Hyperandrogenism (part II)

Is testosterone the key?

The Caster Semenya story in 2009 eventually led to the IOC and the IAAF bringing in guidelines to keep track of gender ambiguities.

There is a general notion that the IOC abandoned ‘gender verification’ completely in 1999. This, the IOC Medical Commission Chairman, Arne Ljungqvist, has argued, was wrong.

To quote Prof Ljungqvist, from an essay he co-authored with Dr Myron Genel, in The Lancet in December, 2005,“The International Olympic Committee should be commended for the decision it took in 1999, which was misinterpreted by many. Gender verification has not, as some believe, been completely abandoned. The rules state that the medically responsible body at a competition maintains the authority to arrange for verification of an athlete's sex if it is called into question.”

Gender verification 

Surely, two years before it brought in the new regulations on hyperandrogenism among female athletes, the IAAF exercised its option of “gender verification” in the case of Semenya, leading to protests from all around. There was even a racial twist given to the controversy.

It took the IAAF a year to take a decision when a medical panel ruled that she could be reinstated. That happened  on July 6, 2010.

In 2011, the IAAF brought in its new regulations on hyperandrogenism among female athletes. The following year prior to the Olympics, the IOC approved its policy on hyperandrogenism. Both bodies were careful in not mentioning anything about “gender verification” and “sex tests”.

However, even though the crux of the argument centred around hyperandrogenism, the detailed evaluation suggested at least in the IAAF document does point towards a gender verification process.

There is a clinical examination  followed by an endocrinal investigation followed by a “full examination and diagnosis” should such a stage come about on an opinion given by an expert panel. Level 3 examination would be conducted at a ‘specialist reference centre’ .

The IOC document does not give too many details while laying down the procedures for investigating such cases of female hyperandrogenism. It also does not provide a figure for testosterone cut-off levels in determining whether it is high or within the female range.

However, critics of the new policies of the IOC and the IAAF have argued that there still cannot be any conclusions drawn by testosterone levels.

Flawed rules?

In an article titled ‘Out of Bounds? A Critique of the New Policies on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes’, four scientists led by Katrina Karkazis of Stanford Centre for Biomedical Ethics,  have argued that the new policies are flawed on three grounds (1) the underlying scientific

assumptions; (2) the policymaking process; and (3) the potential to achieve fairness for female athletes.

“We find the policies in each of these domains significantly flawed and therefore argue they should be withdrawn.”

This was published in June 2012. The IOC brought in its regulations in the London Olympics that opened on July 27, 2012.

Ms. Karkazis and Ms. Jordan-Young have continued to fight their battle against hyperandrogenism regulations. So have several other scientists and activists.

In another article in the New York Times in April this year , titled 'The Trouble with too much T', Ms Karkazis and Ms Jordan-Young have argued that ‘sex-linked performance’ was not mainly because of testosterone, according to recent research.

Prof. Ljungqvist explains

The IOC and the IAAF have not reacted to fresh criticism. Prof Ljungqvist told the NYT in June 2012, prior to the London Games, “People are always asking me, ‘Why have you done all this?’ I say, ‘We cannot pretend that intersex people do not exist.’ To let them compete in women’s sports can be unfair, so we must look into it.”

Prof Ljungqvist also told the paper that the testosterone cut-off level in the IOC document was deliberately not mentioned.

“If you have a cut-off level, the upside of it is you have an absolute trigger, and lawyers like that,” he said. “The downside is that if an athlete is just below the level, you cannot act on it. Because those levels can fluctuate, we will leave those decisions with the experts”, he said.

What IOC says

Ms. Sandrine Tonge, IOC Media Relations Manager, stated in a reply last month' "Some hyperandrogenic women will develop male-like characteristics since they have receptors in their cells that make the androgen act on the tissues. This is called "functional hyperandrogenism." Other women are "androgen resistant," since their cells do not have receptors for the androgens. They will, therefore, not develop male characteristics. That may be called "non-functional hyperandrogenism" though it is usually called "androgen resistance" or "androgen insensitivity." The two categories can easily be distinguished by a simple clinical examination. There are also lab methods available to ascertain whether there is an androgen resistance or not.

 "Mechanisms that could trigger an androgen investigation include (i) discrepancies within an athlete’s biological passport, (ii) the athlete may have symptoms that make her consult her team doctor, (iii) a pre-participation health examination may reveal there is a problem, (iv) suspicion may arise in the doping control station, (v) a doping control analysis may reveal an abnormal hormone pattern."

