for company, Kathryn Mitchell (66.10) and Kelsey-Lee Roberts (63.92). The experienced South African Sunette Viljoen (PB 69.35, SB 64.77) and Englishwoman Goldie Sayers (62.75) will complete the leading lineup. In fact this event is one of the toughest in women’s throws  in the games in terms of having top-ranked athletes in the fray, with Liz Gleadle of Canada (64.50) another top-10 performer this season along with Mickle, Mitchell and Viljoen. Do we need to discus Annu Rani’s prospects further?

Prelims July 29, Final July 30.

Relay chances

4x100m relay-Last time’s sensational feat of a medal will not be repeated this time, though there are reports to suggest that coaches and others were excited about the trial timing of 44.99. There are six teams from the Commonwealth which have run below 44 seconds this season, most of them at the World Relays at Nassau, Bahamas.  You can’t expect four of them to either drop a baton or cross the ‘zone’! It should be considered a good achievement if the Indian team makes it to the final. Heats Aug 1, Final Aug 2.

4x400m relay-That moment at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium in 2010 is etched in memory. As a crowd of more than 60,000 roared them towards a historic gold medal, Indian athletics seemed to have made a mark for itself in the world arena. A bunch of ‘village girls’ had pulled off the impossible. A year later the world came crashing down on almost all of them when the doping scandal struck. By 2012, even with the key members of the team under suspension, people still talked about India getting an Olympic medal in London if the girls could return to the mainstream!

So, what are the prospects in Glasgow? If you keep a target of 3,32 for the Indian team which has clocked 3,32 last year and during trials, it will be around seventh in the Commonwealth lists for the season. Jamaica tops at 3,23.26 followed by Nigeria at 3,23.41.

A medal then looks remote. A place in the final might just be true reward for a bunch of hard-working girls who are trying to contribute their share towards rebuilding a team.

Heats Aug 1, Final Aug 2

Post-script-The start-lists for the opening day's programme on July 27, now available, show both Saradha and Poovamma having been entered in the 100m and 400m respectively, much against the practice followed through the years. Saradha may only have a slim chance of going through the opening round while Poovamma, as stated earlier here, has the credentials to make the final.

Two-part CWG athletics prevew

Glasgow (Indian) preview part I

With time almost running out for attempting an assessment of the Indian athletics team at Glasgow, here is an analysis of the events in which Indian athletes figure in the Commonwealth Games.

The year 2010 was an exceptional year for Indian athletics. A dozen medals in the Commonwealth Games followed by 11 medals in the Asian Games in Guangzhou gave a healthy picture of the sport in the country. But the scourge of doping came up in 2011 to almost negate the sense of “well being” that had developed post-2010 CWG.

Since then Indian athletics has been on top of the dope charts around the world, along with Russia. We can dismiss this phenomenon arguing that it is the “lower level” athletes who are doing this in order to gain employment in Government departments or it is the “recreational athletes” etc. The fact remains doping is deep-rooted in Indian athletics.

It is natural only that the performance of 2010 would not be repeated in Glasgow. Home advantage is of considerable importance in any sport, especially so in athletics, as it turned out in the New Delhi Games. Four medals this time should be a fair target for India. Anything more will be a bonus. The least could be a medal each in men’s and women’s discus.

The 32-member Indian athletics squad at Glasgow includes three relay teams, the men’s 4x400 and the women’s 4x100 and 4x400, accounting for 18 members of the overall team. Initially the men’s 4x100 team was also chosen but despite three attempts it could not  come close to the cut-off mark of 39.35s.

Assessment

Here is an assessment of India’s prospects in the athletics events at Glasgow

Men 

110m hurdles-With a best 13.84 in Lucknow, Siddhanth Thingalaya was still well short of the standard of 13.64 to gain selection. Eventually the selectors  considered his season best 13.76 in the US and his potential to provide him the chance. He had missed a qualification norm for London Olympics as he came crashing down in Brussels, Belgium while posting a national record of 13.65s, injuring his hamstring in the process. The 23-year-old Maharashtra man is a talented hurdler but in world-class company he may find it difficult to cross the first round. Heats and final July 29.

