Of qualification marks, internal standards and selection guidelines

P. U. Chithra  winning 1500m at the Asian championships in Bhubaneswar_Pic courtesy G. Rajaraman.

Obfuscation is the ‘in thing’ in Indian sports administration. For years, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) has been laying down qualification criteria for selection of teams for major international competitions. And flouting them much of the time!

Now comes this news: “The AFI will introduce qualifying standards across track and field disciplines for next year’s Commonwealth Games and Asian Games.”

Public memory is short. It seems the media’s, too. Not just the media, but that of the coaches and officials also.

The AFI stated in a Press release in June, 2014 just when the athletes were getting ready to compete in the inter-State meet in Lucknow that served as the selection trials for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, that a set of qualifying marks was being announced for the selection of the Indian team.

Complicated process

The AFI went through a complicated process of compiling the third and fourth place results of the three previous Commonwealth Games and arrived at a particular mark which it fixed as the norm for the Glasgow Games.

For the Asian Games in Incheon it was explained that only "qualifying guidelines" were being issued and not 'qualifying standard'. It did not matter; the athletes knew what to clock and how far to jump in order to make the cut.

Since the times one could remember, the AFI had some selection standards for picking Indian teams for Asian Games, Asian Championships and Commonwealth Games. You may call them ‘selection criteria’, ‘qualification standards’, ‘entry standards’, ‘selection guidelines’ etc, it all boils down to just one thing: what performance should an athlete turn in in order to make the team.

The ‘entry standards’ for Olympic Games and World Championships (and similar meets) are different. They are a set of standards prescribed by the international federation (IAAF) without which an athlete cannot hope to compete in the global-level championships. For the World championships, however, the IAAF has in recent years made concessions, allowing continental champions, defending champions and athletes who may get an invitation because of his/her placing in a ranking list, to be entered without any conditions. 

Both Olympics and World Championships have ‘distress quota’ meaning a country would be allowed to enter a male and a female athlete in an event (excluding certain specified events) irrespective of attaining an entry standard.

In contrast to the IAAF standards, if the federation and/or the ministry dilute the criteria_and they invariably do_you can make an Indian team.  The IAAF does not dilute any criteria, not even by 0.1s when a final list is released. That then is the difference between “entry standards” and “selection criteria”, the latter more often than not referred to as “qualification mark”.

Make no mistake, there would be statements by the federation that no concessions would be given and it would strictly stick to laid-down criteria etc. When the final hour comes there would be “adjustments”.

The Union Sports Ministry had followed its selection criteria in measurable disciplines from sometime in the 1970s. It was third place performance of the previous games (or last Asian championships, whichever is higher) for Asian Games and sixth place for the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. Some concessions used to be given to “young and promising” athletes.

Once the IAAF brought in entry standards for Olympics, the Government criteria became irrelevant for athletics. But not for Asian Games and Commonwealth Games. In 2006, for the Asian Games, the ministry, however diluted the criteria to the sixth-place standard.

This was the signal for further dilution in 2010 when no criteria was insisted upon, and and to some extent in 2014 when the Government did not  firmly stick to any standard though the sixth-place standard was sort of benchmark. The AFI had its own set of norms, even though it was flouted often to benefit a few ‘favourite’ athletes.

“There are no qualifying standards for the Asian Games and the Commonwealth Games. We will be uploading these qualifying standards on our website in a week so every athlete is clear about what performances will be considered when a squad is picked,” Adille Sumariwalla, AFI chief, was recently quoted as saying.

The selection criteria were uploaded on earlier occasions also when the AFI website became operational and the federation started utilizing it for communicating with the athletes and state bodies. 

That they were changed overnight at the Inter-State meet in 2014 at Lucknow led to much confusion as this report in The Hindu would confirm.

The AFI president said the other day that the selectors had referred to ‘internal qualifying standards’ when selecting an athlete. But this would be the first time that timings, distances and heights which athletes need to achieve will be uploaded on the website , said Sumariwalla.

There cannot be any “internal qualifying standards” that are unknown to the athletes. It will then be meaningless. The selectors could be given broad guidelines in case too many claimants are there for one or two slots in a team. These cannot be termed ' qualifying standards' when those standards have already been laid down by the international federation. A selection process or a policy has to be different from "internal standards".

