The record ratification debate continues

“Is dope-testing of record-breakers in Indian athletics a farce?”

This was my inaugural piece on my blog on May 1, 2014.

Almost three years later, I must repeat that question. With a touch of disappointment that things haven’t improved. Coming as it does when the Athletic Federation of India (AFI) has just raised doubts about the lack of dope-testing information in relation to a clutch of National records set in 2016 this may sound rather harsh. But the truth is the very fact that such doubts have cropped up after months shows how haphazardly this stipulation is being still pursued.

Absence of dope test information

“The EC did not ratify the National Records in (the) absence of Anti-Doping proofs and it will be done at (a) later stage” said an AFI Press release after its Executive Committee meeting in New Delhi on Feb 26.

Later stage? How can postponing such a decision change anything as far as anti-doping records are concerned?

The National records in question mainly came in June and July last year. There were others too as we will see in subsequent paragraphs. But will anyone be able to throw more light on tests done in June and July last year at this point of time?

Let us first look at the two cases of record-breakers mentioned in a recent PTI report, that of sprinter Dutee Chand and long jumper Ankit Sharma. It is being said the dope-testing at these meets has come into question since the Almaty laboratory was suspended by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) last June.

Dutee Chand clocked 11.30 (heats) and 11.24 (second in final) in the 100 metres in the Kozanov Memorial at Almaty on June 25.

WADA’s suspension of the Almaty laboratory’s accreditation for four months was effective from June 24, 2016.

Would the laboratory have accepted samples for testing a day after its accreditation was suspended? Would the Kazakhstan Athletics Federation have engaged the services of the laboratory after the latter’s accreditation was suspended?

Let us for a moment presume that WADA’s announcement, made public only on June 28, was unknown to the Kazakhstan federation (or any other agency that might have been engaged by it) and it arranged to collect samples in the Kozanov meet on June 24 and 25 and submitted the same to the lab.

What was the laboratory supposed to do?

“That all samples not yet analyzed and all samples currently undergoing “A” or “B” confirmation procedures and all samples where a presumptive analytical finding has been reported as of the date of this decision shall be securely transported and with a demonstrable chain of custody to another WADA-accredited laboratory as soon as possible and no later than 14 calendar days following the date of this decision,” stated the decision of the chairman of the WADA Executive Committee.

This means even if the samples were collected in Almaty on June 24 and 25 and sent to the WADA-accredited laboratory there for testing, the lab would have transferred all the samples (even those that were already being tested in case there was a communication gap that prevented the June 24 “effective” date being implemented) to another WADA-accredited laboratory.

Suspended labs don't test

The status of the Almaty lab at the time Dutee set the National records, eclipsing her own 10.33s clocked in New Delhi in April last year, should not thus come in the way of ratifying or not ratifying a national record of India. Because that is not an issue here since the Almaty lab would have either left the completion of the ‘A’ sample testing process to another lab or else transferred the whole sample to the latter.

If the samples were collected (and this is a big ‘if’) in the Almaty meet on June 24 and 25 and these included Dutee Chand’s (another ‘if’) then the AFI can get the information from the Kazakhstan federation or the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). It should have got it by now since dope-testing should be completed within days rather than months and the reports are out promptly rather than held back in suspense.

For an entirely different reason, unrelated to doping and testing, noted athletics statistician Mirko Jalava of Finland had raised doubts over some of the marks set in Almaty. This can be looked up here.

Now let us look at Ankit Sharma’s sensational 8.19m in long jump that was nine centimetres better than Kumaravel Premkumar’s record set in New Delhi in 2013. Premkumar’s dope test then was done more than 24 hours after he finished his competition, much against regulations, but that is a different matter.

Sharma’s NR also came at the Kozanov in Almaty on June 26. He had an 8.17m also within that series that actually bettered the old record.

What can the AFI find out about either the status of the Almaty lab or the fate of Ankit Sharma’s urine sample (if it was collected) eight months after the event?

