The blood test numbers riddle

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.

Athletics takes another huge blow

Leaked blood test data leads to sensational doping allegations

One of the oft-repeated arguments in India whenever someone raises the topic of doping in sports is: “Oh, everyone in the world dopes. What is so different about Indians doping?” This argument could of course be true of a whole lot of countries around the world.

In Indian athletics this has been the norm rather than the exception since the late 1990s. Administrators, coaches, and athletes would always try to hide behind this plea, while vehemently denying that there is any doping going on around them.

Today, after a series of exposes by the media since last winter, beginning with the ‘Russian doping’ report by ARD, the official German broadcaster, and the latest report by the same channel in association with the Sunday Times , London, the credibility of international athletics has hit rock-bottom. In between had come the BBC Panorama programme in which Alberto Salazar was accused of  adopting doubtful, unethical methods, leading to a lot of embarrassment for his star trainee, Olympic champion Mo Farah of Britain. That debate is still on.

One used to say that the plea of “world-wide phenomenon” in doping was just an excuse that countries employed to defend their own athletes when they were caught and that the refrain “everyone dopes” was more an exaggeration rather than truth.

One cannot be sure of such an argument today.

How many times have we heard officials telling us that only a “small percentage” of athletes doped in international athletics?

The previous ARD documentary alleged that up to 99 per cent of Russian Olympic team use doping as a means to enhance performance.

 Dopers regain lost ground 

If we used to hear in the past that the dopers were a step ahead of the ‘cheats’, that philosophy had started changing during the past decade or so. We started believing that the testers were almost catching up if not getting ahead. Gradually, the same philosophy of the ‘cheats’ being a step ahead _even several steps ahead_of the testers is gaining ground.

Today, the whole testing regimen is in doubt, especially testing for erythropoietin (EPO), the favourite of distance runners, cyclists and other endurance athletes. Now, also in grave danger of being viewed suspiciously is the biological passport programme that has taken a huge hit following the Sunday Times/ARD revelations.

Though there were doping suspicions and allegations in the 1990s, Kenyan athletics by and large had escaped scrutiny with almost everyone marveling at the feats of its distance runners. The Nandi hills,  Rift Valley and Eldoret all became synonyms with distance running the world over.

Since 2012, however, the number of prominent Kenyan athletes caught for doping had mounted. Last year, one of the most decorated marathon runners of Kenya, Rita Jeptoo was caught for EPO use and suspended for two years. It shook Kenyan athletics.

The allegations of widespread doping in Kenyan athletics, first made by distance runner Mathew Kisorio after he was charged with a doping offence, and then by an undercover German journalist Hajo Seppelt in 2012, only gained further ground during 2013 and 2014. Both the IAAF and WADA started taking more serious note of the allegations.

In the latest German TV/Sunday Times expose which has alleged that a third of the medalists (146 with 55 gold medals) in endurance events between 2001 and 2012 have recorded suspicious blood tests, Kenya ranks second with 25 such doubtful blood values. The list is topped by Russia with a whopping 58 suspect cases, according to a report published in The Telegraph, U. K.

Russian doping tale

Russia, it may be recalled, has had to suspend almost all its elite racewalkers, most of them Olympic and World champions in recent times. Eventually it announced that it was withdrawing all its walkers from the World Championships beginning in Beijing  from 22 August.

Jamaica, another country that had been relatively off the radar of anti-doping agencies through several years and which had been hit by accusations of lackadaisical testing regimen, is rather low in the latest figures with three. Greece and Spain have 12 each according to the Telegraph while Romania and Ukraine 11 each. A surprise 10 is fixed against Ethiopia. Surprise because that country, the land of Haile Gebrselassie has not been heard of much in the realm of doping.

According to the Sunday Times report, two Australian experts had examined the “leaked” blood test reports and came to the conclusion that results of around 800 of the 5000 athletes in the list containing 12,000 blood tests were highly suggestive of doping or at the least ‘abnormal’. They said ten athletes who won medals in the London Olympics in 2012 had suspicious blood values.

Interpretation of blood values usually have remained a contentious area and may be debated further in the days to come.

Expectedly, both WADA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have reacted cautiously to these allegations which do not necessarily mean an athlete was found to have doped.

WADA’s independent commission, headed by its founder president Dick Pound, already looking into the previous charges levelled against Russia by German TV network would probe this latest allegation also, it has been reported.

Star British athlete implicated

British publications have given prominent coverage to the news of one of Britain’s “biggest stars” being in the suspect list. According to a report the athlete has threatened to sue Sunday Times if it published the name.

The Lance Armstrong doping story following the sensational, painstaking efforts of the USADA had shocked the sporting world.

The aftermath of the Armstrong doping saga has been such that almost after every stage of the recent Tour de France, doping suspicions were raised _and continue to be raised_about the leader then and eventual winner Chris Froome or anyone else who won a stage or performed beyond expectations. Froome accepted it philosophically.