Though the terminology is ‘hyperandrogenism’, in reality only testosterone levels are tested and that, critics have argued, does not prove whether an athlete’s performance could be enhanced just by an elevated level of the male hormone. (Androgen is a general term for a set of male hormones, not just testosterone).

There is also this constant argument about a Michael Phelps having long limbs and tall basketballers having a decisive advantage, all natural attributes gained through the genes. Why not a naturally-occurring extra testosterone in a female body? So goes the argument.

The IOC/IAAF rules have not been put to legal scrutiny so far. If Dutee Chand goes to CAS with the support of the Government of India, there could be several groups and individuals who would be ready to chip in either financially or with legal backing.

Semenya post-2012

It would be pertinent to point out the performance of Semenya post-2012 in respect of the argument that testosterone levels have no great bearing on how fast an individual can run or swim or lift weights.

In 2009, the BBC reported  that Semenya’s testosterone levels were found to be three times more than that expected in a female.  (The present IAAF cut-off of 288.18ng/dL for testosterone is actually three times more than the accepted levels of testosterone found in a female though exceptions could be there).

Though the IAAF did not ban the South African, then just 18 (like Dutee Chand is today), straightaway, it kept her participation in abeyance for a year during which period she could have been expected to have undergone some hormone therapy or medical intervention to “correct” her condition.

Sensational improvement

At the Berlin World Athletics Championships, Semenya clocked a season-leading one minute, 55. 45 seconds, an improvement of around eight seconds for the 800 metres from her winning time at the Commonwealth Youth Games in Pune in October 2008, her best till then. She beat Kenyan Janeth Jepkosgei, the defending champion, by a margin of 2.45 secs in Berlin, the biggest ever in the event.

To date that timing ranks 26th on the all-time charts. Semenya is the only athlete apart from Kenyan Pamela Jelimo to have clocked comparable timings post-1990s. Jelimo, the 2008 Olympic champion at 19 years, is third on the all-time lists with her 1, 54.01 in Zurich in August, 2008. The world record of 1,53.28 was clocked by Czech Jarmila Kratochvilova in Munich in July 1983.

Semenya won the 800m silver at the London Olympics in a time of 1,57.23. Since August 2012 she has shown a dip in form, raising speculation that she could have gone through a hormone therapy to bring down her testosterone levels or might be going through such a therapy.

The slump

Now 23 years, Semenya's best last year was 1,58.92.  She did not have another sub-two-minute last year. She has 17 sub-two timings in all. This year her best has been 2,02.66 clocked in Rome in June. 
She did not make the ‘cut’ for the South African team for the World Championships in Moscow last year nor did she make it to her country’s team for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

Among others to whom she has lost this season was India’s Sinimole Markose who took the second place at Kuortane, Finland, on July 13 when the South African finished fourth.

One has to draw one’s own conclusions about the slump in Semenya’s performance levels, though the odd injury or reported wedding plans could have contributed to some decline.  So far this season, she has not won a race outside home.

On the topic of SAI contemplating  financial assistance to Dutee Chand for hormone therapy or surgery, one can only speculate the reasons for the type of medical intervention in the absence of credible information, which in any case should not be revealed.

Can Santhi hope for aid?

A question also arises whether SAI would be prepared to help Santhi Soundarrajan, another athlete who was stripped of her silver medal in the 800m at the Doha Asian Games in 2006, following a 'gender verification' procedure, rectify her condition by going to Stockholm or the US or any hospital that the Government may choose to get her medical aid.

The fact that much of Dutee Chand’s “hyperandrogenism” case has been discussed in the media _and is still being discussed_while we have no clue about the case of a Semenya even today, five years after she was found to have gender ambiguity, only proves the point India cannot handle such matters with any degree of confidentiality.
(Concluded)

(amendments including additions made on 23 Aug, 2014)

Hyperandrogenism (part I)

SAI may help Dutee Chand

After having helped formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on hyperandrogenism in female athletes, just over a year ago, or perhaps having implemented a policy on hyperandrogenism as directed by the Union Government, the Sports Authority of India (SAI) is having second thoughts about the whole issue.

Or so it would seem from a report in the Times of India that appeared on Aug 19, 2014.

The report quotes SAI Director-General Jiji Thomson to state that SAI may help Dutee Chand, the Odisha athlete, fight a case against the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Lausanne, against their stand on hyperandrogenism.

