Meldonium has a new name!

What is Mnaapohat? 

Google cannot make anything out of it. Yet, news reports  on Feb 23 have carried that word in relation to the Jithin Paul doping suspension for ‘possession’ of a banned substance.

Since Paul, we know, was charged with “possession” of meldonium, we quickly presume Mnaapohat is either meldonium or else some substance that might contain meldonium.

So, let’s check the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List 2018. A lot many names there are as unpronounceable as Mnaapohat is, but there is no Mnaapohat.

Mnaapohat indeed is meldonium. On a query from this correspondent, James Ellingworth, who writes for AP Business and Sports, mainly covering Russia and countries around that region, conveyed that it was, as suspected, MILDRONAT in Russian. Mildronat of course is Mildronate, the name under which meldonium that is manufactured in Latvia since 1970, is marketed in Russia and several other former Soviet states.

Mildronate was the name with which Maria Sharapova was familiar when she was charged with a meldonium violation in 2016. She served a 15-month ban, reduced from two years on appeal, and is back on the circuit. Meldonium, however, continues to be identified with the Russian tennis superstar.

NADA could easily have got someone to read out an obvious Russian label and mentioned it in its report, that the substance recovered was meldonium.

Paul, national 400m hurdles champion in 2016, Asian Games participant in 2014, and who was also part of Indian 4x400m relay teams in the recent past, has been slapped with a four-year suspension for “possessing” meldonium injection vials.

This is the first time NADA has brought forward a charge of “possession” of a banned substance by an athlete and, as it turned out, succeeded in getting a sanction. The athlete’s lawyers have indicated that they would appeal. Paul only has one appeal at the national level left. After that WADA and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) will have the right of appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

NADA raid

NADA made the charge that when its officer 'raided' the hostel room occupied by Paul and the 400m runner P. P. Kunhumohammed, he was able to confiscate four different substances, viz Carnitene and  Mnaapohat from Paul and Actovegin and Stimol sachets from Kunhumohammed.

It has not been explained in the order how the recovered substances were attributed to either of the two athletes.

There is a dispute about the quantity of the banned substances as shown on the envelopes in which they were placed and which were signed by the athletes.

L-Carnitine boosts endurance and enhances weight loss while Actovegin, extracted from calf blood, is supposed to help improve stamina. Stimol helps fight fatigue. These three substances are not banned by WADA. Meldonium or Mildronate (Mnaapohat as mentioned in the NADA report as well as the order of the panel) on the other hand, is banned.

Paul claimed that there never was anything called Mnaapohat that was recovered from his room shared with Kunhumohammed. The latter also corroborated that version and so did another athlete, Jeevan K. S. who was reportedly present in the room when the NADA ‘raid’ took place. The athletes claimed that Mnaapohat was never written on the envelopes in their presence. Paul claimed that Mnaapohat was inserted into a small space on one of the envelopes after he had signed it.

NADA claimed otherwise. It dismissed over-writing of number of injection vials as “clerical error” which the panel headed by Mr. Kuldip Singh accepted.

'Procedures not proper'

Paul’s lawyers argued that search and seizure procedures were not conducted as per established practice. They said Paul was never given a copy of the seizure memo giving details of the impounded material. This, they said, was denial of “natural justice”.

NADA also inspected the rooms of shot putter Om Prakash Singh and coaches Radhakrishnan Nair, Mohammed Kunhi, Ashok Kumar and Bhupinder Singh but found nothing, according to the order.

A few important questions arise:

Why did NADA not involve independent witnesses during its search and seizure operations at the NIS, Patiala? At least an NIS officer, a coach from any other discipline, and a police officer or a lawyer might have helped.

Why did it not make a video-recording of the seizures?

Why did it not get all athletes sign on all envelopes?

Why did it not have a separate envelope for Mnaapohat (meldonium), the only substance that was in the Prohibited List?

It is not clear whether NADA has the authority to raid and seize drugs and other substances from the rooms of the athletes or whether law-enforcement agencies are required to be present. May be just a representative from the office of the Drug Controller General of India might have helped. The order does not provide an insight into this aspect.

“Possession of a banned substance” by an athlete or support personnel is difficult to prove.