"Athletics in the same position as cycling"

One of the doctors who examined the blood values in the latest expose, Michael Ashenden was quoted as saying that the files showed the same “diabolical position” as cycling during the Armstrong era. He was critical of the IAAF and so were many others.

The IAAF, which reports said had dropped a planned injunction against the story, was guarded in its immediate response, stating that it would give a detailed reply in due course.

Drastic action needed

Many commentators opined that this was coming all along and athletics was already headed cycling’s way. Cycling seemed to have improved though from last year’s testing statistics, with 220 adverse analytical findings compared to athletics’ 261. In terms of percentages both were the same at one per cent since athletics had more number of samples tested.

Apart from the predictable response from all concerned, athletics fans would be looking forward to some drastic action should even one per cent of the suspect results turn out to be what they have been alleged to be.

Sebastian Coe and Sergey Bubka, presidential candidates in the IAAF elections scheduled  for Aug 19 have both talked tough about doping scandals that threaten to plunge the sport into an all-time ‘low’ in the coming weeks.

 Coe has said he would set up an independent anti-doping agency for athletics. That would be good not only for the top-level athletes but also for lower rung ones like those in India. More out-of-competition testing by the IAAF under its own agency in future would result in better control all over the world, especially in areas notorious for drug abuse.

Doping has been rampant in Indian athletics with the sport once again topping the charts last year with 36 cases reported and sanctioned by the NADA. Two of them were for eight years, one for six years and another for four years. Most others went for two years.

The AFI has repeatedly claimed that most of these dope offenders were “lower rung” athletes or those who were caught in departmental meets. This could be partially true. Also true is NADA has not been able to put together a “whereabouts” list until May this year and even by July it was yet to fully implement the programme.

WADA may need to step in

This is a serious matter and the sooner NADA starts cracking with its registered testing pool (RTP) based testing the better it would be for Indian athletics. The WADA may have to issue warnings to all concerned that ‘whereabouts’ information when sought by an authority that has the right to seek such information should be made available quickly and without fuss. There should be no room for leniency.

The ‘whereabouts’ information is not about where the athletes are training or what is their residential address, as seems to have been mistakenly interpreted by some quarters. It is about an athlete being available for at least one hour a day at a pre-designated place 365 days a year. The information could be filed on a quarterly basis and updated from time to time.

“Whereabouts”-based testing is crucial to any anti-doping exercise, especially in India, since there have been reports about athletes being unavailable in training camps when testers go looking for them.

With reports of some top female 400m runners evading testers from the IAAF at a camp in Thiruvananthapuram last April, there is a need for the IAAF to turn its attention towards lesser-rated countries like India even as it grapples with the escalating number of scandals in international athletics.

The financial constraints regarding EPO testing, as mentioned in a previous piece here, also is of relevance in the wake of the latest expose. The negligible numbers of samples tested for EPO world-wide in 2014 do suggest that endurance athletes are getting away more easily than could have been imagined.

More EPO testing need of the hour

In India there has not been a single case brought forward by NADA on abnormal biological passport values. Mercifully there is no mention of India in the latest figures. ***This may also mean that data related only to top-level middle distance and long distance runners were scrutinised. Last year NADA conducted just 59 tests for EPO and other related substances. More EPO tests are obviously required to catch the middle distance and 'distance cheats' as the latest revelations have confirmed. Can WADA and the rest of the anti-doping authorities afford to test all samples for EPO in future, at least all samples in endurance events?

A feeling has long been gaining ground among commentators, officials and experts, and would get further intensified following the latest revelations, that anti-doping exercise is a waste of time and money.  Millions of dollars are sunk into this task every year by several agencies but invariably some scandal or the other erupts and the feeling persists that the 'big fish' quite often eludes the net.

For those athletes who might yet be believing in competing ‘clean’ and expecting the authorities to catch the dopers, anti-doping measures remain the only hope in what had long been an "unequal contest". A few more revelations like this and even they might just give up, accepting the futility. That will be a tragedy.

Post-script
The IAAF today (Aug 4, 2015) rejected the allegations made by the Sunday Times/ARD report. The full statement can be accessed here.

***PTI reported on Aug 4 that five per cent of 12,000 samples belonged to Indian athletes. The figures looked highly misleading.
On Aug 5, the two Australian scientists, Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, who analysed the blood samples data for Sunday Times and ARD, rebutted the IAAF claims and charges in a detailed response.

The IAAF in a fix

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has set aside the hyperandrogenism regulations of the International Assocation of Athletics Federations (IAAF) for two years, paving the way for Indian sprinter Dutee Chand’s participation in national and international events.

In a landmark verdict made available to the media on July 27, a three-member panel of the CAS ruled that the IAAF needed to bring in more scientific evidence to prove the quantitative advantage an athlete with higher androgen levels would gain if the rule was to be held valid.

Otherwise, the rule would become void at the end of the two-year period. The IAAF can submit evidence at any time during the two-year period for the CAS to review the situation and advise the athlete and re-open the case. The IAAF would also have the prerogative to drop the rule altogether.