What happened in the P. U. Chithra (in pic above) episode before the London World Championships was due to the complete lack of foresight displayed by the AFI. That led to the mess that brought Chithra's plight and the AFI functioning into national focus. Today, Chithra is one of the 17 athletes chosen in the initial list of 152 elite sportspersons for the TOPs funding and monthly stipend of Rs 50,000.

Neither the selection committee nor the athletes knew that becoming champions in the Asian championships in Bhubaneswar would not be sufficient to “qualify” for the World Championships in London.

The IAAF had laid down the policy of allowing a “free” entry to the continental champions, irrespective of the performance levels.  Unless there was a rider announced well in advance to this method of qualification by the national federation, there was no need to doubt the proces. Of course the AFI had the final authority to enter the athlete in the World championships.

Athletes briefed

At the end of the Asian championships in July, the AFI Secretary, C. K. Valson, briefed athletes and coaches to convey that the ‘Asian champion’ tag or the entry standards achieved earlier alone would not be sufficient for selection to the World championships and the athletes would be expected to come close to the IAAF standards at the inter-State meet at Guntur that was to follow within a week. Participation at the Guntur meet was a “must” for the qualified athletes, it was stated.

None of the athletes who attained standards prior to the Asian championships and had clinched their places in the London-bound squad competed at Guntur. From among those who became Asian champions and thus became eligible to go to London, steeplechaser Sudha Singh skipped the meet.

Heptathlete Swapna Barman competed only in the hurdles and long jump, while G. Lakshmanan, the double gold winner in Bhubaneswar improved his timing in 5000m compared to the Asian championships but skipped_understandably_the 10,000m.

Chithra was beaten to second place by junior Lilli Das, a fact that the AFI projected to rebut criticism that the federation had played ‘politics’ in the selection.

Chithra (4:1792 at Bhubaneswar, 4:28.87 at Guntur; IAAF standard 4:07.50) Sudha and Ajay Kumar Saroj, the men’s 1500m winner at Bhubaneswar (3:45.85 as against IAAF standard of 3:36.00) and Guntur (3:45.88) were axed. AFI’s anxiety to cut down on numbers after the Rio fiasco was understandable. But could downsizing have been achieved by dropping just three athletes?

Was there a selection criteria fixed for prospective Asian champions for them to become eligible for World championships?

None.

That is where the AFI made its first mistake. Then it compounded it by being selective in its application of so-called “internal standards” which apparently even the selectors were unaware of.

Now, to say, AFI had never set criteria for selection all these years and it would do it now since stung by the criticism and court case arising out of the Chithra episode is akin to having selective amnesia.

Tougher than prescribed

Once in the past, for the Sydney Olympic Games, the AFI had tried to fix tougher standards than required by the IAAF. That was by going for the ‘A’ standard rather than the easier ‘B’ standard. ‘A’ allowed you to enter more than one athlete while ‘B’ was good for just one. Eventually, the federation stuck to the ‘B’ standard though some of the athletes did return ‘A’ standards.

It turned out to be one of the most disastrous outings for Indian athletes in the Olympics with only K. M. Beenamol in the 400m going past the first round.

Selection norms are announced by federations. Some do it well in advance, some late in the day. The AFI has done it both ways in the past. Not surprisingly, the AFI has tended to fix norms looking at the standards of its own athletes rather than what could await them in actual competitions.

Sometimes this may click as it did in 2010 for both CWG in New Delhi and the Asian Games in Guangzhou, China.

The Government had notified in 2015 that for all the multi-discipline games the sixth-place standard would be applicable for measurable sports. This was a sequel to the drama that involved the clearance of the Indian contingent for the Incheon Asian Games.

The IOA proposed a 942-member contingent which was cut down drastically by the ministry initially. But after the Prime Minister’s intervention, a contingent of 679 including a 56-member athletics squad, was approved. The track and field athletes won 13 medals including two gold, the lone individual gold coming from discus thrower Seema Punia. In Guangzhou in 2010, Indian athletes had won five gold medals.

Will it be sixth-place criteria?

Will the Government stick to the sixth-place criteria next year? Or will it be another concession, as in 2006, to boost numbers so that someone would be able to say “we send a 1000-member contingent”!

Looking at the performances in 2016 and this season the sixth-place criteria should not pose much problems for Indian athletes in established events for both Commonwealth Games and Asian Games. This is presuming that the AFI itself would not make it a lot stiffer than that when its think-tank sets out to formulate criteria. Anything below sixth-place would be making a mockery of this business of "laying down standards".