Code definition

Take for instance the definition that the WADA Code has:

“Possession: The actual, physical Possession, or the constructive Possession (which shall be found only if the Person has exclusive control or intends to exercise control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists); provided, however, that if the Person does not have exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists, constructive Possession shall only be found if the Person knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and intended to exercise control over it. Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on Possession if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the Person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the Person never intended to have Possession and has renounced Possession by explicitly declaring it to an Anti-Doping Organization. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the purchase (including by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method constitutes Possession by the Person who makes the purchase.”

The order does not give us an idea about how “possession” was established. Was the athlete having “exclusive control” of the substance or the premises? (Forgetting for a moment the claim of the athletes that meldonium was never recovered from the room No. 11 of the Milkha Singh Hostel at the NIS)

On the other hand, if the athlete contends that NADA “framed” him and the meldonium that was tested at the laboratory was obtained by the agency, then the question of its origin will come. Was it purchased online since it is not easily available in India? Can it be traced to a location abroad?

This is not the first time NADA has “raided” hostel rooms of athletes at Patiala and Bengaluru. It has happened in the past, though no charge was brought up and we don’t have details of anything that had been impounded if at all.

The question also would arise why NADA should be interested in ‘framing’ an Indian athlete in the national camp. Why not “frame” several others also?

Conspiracy?

There is a mention about a “conspiracy” being alleged by the athlete in the order.

“Athlete further submits that he has been targeted. There are utterances in the camp that there is a conspiracy to unsettle the 4x400 meter men relay team which (h)as performed well during the last 8-10 months”.

This is shocking. Why should there be a conspiracy to unsettle an Indian team? And why just the 4x400m relay team?

The general impression has been NADA has not been diligent in testing track and field athletes, out of competition or in-competition, in recent times.

Obviously, NADA would tighten its “seizure” procedures from now on. Witnesses are a must; a detailed inventory is a must. Instead of just getting signatures on an envelope, NADA would do well to also prepare a separate document, even if hand-written on the spot, and mention drugs recovered and get it signed by athlete/s, witnesses and the NADA officer making the seizure.

Just as this case at the disciplinary panel stage was interesting it would be interesting all over again if an appeal is filed.

Will AFI stick to its selection norms for CWG?

An early Indian track and field season is set to start_Pic courtsey G. Rajaraman

The Commonwealth Games has a quota system for the first time. For 2018, it is a “hybrid and transitional” model. For 2022, it would be through a full quota system. The games in Gold Coast in April would be based on a qualification and 

‘’open-entry’’ system.

Athletics, for example, will continue to have an upper limit of three athletes per event with only the road events (marathon and racewalking) having minimum entry standards. Yet, the overall numbers per country would be determined by an allocated quota.

In the new system of quota allocation for the Commonwealth Games, athletics, at 37, has been sanctioned the maximum number of entries for India by the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) under its revised formula, according to a TOI report.

Initially, as per the report, Indian athletics had 30 quota slots but now there are seven more. Strangely, there is also a men-women break-up prescribed by the CGF, 24 men and 13 women. These numbers look lop-sided at the moment, keeping in mind the current standards and the performances four years ago.

3 medals in Glasgow

The last time at Glasgow, the Indian athletics team was 32-member strong. It returned a tally of one gold (discus thrower Vikas Gowda), one silver (discus thrower Seema Antil) and one bronze (triple jumper Arpinder Singh). Around eight to ten medals were projected from the athletics team on that occasion.

Having had a tough time explaining its selection process to the courts, the media and the public last year when a few “automatic” qualifiers (by becoming Asian champions) were excluded from the team to the World Championships in London, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) has, for a change, announced the selection criteria for the Commonwealth and Asian Games this year in advance.

Unfortunately, while announcing what it termed “qualifying guidelines” for selection to the Commonwealth and Asian Games, the AFI did not specify the ‘qualification period’. Chief coach Bahadur Singh has since explained the rationale.

As explained in an earlier piece , there is nothing rigid about AFI’s selection criteria (for want of a better expression, we will call them ‘selection criteria’). In the past, too, the federation had announced such norms but when the eventual teams were chosen, there never was any guarantee that the criteria would be adhered to.

With the Sports Minister apparently keen to have a sizeable contingent, the AFI might not have to chop and change the team and we can hope that it would fill up the 37 places offered. How it would go about it, is to be seen only.