The IAAF has a huge task ahead of it in case it plans to bring in scientific evidence to meet the specific requirements outlined by the CAS order.

The fundamental argument in the CAS ruling is even though there is a scientific basis in the use of testosterone as a marker for the purpose of differentiating male and female categories in sports, the panel was not satisfied that there was enough scientific data to justify the difference within the female division on the basis of hyperandrogenism or to ban athletes altogether from competition because of hyperandrogenism.

Degree of competitive advantage

“Once the degree of competitive advantage is established the IAAF would then need to consider if the degree of advantage were well below 12%, whether that justified excluding women with that advantage from the female category”, the CAS panel said in its order.

Since the IAAF had argued that the approximate competitive advantage between male and female would be around 10-12%, the CAS wants it to prove that in case a female reached a testosterone level exceeding 10nmol/L (cut-off prescribed by IAAF Hyperandrogenism regulations) which was supposed to be the lowest male range, then such females would have that 10-12% advantage rather than 1% which in its opinion would be negligible.

On the face of it, this looks an almost impossible task, given the two-year time-frame to achieve the target and the limitations imposed by ethical issues that will prevent a study in which female athletes are injected with testosterone and their performance evaluated.

The Caster Semenya example

Women’s athletic performances are hardly ever comparable to that of men. Take the case of Caster Semenya, the South African girl who had to sit out almost a year in 2009-2010 because of a gender controversy that eventually led to the formulation of the current regulations that now stand stayed.

Semenya timed 1:55.45 for the 800m gold in the Berlin World Championships in 2009, at the age of 18, a time that was 26th on the all-time lists (still is) and which has not been bettered in the world since.

We don’t know what happened between 2012 when she had the London Olympics silver (1:57.23), and 2013 when her best happened to be 1:58.92. Was there hormone therapy to suppress her higher androgen levels? The IAAF has not disclosed any details regarding any therapy since it does not do so in any of such instances. Whether because of any follow-up measures taken by the IAAF or because of any lay-off or lack of interest leading to subsequent drop in form, Semenya's best slipped to 1:58.92 in 2013, in 2014 it was 2:02.66 and this year it is 2:04.19.

In 2009 she was the No. 1 athlete in women’s 800m. In 2011 second, 2012 fourth and 2013 10th. This year she is no better than 211th in the world lists! India’s Tintu Luka is currently 69th in the season lists with 2:01.53.

Can we say in Semenya’s case that there evidently has been a remarkable advantage because of her hyperandrogenism (to give it the latest terminology rather than the then prevalent one of ‘gender’ which today is taboo)? Looking at those timings, it could be said her best had come immediately prior to the time she was suspended following an IAAF 'gender' investigation..

Yet, when those timings are compared to the men’s 800m the difference is huge, irrespective of what levels of testosterone the male runners might have had. A timing of 1:51.99 by a male runner in 2009 could find only the 1362nd place in the world lists compared to the top spot that Semenya enjoyed with her National record of 1:55.45 in Berlin. The next best among women that year was 1:57.84 by Maggie Vessey of the USA.

What the IAAF could probably do, among other things, could be re-analyze the data obtained from the Daegu World Championships in 2011, co-relate the performances to testosterone levels and prepare a fresh document in defence of its argument. The panel did suggest that this was a route worth probing.

It doesn’t look at this stage whether the IAAF could be having options to bring forward fresh scientific evidence to satisfy the conditions that CAS has laid down.

Dr. Stephane Bermon, one of the IAAF experts, who deposed before the panel disclosed that he was asked by Prof Martin Ritzen, another IAAF expert, to undertake such a study of the Daegu data but he said that it would require collating a wide range of data within narrow limits and on an event-by-event basis.

Normally, in any of the hyperandrogenism cases it is impossible to see a difference matching the male advantage over female, but the advantage over a competitor in the female category is pronounced. Even a one per cent advantage should give an athlete with acknowledged hyperandrogenism a considerable advantage in a sport where hundredth of a second, even thousandth of second at times, decides medal placings.

The’ tall and short’ argument

Is not a "marginal advantage" that might be derived by a female having hyperandrogenism comparable to several other physical traits that have been proven to confer performance advantage to athlete? Dr Richard Holt, who was an expert witness for Dutee Chand listed the following in his report that was part of the athlete’s appeal: (i) an inherited genetic defect in the EPO receptor, which results in high haemoglobin levels; (ii) tall stature, which offers advantages in a number of sports such as basketball and rowing; (iii) short stature, which offers an advantage in power-lifting and weight-lifting; (iv) low body mass index, which is advantageous for long-distance running and cross-country skiing; and (v) high lung capacity and large hands and feet, which are advantageous in swimming.

At least one expert who appeared for the IAAF admitted that there could be classification based on several factors in future, but the current issue was a broad classification between male and female and the effects of hyperandrogenism in females that gave them advantage over fellow competitors.