The crucial question would be how much active would the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) be in the run-up to these two games? Out-of-competition testing that should start from November this year at least, should hold the key.
The Commonwealth Games are to be held in Gold Coast, Australia, from 4 to 15 April, 2018 while the Asian Games in Jakarta, Indonesia, from 18 August to 2 September.

(amended 18 Sept 2017)

An excretion study and a WADA letter lead to 8-year ban for Priyanka Panwar

A technical letter from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to all the accredited laboratories regarding the metabolites of Oxethazaine last February coupled with an 'excretion study' and an expert opinion provided by the Director of the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL) clinched the argument against quarter-miler Priyanka Panwar in a doping case decided recently.

Panwar was handed an eight-year ban, this being her second offence after the more famous one involving her and five other 400m runners who were preparing in 2011 for the London Olympic relay qualification.

The 2011 offence was one involving a steroid, methandienone, alleged to have come from the Ginseng reportedly purchased by the Ukrainian coach of the 4x400 team, Yuriy Ogorodnik, in China.

This time, Panwar tested positive for the injectable stimulant mephentermine and its metabolite phentermine in a sample collected at the Inter-State meet in Hyderabad in July, 2016.  Surprisingly the case dragged on, eventually being decided more than a year after the sample collection.

The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) and the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) surely look headed towards setting records for long-winding arbitration proceedings.

The eight-year ban should more or less end the career of the 29-year-old Uttar Pradesh runner who shot into prominence in the 2011 season by being among the contenders for a place in the 4x400m relay team for London Olympics before being sidelined through the sensational doping fiasco that ruined India’s qualification bid.

Non-specified stimulant

Mephentermine is a non-specified stimulant meaning its finding in a dope test would result in the athlete facing the same type of consequences as that for steroids. To elaborate, there would be an automatic provisional suspension unlike none in the case of a specified stimulant or substance, and the athlete would be required to prove that he or she did not take the drug intentionally to enhance performance to avoid a four-year sanction.

Panwar argued through her lawyer, Vidushpat Singhania, that she had ingested the drug mephentermine through a medicine (Mucaine Gel) prescribed by one Dr Vipin Sharma for stomach pain. She produced the prescriptions and even had the doctor depose before the panel.

It is a fact that two of the metabolites of Oxethazaine which is one of the ingredients of Mucaine Gel are mephentermine and phentermine.

Armed with the WADA technical letter on Oxethazaine and the excretion study on the drug conducted by the Cologne laboratory and her own lab, the Director of NDTL, Dr Shila Jain, presented evidence that eventually clinched the argument against the athlete.

Panwar had failed to mention the medicine (Mucaine Gel) on the doping control form though there were prescriptions dated 02-01-2016 and 07-05-2016. The panel dismissed one dated 12-12-2016 as irrelevant to the case since her sample was collected on 02-07-2016.

Dr Sharma deposed before the panel but did not say he had advised her to take it on an SOS-basis (as and when pain recurred), a point that went against the athlete.

NADA argued that the mephentermine/phentermine ratio was much higher than the “less-than-one” level that would have indicated use of Oxethazaine. In fact it was 36 times it was disclosed to the panel.

The WADA technical letter plus the report that the NDTL Director submitted about the metabolite concentration levels finally clinched the argument conclusively as far as the panel was concerned.

WADA technical letter

This is what the WADA letter to all the directors of accredited laboratories stated:

“1. Check the Sample Doping Control Form (DCF) for a declaration of use of Oxethazaine;

2. Test for the presence of Oxethazaine major Metabolites, namely β-hydroxyphentermine and β-hydroxymephentermine. Both of these Metabolites are detected in much higher concentrations than Phentermine and/or Mephentermine following the administration of Oxethazaine”.

If it was proved that use of Oxethazaine (Mucaine Gel or Stoin for example) had produced the metabolites β-hydroxymephentermine and β-hydroxyphentermine then the lab was supposed to report the result as “negative’.

