Corruption in sports administration scored new ‘high’ in 2015

The year just ending has proved a watershed year for corruption in sports. This happened to be the year when sports administrators were exposed, across sports, across continents. It is not that corruption had not been heard of in the field of sports in the past. But the magnitude of corruption reported in football and athletics through the course of the year surpassed all that had preceded the two.

We do not know yet the full story in these two shameful episodes in international sports and quite possibly they may occupy a dubious high for decades to come.

The FIFA Ethics Committee has since banned for eight years Sepp Blatter, who resigned as its president  a few days after being re-elected for a fifth term, and Michel Platini, one of France’s World Cup legends and till recently President of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Blatter had looked invincible just as his discredited president Jao Havelange till the latter was shamed in the ISL scandal.

Blatter and Platini banned

Blatter and Platini were banned for financial irregularities in which Blatter was said to have paid two million dollars of FIFA money to Platini in what was described as “disloyal payment”. They were banned from all football activities. Both have vowed to fight the ban. They have the right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In the wake of corruption charges in football, several other deals clinched in the past were subjected to close scrutiny and there were allegations that bribes were paid to officials to secure the 2018 World Cup for Russia and the 2022 World Cup for Qatar. Not just that, seven FIFA officials were arrested in Zurich in May by Swiss authorities following an FBI investigation in May last. More were arrested later. It proved a black year for football with prospects of worse to follow in the next year and beyond.

Football officials were not alone in gaining the ‘privilege’ of being arrested. None other than the former President of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Lamine Diack was arrested by the French Police for an alleged cover-up of doping cases. He was released on bail later.

This should rate as the ‘mother of all corruptions’ in the field of sports though at this point nothing has been proved and Diack’s son, Papa Massata Diack, himself accused of corruption, has denied that his father was involved in any dubious practices.

Along with Diack another IAAF official, Gabriel Dolle, the head of IAAF anti-doping, was also charged in the corruption scandal based on hushed up doping charges against Russian athletes. The extent of the corruption or the alleged fraud committed by IAAF officials were not known by the end of the year since a second report into the details of the athletics corruption by the Independent Commission of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) was withheld in order to facilitate police investigations.

Biggest expose into doping cover-ups

In the biggest expose into cover-ups in doping, German TV journalist Hajo Seppelt revealed the widespread doping practices in Russian athletics, first in December 2014 through a documentary on German channel ARD, and then further through damaging revelations about possible blood doping in international athletics in collaboration with the Sunday Times in August this year.

Also triggering by then an IAAF Ethics Commission investigation was the charge by marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova about extortion demands made by top IAAF and Russian officials. Her agent Andrei Baranov spilled the beans first of the former London and Chicago marathon winner being asked to shell out 3,30,000 pounds sterling for abnormal blood test results being suppressed in order to help her compete in the London Olympics. Shobukhova was eventually suspended and she demanded and apparently received at least some money back.

Seppelt’s first report, based primarily on Russian anti-doping official Vitaly Stepanov and his athlete-wife Yulia Stepanova,  led to the formation of the Independent Commission by WADA. Headed by former WADA President Richard Pound, the commission released an explosive report in November that explained the ‘state-sponsored’ doping in Russian athletics.

The IAAF, with the newly-elected president Sebastian Coe under pressure, suspended Russia from all athletics activities and laid down conditions for its return. Though the exclusion of Russian athletes from the Rio Olympics is not certain at this moment, it is a possibility that no one is ruling out.

Heads rolled in the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) as well as the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) which was suspended by WADA. President Vladimir Putin promised co-operation in tackling the doping menace.

The Russian ‘doping machinery’ has raised serious doubts about the efficacy of the anti-doping structure worldwide.  Surely there must be other countries that could have adopted the same “system” as Russia. Sadly, the ‘zero tolerance’ slogan that we keep hearing has turned out to be as hollow as it was always suspected to be by athletes and coaches.

If the president of an international federation could be engaged in a doping cover-up and a national network could be ‘protective’ of dopers, could be bribed and could be manipulated, what hope can “clean athletes” have in other countries?

Second report on Jan 14

The true extent of the involvement of IAAF officials in the cover-up would be known only when the WADA Commission releases its second report. It is now expected on January 14. So far, for the record, it must be mentioned that the officials have either directly or through sources close to them denied any involvement which was to be expected only.

As athletics officials have repeatedly said, and as Richard Pound and others in the WADA have said, doping is not a problem confined to athletics. Nor for that matter should anyone think that Russian athletics alone could have been affected by a state-abetted doping programme.

Indian athletics, in perpetual denial mode on the doping front, would do well to take note of the recent happenings, especially at a time when the president of the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) Adille Sumariwalla is a Council member of the IAAF. The reappointment of the previously sacked, dope-tainted Ukrainian coach Yuriy Ogorodnik has certainly not enhanced the stature of the AFI in the anti-doping world.

Kenyan athletics had already been in the news for its poorly managed anti-doping efforts. Today both the WADA and the IAAF have turned their attention towards that country which we all thought had only natural distance runners who grew up running miles and miles to schools. Marathoner Rita Jeptoo’s doping infraction was the biggest news of Kenyan doping in the year when perceptions about Kenyan athletics changed dramatically.