No ‘super male’ category

Why not a testosterone-level determination for males? This was another question that the athlete and her expert witnesses raised. The IAAF side answered that the attempt had always been to have two basic categories, male and female and not a third category named ‘super male’.

The Dutee Chand case has been projected in some quarters as though this was the first in the IAAF hyperandrogenism (gender) regulations in media reports and comments made by experts and sympathisers. It is not.

No one has talked about 30-odd cases that the IAAF had handled or had been handling since the introduction of the hyperandrogenism regulations in 2011. They haven’t simply because no one knew about these cases; there could only be some speculation in recent years. Strict confidentiality had been maintained by the IAAF in these cases.

In Dutee’s case the ‘leaks’ eventually proved beneficial to the athlete and it may actually prove beneficial to all other athletes who are either under some “corrective” procedures or have decided to retire.

Some of the 30-plus cases that had been reported so far have been resolved through the athletes undergoing therapy, a few others have apparently dropped out of competition and some more were still unresolved. Those who might yet be unsure of hormone therapy or surgery as possible courses to adopt in an effort to come back into the mainstream can drop everything and return. Those who might have retired can consider a comeback sooner than later provided age is on their side.

Since the 1960s the IAAF has followed some policy or the other to distinguish abnormalities in ‘gender’ classification. Since the words ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ were completely removed from a new policy adopted in 2011 (hyperandrogenism policy), people generally started wondering how there could be a rule that could discriminate against women who had elevated testosterone levels. No one among the public could be bothered about how those elevated levels could have come.

Discrimination

CAS accepted that prima facie there was ‘discrimination’ especially when male athletes were not required to undergo any test.

“The Athlete contended, and the IAAF did not submit to the contrary, that the IOC Charter, the IAAF Constitution and the laws of Monaco all provide that there shall not be discrimination and that these provisions are higher-ranking rules that prevail.Accordingly, unless the Hyperandrogenism Regulations are necessary, reasonable and proportionate, they will be invalid as inconsistent with the IOC Charter, the IAAF Constitution and the laws of Monaco.”

The above argument which CAS accepted formed the basis on which the panel asked IAFF to provide fresh scientific support to establish its contention that higher androgen levels did provide substantial advantage to such female athletes against athletes having “normal” androgen levels and exclusion of such athletes was a proportionate measure for the fair conduct of the sport.

No clamour for male classification

As for the argument about male athletes not being classified as per their testosterone levels, Prof Thomas Murray, chairman of the WADA Ethics Panel, and senior academic in the field of bioethics, commented that the “complete lack of clamour for separate competitions according to testosterone levels” meant that the discrimination argument was not made out in the male category.

In any event, since the purpose of the Hyperandrogenism Regulations is to protect women from having to compete against athletes with the hormonal advantages of men, Prof Murray said it was difficult to see how equal treatment required an analogous policy to protect men competing against other men.

The panel heard arguments about the effects of exogenous (outside) and endogenous testosterone with the IAAF experts arguing that there was no differentiation as far as the human body reacted to it. The athlete and her experts differed. There was also argument about the IAAF cut-off for testosterone in a female athlete at 10nmol/L.

The normal range

According to the IAAF, the data from the World Championships in Daegu (2011) and Moscow (2013) showed that  under resting conditions, the normal range of testosterone levels in elite female athletes is the same as the range found in the general population (i.e. between 0.1 and 3.08 nmol/L).

The IAAF said it was not aware of any data which showed that a non-doped female athlete with normal gonadal and adrenal function could come anywhere close to reaching serum levels of testosterone of 10 nmol/L.

The athlete argued through her lawyers that the data showed complete ‘overlap’ of male and female values, something that formed the basis for the argument by the experts on her side.

There was near unanimity among experts that lean body mass (LBM) determined the enhanced performance of the male athlete over the female. There was no unanimity however whether testosterone was the clinching factor in contributing to the LBM.

Everyone seemed to agree that a variety of factors including training, nutrition, social backgrounds etc contributed to athletic performance just as testosterone and LBM did. There were divergent views as to the role played by testosterone.

Could we be heading for ‘mixed competitions’ involving male and female athletes? Or can there be a third division for transgender athletes?

Radcliffe’s views

Paula Radcliffe, the world marathon record holder, said that it would be unfair to have a mixed competition since she felt men would always win.

The celebrated British athlete, winner of multiple world titles including the 2005 World Championship marathon, who deposed in support of the IAAF, said that the hyperandrogenism regulations were concerned with preserving fair and meaningful competition based on what was fair from a sporting perspective. She said elevated testosterone levels made the competition unequal in a way greater than simple natural talent and dedication.