AFI should have dealt with those records that were supported by dope-testing records or rejected all of them if the intention was (is) to strictly enforce dope-testing for record-breakers. If none was available where it could lay its hands on a dope-testing procedure or a report, then also the logical way out would have been to reject all. Dithering over a set of procedures is not going to help the federation or give confidence to the athletes.

Amidst all this, the world junior record of 86.48m in javelin by Neeraj Chopra last July in the World Under-20 championships cannot be put under the uncertain category. For one it is a world-under-20 record; for another the Chandigarh youngster won the gold at a world meet. A world record in any category would necessarily require a dope test and a medallist at a world meet would also be put through a test.

But should the AFI reject a National record set in the Olympics or World Championships in other cases? “How can you reject a record set in an Olympics” is often the refrain from officials.

The counter question could be “does the AFI have dope-testing records of national-record-breakers in Olympics or World Championships?”

Say for example, does it have the dope-test report of steeplechaser Lalita Babar who clocked a fabulous 9:19.76 in Rio on way to a historic entry into the final?

Did the AFI make a request to the organizers in Rio to test Babar immediately after she finished the race and officials came to know of the national record? Many other countries make such requests and pay up when their athletes set national records in such global meets. There is always a provision to do extra testing if a delegation pays for it.

Simply believing that dope-testing measures would be of the highest order at an Olympics and that would be sufficient to endorse a record set there would be illogical if not foolish, The Independent Observer Team noted that 4125 participants in the Rio Olympics had “no record of any testing in 2016” of which 1913 were in the ten high risk sports identified by the Olympic dope-testing Task Force.

Several other marks also in focus

The question about lack of credible documentation including dope test reports to support the national-record-ratification process should come up in respect of the following marks set abroad also apart from those by Dutee Chand and Ankit Sharma:

Men: 400m: 45.44s Muhammed Anas, Bydgoszcz, Poland, June 24; 45.40s Muhammed Anas, Bydgoszcz, June 25.

110m hurdles: 13.59 Siddhanth Thingalaya, Clermont, May 14, 13.54 Thingalaya, Phoenix, June 11.

4x400m relay: 3:02.17 Indian team, Erzurum, Turkey, 12 June.

20km walk: 1:20:21 (equals NR) Devender Singh, Nomi, Japan, March 20.

Women:

3000m steeplechase: 9:26.55 Sudha Singh, Shanghai, May 14.

4x100m relay: 44.03 Indian team, Beijing May 18; 43.42 Indian team, Almaty, July 4.

In all cases it is essential to find out first whether any dope-testing was conducted at the above meets. If there indeed was dope control then whether Indian athletes were tested. If not whether such athletes were tested at any WADA-accredited laboratory within the stipulated time after an event at the request of AFI or the athlete, under the charge of a competent authority, if indeed such a request was made.

In all such cases the AFI should go by what the concerned authorities have to say and not what the Indian coaches, managers and athletes might have to say about the presence of dope control and about Indian athletes having been tested.

This is not to suggest that any of the other records, especially those set at home, should be okayed without a scrutiny. Of course there are several others from the past which were okayed without a fuss after having raised doubts over them initially not just because of lack of dope-testing but also because of the doubtful nature of “competitions”.

The AFI is understandably finding it difficult to gather information about “negative” dope tests in National meets. The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) is not expected to provide that information. Only the ‘positive’ cases are reported and conveyed to athletes and federations unless the information is of relevance in a hearing process or an investigation and is sought by a panel. There might have been a deviation in the recent past but NADA would hopefully have learnt a lesson from that experience.

Thus, there should be nothing that should hold back the Technical Committee from ratifying Renjith Maheswary’s triple jump record of 17.30m in Bengaluru on July11 last if he was dope-tested. If there are other considerations, the AFI should come clean.

This issue of National records and dope-testing has dragged on for years without anyone being the wiser. The AFI must give its ruling and stick to it.