The paradox in athletics

Surprisingly, Kenya finished on top of the medals table at the World Championships in Beijing to drive home a point that it was not just a matter or doping that gave it the edge.

Or was it really a true indication? In-competition testing, especially at World Championships have invariably turned in meager ‘catches’.

This is the paradox that athletics faces today. If a country makes a huge impact on the track there would be raised eyebrows. No one wants to believe that races could be won simply through fair means. Conversely, the Russian and Kenyan examples have given a big boost to those in lesser-developed athletics nations to argue that “everyone dopes” and the only way forward could only be through doping.

It is for the IAAF , WADA and the International Olympic Committee to restore the credibility of the sport.  Coe had talked about an independent testing agency under the IAAF to carry out testing even before he got elected as president. At the same time, the IOC President Thomas Bach had proposed that WADA or an separate unit under WADA take over all international testing and ‘results management’ and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) take over hearing of all doping cases.

Obviously you cannot have an IAAF independent agency and WADA or a WADA-supervised agency to test international athletes at the same time. If that were to happen then the IAAF could be expected to pump more money into its own testing programme than that run by the WADA. And this can happen in other sports as well.

Additional funding for WADA will have to come from all stakeholders, not just the IOC or a group of countries. Otherwise the question of bias and conflict of interests would come in. If WADA has to take over testing, a question would also crop up whether it could be expected to monitor its own testing programme. At the moment WADA is engaged in laying down standards, formulating a uniform anti-doping Code, and monitoring including monitoring of its accredited laboratories.

Focus on cricket administration 

Back home, the focus was on cricket administration. And in keeping with the world-wide phenomenon, cricket bodies also came under closer scrutiny and were exposed. The reign of N. Srinivasan as the Board President and the International Cricket Council (ICC) Chairman came to an end as the Indian Board grappled with a variety of issues related to a report by a Supreme Court-appointed committee that went into the functioning of the Board, and was asked to give recommendations for reforms apart from handing out sanctions against some of the leading characters involved in the IPL  scam.  

The New Year is expected to unveil the final shape of the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee. Reports already attributed to sources suggested that there could be far-reaching changes in the very structure of the Board in the committee’s recommendations. The legal wrangles could be expected to continue.

If the BCCI is not seeking recognition as a National Sports Federation from the Government of India, can reforms be thrust down its throat? Will it relent? Can politicians be barred from contesting posts in the BCCI? If it can be done in cricket then why can’t such a policy be enforced in all other National Sports Federations? These are questions that the courts would eventually have to rule on.

Even as the BCCI was bracing itself up for further reforms at the behest of the court-appointed committee, the Delhi and Districts Cricket Association (DDCA) found itself in trouble with corruption charges leveled against it. Former cricketer-turned BJP MP Kirti Azad was in the forefront of the campaign against the DDCA, supported by former India captain and spin legend Bishan Singh Bedi, among others. They have been at it for years now.

That the campaign turned into a political 'tamasha' between the BJP and the Aam Aadmi Party  (AAP) was inevitable given the background that the Finance Minister Arun Jaitely, one of the BJP heavyweights, was the head of the DDCA earlier. Azad alleged corrupt officials were shielded, without naming Jaitley at least initially.

Indian Boxing continued to be in limbo thanks to the continuing war that the International Federation (AIBA) waged against the Indian federation (BI). Not satisfied with its early exclusion of the Indian body, AIBA got into the act again and even formed an ad hoc body to run the sport in the country when it had also collaborated with the IOA to form another ad hoc body earlier. 

There were faction fights in other Indian sports bodies as well, basketball being a prominent federation. 

Can there be a clean-up of the sports administration in India? It looks doubtful with the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the BCCI in no mood to relent. The IOA and the NSFs have been constantly fighting against what they term “intrusion” of the Government into their autonomous functioning. It is to be seen what fresh proposals the Justice C. K. Mahajan committee will come up with to fine tune the National Sports Code that lays down, among other things, the tenure and age limit of the office-bearers of the NSFs.

AICS revived

Also of significance is the re-appointment of Vijay Kumar Malhotra as the head of the yet-again-revived All India Council of Sports (AICS). It was Malhotra’s continuation despite the age stipulation that forced the Government to de-recognize the Archery Association of India. He has since stepped down from the post though he could be expected to be sympathetic towards the lot of NSF officials who want to cling onto their positions. What role will Malhotra and AICS play?

The courts so far have taken a dim view of the functioning of the federations including the BCCI. Any attempt to dilute the provisions in the guidelines on tenure, first enforced in 1975, would be suicidal. At a time when the call for a complete revamp of the sports administrations across sports has gone around the world, in the light of the FIFA and IAAF scandals, India should be looking forward to bringing in more transparency and accountability in the functioning of the National sports federations.

As Richard Pound said in his speech at the ‘Play the Games’ conference at Aarhus, Denmark, in October last, “autonomy of sport is an outdated relic from an earlier era”. Sports administrators have to realize the time has come to strictly follow the “good governance” principles not just on paper but in practice, too.