For the moment Dutee Chand is rejoicing as she should. The Sports Ministry is elated that a successful campaign has ended since it supported the athlete’s appeal. The AFI seems to have come unscathed in an appeal in which it was the first respondent but chose not to be represented! The crunch will come for the likes of Tintu Luka and others in the 800 metres when the Rio Olympics arrive. And possibly well after that also unless the IAAF goes back to its old rule and defends it in court! The 800m in particular has been susceptible to the vagaries of hyperandrogenism among female athletes through several decades.
(amended July 30, 2015)

NDTL third among labs in adverse findings percentage

WADA testing figures 2014 report (part 2)

New Delhi was third among the laboratories for percentage of adverse analytical findings with 160 (2.13%) behind Mexico City (133 at 3.26%) and Barcelona (57 at 2.22%). (NDTL’s own figures were 162 AAFs from 7520 samples). In terms of total number of AAFs, Cologne, Germany, was first with 179. Only Paris, with 111, crossed the hundred mark.

It may be noted here that like in the past, NDTL also tested samples from abroad. In 2014 this number came to 3054 including two blood samples.

As per WADA’s figures, the New Delhi lab analyzed 4248 in-competition urine samples, 2962 out-of-competition samples, 14 in-competition blood samples and 287 out-of-competition blood samples. (The adverse analytical findings for tests conducted by the Indian NADA are given in the latter part of this piece.)

Among sports disciplines, athletics topped the charts in terms of AAFs with 257, with cycling coming second with 220. Weightlifting, which was No. 1 in 2013, had 169 this time while football had 140. Aquatics was surprisingly low at 64.

Anabolic agents continued to lead the substances lists with 1479 testing positive for this class of drugs, amounting to 48 per cent. It was down from its perch of 63 per cent (3320) from 2013, however. Stimulants followed next with 474 (15%, an increase of 5% from 2013), with diuretics third with 389 (13% up from 7.5% in 2013).

Stanozolol still in demand!

Within the class of substances, stanozolol, the old-fashioned steroid made famous by Canadian Ben Johnson in Seoul Olympics, replaced T/E ratio (testosterone-epitestosterone) as the No. 1 among steroids. Stanozlol was found in 239 cases, accounting for 20% within the drug class.

Testosterone (T/E ratio) clearly looks to be losing its appeal among dope cheats as could be gauged from the 56 cases (5%) in 2014 compared to 1895 (59.6%) in 2013. One explanation for the lesser numbers could be the inability of the IRMS (isotope ratio measurement spectrometer) analysis to conclusively prove exogenous use of steroids in certain cases.

There were 48 such cases (which may also have included other endogenous steroids like nandralone) apart from 261 cases (78%), the largest percentage, where higher levels of T/E ratios were reported under atypical findings.

New Delhi once again had a high percentage of success with its IRMS testing (34%) that came behind a very high percentage (83) of the Sydney lab which tested only six samples. NDTL had a 77.8% ‘positive’ in IRMS testing in 2013. IRMS is mainly used to confirm exogenous administration of endogenous steroids.

MHA tops again

Among stimulants, methylhexaneamine (MHA) proved to be the favourite among athletes just as in 2013, with 76 (16%) testing positive for the substance made famous in India through 11 cases that dragged on for four years. MHA topped with 169 (31.9%) in 2013. Methylphenidate (71) and amphetamine (70) followed MHA in a close race among stimulants.

The leaders

Among the testing authority, NADA India ranked 31st in terms of percentage of adverse analytical findings with 99 (2.3%) out of 4340 samples including blood samples. But this list included many countries that did not even reach three digits in samples tested.

Among those NADOs that tested more than 1000 samples during 2014, and turned in increased percentages of adverse findings, India was fifth, behind NADO Flanders (Belgium)with 91 (3.8%) from 2400 samples, Mexico City (67 from 1947 at 3.4%), South Africa (55 from 1854 at 3.0%) and Turkey (65 from 2392 at 2.7%).

China (13180 samples), Russia (12556), Germany (9073), France (7434) and USA (7167) were among the NADOs that did the maximum number of tests.

The fact that a country like Ukraine did just two samples through its NADO in 2014, turning up one positive, is an eye-opener notwithstanding the conflict in that country. It was in keeping with the trend shown the previous year.

Even as anti-doping authorities bring in more sophisticated and foolproof tests and methods to catch the cheats, the latter seem to be once again moving ahead, perhaps with the connivance of the administrators as the recent Russian revelations through the German television channel expose alleged. 

The latest admission by WADA Director-General David Howman that one in 10 athletes could be doping provides a grim picture of the current scene. As long as ‘medals’ alone matter for individuals and countries, the war against doping in sports may never be won.

 (concluded)

Are more dope cheats eluding the net?

WADA testing figures 2014 report (part 1)

Are dope cheats getting away from the anti-doping net more than they were able to in the past? Is testing for EPO and human growth hormone (hGH) adequate and effective around the world?

These are some of the questions that crop up as you glance through the 2014 anti-doping testing figures released by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) on Wednesday, July 22.

Not that these questions did not arise in the past, but now, with more and more reports asserting how easy it has become to avoid detection for EPO and related substances, and how difficult it is to get an hGH candidate among dope cheats the scenario has become more alarming.