Triple jump-

Renjith Maheswary’s failure to achieve a standard and young Arpinder Singh’s sensational National record of 17.17 at the Lucknow inter-State meet were some of the highlights of the build-up for these Games. With that 17-metre-plus mark 21 year-old Arpinder jumped to the top of the season lists for both the Commonwealth and Asian countries. He is a medal contender all right, but not the outright favourite. In fact there are no clear favourites in triple jump with the more experienced Phillips Idowu of England (second in CW list with 16.99m) showing inconsistency for the season. Lattario Collie-Minns of the Bahamas, World Youth champion in 2011, looked to have emerged as a strong contender early season with his 16.91 in the Kansas Relays, apart from his indoor effort of 16.80 in March. But in May he came down to 16.30. Arpinder also was down to 16.25 in the first week of July. The other contenders could be Englishmen Nathan Fox (PB 16.69 this season) and Nathan Douglas (PB 17.64, season best 16.65). It looks an open contest with Arpinder in with a chance to earn a medal to emulate Renjith’s feat in 2010. Prelims Aug 1, final Aug 2.

Shot put-

Om Prakash Singh Karhana went to the US to train this season instead of his normal base  at Szombathely, Hungary.  He is reported to have crossed the standard of 19.79 in some meet in the US. His selection was not a smooth affair. His recorded best for the season, available on the IAAF website is 19.02 . There are two athletes, Kiwi Tom Walsh (21.23) and Jamaican O’Dayne Richards (21.11) who are in the 21-metre-plus bracket among Commonwealth athletes. Then there are at least six others in the 20-metre group this season. It will be tough for Om Prakash to get a decent placing. Prelims July 27, final July 28.

Can Gowda win the gold?

Discus- 

All Indian eyes would be on Vikas Gowda. He had taken the silver at home last time and has risen in stature since, making the London Olympics final and being a consistent top 10 performer in the world. With Jamaican Fedrick Dacres, season leader among CW athletes at 66.75, who is also a former World Youth and Junior champion, not named in his country’s squad, it will now come down to a straight contest between Gowda and Australian Ben Harradine, the defending champion. Harradine is slightly ahead for the season at 65.94. That should not matter at all. What may matter is the fact that Harradine has better consistency through his career and this season for marks over 65 metres. The Australian has crossed 63 metres eight times (not counting within series) this season from 11 meets while Gowda has done that four times from seven meets. Harradine has the edge in overall head to head at 7-6, with scores alevel at 1-1 this season. Gowda was fifth at Hengelo where Harradine was sixth while Harradine was sixth at New York where Gowda was eighth.

Harradine has a personal best of 68.20 and has another 67-plus career mark apart from four other marks over 66 metres. Gowda, in contrast, has a PB of 66.28 which is the National record he set at Norman, USA, in April, 2012. He has not crossed 66 metres since. The Mysore-born US-based 31-year-old Indian has three other performances over 65 metres.

The other strong contender in discus could be Julian Wruck, also of Australia, a 11^th place finisher at the 2013 World Championships. The 23-year-old Wruck was eighth at the Delhi CWG. He has shown good form this season with a best of 65.01 and has six other marks over 63 metres. Jamaica’s  31-year-old Jason Morgan (PB 67.15, SB 64.12) could also be a contender for a minor medal.

Prelims July 30, Final July 31.

Hammer-

One little known fact this season has been the National record of 70.37 set by Kamalpreet Singh in the US. He was still slightly short of the then standard of 70.58. Once Chandrodaya Singh, with his 69.34 at Lucknow, was chosen, it became clear that the AFI had gone back to the third place of the New Delhi Games which happened to be 69.34. Kamalpreet’s fate still hung in the balance since he had apparently not sought the clearance from the federation before leaving for US for training and competitions. He could be a minor medal contender in Glasgow. Jim Steacy of Canada (SB 75.27), Nick Miller (74.38) and Alex Smith (73.52) of England and Mark Dry (73.27) and Chris Bennett (72.58) of Scotland are the main contenders.