EPO makes its Indian debut

Fifteen years after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) introduced a test for the detection of erythropoietin (EPO) India has opened its account for an anti-doping rule violation for the red-blood-cell boosting drug.

Distance runner Hari Shankar Sharma, who tested positive for EPO at the All-India Police athletics championships at Madhuban, Haryana, in November last year, has been suspended for two years by the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP).

That this case, dating back to 28 November, 2014 could be decided only on 5 November, 2015 was due to a combination of reasons.

The New Delhi Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL), a WADA-accredited laboratory, is shown to have tested the ‘A’ urine sample on 10 March, 2015. But apparently confirmatory evaluation was by then done by another WADA-accredited laboratory in Seibersdorf, Austria and that explained the first delay. The Austrian laboratory is the Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) for tests done by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

Delays

By the time the ‘B’ sample test was done and presence of EPO confirmed it was May. There was a further time lag since the hearing panels had ended their term in February this year and were not reconstituted by the Government till July.  Actually the old panels were re-nominated then and a further reconstitution done only last month. Sharma’s case got delayed in the backlog and was taken up on 20 October.

Sharma did not put up a credible defence, going by the order issued by a panel headed by Mr. Ramnath and including international shooter Moraad Ali Khan and DrL. K. Gupta. The Rajasthan runner who took the gold in the 10,000 metres (30:07.48, ranked 7th in India in 2014) and the silver in the 5000 metres (14:35.38, ranked 12th) at Madhuban, argued that he had undergone treatment for an elbow injury in 2014 and was prescribed some medicines. There was no prescription to back up that claim. He also said he had consumed calcium and vitamin tablets.

Sharma was lucky that his case came under the old Code (2009) and not 2015 since the minimum sanction under the new rules would have been for four years unless unintentional ingestion was established.

What is EPO?

EPO is a hormone produced by the kidneys. An increase in EPO will mean extra red blood cells which in turn will mean supply of more oxygen to the muscles. Artificially it is prepared through recombinant DNA technology. It is used to treat anaemia in the medical field but it also happens to be favourite among endurance athletes for doping purposes. The Tour de France has been notorious for EPO misuse. American Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping and banned for life, admitted that he had benefited from the use of EPO.

Just as Armstrong pointed out in the documentary the ‘Armstrong Lie’, EPO detection is difficult since its half life (period during which it could be detected in blood) is around four to five hours. Initially the IOC accepted a method of blood test and urine test to confirm EPO ‘positive’ just in time for the Sydney Olympics. Not many were caught in the initial years.

Subsequently, as science and detection methods evolved, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) was able to approve a stand-alone urine test, though it is costly to conduct. Many anti-doping agencies including international federations even now use a combination of blood and urine tests; many use blood tests for screening purposes.

By 2008 the dopers were onto CERA (Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator), a new form of EPO that was used to help dialysis patients or people with kidney problems.

Biological Passport

Since 2009, WADA has introduced the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) programme by which an athlete’s blood sample is tested and variables recorded during different stages in order to assess misuse of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA). Suspect cases are followed up for target testing or else brought up as an anti-doping rule violation charge if sufficient evidence is gathered.

The recent uproar over ‘leaked data’ published by German TV ADR in collaboration with the Sunday Times of U. K. related to EPO misuse and blood doping by elite athletes including medal winners in Olympics and World Championships from several countries, Russia topping that list.

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is still looking into that issue while a second report by WADA Independent Commission that could be expected to deal with the blood doping allegation among others could be out by December-January.

Recent studies have shown that micro-dosing in EPO is extremely difficult to catch. Athletes can continue to dope and not get detected through micro-dosing, a BBC journalist proved 

The NADA is yet to begin haematological ABP programme though blood samples from India are taken and international agencies could be expected to keep a watch on the data generated over a period of time in order to carry out target testing at least.

NADA has however started steroidal ABP (urine sample) by which an athlete’s steroidal pattern is kept track of. WADA started the ABP (blood) programme in 2009 and the steroidal module in January 2014.

EPO is costly. Its testing is costlier than routine testing of urine samples, making agencies do tests only on a very limited number of samples for the drug. EPO is available in the Indian market. How athletes, cyclists etc could be misusing it in India could be assessed better once the ABP programme is set in motion.

Quite interestingly, a second EPO ‘positive’ reported in India in 2014 also came from the Police championships at Madhuban. It is another distance runner who ran alongside Sharma. His case is expected to be completed soon.

Just because only two athletes have been caught so far in India for EPO should not mean others were not using it. The detection window being small the others might have been lucky to escape.  We should also remember that NADA came into being only in 2009 and the New Delhi laboratory was accredited less than a year earlier. The ‘passport’ as and when introduced should nail many EPO users in future.

Meanwhile, K. M. Rachna, hammer thrower from UP, who stood second in the National Games in Kerala last February, has been suspended for four years by the NADDP. She was one of the 16 to have tested positive at the games. Rachna had tested positive for steroid metenolone.  
(amended 27 Nov 2015)

National Federations' apathy (Part II)

(Click here for Part I)

Gazette notifications 

Before the hearing panels were re-nominated last July, NADA had imposed its authority for six years on the NSFs and their athletes largely on the strength of a gazette notification dated January 6, 2009.

