National Federations' apathy (part I)

Hockey India an exception in adopting unambiguous anti-doping rules

What authority does the National Anti Doping Authority (NADA) have to collect urine and blood samples from athletes, get them tested, bring forward rule violations before a disciplinary panel and impose sanctions as ordered by the panel?

In a large majority of Indian sports, especially Olympic sports, there apparently is no clear-cut authority if you go by the present arrangement. Unless you agree that a gazette notification does over-ride all provisions within the anti-doping Code that stipulate a set of rules to be incorporated by the federations in their rules to provide NADA this responsibility and authority.

During the past two years one has spent time over the websites of the National Sports Federations (NSFs) trying to find whether any of them had incorporated the rules that provide NADA the authority to be the sole anti-doping agency in India to collect samples and carry out ‘results management’.

On a re-check of several websites on Sunday (Nov 1) after more than a year’s gap, I found one! Hockey India (HI) has a document titled ‘Hockey India Anti Doping Policy and Regulations’.  It contains the provisions that provide NADA the authority to test hockey players in India and to bring forward disciplinary procedures.

“By accepting the NADA rules and regulations on doping control Hockey India has agreed to share/bestow the below-mentioned duties and responsibilities to NADA with regard to doping control in the discipline of Field and Indoor hockey”, says the HI anti-doping policy.

The rules are effective from January 1, 2015.

The points that follow this statement include all testing responsibilities, ‘results management’ procedures and right of granting of Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) being delegated to NADA among other things.

HI might have done better had it also mentioned NADA’s authority in its constitution, though it was not mandatory. But when a reference to the WADA Code is there in the constitution, a mention about the NADA rules might have been just the right thing to do.

But well done Hockey India! You have left no room for ambiguity.

'Deemed acceptance'

Do we actually require an NSF to incorporate any NADA rule or grant NADA any authority when the NADA anti-doping rules have been gazetted?

Here the opinion differs. Some lawyers and officials with whom I had interacted during the 2009-2013 period when everyone was coming to grips with the changed set-up of anti-doping in India, felt that the gazette notification would be sufficient. A few others were not so sure.

The federations were deemed to have accepted the rules since they did not object to them even after publication of the rules in the gazette and notification of the same in newspapers. Can 'deemed acceptance' be a substitute for "incorporation of rules" into constitutions/governing documents"?

Will the ‘so-called’ authority derived from a gazette notification hold good in a court of law or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)?

Since it has not been challenged, no one could tell for sure. But one point that one of the legal brains made was the fact that an athlete was presumed to have agreed to subject himself/herself to the procedures including disciplinary hearings without raising an objection and that might preclude any challenge at a later stage.

One was not sure about this argument and left it at that. Yet, a few questions could remain on this score also. Do the athletes come into these proceedings agreeing in writing to the authority of NADA and the hearing panels? Do they know the authority of NADA when they are tested?

Poor response from NSFs

No one seems to have questioned the authority of NADA or that of the panels so far. Nor would it look that the NADA has been trying to get this aspect sorted out with the federations all these years. Yes, it did attempt in 2008-2009 when it brought in these rules and wrote to the federations. Not many bothered to reply even, forget about incorporating these rules into their constitutions.

If one could recall correctly, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) wrote back that NADA could carry out out-of-competition testing while the federation would conduct ‘in-competition’ testing. The argument was not pressed once NADA got into the act though the AFI did play a major role during ‘in-competition’ test distribution plan at least in those early years.

Another federation to respond was the Basketball Federation of India which stated that it would be willing to convene a special general meeting, if required, to amend its constitution appropriately to include the provision to bring in NADA rules.  Unfortunately, it seems, such promises were never followed up.

If one checks up the websites of the federations, some of them do have a mention of ‘NADA’ in some document or the other or on some page or the other, but rarely has one come across a constitution of a federation or rules that incorporate the complete NADA rules “either directly or by reference” as has been done by Hockey India.

The Indian Weightlifting Federation (IWLF) used to have separate rules applicable for sanctions in respect of ‘national-level’ and ‘international-level’ weightlifters in doping cases. The IWLF website currently does not provide a clue about its ‘anti-doping policy’ though it is a topic within the contents of its home page. There are no details available.

The AFI website does have a mention of ‘anti-doping’, though tucked away within, strangely, something called ‘development programme’, as had been mentioned  in these columns previously too.