“SAI, which conducted the hyperandrogenism tests on Dutee recently at the behest of the Athletics Federation of India, will also endorse the athlete's request to the Athletics Federation of India to reconsider its decision to ban her from competition,” says the TOI report.

The report goes onto say “AFI is yet to issue her a notification stating her ineligibility to compete in the women's category owing to hyperandrogenism. Once she receives it, Dutee will appeal against it.” Apparently this is another quote from the SAI DG.

All these are very confusing. One would have thought it was the SAI or the Ministry which laid down procedures under the SOP. When a situation arose, quite possibly justifying referral to whosoever it was to be made, the AFI made that. Quite possibly because of “complaints” from fellow athletes that there could be some cause for investigating the junior sprinter, who had a best of 11.62 for the 100, regarding her eligibility to compete in the female category.

We have to presume SAI or whosoever was supposed to carry out the next process in the chain of procedures laid down by the SOP did their job. If a medical panel recommended to SAI which in turn ruled that Dutee Chand was ineligible to compete in the female category till such time she retained her present androgen levels, what else is required to be done for the Odisha athlete to appeal?

Has AFI followed IAAF regulations?

Who should issue a notification? If it is AFI is it not the responsibility of the National federation to have gone through the drill as per the document “IAAF regulations governing eligibility of females with hyperandrogenism to compete in women’s competition” rather than an SOP issued by the Government?

Is AFI satisfied at this point that the procedures as laid down in the IAAF document had been followed? If not, is it in a position to declare Dutee Chand ineligible?

There is no clarity about who issued the SOP that the Government released in March 2013. What was purely a job of the National Federation, in conformity with any possible regulations laid down by its International Federation, seemed to have been taken over by the Government or its agencies.

That this particular instance now has happened in a sport which has the most elaborate document on hyperandrogenism among females is a pertinent point. The IAAF has done some pioneering work in this field for the past four decades and has helped the IOC evolve the present regulations regarding hyperandrogenism.

Let us assume that there was no harm in Government issuing an SOP. Let us also assume that the SOP would have been in conformity with the IOC regulations. 

Not in conformity with IOC regulations

Unfortunately it is not, especially on one crucial point, the cut-off level of testosterone in a female that would determine whether it is high enough to deny her a place in the female category.

The Indian SOP pegs that level at 2ng/ml (or 200ng/dL) while the IAAF has put the normal male range at upwards of 10nmol/L (or 288.18 ng/dL). 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.

Do we know what level Dutee Chand had?

We don’t.

It could be just above 200ng/dL which might not be breaching the IAAF threshold. It may be far above the IAAF-prescribed threshold also in which case no further debate is warranted.

But debate there should be about the SAI’s readiness to take up the case of Dutee Chand and even prompt her to approach CAS with financial backing from the Government. In a way SAI is questioning its own or the Government’s SOP and policies!

A couple of points about the SOP need mention.  It gives present ‘norms’ of the IOC while mentioning a cut-off level of  2ng/ml. The truth is the IOC had never announced a cut-off. Not then in 2012 when it announced its regulations prior to the London Olympics and not now when it has issued a fresh document on hyperandrogenism that came into operation before the Sochi Winter Olympics in February this year.

So, where did the SAI or the Government get that figure of 2ng/ml? Is it an arbitrary figure just attributed to the IOC?

As mentioned in an earlier piece on this blog, the SOP cut-off  and the IAAF figure do not match. In fact there is substantial variation at 200ng/dL (SOP) and 288.184ng/dL (IAAF).

It is not clear whether Dutee Chand was put through the whole procedure prescribed in the SOP or the IAAF regulations or whether someone bungled enough to create doubts in the minds of the SAI officials.

The SOP is vague about the appeal procedure. An athlete can seek a review by the same doctor or panel or a different doctor or panel. In case the case reaches AIIMS, only AIIMS would be authorised to review a decision that its own doctors have taken.

Plea to reconsider?

 The TOI report says SAI would endorse the athlete’s request to the AFI to reconsider “its decision”. That means there is a process other than an “appeal” through which an athlete declared ineligible can come back.

Has Dutee Chand been given the opportunity to file an appeal, if it is clear to which authority she has to appeal? Has she been put through further tests at the AIIMS as stipulated in the SOP following any appeal?

In case no appeal has been made to any Indian body, then how can she approach CAS since that would be in breach of the very SOP that has in the first place found her ineligible?

