Out-of-competition testing holds the key

What do WADA statistics reveal? (part I)

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published testing statistics for the year 2013. And as usual these are quite revealing, not just in terms of the increase or decrease in numbers and percentages compared to the previous year but also in respect of the areas of neglect among various agencies.

Quite pertinently, in the Indian context, the inability of the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) in coming to grips with its “whereabouts” programme is reflected in the testing figures published last July.

From a total of 1494 out-of-competition tests (OOCT) done by the NADA, there were only five ‘positive’ results, representing just 0.33 per cent in an overall 2.2 per cent of ‘positives’ for all tests put together. This included 88 adverse analytical findings (AAF) from 2579 ‘in-competition’ tests that NADA conducted across all sports during the year.

Russian testing figures

In comparison, Russia, which, like India had been in the news for all the wrong reasons in athletics of late, being the No. 1 country in the doping list of the IAAF, had 42 ‘positive’ cases from 7463 OOCT. Or for that matter, the UK, which did 1688 OOCT had 10 ‘positive’ results.

Russia had 157 ‘positive’ reports from 6949 ‘in-competition’ tests for an overall percentage of 1.4 from a total of 14,582 tests. The UKAD had 17 AAF from 2349 ‘in-competition’ tests for an overall 0.6 per cent ‘positive’

This is not to suggest that an agency will always have a bigger ‘catch’ from an OOCT regimen. But in theory at least that is the truth. Athletes come into competition knowing well that there is a chance they would be tested. Because of that they try to enter a competition “clean”, meaning they get rid of the traces of the drugs that they might have been taking without losing all the benefits of such substances. It is only because of some miscalculation that a few of them get caught during competitions, or, in rare cases nowadays because of the more sophisticated testing methods and equipment that the laboratories employ.

Quite often you hear the question from unsuspecting followers of sports,“but they were tested in the games, isn’t it? Then how can anyone say that they might have been on dope?”

The doping game

They would not come into the event doped and in a condition where they know their urine sample would turn up a ‘positive’ result. The whole doping game is dependent on consuming the drug, not getting tested for a period when you don’t want to be tested, tapering off and then coming into competition “clean”. At the same time you make sure all the benefits that you seemed to have derived during your doping exercise is not completely drained out which then will make the whole programme useless.

Latest research, yet to be applied to humans, has established that athletes could derive the benefits of steroids for decades, possibly life-long.

Out-of-competition testing, especially based on a “whereabouts” programme takes the athlete by surprise. If an agency can keep track of an athlete at his place of residence or training base, chances are he may not take the risk of doping knowing well the testers might pounce on him any time.

In the Indian context where NADA’s basic OOCT centres around testing at the NIS, Patiala, and the South Centre, SAI, Bangalore, it is imperative that the NADA gets its “whereabouts” act in place. For, testing missions at such centres invariably leak out and targeted athletes are able to evade the testers easily.

If a ‘whereabouts” is in place, there will be no question of evasion because three ‘missed tests’ in an 18-month period would mean a violation of rules that could attract a two-year ban under current rules.
Under 'whereabouts" an athlete, at the national level, is expected to provide his/her whereabouts on a quarterly basis and is expected to be available at a particular place, as indicated by the athlete, for sample collection at least for one hour during a designated period between 6 a.m and 11 p.m every day of the year. The tester could be expected to wait for one hour in case the athlete is missing and then would be free to mark a 'missed test'. The 'whereabouts' information could be updated from time to time in case of unforeseen circumstances that may force the athlete to miss appointment at the designated place.

The 'whereabouts' routine to be enforced by NADA in athletics was supposed to have come into operation shortly after the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, but there are no indications yet that this has happened. Even if the list is ready in all sports where NADA wants to begin registered testing pools and testing based on ‘whereabouts’, including athletics, where there had been a delay for more than a year, it is not known whether the testing has begun. In any case, NADA is yet to publish the criteria for finalization of such registered pools in different sports.

Thirty-three WADA accredited laboratories tested  2,69,878 samples last year to return 3,529 AAFs and 2433 atypical findings (ATFs) for a total of 5,962 findings and an overall percentage of 2.21. (Atypical findings are those where certain endogenous substances or other threshold substances may come up at a higher level and are reported as ATF for the testing authority to pursue those cases, all of which may not eventually be charged as a ‘positive’ result.)

Though the AAF percentage of 0.97 (1710) for Olympic sports in 2013 was lower than the previous year (1831 and 0.99 per cent), the total findings at 2.21 per cent was much higher than the 1.76 per cent recorded for 2012.

 (to be continued)

(updated on 15 Oct, 2014)