Confusing rules

The AFI website section on doping primarily provides the composition of its Medical Commission, its role, functions etc.

A headline “In consonance with WADA Anti-Doping Rules” may suggest the adoption of WADA Code or NADA rules, but there is no further reference to such things under that headline.  It of course says the rules are in consonance with the IAAF anti-doping rules. And there was a need to incorporate these rules into “our constitution”.

The AFI constitution, as amended in 2013, still refers to the old IAAF and AFI rules; there is no mention of NADA here.

Rule 4 says “The AFI will be responsible for doping control at i) national championships, ii) regional championships (All AFI affiliated/recognized units meets), iii) University & School Games , iv) on other occasions when random and or designated testing is carried out, for example Area Group Championships or meetings. At these meetings an AFI or area representative shall be present

Rule 5 says 3) every athlete shall have the right to a hearing before the relevant tribunal of AFI before any decision on eligibility is reached.

The NADA rules

What do NADA rules, based on the WADA Code, say?

“1.2.1 As a condition of receiving financial and/or other assistance from the Government of India and/or the National Olympic Committee of India, each National Federation of India shall accept and abide by the spirit and terms of India’s National Anti-Doping Program and these Anti-Doping Rules, and shall

incorporate these Anti-Doping Rules either directly or by reference into their governing documents, constitution and/or rules as part of the rules of sport that bind their members and Participants.” So says the NADA anti-doping rules 2015.

There has been no change in these provisions from the 2009 version. And no changes in the following provision also:

“1.2.2 By adopting these Anti-Doping Rules, and incorporating them into their governing documents and rules of sport, National Federations recognize the authority and responsibility of NADA for implementing the National Anti-Doping Program and enforcing these Anti-Doping Rules (including carrying out Testing) in respect of all of the Persons listed in Article 1.3 below who are under the jurisdiction of the National Federation, and shall cooperate with and support NADA in that function. They shall also recognize, abide by and give effect to the decisions made pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules, including the decisions of hearing panels imposing sanctions on individuals under their jurisdiction.”

It goes without saying NADA has to have some authority to test athletes, carry out ‘results management’ procedures, bring forward cases for hearing and impose sanctions following such procedures. That authority has to be delegated by the National Federations.

(Continued in Part II)

Olympic family proposes WADA take over testing (part II)

(Click here for part I)

Coe’s plans to enlarge testing pool is welcome

 It would indeed be a welcome step if the IAAF enlarges its testing pool internationally. Athletes from lower-rung countries like India either do not figure much of the time in the IAAF Registered Testing Pool (RTP) or else have only a token presence, say two or three athletes at a time in the pool.

If the IAAF includes those who make the ‘Olympic grade’ in the RTP that would make more sense. For example, from India only 800m runner Tintu Luka and triple jumper Arpinder Singh were in the RTP from September last year till now. There is no Indian athlete at the moment in the IAAF RTP. There are a dozen athletes who have made the ‘cut’ for Rio so far.

Enlarging that pool would thus be extremely beneficial especially for countries that do have a doping problem but may not be having athletes who are ranked high enough to merit attention from an international anti-doping agency.

But Coe has also talked about “national testing programmes” and “swifter management of results.”

That part, one thought, was under the domain of the NADOs. At least in countries where a NADO is in existence that responsibility is that of NADO. The ‘results management’ is also the responsibility of the NADO since it happens to be the ‘testing authority’. The National Federation can at best try to co-ordinate efforts, by informing the NADO of its calendar, alerting it about an ensuing meet well in time, advising it about the competitions at the junior level that could be brought under doping control, helping NADO in preparing a domestic RTP and organising educational programmes etc.

Eventually, the test distribution plan has to be the responsibility of the NADO.

Hearing process

The hearing process is done by ‘independent’ panels. From country to country, from case to case, the time taken to resolve a doping case differs. In India, for example, the 11 cases involving methylhexaneamine (MHA) use, which started in 2010, took more than four years to come to a conclusion including an appeal stage. One of the cases still went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and it took a few more months to resolve.

This is an extreme example but it is mentioned here to prove the point that a National Federation can do little when this type of delay occurs.

There were two cases of track and field athletes in that batch of 11. The National federation had no role to play. It did not even attend the hearings. WADA could have stepped in and asked for a speedier resolution, failing which it could have dragged the cases straight to CAS. But it did not.

The NADA’s revised rules have provisions for speedier resolution of doping cases. We will have to see how it works in the longer run.