Not even traces

The panel observed: “In the present case, both beta-Hydroxy metabolites of Oxethazaine were not seen even not in traces then how the athlete can take the plea that she took ‘Mucaine Gel” prior to the questioned event. This clinches the issue and the Panel has come to the conclusion, keeping in view the clarification given by Dr Shila Jain by sending reply on 06/06/2017 as well as cross-examination conducted on 30/06/2017 that Ms. Panwar has probably ingested Mephentermine and Phentermine directly and not through Mucaine Gel. The Panel has also kept in mind the concentration level of the questioned sample which was Mephentermine 11.0ng/ml and Phentermine 300mg/ml and the same was on much higher side. Therefore, the burden lies upon the athlete to prove that she had no fault (sic) or negligence for taking the benefit of Article 10.4 of the NADA Code 2015 which she could not discharge by alleging to have taken Mucaine Gel prior to the questioned event.”

On being asked by the panel to get from the NDTL details of the concentration of mephentermine and phentermine, Dr Jain also reported that as per the study conducted by NDTL and Cologne laboratory, beta-Hydroxy mephentermine and beta-hydroxy-phentermine were major metabolites of Oxethazaine and were found in urine at much higher concentration than mephentermine and phentermine.

In Panwar’s case, Dr Jain said, both Beta-Hyrdoxy metabolites of Oxethazaine were not seen, even not in traces which indicated that the “athlete might have not taken Oxethazaine”.

The fact that the laboratory tested for hydroxy metabolites of mephentermine and phentermine despite there being no mention of Mucaine Gel on the doping control form could suggest such tests were carried out at a later stage.

Singhania’s contention that the laboratory had subjected the sample to re-analysis and perhaps used them for research purposes despite being expressly forbidden by the athlete, was rebutted by NDTL.

During cross-examination, Singhania asked Dr Shila Jain:

“Has any testing been conducted after providing laboratory package of the athlete’s sample to the athlete?”

Answer: ‘No”.

Would it have been against the rules to test the sample again to establish whether Mucaine Gel was ingested or not? After all, a hearing panel could have ordered such a test to be carried out in order to come to a conclusion whether it was a direct ingestion of mephentermine or a permitted drug that caused the positive result.

Excretion studies

Dr Jain said in both the excretion studies, based on one single volunteer ingesting one single dose (10-20mg) of Oxethazaine it was found that the Hydroxy metabolites were 5-10 times higher in concentration than mephentermine and phentermine.

It was not clear whether the NDTL study was a recent one, whether it was done after the order was reserved in the Panwar case initially or whether it was done after the panel raised the issue of concentration levels of mephentermine and phentermine on 22 May, 2017.

The panel concluded that from the evidence presented and the opinion of Dr Jain it was clear that the positive result was the consequence of mephentermine use and not that of the permitted medicine, Mucaine Gel.

The defence counsel argued that Dr Jain’s testimony should not be relied upon, that metabolism of drug in the human body differed from person to person, that it depended solely on genetic factors, disease, age etc.

The panel rejected all such arguments and said “…when there was (sic) no metabolites, beta-Hydroxymephentermine and beta-Hydroxyphentermine found in the questioned sample, then how we can reach to (sic) the conclusion that she took Mucaine Gel and, therefore, the question of various factors like genetic factors, environmental factors, age and sex etc has (sic) not (sic) relevancy while disposing (sic) the matter.”

In mounting Panwar’s defence, Singhania also referred to the cases of tennis player Richard Gasquet (CAS 2009) and decisions in respect of Indian sportspersons.

Lawyer unconvinced

Singhania remained unconvinced by the procedures adopted by the laboratory and was even mulling the idea of complaining to the WADA about the additional tests or study allegedly conducted by NDTL. The lab had claimed that the athlete’s sample was not subjected to any further tests after it supplied the laboratory documentation package to her.

Panwar could not make the 4x400m relay team for Rio Olympics and later it was revealed that she had failed a dope test. She was part of the gold-winning Indian team at the Incheon Asian Games in 2014 and was considered a near-certainty for Rio till her performance slumped in the build-up period for the Olympics.

Her best for the 400m in 2016 was 54.23s and she was included only in the India ‘C’ team for the relay that was held at Hyderabad alongside the inter-state meet to provide the Indian team with a chance to ensure its Olympic berth.

The chairman of the panel, Mr. Ramnath, should be complimented for bringing out a detailed, reasoned order that went into 14 pages. Quite often ADDP orders are perfunctory in nature without either the argument made by NADA or the defence put up by the athlete or the conclusions arrived at by the panel being mentioned in clear terms. The other panel members were hockey Olympian Ashok Kumar and Dr Bikash Medhi.