Prelims July 28, Final July 29

Three men to try to emulate coach

Javelin-

India surprisingly has three representatives in this event. Kashinath Naik, now a coach in the current team, had won a surprise bronze on the last occasion. There is little possibility of a medal for India this time. The best Indian this season, Ravinder Singh Khaira (78.02) is only eighth best in the field, headed by Kenyan Julius Yego (84.44) who was seventh in the 2010 CWG but was a finalist in the London Olympics and was fourth at the 2013 World Championships. The favourite could still be London Olympic champion Keshorn Walcott of Trinidad and Tobago, though his season best is only 83.94.

Walcott has a 3-1 record against Yego, but the Kenyan’s lone finish ahead of the Olympic champion came this season, at Shanghai, where he took fourth and Walcott ended up seventh. Closer to the Games, it is Walcott who has shown the touch that matters with an 82.90 at Sopot on July 20. It should be close fight between Walcott and Yego.

Among the other contenders are Australians Joshua Robinson (SB 82.48) and Hamish Peacock (SB 82.24), South African Rocco vn Rooyen (SB 80.10) and Kiwi Stuart Farquar (SB 79.69) who was silver medallist in New Delhi.

India’s second and third entries, Devinder Singh (SB 76.60) and Vipin Kasana (SB 75.57) can only hope for a place in the final. Javelin was one of the events in which the AFI diluted its norms from the original standards, going back to the third place of the New Delhi Games rather than pegging it to match the performance at the Melbourne Games in 2006. Prelims Aug 1, final Aug 2.

4x400m relay-

The selection criterion was 3, 03.97. The team managed only 3,06. The argument in favour was generally these athletes do not get any exposure and it could be a good build up for the Asian Games.  At least eight Commonwealth countries have clocked better than 3,05 this season, with the Bahamas at 2,57.59. A forecast is meaningless here. Let the team gain some experience. Prelims Aug 1, Final Aug 2.
(Women's preview in part-2)

Stick to the Code

It has now become fashionable to talk of “strictest action” and “zero tolerance” when it comes to doping instances in India.

“We will deal with such cases sternly” or “we do not tolerate such practice” are common refrains.

No one tolerates it in the world. Not openly any way!

The latest expression of an Indian official towards asserting his or his organisation’s ‘zero tolerance’ suggests sanctions beyond the scope of the rules. It also exceeds the powers of the organization itself.

The context here is the ‘positive’ test returned by India’s para powerlifter Sachin Chaudhary that forced him to return to the country from Glasgow where he was part of the Commonwealth Games contingent.

Initially withdrawn on the pretext of his father being ill, it turned out that he had tested positive in an out-of-competition test done by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) in India.

Now, at least one official of the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) is making statements to confirm the violation. Unfortunately he is also going beyond his brief to threaten a life ban on the athlete.

The threat

"Sachin`s dope sample taken by the NADA on June 23 was found to be positive for a banned substance and now he will give his B sample. We will take a decision after the result of B sample comes. We don`t tolerate doping by our athletes," PCI Secretary J Chandrasekhar told PTI.

"Surely, we will punish him and we are even thinking of slapping a life ban on him," said Chandrasekhar, though it is not known whether an athlete can be handed a straight life ban on his first dope offence, the PTI report said.

Sport is played or conducted as per rules. Doping sanctions are also as per rules. There is a process that has to be gone through. An athlete is given an opportunity to explain the ‘positive’ result. A hearing panel listens to arguments on behalf of the athlete as well as the prosecuting agency before arriving at a decision. It goes strictly by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) Code.

And there is no life ban for a first offence under the Code for an adverse analytical finding.

Even in the case of “aggravating circumstances” under the 2009 Code, the punishment is double that of the standard sanction of two years.

PCI has to follow rules

The PCI is an affiliate of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) which in turn is a WADA Code signatory. If the IPC follows the Code, then it becomes mandatory for the PCI to follow it.

In India, the NADA conducts all dope tests, processes all doping charges and brings forward cases before the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP). The panel, chaired by retired judge Dinesh Dayal, after hearings, decides on the quantum of punishment. A steroid offence does not necessarily get the maximum sanction. A case by case evaluation is made by the panels.

If any of the parties concerned does not agree with the decision and wishes to challenge it, there is a National Anti Doping Appeal Panel (NADAP) where an appeal can be filed.