One more gazette notification was issued on June 2, 2015, notifying the revised NADA anti-doping rules based on the 2015 WADA Code.

Quite pertinently, the gazette notification, in 2009 as well as in 2015, says the same things that the rules also stipulate. That is as per the gazette notification “As a condition of receiving financial and/or other assistance from the Government of India and/or the National Olympic Committee of India, each National Federation of India shall accept and abide by the spirit and terms of India’s National Anti-Doping Program and these Anti-Doping Rules, and shall incorporate these Anti-Doping Rules either directly or by reference into their governing documents, constitution and/or rules…”

The notification is not saying that once the rules are published in the Gazette of India, it would be construed that the federations have already incorporated these rules into their constitutions/governing documents/rules.

A gazette notification precludes the need to further publicize or inform the public or concerned authorities about the subject of the notification. It need not fufil the requirements to be met by the authorities as detailed in the notification. Simple logic says that. There could of course be a legalistic or bureaucratic interpretation to this which the legal fraternity or the bureaucracy can look into.

Debate over enforcement of new rules

The enforcement of the 2015 NADA anti-doping rules to cases that came up before the gazette notification in June including 16 from the National Games in February this year was under a cloud at one stage, with the disciplinary panel raising doubts about its validity without having either “notified” (gazetted) or circulated among all stakeholders well in advance.

The objections were eventually overcome by NADA which now has again revamped the hearing panels with the induction of a new set of chairpersons to head the two panels and a few other members including hockey Olympian and World Cup-winning captain Ajitpal Singh and trap shooter Moraad Ali Khan.

It is difficult to imagine that six years have gone by and the NSFs (barring Hockey India perhaps and any other which might have escaped one’s attention) have either retained irrelevant anti-doping rules or provided meaningless background and/or links or just met the requirement mentioned in the Sports Ministry circular last March, among 23 points, that they provide a note on their websites about ‘compliance to WADA/NADA Code”.

Examples of Federation websites

A few examples of information available on the websites are mentioned here and you will readily grasp the cavalier manner in which this topic has been dealt with by many of the NSFs.

The Swimming Federation of India (SFI) does not have anti-doping rules but does have links to FINA and Swimming World magazine!

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) constitution is silent on anti-doping rules but the website does provide links to WADA and NADA.

The All India Tennis Association (AITA) does not have a mention of anti-doping rules while the Badminton Association of India (BAI) has an anti-doping section minus any reference to NADA. It has links to WADA and Badminton World Federation anti-doping rules.

Football (AIFF) and Table Tennis (TTFI) also do not have any reference to anti-doping on their websites.

Cycling (CFI) and shooting (NRAI) have complied with the ministry notification of March 2015 by giving a small note about how they follow NADA rules and the names of those who had tested positive.

The Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association has a page devoted to ‘anti-doping’. But one would be quickly disappointed. It has background on WADA, Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention and the UNESCO Convention against Doping in Sports. But nothing on NADA rules, no link to WADA Code or Prohibited List.

Definition of NADO!

Kabaddi (AKFI) gives the definition of a National Anti Doping Organization (NADO). Within that one can learn that a NADO does have certain authority, if you were unaware of such an authority.

The Judo Federation provides a note about having held a seminar. Perhaps it understood the ministry’s circular meant just that only. It also lists two suspended athletes.

The Equestrian Federation constitution, as available on its website, does not mention anti-doping. The Squash Rackets Federation of India (SRFI) on the other hand provides links to NADA rules 2015,WADA Code, WSF anti-doping rules, WSF jurisdiction, WADA education and awareness, 2015 Prohibited List and the MYAS compliance list. Yet it does not state that NADA rules would be the rules by which SRFI and squash players would be governed.

Let us take a look at some of the National Federations in other countries and at least try to understand what is needed:

Tennis Australia

“Under this Anti-Doping Policy, TA recognises the authority and responsibility of Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority ASADA under this Anti-Doping Policy and the ASADA Act and ASADA Regulations (including carrying out Testing). TA shall also recognise, abide by and give effect to the decisions made pursuant to this Anti-Doping Policy, including the decisions of hearing panels imposing sanctions on Individuals under their jurisdiction.”

UK Athletics

“In accordance with Rule 5.1 of these Rules, UKA has appointed UK Anti-Doping ("UKAD") to carry out the Testing of Athletes and the results management process. A copy of the Notice confirming UKAD's appointment was first published on the UKA website on 14 December 2009 and is reproduced in Schedule 3 of these Rules. The Notice remains in force.”

USA Swimming

“Doping control-In-Competition Testing: All competing athletes at USA Swimming competitions are subject to drug testing conducted by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and FINA under the In-Competition Testing program. 

