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.
No comments:
Post a Comment