Coming back to Coe’s attempts to install an independent agency and to help National Federations speed up things, one way could be for the IAAF to take over the responsibility of  hearing all cases of ‘international-level’ athletes. This would include those athletes who are in the IAAF Registered Pool and those who compete in ‘international meets’ designated for this purpose in advance by the IAAF.

At the moment the IAAF does not have any mechanism to hear any doping case, international-level or otherwise. All cases have to be handled by the National Federations and in most instances the latter delegate the authority to the NADOs.

What the Code says

The National Federations in fact have no defined role to play in testing and ‘results management’ as per the WADA Code.

The Code says:

“5.2.1 Each National Anti-Doping Organization shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes who are nationals, residents, license-holders or members of sport organizations of that country or who are present in that National Anti-Doping Organization’s country.

“5.2.2 Each International Federation shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes who are subject to its rules, including those who participate in International Events or who participate in Events governed by the rules of that International Federation, or who are members or licence-holders of that International Federation or its member National Federations, or their members.”

The major event organisations (for example the IOC) have the authority to do ‘in-competition’ testing. There is no mention of National Federation when it comes to testing authority.

As for the disciplinary process, as an example, this is what the USATF has to tell its athletes:

“USADA handles all aspects of the disciplinary process if a sample tests positive either domestically or internationally. If the positive sample was given in a domestic competition sanctioned by USATF, USADA will notify the athlete of the test result. If the positive sample was given in an IAAF-sanctioned competition, the IAAF will notify USATF, and USATF will notify the athlete and inform USADA, which will handle the remainder of the process.”

It is of course unimaginable that Coe would be hinting at establishing an independent agency for athletics, “moving away from links with WADA’ as this report suggests.

It would further erode the credibility of the IAAF anti-doping system if it were to move away from the monitoring clutches of WADA.

WADA’s task

How can WADA go about the task of becoming a testing agency for all sports if it finally takes up the challenge?

Ideally, WADA would do well to pick only Olympic sports to begin with. And again, it would be wise to concentrate on out-of-competition testing, leaving ‘in-competition’ testing to the International Federations or else do ‘in-competition’ testing only in major events while doing out-of-competition testing at all levels.

After all, in 14 editions of the IAAF World Championships since 1983 and up to 2013, only 52 positive cases were reported from 10,787 samples (0.48 %).

Priority sports disciplines for testing could be worked out in consultation with the IOC. For example, the perennial ‘doping disciplines’, weightlifting, athletics and cycling could be given top priority with swimming, wrestling and boxing to follow.

National-level testing will necessarily have to be done by the NADOs since the numbers are too large for WADA to handle. (In 2014, WADA-accredited laboratories tested a total of 1,86,723 samples in Olympic sport disciplines alone. NADOs tested 1,43,095 out of a total of 2,17,762 samples that excluded non-ADAMS data)

The hearing process will also have to be managed by NADOs where they have the authority and by International Federations where ‘international-level’ athletes are involved. The IAAF can join this ‘community’ by bringing anti-doping rule violation cases involving ‘international-level’ athletes before its panels for resolution, deviating from its current practice of holding no hearings at all.

IOC needs to expand testing period

There are only 10 months left for Rio Olympics. If WADA has to take over  testing and it is going to take too long a time for it to be effective, the IOC may have to put in place a testing regimen that is more robust than in the past. Not in terms of testing during the Olympics, which can of course be entrusted to WADA, but in the run-up to the Olympics.

The IOC normally is in charge of doping control during the “period of the Olympic Games”. And this period usually begins on the date of the opening of the ‘Games village’ and ends with the closing ceremony. This period is considered as ‘in-competition’.

This period should ideally be extended, rather advanced to include at least two months prior to the ‘in-competition’ period for out-of-competition testing by the IOC if not in all sports at least in such vulnerable sports as weightlifting, athletics, cycling etc.

Everyone keeps talking of ‘zero tolerance’ towards doping: everyone knows a large number of athletes are doping, will continue to dope and will do everything possible to avoid detection prior to the Olympic Games.

Costs should then be no consideration for the Thomas Bach-headed IOC to mount a no-holds-barred attack on the cheats in the run-up to Rio. This may yet not deter the ‘hard-core’dopers or the ones who get a regular supply of designer steroids or the ones who micro-dose to such perfection that their EPO use goes undetected. But it could be worth a try when an all-out effort seems be developing towards cleaning up Olympic sports.