If you thought the endurance athletes in athletics, cycling, triathlon etc were being tested for erythropoietin (EPO) regularly in the anti-doping domain, you would be wrong.

Despite more sophisticated testing and larger volumes of samples the anti-doping machinery reported lesser number of adverse analytical findings in 2014, according to the statistics released by the WADA on Wednesday.

This could be attributed to dope cheats being wary of getting caught and resorting to less and less doping practices or, conversely, they being smarter and avoiding getting caught. Recent reports suggest that the latter could be more logical.

Drop in adverse analytical findings

WADA reported that its accredited laboratories tested a total of 1,86,739 samples in Olympic sports  in 2014, resulting in adverse analytical findings (AAFs) of 1440 (0.77%) and Atypical Findings (ATFs) of 406 cases (0.22%) together constituting 1846 total findings which turned out to 0.99 per cent of the samples tested.

(Atypical findings (AAFs) mostly relate to higher thresholds of endogenous steroids, like testosterone and nandrolone, and the need to further study the cases.)

From 1,76,502 samples in 2013, over 10,000 samples lesser than in 2014, the laboratories had reported 1710 AAFs (0.97%) and 1716 ATFs (0.97%) in Olympic sports, making up a total of 3426 findings that amounted to 1.94 per cent.

In all, WADA laboratories tested 2,83,304 samples in 2014, turning up 3153 AAFs and 713 ATFs totaling 3866 findings that came to 1.36 per cent. The corresponding figure in 2013 was 5962 findings from 2,69,878 samples working out a percentage of 2.21.

The figures for erythropoiesis-stimulating  (ESA) agents including EPO, and those for human growth hormone are most revealing.

EPO tests come to less than 11%

Only 28811 EPO tests were done in 2014, constituting under 11 per cent of the total samples. There were 50 AAFs from in-competition tests and 11 from out-of-competition testing for this class of substance from urine testing.

Blood tests for ESA were limited, with 1752 samples turning out just five positive cases.

The position with regard to testing for hGH was disturbing. Only 6075 tests were done that turned up just one positive, at the Warsaw laboratory.

This prompted former chief of the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority (ASADA), Richard Ings, to Tweet “Only 5,700 hGH and 32,000 EPO tests across an entire globe in a whole year across every spot. Leaving the front door wide open”. In another tweet, Ings said “Net with holes”.

For the Indian reader it could be of interest that the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL), New Delhi tested no blood sample for ESA (including EPO) and did 107 urine samples for this class of substance including four out-of-competition samples and came up with two AAFs amounting to 1.9%.

A few 2014 cases are pending to be taken up rather late in 2015 and it could not be confirmed whether there was an EPO positive there yet to be presented by NADA before a hearing panel.

(Testing for EPO used to be a combination of blood and urine testing when it was introduced in 2000. Blood samples were screened first and then confirmation obtained through urine sample testing, rather an expensive process. In 2003 WADA approved a stand-alone urine test for EPO. However, even now some organizations seek both blood and urine testing.)

EPO, used primarily to treat anaemic conditions in kidney disease, has been misused in sports as a performance-enhancing drug because of its capacity to boost red blood cells which in turn helps improve oxygen supply in muscles. Endurance athletes love it and the drug has long been associated with doping in cycling, especially Tour de France. Lance Armstrong is all too fresh in memory.

Costly affair

EPO testing is costly. The Australian anti doping agency ASADA puts the cost at US$940 for an in-competition ‘stand-alone’ EPO test. Depending on where the laboratory is situated, it could be cheaper.

Of late there has been much debate about EPO and micro-dosing. The BBC’s Panorama programme which made the allegations against American coach Alberto Salazar, had its reporter, Mark Daly micro-dosing with EPO, and improving his endurance considerably without getting detected.

More recently, a French study, which had the permission of WADA, according to reports, had eight athletes being injected with EPO and growth hormone, among other things, in small amounts. They never tested positive but showed remarkable improvement in performance.

The detection window in EPO being very limited, experts are suggesting that micro-dosing could be found out only for a few hours after administration and if such methods had to be detected then testing had to be done at night, probably middle of the night.

Night testing in a restricted way has been allowed by WADA, according to reports, but there is no knowing how effective it has been.  France doesn’t permit night testing and there could be others that could raise an objection or two.

There is no clue about who all among the athletes have benefited from micro-dosing with EPO and may be continuing to benefit as they go about winning laurels.

Last year one of Kenya’s most successful woman marathon runners, Rita Jeptoo was caught doping with EPO and banned for two years.  Her positive test hit Kenya badly. The focus on marathon runners became more intense, from a doping sense that is.

Short detection window

Just like EPO, growth hormone testing has also been problematic for the testers in the sense an acceptable test took time in getting approved while an alternative method had to be discontinued after being introduced for a brief period at the time of the London Olympic Games.