“While all USA Swimming athletes are eligible to be tested out of competition, athletes in the Registered Testing Pool will be tested regularly and at any time between the hours of  5 am and 11pm daily. Athletes may be tested by USADA, FINA and WADA.”
 British Weightlifting

“The anti-doping rules of British Weight Lifting are the UK Anti-Doping Rules published by UK Anti Doping (or its successor), as amended from time to time. Such rules shall take effect and be construed as the rules of British Weight Lifting.”

NADA has to pursue

NADA has done a good job during its six years of existence by trapping more than 570 athletes who were found to have violated anti-doping rules. We can always argue that doping is so rampant in India that the numbers were bound to be high. But then someone has to not only catch them but also get sanctions imposed on them.

With a set-up that is clearly understaffed NADA needs to get tough with the NSFs, with adequate backing from the Sports Ministry, to get the rules business sorted out for its own good. The Ministry could be expected to clearly define what is needed to be put up on the NSFs’ websites in terms of anti-doping rules, education and awareness programme, rights of athletes, warnings about use of dietary supplements, and useful links to rules and news.

Just by asking them to put up a note this is what the ministry will get (a representative sample from AIFF website):

“Regular samples are collected during various I-League and other major tournaments under the supervision of NADA officials. One case has been tested positively. Name: Dane Pereira,Club: Mumbai FC. Test conducted on: 23^rd Feb 2015 at Mumbai.”

This information is something the ministry can  easily get from NADA office. More importantly this is of no great use to the players, coaches, public or the media. The players/athletes, especially the younger ones, need to be educated about the ramifications of doping, the health issues, the anti-doping rules, NADA’s authority, consequences of doping, “strict liability principle” that is applied when someone tests positive, the process of sample collection, rights of an athlete, the hearing process, right of appeal, latest news about prohibited substances and the need to be vigilant about consumption of dietary supplements, among other things.

At a time when UNESCO is calling for more efforts to educate the athletes about the dangers of doping, we seem to lag well behind in taking simple initiatives.

(concluded)
NOTE: Since publishing, some federations have updated their websites and rules. Here is the IWLF anti-doping policy:

http://www.iwlf.in/pdf/anti-doping-policy-of-iwlf-effective-december2016.pdf

National Federations' apathy (part I)

Hockey India an exception in adopting unambiguous anti-doping rules

What authority does the National Anti Doping Authority (NADA) have to collect urine and blood samples from athletes, get them tested, bring forward rule violations before a disciplinary panel and impose sanctions as ordered by the panel?

In a large majority of Indian sports, especially Olympic sports, there apparently is no clear-cut authority if you go by the present arrangement. Unless you agree that a gazette notification does over-ride all provisions within the anti-doping Code that stipulate a set of rules to be incorporated by the federations in their rules to provide NADA this responsibility and authority.

During the past two years one has spent time over the websites of the National Sports Federations (NSFs) trying to find whether any of them had incorporated the rules that provide NADA the authority to be the sole anti-doping agency in India to collect samples and carry out ‘results management’.

On a re-check of several websites on Sunday (Nov 1) after more than a year’s gap, I found one! Hockey India (HI) has a document titled ‘Hockey India Anti Doping Policy and Regulations’.  It contains the provisions that provide NADA the authority to test hockey players in India and to bring forward disciplinary procedures.

“By accepting the NADA rules and regulations on doping control Hockey India has agreed to share/bestow the below-mentioned duties and responsibilities to NADA with regard to doping control in the discipline of Field and Indoor hockey”, says the HI anti-doping policy.

The rules are effective from January 1, 2015.

The points that follow this statement include all testing responsibilities, ‘results management’ procedures and right of granting of Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) being delegated to NADA among other things.

HI might have done better had it also mentioned NADA’s authority in its constitution, though it was not mandatory. But when a reference to the WADA Code is there in the constitution, a mention about the NADA rules might have been just the right thing to do.

But well done Hockey India! You have left no room for ambiguity.

'Deemed acceptance'

Do we actually require an NSF to incorporate any NADA rule or grant NADA any authority when the NADA anti-doping rules have been gazetted?

Here the opinion differs. Some lawyers and officials with whom I had interacted during the 2009-2013 period when everyone was coming to grips with the changed set-up of anti-doping in India, felt that the gazette notification would be sufficient. A few others were not so sure.

The federations were deemed to have accepted the rules since they did not object to them even after publication of the rules in the gazette and notification of the same in newspapers. Can 'deemed acceptance' be a substitute for "incorporation of rules" into constitutions/governing documents"?

Will the ‘so-called’ authority derived from a gazette notification hold good in a court of law or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)?

Since it has not been challenged, no one could tell for sure. But one point that one of the legal brains made was the fact that an athlete was presumed to have agreed to subject himself/herself to the procedures including disciplinary hearings without raising an objection and that might preclude any challenge at a later stage.

One was not sure about this argument and left it at that. Yet, a few questions could remain on this score also. Do the athletes come into these proceedings agreeing in writing to the authority of NADA and the hearing panels? Do they know the authority of NADA when they are tested?

Poor response from NSFs

No one seems to have questioned the authority of NADA or that of the panels so far. Nor would it look that the NADA has been trying to get this aspect sorted out with the federations all these years. Yes, it did attempt in 2008-2009 when it brought in these rules and wrote to the federations. Not many bothered to reply even, forget about incorporating these rules into their constitutions.