Normally all avenues at the domestic level (if there is an appeal window available) have to be exhausted before one goes to CAS. The IAAF rules mention CAS as an authority to take up an appeal, but in the Dutee Chand case it looks more of a domestic problem than an international one and moreover the IAAF rules might not have been followed or at best only a “mix” of IAAF rules and SOP stipulations might have been followed.

Quite messy, one would say.

And why would SAI not encourage her to appeal to an Indian panel in case it feels that she had not been given justice?

Far-reaching impact if CAS intervenes

The desire of the SAI/Government to challenge the hyperandrogenism regulations in CAS through Dutee Chand is an unexpected development. If it comes to fruition, gets the minister’s approval, and somehow CAS is convinced that the regulations should be thrown out, the anti-gender verification lobby including human rights activists, scientists and doctors would be elated.

Activists like Rebecca Jordan-Young and Katrina Karkazis who have argued that testosterone levels should never dictate the IOC’s policy would be pleased. And it will have far-reaching impact that will once again bring back the “gender verification” issue to the fore in sport. 

The South African Government and almost the whole of Africa had backed Caster Semenya when she was barred for a year while the IAAF investigated her "gender ambiguity". But no one went to CAS questioning the rules then. They were different from the present ones. The IAAF brought in changes in 2011 and the IOC did so for the 2012 Olympic Games.

The current rules are based on the principle that there is no “gender verification” or “gender test”. Both the IOC and the IAAF are alive to the sensitivity of the issue and have been careful in avoiding any reference to ‘gender’ ever since the new rules were brought in.

“It is important to emphasize that the policy does not include "gender testing" or "sex testing." Female competitions are for females, male competitions for males. The new rules are not intended to find a new definition for what is male and what is female. They only address the problem where females have functional androgen levels in the "male range" (with consequent competitive advantages) and how such females should be judged in relation to their participation in competitions for females,” wrote Sandrine Tonge, Media Relations Manager, IOC, in response to a query from this scribe last month.

The extent of advantage in having extra androgens in a female body might not have been truly established but since testosterone is deemed to be a performance-enhancing substance it should be presumed an additional amount of it should benefit a female competitor.

“Despite the rarity of such cases, their (those females with hyperandrogenism) emergence from time to time at the highest level of women’s competition in Athletics has proved to be controversial since the individuals concerned often display masculine traits and have an uncommon athletic capacity in relation to their fellow female competitors,” says the IAAF in the preface to its document on hyperandrogenism.

Androgen insensitivity

If the athlete is not in a position to derive advantage from the higher levels of testosterone in her body due to androgen insensitivity syndrome or any other condition that prevents the body from recognising or accepting the androgens, then the female athlete is allowed to compete in the women’s section.

We don’t know whether Dutee Chand was put through the entire gamut of procedures and tests as defined in the guidelines of the IAAF before she was declared ineligible to compete in female category by SAI, as announced by it through a Press release on July 16, 2014.

The release said, “…she will not be allowed to compete in the female category. We reiterate that these test results do not determine her gender. The test simply tells us that she has excess androgen in her body and is therefore not eligible to compete in the female category.”

Now, SAI is waiting for the AFI to declare her “ineligibility”!

If Dutee Chand goes to CAS against the verdict pronounced by SAI and the latter reimburses her litigation expenses would it not amount to SAI fighting a case against itself?

Will it not be like the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) going to CAS and pointing out that a two-year sanction it argued for and got awarded against an athlete from a National disciplinary panel was too harsh a punishment and it needed to be reduced!

Had the Government SOP simply quoted the IOC/IAAF regulations on hyperandrogenism, stipulated that they be followed, and described the procedures for reporting such occurrences, leaving the ultimate responsibility of specifying the investigations and procedures to National federations or the International Federations, as the case may be, any intervention against the IOC rules, supported by a Government agency, could have been understandable even if  it would have been incongruous.

“In what other institutional setting in society could ever you have a sex test and not only legitimize it but present it as if it was a necessary policy?” asks Ian Richie, a professor of Health Sciences at Canada’s Brock University. “To test somebody’s sex, to have them prove that they are what they are in terms of their sex, is in many countries completely unethical, contrary to human rights, in some cases unconstitutional. But in the context of sport it’s seen as an inevitable thing we have to do. Sport is the only place that could happen, because sport is based on the idea that men are men and women are women and that’s it.”

Level-playing field argument

The above quote is from an illuminating article  “Caster Semenya and the IOC’s Olympics Gender Bender' that appeared in The Daily Beast in July, 2012,

 That quote from Prof. Richie just about sums up the gender controversy and the dilemma of the sports administrators. Having no tests at all or no procedures at all would leave females with normal androgen levels at a disadvantage.