WADA has an onerous task before it. Bach and Coe could be expected to fully back it in the coming months. And you need a man like David Howman, the non-nonsense WADA Director-General, to continue to hold onto the vital controls in Montreal.

(concluded)

Olympic family proposes WADA take over testing (Part I)

In the aftermath of the “revelations” made by the Sunday Times-ARD report about several medallists in major track and field championships having had “suspect” blood test values during the period 2001-2011, the Olympic family seems to be veering towards the view that an independent agency has to take over the task of dope testing.

The Festina affair in the 1998 Tour de France, when large cache of banned drugs was recovered, eventually led to the birth of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) had then taken the initiative in forming an independent agency which would co-ordinate the efforts of the International sports bodies and public authorities and set uniform standards.

A uniform anti-doping Code came into effect on January 1, 2004 and WADA became synonymous with anti-doping efforts all over the world though it remained a monitoring agency that set standards for anti-doping agencies and for dope-test laboratories.

‘WADA has come’!

“WADA-has-come” has been, and still continues to be, the refrain however, in Indian sports when an international testing team comes, chasing dope cheats. This could be true in several other countries, too. But WADA rarely dons the mantle of a testing agency unless it is requested to by another authority.

Till the advent of the 2015 Code, WADA did not have the authority to test ‘in-competition’. Now it has both out-of-competition and in-competition testing authority. On paper, that is. It still does not perform the role of a major testing agency despite this new clause in the new Code.

But that role may well be re-defined if a path-breaking change that has been suggested by the Olympic family at a recent meeting in Lausanne is accepted by WADA. That proposal involves WADA taking over all dope testing in all sports. The details of the proposals have not been given out.

IOC takes the lead again

Like in 1998, the IOC has once again taken the lead, as it could only have been expected to, as its President Thomas Bach chaired the ‘Olympic summit’ in Lausanne and came up with the proposal which WADA’s Foundation Board is expected to discuss at its Colorado Springs meeting on November 17-18.

The logistical and financial implications for an all-sport testing agency would be enormous. But that can be worked out if there is a strong will to pursue the proposal. The question of “independence” would also come up repeatedly as it has now in several sports, cycling and athletics being the most recent examples. But such criticism will have to be faced and tackled. The main question could be "can this be a viable proposition"?

WADA is funded equally by the IOC and the Governments. There always have been suggestions that the IOC being full of officials who are presidents and secretary-generals of International Federations and National Olympic Committees (NOCs), complete ‘independence’ for WADA would remain a utopian concept.

The argument goes that International Federations would not wish to expose their sport as being full of dope cheats since that would eventually affect sponsorship, fan following and television viewership.

One can bring in a similar argument to question the ‘independence’ of  National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) most of them, if not all, funded by governments and in many cases completely managed and controlled by governments, like the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) in India.

Somewhere along a clash of interest may come in. This is not to suggest that any government would ever think of knowingly supporting doping in sports. But you can't help if a government agency is doubted for not putting in hundred per cent when it comes to chasing the country’s top athletes and Olympic medal prospects when another government agency would be funding and promoting those medal prospects.

The International Federations have come under closer scrutiny and criticism in recent years. Cycling, despite the Festina affair and the resultant upheaval has been a prime example till the Lance Armstrong catastrophe hit it in 2012 and the independent commission revealed deficiencies in the system that are ostensibly being rectified these days.

It is the turn of athletics now following the Sunday Times-ARD reports. The WADA-appointed commission headed by its former chief Richard Pound has been working on the allegations, especially into widespread doping practices in Russian and Kenyan athletics and lack of follow-up action by the IAAF. But the new proposal from the Olympic family has come before the Pound-headed panel has completed its task.

Simultaneously, the newly-elected president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), Sebastian Coe, has also talked about setting up an independent agency in athletics that could be given the responsibility for dope-testing and allied tasks. He had mooted it well before his election though the shape that such an agency would take had not been disclosed.

Whether the number of athletes mentioned in the Sunday-Times-ARD report could have been proceeded against just because of the variations in their blood values is not the point of debate right now. It is about the fact that so many of them _one in three medalists in endurance events between 2001 and 2011_had suspect values and in many cases they were not targeted for further testing in the ensuing period. 

Even if we accept that some of them might have had legitimate reasons to have returned higher values, like altitude training or dehydration for example, those numbers are still large, too large for comfort.