If one could recall correctly, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) wrote back that NADA could carry out out-of-competition testing while the federation would conduct ‘in-competition’ testing. The argument was not pressed once NADA got into the act though the AFI did play a major role during ‘in-competition’ test distribution plan at least in those early years.

Another federation to respond was the Basketball Federation of India which stated that it would be willing to convene a special general meeting, if required, to amend its constitution appropriately to include the provision to bring in NADA rules.  Unfortunately, it seems, such promises were never followed up.

If one checks up the websites of the federations, some of them do have a mention of ‘NADA’ in some document or the other or on some page or the other, but rarely has one come across a constitution of a federation or rules that incorporate the complete NADA rules “either directly or by reference” as has been done by Hockey India.

The Indian Weightlifting Federation (IWLF) used to have separate rules applicable for sanctions in respect of ‘national-level’ and ‘international-level’ weightlifters in doping cases. The IWLF website currently does not provide a clue about its ‘anti-doping policy’ though it is a topic within the contents of its home page. There are no details available.

The AFI website does have a mention of ‘anti-doping’, though tucked away within, strangely, something called ‘development programme’, as had been mentioned  in these columns previously too.

Confusing rules

The AFI website section on doping primarily provides the composition of its Medical Commission, its role, functions etc.

A headline “In consonance with WADA Anti-Doping Rules” may suggest the adoption of WADA Code or NADA rules, but there is no further reference to such things under that headline.  It of course says the rules are in consonance with the IAAF anti-doping rules. And there was a need to incorporate these rules into “our constitution”.

The AFI constitution, as amended in 2013, still refers to the old IAAF and AFI rules; there is no mention of NADA here.

Rule 4 says “The AFI will be responsible for doping control at i) national championships, ii) regional championships (All AFI affiliated/recognized units meets), iii) University & School Games , iv) on other occasions when random and or designated testing is carried out, for example Area Group Championships or meetings. At these meetings an AFI or area representative shall be present

Rule 5 says 3) every athlete shall have the right to a hearing before the relevant tribunal of AFI before any decision on eligibility is reached.

The NADA rules

What do NADA rules, based on the WADA Code, say?

“1.2.1 As a condition of receiving financial and/or other assistance from the Government of India and/or the National Olympic Committee of India, each National Federation of India shall accept and abide by the spirit and terms of India’s National Anti-Doping Program and these Anti-Doping Rules, and shall

incorporate these Anti-Doping Rules either directly or by reference into their governing documents, constitution and/or rules as part of the rules of sport that bind their members and Participants.” So says the NADA anti-doping rules 2015.

There has been no change in these provisions from the 2009 version. And no changes in the following provision also:

“1.2.2 By adopting these Anti-Doping Rules, and incorporating them into their governing documents and rules of sport, National Federations recognize the authority and responsibility of NADA for implementing the National Anti-Doping Program and enforcing these Anti-Doping Rules (including carrying out Testing) in respect of all of the Persons listed in Article 1.3 below who are under the jurisdiction of the National Federation, and shall cooperate with and support NADA in that function. They shall also recognize, abide by and give effect to the decisions made pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules, including the decisions of hearing panels imposing sanctions on individuals under their jurisdiction.”

It goes without saying NADA has to have some authority to test athletes, carry out ‘results management’ procedures, bring forward cases for hearing and impose sanctions following such procedures. That authority has to be delegated by the National Federations.

(Continued in Part II)

Olympic family proposes WADA take over testing (part II)

(Click here for part I)

Coe’s plans to enlarge testing pool is welcome

 It would indeed be a welcome step if the IAAF enlarges its testing pool internationally. Athletes from lower-rung countries like India either do not figure much of the time in the IAAF Registered Testing Pool (RTP) or else have only a token presence, say two or three athletes at a time in the pool.

If the IAAF includes those who make the ‘Olympic grade’ in the RTP that would make more sense. For example, from India only 800m runner Tintu Luka and triple jumper Arpinder Singh were in the RTP from September last year till now. There is no Indian athlete at the moment in the IAAF RTP. There are a dozen athletes who have made the ‘cut’ for Rio so far.

Enlarging that pool would thus be extremely beneficial especially for countries that do have a doping problem but may not be having athletes who are ranked high enough to merit attention from an international anti-doping agency.

But Coe has also talked about “national testing programmes” and “swifter management of results.”

That part, one thought, was under the domain of the NADOs. At least in countries where a NADO is in existence that responsibility is that of NADO. The ‘results management’ is also the responsibility of the NADO since it happens to be the ‘testing authority’. The National Federation can at best try to co-ordinate efforts, by informing the NADO of its calendar, alerting it about an ensuing meet well in time, advising it about the competitions at the junior level that could be brought under doping control, helping NADO in preparing a domestic RTP and organising educational programmes etc.

Eventually, the test distribution plan has to be the responsibility of the NADO.