The old rules of physical examination were too intrusive and humiliating, the chromosome tests were inconclusive and the SRY gene test was also not found satisfactory.

The question of ‘level-playing field’ will keep coming up  in respect of more advanced shoes for elite athletes from richer nations, more advanced swimsuits, better technology and scientific back-up etc that richer athletes enjoy. And it will be compared to the androgen issue to argue that a ‘level playing field’ can never be achieved just as they used to say about anti-doping regulations. 

Comparisons will also be made (have already been made) of the enormous wing span of a Michael Phelps to point out that a natural attribute should not be considered as an undue advantage.

Critics will also point out (and have already pointed out) that there should be some control over male testosterone levels also.

Eventually, if you have to listen to these critics, we may have to have height and weight restrictions in athletics and swimming also_not to speak of height restrictions in basketball and volleyball_ just as there are in weight-specific sports.

(More on Semenya and hyperandrogenism in part-II)

It is awards time!

August is the month for a debate over National sports awards!

It is almost impossible to satisfy all sections of the sports-loving populace when it comes to selection of awardees for Arjuna, Khel Ratna, Dronacharya and Dhyan Chand awards.

Successive governments have brought in changes in the format, eligibility rules and basic structure of these awards but not a year passes without some controversy or the other.

Logic has taken a beating through these exercises at laying down guidelines, no matter how well-intentioned these efforts might have been.

After the uproar caused in 2001 when Milkha Singh was chosen for the Arjuna Award (after all these years!) alongside “lesser achievers”, the Sports Ministry decided to change the composition of the panel and brought in more sportspersons into it.

However, even though it was a welcome step, with eminent sports personalities heading the panel, controversies continued to dog selection of awardees.

Canvassing is the rule than exception

If “canvassing” was to be a “disqualification”, canvassing has become the order of the day! So much so the ministers openly allowed athletes “aggrieved” by the selection to meet them and air their complaints, sometimes referred the file back to the panel for reconsideration or else ordered that athletes not “eligible” for a particular year (as it happened in the last Olympic year) for consideration be considered because of their achievements in Olympics.

This sort of bending of rules or ‘grandstanding’ only brought in further complications. If Ronjan Sodhi had enough claims to get the Khel Ratna in 2012 (for his performance in 2011 with enough to fall back on 2010 also if that was needed) when he was edged by Olympic medal winners Vijay Kumar and Yogeshwar Dutt, he did not have anything to show the next year (for 2012 performance) when he was finally chosen for the Khel Ratna!

“Instant results and instant rewards”, though popular and appealing to the public, could lead to unnecessary controversies. Others in the fray, when Sodhi was chosen, cried foul.

Shooter Anjali Bhagwat, herself at the centre of another awards controversy in the past, who argued in favour of Ronjan Sodhi was criticized by several people for no fault of hers. There was no necessity for the other committee members to be swayed by her arguments if she was not being truthful and logical. Nor was it necessary that she should have argued in favour of someone else.

“But wasn’t it time to bring in some more changes in the format? Let’s make Khel Ratna also a longer term award instead of one for the ‘most outstanding performance’ in a year”.

So seemed to be the argument with which the ministry officials changed the structure of the Khel Ratna last year.

Khel Ratna structure changed

It was a sad development. This award instituted first for the year 1991-92 had seen many an outstanding sportsperson being chosen for it for their most remarkable feat in a particular year. It was like choosing the “sportsperson of the year”.

By making it a “four-year affair”, the Government has now made it a blown-up version of the Arjuna award. Worse, an athlete could be chosen for an Arjuna award in a particular year and again chosen for the Khel Ratna next year for the same performance that earned him/her the Arjuna the previous year or the year before that!

In a way the ‘Khel Ratna’ has been devalued beyond shape. Still it carries a bigger cash award (Rs 7.5 lakh compared to Rs 5 lakh) than that for the Arjuna award and is sought after the most by those who have already gained the Arjuna.

All this can be explained away as the result of various consultations and opinions expressed by athletes and administrators, the media and the sports enthusiasts perhaps.

The points system

But can there be any rationale for bringing in a points system that could determine who gets an award and who does not? Especially when that points system defies logic and common sense and may mock at the highest achievements by an athlete?

I had written about this in The Hindu in January this year, pointing out the most glaring blunders in the points system. 