Will all 37 athletes achieve the norms laid down by the AFI or will there be concessions? If there is concession in one event, can another athlete in another event be expected to keep quiet? Or will he/she approach the courts as Kerala’s P. U. Chithra did last year and Anu Raghvan, also of Kerala, did in the Olympic year?

High criteria

The AFI has kept the CWG criteria high, rather very high in certain events. For example, the women’s 100m. At 11.15s, it looks beyond the reach of even Dutee Chand, who, however, is determined to not only make it to the team but also do her best at the Gold Coast games.

The hitch for Dutee could be not just the criterion but lack of support from the federation as she put it according to this report

In 17 of the 42 individual events at the games, the AFI-stipulated guidelines are better than the Indian national records.

The following are these norms (national records within parenthesis):

Men: 100m 10.16s (10.30s, 10.26s unratified), 200m 20.35s (20.66s), 400m 45.30s (45.32*), 5000m 13:25.00 (13:29.70), 10,000m 28: 00.00 (28:02.89), 3000m steeplechase 8:20.00 (8:30.88), 400m hurdles 49.45s (49.51s), pole vault 5.45m (5.14m*), hammer 71.00m (70.73*), decathlon 8000 (7658).

Women: 100m 11.15s (11.30s, 11.24s unratified), 200m 22.60s (22.82s), 5000m 15:09.00 (15:15.89), marathon 2:30:14 (2:34:43), 100m hurdles 13.05s (13.38), hammer 68.72m (65.25*), javelin 62.50m (61.86m).

(* denotes yet-to-be-ratified performances)

In at least two other men’s events the targets may prove to be stiffer than others, the 1:46.00 in the 800m and the 2:12:50 in men's marathon.

Apart from Sriram Singh who clocked 1:45.77 in the Montreal Olympics final in 1976, the only other Indian athlete to clock a sub-1:46 in the 800m is Jinson Johnson who timed 1:45.98 in Bengaluru to make the grade for the Rio Olympic Games. All others have timings above 1:46 in the all-time lists. Johnson’s second best (1:46.43) is also below the CWG standard.

There is no one close to late Shivnath Singh’s 1978 marathon timing of 2:12:00. Thonakal Gopi (2:15:25) who could be a contender for the CWG slot, irrespective of his timings, and Kheta Ram (2:15.26) are the next best.

In several other events, too, the task for the Indian athletes look a lot tougher than that could have been the case had the CWG come later in the season rather than in April. To once peak in March and then again towards July the same year for the Asian Games is a daunting task, though our athletes are not totally unfamiliar with such double ‘periodisation’.

May prefer Asian Games

Many of the leading athletes may find it more profitable to concentrate on their Asian Games preparations than strain themselves in aiming for the stiff CWG marks. A medal in the Asian Games is easier to achieve than in the CWG in a majority of the events for Indian athletes.

The personal bests of some of the active athletes and the AFI guidelines for the CWG are listed below just to provide an idea about the tough task that awaits the Commonwealth Games aspirants:

Men: 100m-criterion 10.16s (Amiya Mallick 10.26s, V. K. Elakiyadasan 10.31), 200m-20.35s (Elakiyadasan 20.92s), 5000m-13:25.00 (G. Lakshmanan 13:35.69), 10,000m-28:00.00 (G. Lakshmanan 29:16.21), 3000m steeplechase-8:20.00 (Avinash Sable 8:39.81), Pole vault-5.45m (S. Siva 5.14m), Decathlon-8000 points (Abhishek Shetty 6991).

Women: 100m-11.15s (Dutee Chand 11.30s, also a ‘doubtful’ 11.24s in Almaty in 2016), 200m-22.60s (Srabani Nanda 23.34s), 1500m-4:10.00 (P. U. Chithra 4:17.92), 5000m-15:09.00 (L. Suriya 15:39.18), 10,000m-32:30.00 (Sanjivani Jadhav 33:14.16), 100m hurdles-13.05s (Purnima Hembram 13.72s), 400m hurdles-56.00s (Anu Raghavan 57.21s), triple jump-13.90m (N. V. Sheena 13.58m), shot put-17.00m (Navjeet Kaur Dhillon 15.89m), hammer-68.72m (Sarita Prakash 65.25m).