Sebastian Coe’s plans for independent system

Coe spelt out some of his plans at the European Athletics Convention in Lausanne recently, according to a report in Inside the Games.

"I do want a system that is more independent, that relieves the [IAAF] Members' Federations from some of the pressure, some of the resource implications, some of the challenges of a legalistic nature," Coe told an audience, including International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach, at the European Athletics Convention.

"That will actually mean broadening the testing pool internationally and reducing your international commitments, but allowing you to focus on what you do extremely well, which is national testing programmes and educational programmes.

"It will mean a swifter management around our results.

"It will mean a swifter – I hope – period between testing and sanctioning, and I hope it will release some of those precious resources, that I know you find challenging sometimes when you're dealing with those legal challenges,"

(Contd. in part II)

India ranks above Kenya and Jamaica in athletics!

Can India be ranked above such powerhouses as Kenya, Jamaica and Ethiopia in athletics? Incredibly, it can be, and it has been!

German athletics statistician Klaus Roder, with assistance from another German Heinrich Hubbeling, has published 2014 world rankings by country in the German athletics magazine Leichtathletik based on the top 10 averages by event for all individual Olympic events barring race-walking.

The rankings are based on the top 10 results in each event by a country in the 2014 lists and the averages arrived at. Countries are ranked in each event up to 40th place. The top nation gets 40 points, the second one 39 and so on ending up with one point for the 40th placed country.

For example, we know in men’s 100 metres Jamaica is the strongest nation in the world. It has an average of 9.986 for its top 10 sprinters, getting the No. 1 place with 40 points. The US follows next at 9.987. Only Jamaica and the US have cracked 10.00 for the top 10 averages. Britain comes third at 10.083.

The US is No. 1 in men’s 200 metres with Jamaica at second spot, 20.115 to 20.203.

India with an average of 10.558 for the men’s 100 gets the 36th place for five points. That average is creditable for a nation not known for its sprinting. With 21.240 in the 200 metres Indian men occupy the 32^nd place with nine points.

USA tops in both sections

The overall standings for countries for men and women and combined provide the biggest surprises. The US is expectedly No. 1 in both men (783 points) and women (783) and also of course combined. Britain is second in men’s (686), fourth among women (689) and third in the combined placings while Russia is No. 2 among women (749) and combined (1424) and third among men (675). Germany is fourth among men (670), third among women (699) and fourth in the combined standings.

India at 17th (358 points) in the men’s standings is a rung above Kenya (345), which finished on top of the medals table at last month’s World Athletics Championships in Beijing with a tally of seven gold, six silver and three bronze medals!

Below India among men are such acknowledged athletics powers as Jamaica (21st with 335), which was second in the medals table at the World Championships, Ethiopia (28th with 220) and Cuba (29th with 196), among others.

In the women’s section, the Indians surprisingly fares poorer than their male counterparts. We always thought they were better than men but then that could have been because of their capacity to win medals in international competitions.

The Indian women, with 302 points, are ranked 21st, above Kenya (250 for 25th), Cuba (242 for 26th) and Ethiopia (220 for 32^nd) but below Jamaica (368 for 18th).

In combined standings, India ranks 20th with 660 points, above Kenya (595 for 22nd), Ethiopia (440 for 27th) and Cuba (438 for 28th). Jamaica, at 19th, with 703 points, is just a slot above India.

Depth in several events

This might sound strange but it is true India has the depth in several events, especially field events that countries like Kenya and Ethiopia, for example, do not have.

Asked about the pleasant surprise of seeing India well above some of the athletics superpowers, Hubbeling, who brings out the Asian Athletics rankings, an annual publication, and who very kindly made available these rankings, said in an e-mail:” In this case we have to consider that Kenya, Jamaica and Ethiopia are ‘superpowers’ according to the medals in major competitions, mainly thanks to their strong runners. However, this compilation values in-depth quality (needed at least for most events) and countries with strong specific events only (or smaller countries by population without a chance for good top 10 averages in each event) are automatically lower ranked.”

The Athletics Federation of India (AFI) can have the satisfaction, and even pat itself, for having developed such depth across all the Olympic events. Still, the dream for an Olympic medal in athletics remains. For that you need to get into the top-10 rankings in individual events at least for a couple of years, if not year after year for four or five years. Consistency to produce the best in major international competitions, in the company of the top contenders in an event would be the key towards Olympic success if that were to happen.