‘International-level’ athletes have to file their appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Lausanne-based court that deals with sports-related cases. The definition of ‘international-level’ is determined by the rules of the concerned International Federation.

Right of appeal

Once decisions are handed out and conveyed to the respective organizations in India by NADA (or by the International Federation as the case may be in instances where the International Federation would have directly handled a case reported in an international competition or in an out-of-competition test conducted by it), the athlete gets an opportunity to file an appeal.

The federations have no say in the conduct of tests or in the quantum of sanctions. They also do not have the right of appeal (as per NADA rules) while the International Federations, NADA and the WADA have that right, apart from the athlete.

It may be recalled, in 2005, following the Athens Olympics doping scandal the Indian weightlifting federation and the Indian Olympic Association had banned lifters Sanamacha Chanu and Sunaina Anand for life along with coach Pal Singh Sandhu.

(Sunaina’s happened to be a case unrelated to the Olympics while in Athens the second lifter to test positive was Pratima Kumari. She approached the court then and thus the initial decision pertained to the other two lifters).

WADA reminder in Chanu's case

A reminder from WADA that while it appreciated the IOA’s tough stand against doping, there was a need to follow rules and those rules mandated only a maximum of two years sanction led to the IOA lifting the life ban. (Chanu is currently serving an eight-year ban, having committed a second offence in 2010).

WADA has, in other cases in other countries also, stepped in to correct ‘arbitray’ life bans or bans for excessive periods outside the purview of the Code.

Thus it would be prudent to be on the side of the Code for the PCI rather than contemplate life ban on any athlete. More importantly, it should allow the process to get completed and wait for NADA to intimate the decision, whether about provisional suspension or a lengthier sanction after a proper hearing.

And this simple philosophy should apply to all such National Federations in India which keep talking of “zero tolerance” and “we will be tough” stuff.

“We suspend them immediately” is another oft-heard refrain in such cases. An immediate suspension is a provisional suspension imposed by NADA and enforced by the federation concerned.  The federations on their own do not have the right to impose it since before it is imposed an athlete has to be given a provisional hearing which is the responsibility of the testing authority, in this case NADA.

“We did not spare anyone who was found doping” is another common refrain. The federations do not get a chance to spare anyone under the NADA regime or the Code. The hearing panels, where the federations (at least most of them) do not even bother to attend proceedings, decide on the quantum of sanctions.

Rhetoric is fine when it appears in print or on the web or is heard on TV. It might have no relevance when appropriate bodies take up cases and deal with them.

Confidentiality rules flouted

“Confidential” and “confidentiality” are words that together appear eight times in the document published by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on hyperandrogenism in 2011.

The word “confidential” appears ten times in the document circulated by the Union Sports Ministry last year on standard operative procedures (SOP) on hyperandrogenism.

Yet, the name of Dutee Chand, the 18-year-old Odisha sprinter, has appeared in media reports the past few days as though the right of the media to disclose a name in such a case is more important than the right and dignity of the individual.

To complicate matters, the Sports Authority of India (SAI) on Wednesday (July 16, 2014) put out a ‘Press note’ for “favour of publication!” It did not mention her name but explained why she was being made ineligible to compete. Short of providing details of the test results, the note was clear how the tests went and what the final outcome was.

Things couldn’t have been more ludicrous than this.

How did this happen despite the Government having issued an SOP on female hyperandrogenism last year? How did this happen when SAI is now claiming “confidentiality protocol” prevents it from naming the athlete? How did this happen when SAI is insisting that it was only following regulations set out by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)?

When officials are responding to queries from the media without too much of concern about ‘confidentiality’ this is bound to happen.

Though the first report on the subject in the Indian Express did not mention her by name, it was very clear who the athlete was since her pet events were mentioned, the fact that it was a junior athlete was mentioned, an official was quoted to confirm that she was part of the team for the World Junior championships in Eugene, US.

You did not need someone to state her name in a press release to know who the athlete was who was being investigated.

Reporters are seeking confirmation on any tip-off that they could be following. The higher the designation of the source the better. If the source is willing to be quoted, that is a bonus. Your story becomes more credible and your editors are happier than they would have been had you kept on writing "sources said..." You would be wary of publishing the report if the source refuses to say anything at all on the subject.

