The blood test numbers riddle

The news was startling. No, not just the Sunday Times/ARD revelations about ‘abnormal’ blood test results for many of the medal winners in Olympics and World Championships between 2001 and 2012 but also the tally of Indians that figured in the total number of ‘suspicious’ blood test results.

How many samples of Indians figured in the recent “possible doping" revelations based on ‘suspect’ blood values in analysis conducted by two Australian experts on behalf of the Sunday Times, London, and ARD, the German broadcaster?

Six hundred samples, according to one report! That is staggering.

One report said the Australian scientists found more than 1400 tests involving around 800 athletes were ‘suggestive’ of doping.

If the total number of ‘abnormal tests’ was around 1400, as the report suggested, it is impossible that the Indian count would be 600  and not a single Indian would be accounted for in a report the Telegraph, UK, published, sourced independently by the paper.

So, we should forget about five per cent of the 12,000-odd blood samples that returned ‘suspicious’ results having belonged to Indian athletes.

What could be the number then?

Could it be 70 blood samples in the ‘suspect’ list having belonged to the Indians as one paper reported or could it be five per cent of the 70 Indian samples having recorded ‘abnormal’ values as the same paper said in another report?

The latter could be closer to the truth.

And if we accept that the latter could be the truth_say three or four Indian samples that were categorized as ‘abnormal’ that could belong to one or two Indian athletes_ then there should be no undue need for concern. Seventy ‘doubtful’ samples may probably mean all samples collected from India had turned in ‘suspicious’ results. That would be really alarming.

70 samples may fit in

Seventy Indian samples or tests_and not 70 suspicious cases_would actually fit into the level of participation Indian athletes have had between 2001 and 2012 in Olympics and World Championships and other international events. It is rare, if at all, that blood samples are taken by international agencies when they collect samples in India on occasional out-of-competition testing ‘missions’.

The two global championships mentioned in the Sunday Times report seem to have provided the maximum number of blood samples to the IAAF for analysis and data collection, especially during the period between 2001 and 2009 when the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) programme was not in existence.

The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) approved the ABP in 2009. Then onwards separate blood samples were collected and analyzed and the results stored in ADAMS (anti-doping administration and management system).

The experts who analyzed the data for the Sunday Times also took up samples outside of ABP, that is between 2001 and 2009 and possibly other years as well. The crux of the argument between the IAAF and the media organizations and their experts, Dr Michael Ashenden and Dr. Robin Parisotto, lies in this area, whether it would be prudent to depend on blood tests done prior to ABP programme.

We will not go into the merits of those arguments.  The focus here is on Indian athletes and the point to be noted in the Indian perspective is only 14 Indian athletes (half of them on two occasions each) figured in endurance events in either (or both) of the global championships between 2001 and 2012.

Limited Indian participation in endurance events

There must have been a few others whose samples would have been collected, especially between 2001 and 2009 in other international events as well. There were only a few of the Indians competing in endurance events (including combined events) in international meets during those years. The situation has not changed since. It should be noted that blood sample analysis would have required results of at least two or three samples of an athlete.

The events analyzed, according to one report ranged from 800m to marathon and steeplechase plus walks and combined events.

It is also possible that some of the blood samples that the IAAF took in non-endurance events during the pre-ABP era also got into the batch of 12,000-odd samples the data about which was ‘leaked’ to the media organisations.

After all, the 2011 study by the IAAF into prevalence of blood doping among “elite” athletes also included 1329 samples from non-endurance events out of a total of 7289 samples. And they showed abnormal results in three of the non-endurance samples also.

With all possibilities taken into consideration, however, it is difficult to imagine that the IAAF would have collected large numbers of blood samples from Indian athletes during the period 2001-2012 when the tag of ‘elite’ international athletes among Indians would have fitted only very few, if at all, especially among endurance athletes. Not enough to have 600 'suspicious' samples any way. Quite possibly not even 70 'abnormal' ones.

True, athletes like long jumper Anju George was closely monitored by the anti-doping authorities in 2003 and 2004 and subsequent years. When she started competing in many competitions abroad in 2003 and also won the World Championships bronze, India’s only medal in senior global meets, Anju came into sharp focus of the anti-doping agencies. The others were not in the same bracket and would not have been subjected to as many tests.

It is known that in 2011 (Daegu) and 2013 (Moscow) World Championships, the IAAF collected blood samples of all female contestants, ostensibly for a study on hyperandrogensim. (The 2013 Worlds is not in the purview of current debate generated by the Sunday Times report)

Two EPO cases in India

Those wondering how prevalent EPO testing has been in India during the past few years, it is interesting to note that NADA tested 129 samples for the substance in 2013, getting no ‘positive’ while it did 59 urine tests in 2014 through NDTL,  registering two ‘positive’ results, the first ones for the substance in Indian dope testing.

Both EPO cases are pending to be heard by the disciplinary panel. EPO ‘positive’ is not so common in dope testing since the substance reportedly does not remain in samples for more than 48 hours. Micro-dosing these days has made it all the more difficult for anti-doping authorities to catch the culrpits. The IAAF recently stated that since 2001 it had recorded 141 positive cases for EPO.

NADA is yet to start its Biological Passport programme, though it has been collecting blood samples under the ABP programme and feeding the information into ADAMS. It is expected to start its ABP soon now that the ‘whereabouts’ programme in athletics has been put in place and sample collection has already started. A few more disciplines are due for inclusion in the Registered Testing Pool.

The IAAF and WADA could be expected to monitor all the ABP samples. The IAAF has an expert panel that keeps a watch on the data entered by various agencies in the ADAMS. NADA will have to set up an Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) when it joins the ABP Programme. That unit will study the results and suggest follow-up measures. An agency can also delegate the authority to an APMU associated with a WADA-accredited laboratory if such a unit exists in that lab.

The recent revelations plus the two EPO ‘positive’ tests that came out of NDTL testing in 2014 (it could not be immediately confirmed which sport these EPO tests came from) should make the EPO dopers in Indian sports extra cautious in the coming months.