The detection window is so limited that growth hormone administered the previous night would not be detected next morning, researchers have said. Spontaneous secretion of growth hormone is reported to become normal 48 hours after administration of the hormone and thus any athlete who is tested a few days after the administration can easily escape.

The key here lies in catching the culprit out of competition, based on ‘intelligence’ or a suspicion generated by any abnormal improvement.  Since 2010 there have only been around 15 cases reported for hGH (WADA figures). In 2014, just one athlete was caught.

As the WADA President, Craig Reedie recently advised anti-doping authorities to concentrate on substances specific to the sports or events concerned in a bid to tighten controls, it is clear that more and more targeting would be required to concentrate on possible EPO users.

In India, for example, there has been much talk of hGH use for the past decade but nothing has been found out so far. In India, NADA conducted 14 in-competition tests and 190 out-of-competition tests for hGH in 2014, with of course no sample turning up positive.

(continued in part 2)

An unending drama over a coach

Almost everyone is convinced that if there could be a coach who could guide India to an Olympic medal in athletics in Rio next year it should be Yuriy Ogorodnik. But somehow, the return of the 79-year-old Ukrainian coach who was in charge of the Indian women’s longer relay team when six of the 400m runners were caught in a doping scandal in 2011, has been delayed.
If you go by what the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) has to say on the matter, the delay has now been for more than six months. The Union Sports Ministry concurs with that view about the delay.
Then why this dithering?

“The approval was sanctioned six months ago,” said Union Sports Secretary Ajit Sharan…It is for the AFI to take a call", he told The Hindu on June 19 last..

So, what could be causing further delay?

The media spoils it?

It seems the media is the 'villain'!

“Whenever the ministry seems to be relenting to our constant requests, adverse media reports pop up and the bureaucrats in the ministry again reverse their decision,” the New Indian Express reported on Sunday (July 5), quoting a top AFI official.

According to the above report, the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) has been asked to file a report on whether Ogorodonik was involved in the doping episode of 2011.

Had some authority charged or suspended the Ukrainian in a doping case? That was the question the ministry had asked the federation, AFI chief Adille Sumariwalla explained to a select group of sportsscribes recently,.

"I had a meeting with sports ministry officials yesterday...and they have sought one last undertaking from AFI that Yuri has not been involved in any dope issue anywhere under the WADA Code," Sumariwalla said in an informal interaction.

"I am going to reply today…that the AFI does not need to give the undertaking in that regard. Anybody can go into the WADA website and find it out. WADA has a database of coaches who has been involved in doping cases," the AFI chief added.

The facts

Before we lose track of the whole issue, let us look at a few facts straightaway.

Ogorodnik was never charged for a doping offence in the 2011 scandal. He was questioned by the Justice Mukul Mudgal enquiry panel appointed by the Government of India. By then he had been sacked by the then Sports Minister, Ajay Maken. He left shortly after deposing before Justice Mudgal. He was not required to come back after that.

Athlete support personnel can be charged with anti-doping rule violations and brought before a disciplinary panel just like the athletes when the latter test positive or evade testers to face sanctions. A charge against a coach could include possession and supply of banned substances or encouragement or abetment to doping. In India no coach or other support personnel had been brought before panels since the advent of NADA. Ogorodnik was spared the ordeal by the ministry and NADA. It is learnt the disciplinary panel was keen to hear him had he been available and had NADA brought forward a charge. No one pursued the case after his departure for Ukraine.

Now for the ministry to find out from AFI whether he was charged or punished in the past is absurd. He had been in India for more than a decade before being shunted out.

Even if the ministry were to look up the information on the WADA website on the advice of Sumariwalla it would find nothing against Ogorodnik there. Nothing against any coach for that matter.  Not even a list of athletes who have been sanctioned since WADA came into being in 2003.

Recently, for the first time, WADA published a report containing all the anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) for 2013. No names there, just the numbers.

WADA is not a testing agency, only a monitoring agency. It does not initiate disciplinary proceedings against athletes or coaches. That job is left to the federations at the international and national levels and other anti-doping authorities including National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) like NADA in India. WADA does come in when it has reservations about procedures or is not in agreement with a decision rendered by a hearing panel. It has the right of appeal at the national level as well as at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Lausanne.

The Mudgal report

What happened in 2011 has been known to most of us since then. The ministry has had the benefit of getting an official report of an enquiry committee (Mudgal panel). Justice Mudgal did not put the blame on Ogorodnik for the doping offences committed by the six 400m runners plus two others. But he did raise enough doubts about what had been going on. And, quite pertinently, the report squarely blamed the coach for the “negligence” that led to the positive tests of six women 400m runners, three of them in the gold-winning relay teams of 2010 Commonwealth Games and Asian Games. Eventually, CAS slapped two-year bans on the girls on the argument that they were "negligent" in consuming the supplement provided by the coach.

The Mudgal report has not been made public. For an authority that keeps seeking transparency from the National federations that are advised to post all possible information on their websites, did the ministry ever think of publishing the Mudgal report on its website all these years?