Not reflected in medals tally

It would also be pertinent to analyse why the depth is not reflected in the medals tally in continental as well as global meets for Indian athletes. After all, athletes compete to win championships medals or at least to get a decent placing not just to better national records and clock personal bests.

The best contributors to the Indian men’s tally in the Roder tables are shot putters and javelin throwers. Both are ranked in the ninth place, worth 32 points each, shot put with an average of 18.314 and javelin 75.911. It is worth mention here that the shot putters and javelin throwers have not maintained their 2014 form this year except for shot putter Inderjeet Singh.

This is another area where the AFI should be delving into or the Sports Authority of India (SAI) should be concerned about. Why should there be so wide fluctuations in performance levels from season to season?

Other leading placers among men for India in the German compilation are from triple jump (12th, 16.033), high jump (14th, 2.156), 400m hurdles (16th, 51.377), hammer (18th, 64.895) and long jump (19th, 7.621).

Where women 400m stands

Among women, not surprisingly, the 400 metres tops the lists for India. It is at 13th place with an average timing of 53.336. The placing should also give us some idea about where India stands in the 4x400m relay, an event which has been projected as a medal contender at the Rio Olympics. Unless Ukrainian coach Yuriy Ogorodnik works his ‘magic’ in the next 11 months, that placing is not going to convert itself into a medal in the Olympics.

The other major points have come in the women’s section through triple jump (16th, 13.141) and discus (18th, 50.456). Women’s marathon (42nd, 3:04.42.3) is the only event where India does not score.

In the Asian context, Japan is ahead of the rest, fifth among men (635 points) and 12th among women (535) for a combined sixth placing (1108) while China, with 10th position among men (519) and seventh among women (589) stands at ninth in the combined placings.

Just as in India’s case, Japan’s depth or season bests by its athlete do not translate itself into medals in Asian meets. China topped the 2014 Asian Games athletics medals table with 15 gold, 13 silver and 11 bronze medals while Japan had a tally of 3-12-8 and India 2-4-7.

In this year’s Asian championships at home in Wuhan, China once again topped with 15-13-13 while Qatar was second (7-2-1), India third (4-5-4) and Japan fourth (4-3-11). In the Roder standings, Qatar occupies joint 52nd place among men.

In the global context, Kenya is expectedly the No. 1 nation in men’s 800 metres through to marathon and women’s 1500 metres through to 10,000 metres with the second place behind Ethiopia in women’s marathon.

Kenya has broken free from its middle and long distance stamp with Julius Yego, the 26-year-old Policeman taking the World Championships gold in javelin last month with a world-leading throw of 92.72 metres, an African record.

The Caribbeans have also shown some interest in throws with Frederick Dacres of Jamaica being among the leading discus throwers in the world this year, though he finished seventh in the Worlds. Keshorn Walcott of Trinidad and Tobago was the javelin champion in the London Olympics.

Three Indians lead year’s Asian lists

Leaving the 2014 results aside for a while let us also take a look at the year’s lists now that the season is all but over.

Three Indians lead the Asian charts in 2015. For the second year in succession, discus thrower Vikas Gowda is the leader with 65.75m, recorded at La Jolla, US, in April. Gowda, Asian champion in Wuhan, has eight of the top 10 marks in Asia this year, the other two going to Asian record holder Ehsan Hadadi of Iran.

Apart from his top mark, Gowda has two other results over 65 metres and eight others over 63 metres this season. He is yet on the look-out for the 66.0m mark that would give him a ticket to Rio next year. He has plenty of time to achieve that and may even be in line for an ‘invitation place’ on ranking in case he fails to reach it next year.

Inderjeet Singh, whose phenomenal run in shot put this season did not culminate in a better placing than 11th in the World Championships in Beijing, owns the top 10 marks in Asia this year. This is a remarkable feat for one who has hit big time only this year.

His top 10 performances: 20.65 (Fed Cup), 20.47 (World championships qualification), 20.44 (inter-State championships), 20.41 (Asian championships), 20.27 (World University Games), 20.14 (National Games), 19.85 (Asian GP, Pathumthani), 19.83 (Asian GP, Bangkok), 19.83 (Asian GP, Chanthaburi), 19.82 (Open National, Kolkata). Except for the World Championships Inderjeet won each of these events where he posted his leading marks.

With his 20.65, Inderjeet occupies the 23rd place in the world lists this season. The giant shot putter has qualified for the Olympics..