One does not know whether anything has been amended. It doesn’t look that it has been.

Thus P. V. Sindhu’s bronze medal in the World Badminton Championships  in 2013 is worth only five points since the World Badminton is an annual event (and not a four-yearly championship) while someone in any discipline, who might manage to get a bronze in an Asian Games will get 20 points.

The comparison becomes ridiculous when one takes a meet like the World athletics championships. Say a silver medal for our discus thrower Vika Gowda in next year’s World Championships would be worth 15 points (half of the four-year World championships), but a weightlifter who might have won three consecutive silver medals (not even gold) in the Commonwealth championships would have earned 30 points or just one silver in the Commonwelth Games would have fetched him 20 points.

 If both are in contention for the Khel Ratna, whom would you vote for?

Though no points had been allotted for Olympic medals in the statement issued by the ministry in January this year, and there has been no mention of the Khel Ratna also being brought under the points system, it seems points are being allocated for that also.

And by that yardstick, para athlete H. N. Girisha’s silver medal in high jump in the 2012 Paralympics will outscore the points of Sindhu, woman discus thrower Krishna Poonia, and Vikas Gowda, but will not match that of tennis player Somdev Devvarman who has two gold medals from the Guangzhou Asian Games and one from the 2010 Commonwealth Games.

All these sportspersons are in contention for this year’s Khel Ratna.

For the record, it could be mentioned here that there are 42 para classifications in athletics alone in para sports where there is a broad classification based on 10 impairments.

Keep gathering points, forget about the big one

The simple logic here could be if you are aiming for the Khel Ratna or the Arjuna, keep piling up points in every other meet that you can get to compete in, by winning the odd silver or bronze. In the end you might just be able to edge the first Indian ever to win a World Athletics Championships gold or silver in the race for the ‘Ratna’!

In 2002 also a points system was tried out, but mercifully it was discontinued the next year. By that points system also a World athletics championship bronze medal-winning track and field athlete could be edged by a lesser achiever if all the points for lesser meets were to be taken into consideration.

The ‘experts’ who have devised the current points system will have to look at certain simple logic to make it more meaningful. A World Athletics Championships is equivalent in standard to an Olympic Games even if it may not be as prestigious in some countries and is held once every two years. Periodicity of a World Championships does not bring down its grading or toughness.  An annual World Badminton Championships cannot be in any way inferior in status to, say any biennial event. Commonwealth championships in many sports disciplines are substandard. It is better left out in this complicated points system.

2014 points system

S. No.	Event	Medal
		Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	World  Championship/World Cup (once in 4 years)	40	30	20
2	Asian Games	30	25	20
3	Commonwealth Games	25	20	15
4	World Championship/World Cup (biennial/annual)	25	20	15
5	Asian Championship	15	10	7
6	Commonwealth Championship	15	10	7

 (The above points system released by the ministry in January, 2014 might have undergone some changes since then. It is being given here just to focus on the point that a World Championship held annually or once in two years does not rank equivalent to an Asian Games.)

The aftermath of Glasgow

The National Sports Federations (NSFs) were brought under the Right to Information Act 2005 by a notification of the Sports Ministry on March 30, 2010.

As per the National Sports Development Code 2011 also the NSFs are expected to follow the provisions in the RTI Act. All of them had agreed also to be subjected to such provisions. It is also common knowledge that any organisation receiving a Government grant of Rs 10 lakh or above in a year should be subject to the RTI Act. The courts in India have upheld this contention. It is also well known that courts have also held that private bodies like the NSFs do perform a 'public function' at times, especially in the matter of selecting an "Indian team" or representing the country in international competitions. 

Yet, compliance, especially in the area of public disclosure might have been slack as far as the provisions in the RTI Act were concerned. 

In that context the latest notification of the Government to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and to the NSFs to place certain details of their activities including details of the delegations that went to Glasgow for the Commonwealth Games is a welcome step, no matter that it might have been belated.

This looks to be an off-shoot of the incidents that took place in Glasgow. But better late than never. This should now become a rule rather than an exception.

The Government has asked the IOA) and the NSFs to place details of their delegations to the CWG by Aug 20, 2014.

However, in the present format that the details have been sought, they could turn out to be insufficient.

The PIB release of Aug 6, says,

(i)                 Complete details of officials who were sent to CWG by IOA/NSFs along with the amount paid such as air fare, boarding and lodging, local transportation, daily allowance etc.

(ii)               List of players (along with support personnel) who actually participated in Commonwealth Games.