The follow-ups by other publications were predictable. But her name being disclosed even as investigations and tests were going on was unexpected. Worse, her photograph was also published. It was cruel, to say the least.

No matter how much the authorities including the IAAF and the IOC try to avoid the terminology ‘gender test’, it keeps appearing in media reports. The SAI on Wednesday tried to explain that there cannot be ‘gender test’ since it was banned by the IAAF and the IOC, and it was only trying to verify the athlete’s androgen levels. By then the damage had been done.

The gender rules were amended by the IAAF in 2011 and next year the IOC also brought in a new set of regulations in time for the London Olympic Games.

The changes were brought in because of the furore caused by the revelation in 2009 that South African athlete Caster Semenya had been asked to undergo a gender test by the IAAF following her victory in the 800m at the World Championships.

The tests conducted on Semenya were kept a secret while she was allowed to return to competition in July, 2010. She took the silver in the London Olympics but had not been very impressive in 2013 and this season. There is still secrecy as far as Semenya's post-2012 progress is concerned.

Now, a more complex procedure is in place to determine whether a female athlete could be allowed to compete under that category despite having hyperandrogenism. There could be conditions where the athlete is unable to derive any advantage out of the excess of androgens (male hormones) she could be having and in such cases the athlete is permitted.

AFI sought tests

The genesis of the ‘Dutee Chand story’ is a little clouded. It was the AFI which sought tests to be done by the SAI, as per procedures laid down in the SOP. Did AFI get a protest from any athlete or coach? Why did it report the matter? Was it late in waking up?

This could be fodder for the media in the coming days.

Whatever could have been the provocation for the AFI to bring up the matter and report it to the SAI the federation should be complimented for acting on it at least at this stage unlike in the past where “suspect cases” were allowed to drag on and never sought to be investigated.

The rules have made it that much tougher for anyone to initiate an investigation. There is no barometer available for a federation to refer the matter to a a medical panel. It cannot be done just because of an abnormal improvement in performance. The immediate suspicion is doping, not hyperandrogenism. It also cannot be done just because a few rivals and coaches are complaining.

The Santi Soundarrajan ‘gender case’ was handled shabbily by the Olympic Council of Asia and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) when her eligibility to compete in the female category was questioned in the Doha Asian Games. She was eventually stripped of the silver medal in the 800 metres and sent back home alone, utterly humiliated, with no one to turn to even for advice.

Recent reports indicated that Santi, a Tamil Nadu athlete, after having done some work in a brick kiln, had continued to struggle to make a living. A colleague from Bangalore informed me that she had in fact passed out a coach's course from the SAI, Bangalore. It was not known how she was coping in life after getting the coach's diploma. 

Will Dutee Chand’s recent results be annulled if she does not appeal and is determined to be ineligible eventually?

Confusing rules

The Government SOP is confusing in this respect. It says, “In case, it is finally decided that the Sports person is not eligible to compete in the female category, any medal won by the Sports person / position obtained by virtue of participation in a sports competition in a female category will stand withdrawn. Nodal officers of SAI and NSF will take necessary action in this regard.”

There is no mention when this happens. If an investigation is done when there is no competition and it turns out an athlete is ineligible, can the results be annulled going back? And how far should one go back?

It doesn’t seem that there is anything in the IAAF rules that would allow annulment of results with retrospective effect unless an athlete had been allowed ‘provisionally’ to compete even as an investigation is going on about hyperandrogenism. In such a case, if the final verdict goes against the athlete the results would be annulled from the date when the matter was first reported and recorded.

It was easy to disqualify Santi’s results since there was a competition at which she was investigated. In the case of Bengal athlete Pinki Paramanik there was a criminal case that led to her medical examination and, unfortunately, subsequent humiliation. It had nothing to do with a sports authority, least of all the AFI.

Allegations

Dutee Chand can of course come back if she is able to undergo treatment and bring her androgen levels to permissible limits. But we don’t know what her condition is and how abnormal her values are. Or whether the only criterion that the expert panel or any one depended on while pronouncing her "ineligible to compete as female" happened to be just the testosterone levels.