Tintu Luka, the much-criticized 800m runner from the Usha School of Athletics in Kerala is the lone Indian woman to lead the Asian lists this season. Luka, who won the Asian title in Wuhan, but disappointed in the heats of the Worlds in Beijing, owns the top four timings in Asia this year.

She clocked her season best at the Kolkata National with 2:00.56 after having clocked 2:00.95 in the Worlds and failed to progress. She had 2:01.53 for the Asian gold in Wuhan and 2:01.86 for the National Games title in Feb last. She has qualified for the Rio Olympics.

The new Code kicks in rather late in India

A beginning has been made by the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) in getting four-year sanctions for first-time dope offenders in tune with the World Anti Doping Code (WADC) 2015.

The National Anti Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP) has suspended seven sportspersons for four years each and one for eight years_for a second offence_for doping violations reported in early 2015. This was the first batch of doping cases in India that was dealt with under the revised Code that came into effect on January 1 this year.

The delay in getting the hearing process underway as per the new rules was because of the delay in appointing the panels. After having spent several months in looking for suitable members to fill in the vacancies, especially lawyer members, the Union Sports Ministry eventually re-nominated the members of the old panels last July for another term.

Thus there was a backlog of more than 40 cases when the re-nominated panels took over. The first set of 11 cases was decided by September 7. Eight of them were anti-doping rules violations reported this year. The other three were from 2014, all of which ended in two-year suspensions.

All the eight cases of 2015, seven in weightlifting and one in cycling, ended up in lengthy suspensions, seven of them for four years and one weightlifter, who had committed an earlier offence in 2012, for eight years. All these athletes are entitled to appeal and their eventual fate would be known only after all appeal avenues are exhausted.

(The three cases from 2014 were those of two wushu competitors, Ashok Kumar Yadav and Vikash, and one judoka, Lakhwinder Singh. All three got suspensions of two years.)

33 athletes suspended for four years in 2015

The Anti-Doping Database (ADDB), a pay website run by a Norwegian company, reported up to September 21 that 33 athletes had been suspended for four years this year. It is a moot point whether these 33 include the latest cases from India.

ADDB says in 2008 the four-year suspension list had reached 48. We have to remember that in 2008 and earlier there was no standard four-year ban for first-time offenders. It was only two years for first-time offenders, with multiple violations attracting sanctions ranging from two years to life ban depending on the gravity of the offence.

The stand-alone four-year sanction available in the 2015 Code for first-time offenders looks set to breach records in India if the initial trend is any indication.

Despite the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) bringing in a crucial change in the sanctions on individuals in the 2009 Code by having a new clause ‘aggravating circumstances’ that allowed for a maximum of four-year suspension, not many anti-doping agencies made use of the clause. To some extent, this reluctance contributed to the enhanced period of suspension in the revised Code.

India, in this respect, did not have a single sanction stretching up to four years for ‘aggravating circumstances’ that could have included multiple steroid violations which were in plenty in this country. There were two suspensions for four years in the NADA records up to February this year, both for second anti-doping rule violations.

A case of impersonation

The only time NADDP imposed a stiffer sanction for what amounted to more than an “aggravating circumstances” case was when an athlete, triple jumper Shailendra Kumar Yadav sent another athlete (Durgesh Khare) in his place for a doping control at the All-India Police Athletics Championships in 2013.

Both were subjected to doping control once the ‘impersonation’ was found out. Both tested positive! Shailendra Yadav tested positive for methylhexaneamine and epitrenbolone, a metabolite of steroid trenbolone while the urine sample of Khare tested positive for steroid stanozolol.

Yadav was suspended for three years and Khare for two. The latter was punished for “tampering with doping control”. Both seemed to have got away lightly.

Talking of “aggravating circumstances,” Indian panels, especially in the latest set of cases, look to be still stuck with the 2009 Code. For, they are still writing in their orders “no aggravating circumstances have been alleged for enhanced sanctions”. That is an old clause that has no place in the revised Code. Better hit the 'delete' key!

There are two minors among the seven weightlifters sanctioned in the latest batch. Amritpal Singh and Simranpreet Kaur, both from Sangrur, Punjab were competing in the National Youth Weightlifting Championships at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, when they were tested.

Both tested positive for steroid methandienone and both blamed coach Jaspal Singh apart from suggesting that some vitamins and supplements they were taking might have caused the positive results.

But the panel could not find any evidence to link the coach to their doping infractions and thus did not pass any adverse comments against the coach.