Hearing process

The hearing process is done by ‘independent’ panels. From country to country, from case to case, the time taken to resolve a doping case differs. In India, for example, the 11 cases involving methylhexaneamine (MHA) use, which started in 2010, took more than four years to come to a conclusion including an appeal stage. One of the cases still went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and it took a few more months to resolve.

This is an extreme example but it is mentioned here to prove the point that a National Federation can do little when this type of delay occurs.

There were two cases of track and field athletes in that batch of 11. The National federation had no role to play. It did not even attend the hearings. WADA could have stepped in and asked for a speedier resolution, failing which it could have dragged the cases straight to CAS. But it did not.

The NADA’s revised rules have provisions for speedier resolution of doping cases. We will have to see how it works in the longer run.

Coming back to Coe’s attempts to install an independent agency and to help National Federations speed up things, one way could be for the IAAF to take over the responsibility of  hearing all cases of ‘international-level’ athletes. This would include those athletes who are in the IAAF Registered Pool and those who compete in ‘international meets’ designated for this purpose in advance by the IAAF.

At the moment the IAAF does not have any mechanism to hear any doping case, international-level or otherwise. All cases have to be handled by the National Federations and in most instances the latter delegate the authority to the NADOs.

What the Code says

The National Federations in fact have no defined role to play in testing and ‘results management’ as per the WADA Code.

The Code says:

“5.2.1 Each National Anti-Doping Organization shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes who are nationals, residents, license-holders or members of sport organizations of that country or who are present in that National Anti-Doping Organization’s country.

“5.2.2 Each International Federation shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes who are subject to its rules, including those who participate in International Events or who participate in Events governed by the rules of that International Federation, or who are members or licence-holders of that International Federation or its member National Federations, or their members.”

The major event organisations (for example the IOC) have the authority to do ‘in-competition’ testing. There is no mention of National Federation when it comes to testing authority.

As for the disciplinary process, as an example, this is what the USATF has to tell its athletes:

“USADA handles all aspects of the disciplinary process if a sample tests positive either domestically or internationally. If the positive sample was given in a domestic competition sanctioned by USATF, USADA will notify the athlete of the test result. If the positive sample was given in an IAAF-sanctioned competition, the IAAF will notify USATF, and USATF will notify the athlete and inform USADA, which will handle the remainder of the process.”

It is of course unimaginable that Coe would be hinting at establishing an independent agency for athletics, “moving away from links with WADA’ as this report suggests.

It would further erode the credibility of the IAAF anti-doping system if it were to move away from the monitoring clutches of WADA.

WADA’s task

How can WADA go about the task of becoming a testing agency for all sports if it finally takes up the challenge?

Ideally, WADA would do well to pick only Olympic sports to begin with. And again, it would be wise to concentrate on out-of-competition testing, leaving ‘in-competition’ testing to the International Federations or else do ‘in-competition’ testing only in major events while doing out-of-competition testing at all levels.

After all, in 14 editions of the IAAF World Championships since 1983 and up to 2013, only 52 positive cases were reported from 10,787 samples (0.48 %).

Priority sports disciplines for testing could be worked out in consultation with the IOC. For example, the perennial ‘doping disciplines’, weightlifting, athletics and cycling could be given top priority with swimming, wrestling and boxing to follow.

National-level testing will necessarily have to be done by the NADOs since the numbers are too large for WADA to handle. (In 2014, WADA-accredited laboratories tested a total of 1,86,723 samples in Olympic sport disciplines alone. NADOs tested 1,43,095 out of a total of 2,17,762 samples that excluded non-ADAMS data)

The hearing process will also have to be managed by NADOs where they have the authority and by International Federations where ‘international-level’ athletes are involved. The IAAF can join this ‘community’ by bringing anti-doping rule violation cases involving ‘international-level’ athletes before its panels for resolution, deviating from its current practice of holding no hearings at all.

IOC needs to expand testing period

There are only 10 months left for Rio Olympics. If WADA has to take over  testing and it is going to take too long a time for it to be effective, the IOC may have to put in place a testing regimen that is more robust than in the past. Not in terms of testing during the Olympics, which can of course be entrusted to WADA, but in the run-up to the Olympics.

The IOC normally is in charge of doping control during the “period of the Olympic Games”. And this period usually begins on the date of the opening of the ‘Games village’ and ends with the closing ceremony. This period is considered as ‘in-competition’.

This period should ideally be extended, rather advanced to include at least two months prior to the ‘in-competition’ period for out-of-competition testing by the IOC if not in all sports at least in such vulnerable sports as weightlifting, athletics, cycling etc.

Everyone keeps talking of ‘zero tolerance’ towards doping: everyone knows a large number of athletes are doping, will continue to dope and will do everything possible to avoid detection prior to the Olympic Games.

Costs should then be no consideration for the Thomas Bach-headed IOC to mount a no-holds-barred attack on the cheats in the run-up to Rio. This may yet not deter the ‘hard-core’dopers or the ones who get a regular supply of designer steroids or the ones who micro-dose to such perfection that their EPO use goes undetected. But it could be worth a try when an all-out effort seems be developing towards cleaning up Olympic sports.

