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.