What could be found out

“Who were sent to CWG by IOA/NSFs…” might not bring out the correct picture. Why not seek information on

“The complete list of accreditations sought and received from the Organizing Committee for the CWG in Glasgow on the request or recommendation of the IOA or on its behalf, as part of the Indian delegation or outside it, whether official or unofficial, and whether these accreditations exceeded the quota prescribed under the CGF rules.

“The complete list of coaches, managers and support personnel that formed the IOA delegation, whether they exceeded allocated quota for coaches/officials and whether all of them were accommodated in the games village and the expenses incurred on such support staff.

“The complete list of coaches not cleared by the Government and yet who might have been part of the Indian delegation in Glasgow, and who paid for their air fare, accommodation etc.”

In the immediate context of the Asian Games in Incheon, the demand of the Govt for the NSFs to place on their websites some details should also have included, apart from those listed.

Selection criteria should not be a secret!

Something like the following-

“The selection criteria to be adopted for selection of the Indian team for the Asian Games in Incheon,

“Whether these criteria adhere to the criteria fixed by the Government as per its guidelines for such events, if not the basis for such deviation in the criteria,

“Please justify criteria in comparison to standards in Asia for the season in each event where an Indian athlete is being selected.

“If performances in international competitions are being taken into consideration for the purpose of selection, please specify the nature of the competition and state whether it is a meet recognized by the international federation concerned and whether the results being claimed have been certified by the organisers through documentation.”

Government should seek such information to be available to it and to be displayed on the website weeks ahead of the actual selection of a team, not a day before the departure of a team. Many a time the media is kept in the dark about the composition of a team till hours before departure.

Let Ministry also disclose

As fairness would demand, the Ministry should also disclose on its website (and that of the concerned government departments and agencies), the number of people that went to Glasgow under the Government delegation, the delegation of agencies like Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the NADA, if any, details of the delegations, the expenses incurred by such delegation etc.

Public disclosure, inherent in the RTI Act, might not have been adhered to by the NSFs all these years, but from now on at least the Government should ensure compliance.

Many a time athletes do not come to know of selection standards until the eve of a championship that is being considered as “final selection trials”.

The mystery of the lancers

Eyebrows were raised when the Athletics Federation of India selected three male javelin throwers for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

Did we have that much of talent and depth in this event? Was this optimism simply based on the fact that at the 2010 CWG, Kashinath Naik, now a coach, had won the bronze with a throw of 74.29m?

From among the men’s throws, shot put and discus had always been Indian athletics’ forte but not hammer and javelin.

Suddenly we had three javelin throwers capable of rubbing shoulders with the rest of the Commonwealth athletics family.

Incidentally, the Commonwealth standards in throws had been average by world standards , barring a Valerie Adams in women’s shot put or a Steve Backley in javelin, and, more recently, the 2009 World women’s discus champion Dani Samuels of Australia who skipped New Delhi but won in Glasgow.

The situation changed for the better in 2012 when the then World Junior champion Keshorn Walcott of Trinidad and Tobago won the Olympic javelin title in London. 

And from a nation that had produced a clutch of world beaters in middle and long distance events (Kenya) emerged Julius Yego, a fourth-place finisher in the World Championships last year with a PB of 85.40.

Yego won in Glasgow, despite Walcott having thrown a world-leading 85.28 (National Record) in the qualification round. Walcott came second in the final.Men’s and women’s javelin in Glasgow had some depth this time with an array of leading stars in the season's charts.

We digress of course. The focus here is not on Yego or Walcott but on our own javelin throwers.

The selection stanadrds

The AFI initially put 77.60m as the selection standard (‘qualification mark’ in AFI’s lexicon). For good measure it sent out a chart to the media on the eve of the Lucknow Inter-State which was the final selection trials. That chart listed the third place and fourth-place marks of the New Delhi Games, Melbourne Games and Manchester Games as though to point out that the federation was being fair to take note of the poor standard of the 2010 Games (third place 74.29) and was keeping the standard close to the 2006 result (fourth place 78.91).

One does not know when the javelin standard became 74.29, the third place (Kashinath Naik) of the New Delhi Games. Even on the eve of the Inter-State meet at Lucknow when some of the correspondents managed to get a “corrected version” of the standards (changes having been made in 16 events), the standard listed for men’s javelin happened to be 77.60.

Ravinder Singh finished first in Lucknow with 78.02, Davinder Singh was second at 76.60 and Vipin Kasana third 75.57. Several days later one heard all three had made the grade and the AFI was expecting a medal, if not two, from the event!