There are others who look capable of achieving these criteria, given the fact that they have either been consistent around such marks or achieved comparable or better marks last year. They include (with marks in 2017):

Men: 400m-45.30s (Muhammed Anas 45.32s), 110m hurdles-13.55s (Siddhanth Thingalaya 13.48s), high jump-2.25m (Tejaswin Shankar 2.26m), Long jump-8.00m (Ankit Sharma 7.96m), triple jump-16.60m (Arpinder Singh 16.75m), shot put-20.20m (Tejinder Pal Singh Toor 20.40m), discus-62.00m (Vikas Gowda 62.35m)

Women: 400m-52.00s (Nirmala Sheoran 51.28s, Jisna Mathew 52.65s, M. R. Poovamma 52.66s), Pole vault-4.00m (Vakharia Khyati 4.10m), high jump-1.90m (Swapna Barman 1.87m), long jump-6.45m (V. Neena 6.54m, Nayana James 6.55m), Heptathlon-5826 (Swapna Braman 5942, Purnima Hembram 5798).

It is not clear at this point whether the Union Sports Ministry would stick to the sixth-place criteria it announced for multi-discipline games in 2015. Except for that in the men’s 5000m (sixth place 13:22.32 as against AFI norm of 13:25.00), all other marks fixed by the AFI for CWG are better than the sixth-place result of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games. In fact, in many events, if the sixth-place criteria were to be applied then there could be more qualifiers than the AFI would be able to accommodate!

Tough to fill up 24 places

Hopefully, the AFI would stick to its guidelines especially after the uproar that the Chithra exclusion caused at the time of the London World championships. Filling up 24 places in the men’s section might be difficult, though, unless the AFI is planning to enter both the relay teams.

The men’s 4x100m guideline has been pegged at 38.35s (fourth place of 2014 games) which is better than the national record of 38.89s that India clocked at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi for a surprise bronze. The best by an Indian team in recent times has been the 39.86s that it clocked in Almaty in 2016. The norms in the men and women’s 4x400m, 3:02.17 and 3:32.45 respectively, should be attainable.

Javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra, one should presume, has already clinched his place in the Gold Coast-bound team with his performance of 82.80m at Offenburg, Germany, on Feb 3. The selection criterion is 81.80m. He seems to have stuck to his German base, at least for the time being, instead of coming under the guidance of former world record holder Uwe Hohn who is in India.

Talking of javelin, it is disturbing to note that Devender Singh Kang, who was the lone Indian athlete to make the final at last year’s World Championships, hit a ‘low’ with an effort of 75.87 (gold) at the Asian Games test event at Jakarta this month. Kang had registered a personal best 84.57m at Patiala last year when he also had six other marks over 80 metres. Kang is currently facing an anti-doping rule violation charge though he has not been provisionally suspended which is the case with national women’s shot put record-holder Manpreet Kaur.

Racewalkers selected

The AFI has named four racewalkers for the Commonwealth Games after the National championships in New Delhi. National record holder K. T. Irfan and Rio Olympian Manish Singh Rawat in the men’s 20km, the new national champion Baby Soumya and former national record holder and the most experienced woman walker Khushbir Kaur in the women’s 20km have gained selection. All of them easily surpassed the AFI guidelines. 

Soumya’s improvement from a 1:41 walker to a 1:31 walker is significant. If the Kerala woman maintains form she, along with Khushbir, should be among the medal contenders in Gold Coast.

Indian athletes will have only limited opportunities to make the cut for the Commonwealth Games. The first one comes in the form of the Indian Grand Prix at Patiala on Feb 27. Then there will be the Federation Cup from March 5 to 8. That will be the final ‘selection trials’ for the Commonwealth Games. As in the past, the federation is making it mandatory for athletes to compete in the Fed Cup to gain selection. Those who have achieved the guidelines would be expected to maintain their form close to those marks during the meet. At least on paper, that is the argument. It need not always materialize that way.

Sometime ago, the AFI had held out the threat that those who stayed away from camps would not be eligible to compete in the ‘selection trials’. It is to be seen whether this remains just a threat or not.

The 2016 season produced some stunning performances just in time to make the qualification for the Rio Olympics. We know what happened afterwards. It is to be hoped the Rio Olympic qualification race or even the 2017 World Championships one will not be repeated in attempting to make the Gold Coast cut. One also expects the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) to do a thorough job of monitoring the performance of the athletes getting ready for the two games this season. Keeping away from championships, as NADA did last season, will prove disastrous. Inflated performances at home invariably get exposed on the bigger stage.