WADA has an onerous task before it. Bach and Coe could be expected to fully back it in the coming months. And you need a man like David Howman, the non-nonsense WADA Director-General, to continue to hold onto the vital controls in Montreal.

(concluded)

Olympic family proposes WADA take over testing (Part I)

In the aftermath of the “revelations” made by the Sunday Times-ARD report about several medallists in major track and field championships having had “suspect” blood test values during the period 2001-2011, the Olympic family seems to be veering towards the view that an independent agency has to take over the task of dope testing.

The Festina affair in the 1998 Tour de France, when large cache of banned drugs was recovered, eventually led to the birth of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) had then taken the initiative in forming an independent agency which would co-ordinate the efforts of the International sports bodies and public authorities and set uniform standards.

A uniform anti-doping Code came into effect on January 1, 2004 and WADA became synonymous with anti-doping efforts all over the world though it remained a monitoring agency that set standards for anti-doping agencies and for dope-test laboratories.

‘WADA has come’!

“WADA-has-come” has been, and still continues to be, the refrain however, in Indian sports when an international testing team comes, chasing dope cheats. This could be true in several other countries, too. But WADA rarely dons the mantle of a testing agency unless it is requested to by another authority.

Till the advent of the 2015 Code, WADA did not have the authority to test ‘in-competition’. Now it has both out-of-competition and in-competition testing authority. On paper, that is. It still does not perform the role of a major testing agency despite this new clause in the new Code.

But that role may well be re-defined if a path-breaking change that has been suggested by the Olympic family at a recent meeting in Lausanne is accepted by WADA. That proposal involves WADA taking over all dope testing in all sports. The details of the proposals have not been given out.

IOC takes the lead again

Like in 1998, the IOC has once again taken the lead, as it could only have been expected to, as its President Thomas Bach chaired the ‘Olympic summit’ in Lausanne and came up with the proposal which WADA’s Foundation Board is expected to discuss at its Colorado Springs meeting on November 17-18.

The logistical and financial implications for an all-sport testing agency would be enormous. But that can be worked out if there is a strong will to pursue the proposal. The question of “independence” would also come up repeatedly as it has now in several sports, cycling and athletics being the most recent examples. But such criticism will have to be faced and tackled. The main question could be "can this be a viable proposition"?

WADA is funded equally by the IOC and the Governments. There always have been suggestions that the IOC being full of officials who are presidents and secretary-generals of International Federations and National Olympic Committees (NOCs), complete ‘independence’ for WADA would remain a utopian concept.

The argument goes that International Federations would not wish to expose their sport as being full of dope cheats since that would eventually affect sponsorship, fan following and television viewership.

One can bring in a similar argument to question the ‘independence’ of  National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) most of them, if not all, funded by governments and in many cases completely managed and controlled by governments, like the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) in India.

Somewhere along a clash of interest may come in. This is not to suggest that any government would ever think of knowingly supporting doping in sports. But you can't help if a government agency is doubted for not putting in hundred per cent when it comes to chasing the country’s top athletes and Olympic medal prospects when another government agency would be funding and promoting those medal prospects.

The International Federations have come under closer scrutiny and criticism in recent years. Cycling, despite the Festina affair and the resultant upheaval has been a prime example till the Lance Armstrong catastrophe hit it in 2012 and the independent commission revealed deficiencies in the system that are ostensibly being rectified these days.

It is the turn of athletics now following the Sunday Times-ARD reports. The WADA-appointed commission headed by its former chief Richard Pound has been working on the allegations, especially into widespread doping practices in Russian and Kenyan athletics and lack of follow-up action by the IAAF. But the new proposal from the Olympic family has come before the Pound-headed panel has completed its task.

Simultaneously, the newly-elected president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), Sebastian Coe, has also talked about setting up an independent agency in athletics that could be given the responsibility for dope-testing and allied tasks. He had mooted it well before his election though the shape that such an agency would take had not been disclosed.

Whether the number of athletes mentioned in the Sunday-Times-ARD report could have been proceeded against just because of the variations in their blood values is not the point of debate right now. It is about the fact that so many of them _one in three medalists in endurance events between 2001 and 2011_had suspect values and in many cases they were not targeted for further testing in the ensuing period. 

Even if we accept that some of them might have had legitimate reasons to have returned higher values, like altitude training or dehydration for example, those numbers are still large, too large for comfort.

Sebastian Coe’s plans for independent system

Coe spelt out some of his plans at the European Athletics Convention in Lausanne recently, according to a report in Inside the Games.

"I do want a system that is more independent, that relieves the [IAAF] Members' Federations from some of the pressure, some of the resource implications, some of the challenges of a legalistic nature," Coe told an audience, including International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach, at the European Athletics Convention.

"That will actually mean broadening the testing pool internationally and reducing your international commitments, but allowing you to focus on what you do extremely well, which is national testing programmes and educational programmes.

"It will mean a swifter management around our results.

"It will mean a swifter – I hope – period between testing and sanctioning, and I hope it will release some of those precious resources, that I know you find challenging sometimes when you're dealing with those legal challenges,"

(Contd. in part II)