Eighth best

The truth was Ravinder Singh’s 78 was only eighth best in Commonwealth for the season then. There were five athletes with 80-plus results this season. Yet, there was optimism when the team left for Glasgow.

In the qualification round, Ravinder Singh (72.18) qualified in 11th place while Kasana came a slot below at 71.95, the last qualifier. Davinder (70.56) finished 14th and was eliminated. The steep slump was inexplicable. No one cares really in the SAI or Ministry.

Comes the final on Aug 2, the concluding day of the athletics action at Glasgow. In rain it is tough for everyone. Those who follow the unfolding of the results on the web are startled to see an ‘NM’ listed against both Indian competitors. One round gone, second round gone, third round also through. The position remains.

What happened?

The sketchy reports that come in from Glasgow do not help at all. Did they pull out? Were they injured? Was it a case of doping? Did NADA inform AFI late of a doping infraction?

Questions kept coming up till we got some idea about what had happened through this report. 

The above report was updated on August 4 to include the response of the Chief Coach Bahadur Singh who said the athletes were injured.

Today (Aug 6, 2014), The Hindu has quoted the AFI President, Adille Sumariwalla stating that he had asked Bahadur for a report. He also said both the athletes who sat through the competition, passing each of their attempts, were dope-tested in Glasgow. Perhaps at the end of the competition in the final?

Could they have been injured before going to Glasgow? One heard a mention of injuries to both during the final trials conducted to assess their fitness at Patiala on July 12. These were supposed to be fitness trials. Or perhaps the coaches had some doubts at the last moment about the necessity to send three javelin throwers.

It might be rather late for the Sports Authority of India (SAI) or the Sports Ministry to step in to find out the details of this farce. Yet, they should step in.

Bring back Govt-approved selection criteria

And for the future let us have the old-fashioned medical tests and fitness tests prior to a team’s departure. Not just based on what the coaches have to say but also based on what the doctors or trainers or fitness experts, specially deputed by the SAI, have to say after a proper assessment.

Assessment done by a federation quite often remains on paper. Long before such assessments the final shape of a team is determined. No one wants to upset a combination that might have walked in on sheer merit, on regional considerations or on the recommendation of a coach or a group of coaches.

The Sports Ministry has to bring back the selection criteria. As far as one can remember it had not been scrapped, but just discontinued for no rhyme or reason. Quite often in the past one had felt that such criteria were being unnecessarily stressed and stretched when the need of the hour was to assess “current standards” in a particular event which might have no comparison to what was achieved four years ago.

But with at least the AFI setting its own standards (sometimes third place and sometimes fourth place or even as low as the ninth place as has happened with its Asian Games standards just released), it is time the ministry had a re-look at the policy of blindly clearing teams as recommended by the federation.

The idea of packing a team with all possible contestants simply on the argument that someone else was footing the bill can neither provide Indian athletics with the stature that it is looking for nor help the athletes gain the exposure that they sorely needs.

If you get selected despite an injury and sit out a final even as you watch women pole vaulters risking serious injury in the rain, neither the athlete nor the federation will bring glory to the nation.

Mind you, a five-member team, with a lone male athlete in shot putter Navpreet Singh_who eventually fouled all his three attempts in qualification round to end with an ‘NM_returned from the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002 with two medals. Discus thrower Neelam J. Singh, who was  later suspended in 2005 for a doping offence, took the silver, and long jumper Anju Bobby George won the bronze. And there was a fourth place by a gallant high jumper Bobby Aloysius.
This time a 32-member squad brought home three medals, one gold by discus thrower Vikas Gowda, a silver by woman discus thrower Seema Antil Punia, and a bronze by triple jumper Arpinder Singh.

Numbers do not bring in performances or medals, quality does.

NM from past multi-discipline games

• There is a history of “NM” (no mark) for Indian throwers in major competitions, but it always had happened during qualification round and in all instances throwers fouled their attempts or were unable to finish their competition ostensibly because of injury.
• 1.       Shot putter Bahadur Singh Sagoo had ‘NM’ in the qualification round of the Athens Olympics.  2004. He fouled all his three attempts.
• 2.       In the same Athens Olympics, Anil Kumar, discus thrower had another ‘NM’. He did make one attempt that was not registered as he fell and had to be carried off.
• 3.       Shot putter Navpreet Singh had an ‘NM’ in the qualification round of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, 2002. He fouled all his three attempts.