Not unexpectedly, the Odisha girl has alleged “conspuracy” 

There is no clarity (and there shouldn’t be either) about the nature of tests done in the case of the junior athlete. It is to be expected the SAI has followed the book and the doctors have gone through the prescribed drill before coming to the conclusion that she is to be declared ineligible because of hyperandrogenism.

The fact that an athlete was declared ineligible because of hyperandrogensim should have been kept confidential, informing only the athlete and the federation. The details of the tests should be known only to the medical panel and a few others associated with the evaluation (and not even to the federation, according to the SOP, though one would presume at least the IAAF would be interested in knowing such details) and her personal physician, who should have been kept informed throughout the procedures through ‘confidential’ communications.

The way things have gone it is possible Dutee Chand and her doctor would be getting to know much of the information through media reports. She of course has the right of appeal to get the decision re-evaluated by the same panel which went into her case or another panel under the rules framed by the Indian Government.

In the meantime, the Government needs to amend the SOP to lay down clear guidelines for maintaining confidentiality in such investigations.

The discrepancy

While the Government-issued SOP on female hyperandrogenism has helped evolve a system in cases of doubtful nature, it has also seemingly provided a discrepancy in the threshold prescribed for the primary androgen, testosterone.

The SOP states, “If the serum testosterone level is less than 2ng/ml; the doubt on the concerned Sports person will be addressed and she will be considered eligible to compete as a female Sports person is accordance with the present norms of IOC.”

The IAAF document on hyperandrogensim among females, however, states “Normal male range Total Testosterone Levels - ≥10 nmol/L”
Now, 2ng/ml (nanograms per millilitre) comes to 200ng/dL (nanograms per decilitre) while 10nmol/L (nanomoles per millilitre) comes to 288.1844ng/dL.(nanogram is one-billionth of a gram)

The SOP level has somehow been pegged at a lower threshold.

However, we have no clue about the actual readings that Dutee Chand’s blood samples returned and should thus presume that the doctors/experts were convinced about the higher range of androgen levels for them to have returned a verdict by which SAI announced that she was ineligible to compete as a female.

The normal testosterone level for a female could be 30 to 95ng/dL while that for a male could vary from 300 to 1200ng/dL. There could be variations, too, in certain cases.

Testosterone levels in males vary with age. Females have mainly estrogen, one source of its supply being testosterone. That explains the presence of testosterone in females, much against popular perception.

Obviously, the IAAF has kept that testosterone level quite high to avoid any kind of controversy. Even if the level is high there could be explanations for such high levels and a female can compete as a female provided further investigations prove that she is not deriving any advantage from such levels.

A clinical examination is of utmost importance in evaluating all referred cases  And this will include examination of external genitalia. This is the primary stage of investigation, which may also include examination of secondary sexual characteristics. 

The second stage involves endocrinal assessment in which testosterone levels are measured. It may also include tests for other androgenic hormones including dehydrotestosterone and dehydroepiandrotestosterone. Tests will have to be done at a WADA-accredited laboratory.

If the medical panel rules that further evaluation is necessary, the case could be referred to a third stage where the athlete would be put through further examination and tests at a pre-determined medical centre where a complete evaluation is again made. In the Indian case it is the AIIMS, New Delhi which is the designated centre. In case of an adverse report the athlete can request AIIMS itself to review the initial report.
Note-It was not my intention to establish the range of normal testosterone levels when I quoted an article available on the internet to state that the normal female level could be 30 to 95ng/dL. A link has now been provided to that statement so that it could be made out that the article does quote an official agency. However, there is still no official sanctity about that figure in sports since we go by the IAAF cut-off at least in the present case. And that has been clearly stated. If you happen to check another website you may get a different range, nothing very serious, though. And for those who could be interested in knowing how it varies through age, another article link is being given here. The point about writing the normal range_available in a variety of articles on a Google search_was not to assert that the IAAF had fixed such a range (30 to 95ng/dL) but to show that the IAAF in eventually fixing 288ng/dL as the 'lowest' male range (that was not expected to be crossed by a female) pegged it rather high. In fact very high.

(last update 20-07-2014)