The preliminary report mentions ‘testosterone’ and a ‘white tablet’ 

Ogorodnik has not agreed that he is the author of those charts. He owned up the one containing supplements. What other substances were listed in those charts? No one knows.

A latest report in the Times of India quotes an unnamed coach to say “Yuri’s room was like a dispensary”!

Can NADA probe the charges?

The report also raises doubts about alleged doping practices indulged in by relay runners prior to last year’s Asian Games in Incheon. Another report recently had hinted at “advice” received by the Asian Games probables from Ukraine.

If the USADA, the UKAD and the UK Athletics are probing the charges made in the recent BBC Panorama programme about alleged doping practices indulged in by legendary marathoner and coach Alberto Salazar, is it possible for our own NADA to probe further into these charges even at this late stage?

But for that to happen, it will need the green signal from the ministry. After all, NADA is only a department of the ministry, not an ‘independent agency’ as it should be and as is often made out. It is headed by a Joint Secretary of the ministry. Its Governing Body is full of government officers or its nominees and the Sports Minister is its chairman.

NADA can at best quote the relevant portions of the Mudgal report which had been passed onto it by the ministry if it has to submit a report to the latter on the 2011 doping episode involving the six relay runners and Ogorodnik!

NADA does not have the machinery to dig into the past, gather information from different sources, say during the 2002-2006 period, to give its opinion on Ogorodnik and his methods since it came into being in 2009 and it is quite often hamstrung because of its meagre work force.

NADA does have the orders of the Dinesh Dayal-headed disciplinary panel and the Justice C. K. Mahajan-headed appeal panel that heard the cases of the six elite woman athletes in the widely-reported doping incident of 2011.

Coach blamed for supply of contaminated supplement

Contrary to what had been claimed by AFI president in his recent interaction with the Press, those orders do not mention that the banned substances came from products purchased by the women athletes themselves. In fact the decisions of both the hearing panels were dependent on the argument that the banned steroids came from the Ginseng purchased from China by the coach and the girls were unaware about the source or what it contained. This is corroborated by the Mudgal committee report also.

Neither the Mudgal committee nor the hearing panels sought to know or order or advise NADA or any other agency to find out who asked the coach to purchase Ginseng from China, whether there was any invoice to prove such purchase and who paid for it.

The ministry, which had initially rejected the proposal to bring back Ogorodnik, ostensibly following an appeal made by a former high-ranking international athlete, has tried to pass the buck around since then. It looks ready to continue the exercise.

As the AFI official says in the TOI report above, if the ministry feels the Ukrainian has to be brought back for the sake of India having a shy at an Olympic medal, it should do so though at the cost of further embarrassment among the international anti-doping community. After all, India is a signatory to the UNESCO Convention against doping in sports and it is its duty to do everything possible to deter and discourage the practice of doping and individuals even if there could be nothing strictly within the rules against re-appointing a sacked coach.

And what about other Indian coaches? Instead of hiding behind “sources” or  as“a coach” in media reports they should come out and speak in one voice if they do feel Ogorodnik's recall would be a retrograde step and it could harm Indian athletics which is struggling any way to shed its ‘doped image’.

The qualification race

There has been some mention about preparing a team for the World Championships in Beijing in August in one of the reports mentioned above. India has to ensure its place among the qualifiers first to do that. The same of course goes for the Olympics, but then there is plenty of time left for Rio.

As things stand towards World Championships participation, with its Asian Games gold-winning mark of  2014, that of 3:28.68,  India stands a good chance to make it to Beijing next month though there should be no guarantee.

The best mark of a team from January 2014 to August 2015 would be taken into account while drawing up the qualification lists of 16. The top eight teams from the World Relays in 2014 (Brazil, France, Britain, Italy, Jamaica, Nigeria, Poland and USA) have already been included in the selection.

That means eight more will make it. And that may include the likes of Russia (third in this year’s lists), Ukraine, Germany etc. At this point, the “true strength” of the possible Indian quartet is unknown since none of the suspended batch of 2011, all of whom except Tiana Mary Thomas had been included among the TOP Scheme for Olympics, has competed this season. In Sini Jose’s case, since February 2011.

Waiting for the magic!

Whatever be the immediate target,  the SAI  and the ministry, it would seem, are keen to bring back Ogorodnik just as the AFI is. He was the man responsible for India making the Olympics final in 4x400 in Athens in 2004, cracking the national record on the way with a time of 3:26.89. The girls will have to aim for something close to 3:20 to be in with any chance of a medal in Rio. An impossible task by current standards, but obviously all the three agencies dealing with the coach's appointment would differ with such an assessment.

Can Ogorodnik produce the magic as he did (even if it ended only in seventh place for the team in Athens) in 2004? The ministry does not want to be seen as the one blocking an "Indian medal in Olympics" while the NADA has to provide the clincher in this unending drama over a dope-tainted coach.
(updated 13 July 2015)