Bring athlete support personnel to book

There is plenty of scope in the 2015 Code to get sanctions imposed against athlete support personnel but it would be up to agencies like NADA to bring forward charges. In order to do that NADA would require additional staff to pursue cases and gather evidence. The sooner NADA fills up posts, some of them reportedly sanctioned quite some time ago, the better it would be for anti-doping efforts in the country.

Apart from Amritpal and Simranpreet, the four other weightlifters who were suspended for four years were Gurpreet Singh and Nabbi Lal of Rajasthan, who tested positive at the Rajasthan State championships, Ms. Shodhana of Karnataka who tested positive at the inter-University Championships, and Harjeet Kaur of Haryana who was one among the 16 who tested positive at the National Games in Kerala last February. Jugraj Singh of Punjab who tested positive for stimulant mephentermine at the inter-University weightlifting championships was suspended for two years, this being his second offence.

The lone cyclist, Naresh Deb Burman of the Army, was found positive during the National Mountain Bike Championships for 19-norandrosterone and 19-norandrostenedieone. Burman claimed he had been taking some medicines that could have caused the positive test but he could not produce prescriptions.

Nabbi Lal, the Rajasthan weightlifter, also fell back on a plea that he was prescribed Danazol 200 (ethisterone) by a doctor of Alwar. The panel noted that the prescribed medicine could have produced 2-OH-methylethisterone , metabolite of ethisterone, in his urine sample. However, the doctor member of the panel opined that the “clinical condition of this athlete did not require the use of this medicine so, it is a case of intentional consumption of the prohibited substance as the athlete fails to establish that there was no such intention to violate the anti-doping rules” (sic).

Panel member gives opinion on athlete’s clinical condition

Lal had claimed that he was prescribed the steroid for the treatment of a lump on his chest. However, what is intriguing is the “expert” opinion of the doctor regarding the “clinical condition” of the athlete.

Are doctor members of disciplinary panels required to provide their opinion regarding “clinical condition” of an athlete who is facing an anti-doping rule violation charge?

It might be too much to expect a state-level weightlifter in India to be aware of therapeutic use exemption (TUE) and the need to get such an exemption before taking a steroidal preparation even if it might not be too convincing that an athlete could have been prescribed a steroid by a doctor for the condition he mentioned. And that to a great extent focuses on the inadequate education athletes have about doping and anti-doping measures in this country especially at the state and village levels. This is not the responsibility of NADA alone and National Federations and their State units should be expected to contribute towards awareness campaigns in the anti-doping sphere.

By the way, NADA spreading its tentacles to Rajasthan State weightlifting championships should be welcome, but will it be willing to show interest in other state championships? Or in other sports and competitions at the state level?

Harjeet Kaur, the Haryana lifter who was caught for a strychnine violation in the National Games, was also in breach of violating the provisions of ‘voluntary provisional suspension’ that she opted for when she was informed of the dope test result. She competed in a Delhi meet while under provisional suspension that drew the attention and ire of the Indian Weightlifting Federation (IWLF). She was given four-year suspension from the date of participation in the Delhi meet.

Six of the weightlifters “admitted” their guilt. Jugraj Singh did not attend the hearing.

In each of the six cases, the panel ended up saying “the athlete has failed to show any ground for elimination or reduction of period of ineligibility”.

When will prompt admission attract leniency?

The Code provides for leniency in case an athlete admits the violation. No one is familiar with the process involved. Yet, NADA and the hearing panels should try to ascertain from athletes whether they were “promptly” admitting guilt and then see if such cases could be referred to WADA for a reduced sanction.

The Code says:

“10.6.3 Prompt Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation after being Confronted with a Violation Sanctionable under Article 10.2.1 or Article 10.3.1 An Athlete or other Person potentially subject to a four-year sanction under Article 10.2.1 or 10.3.1 (for evading or refusing Sample Collection or Tampering with Sample Collection), by promptly admitting the asserted anti-doping rule violation after being confronted by an Anti-Doping Organization, and also upon the approval and at the discretion of both WADA and the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility, may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility down to a minimum of two years, depending on the seriousness of the violation and the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.”

“Admission” would mean acceptance of “intentional doping” which should not deserve any leniency! Then how can an athlete take advantage of Article 10.6.3. The legal experts may have to throw light on this.

In most of the cases, Indian athletes, after having “admitted” their guilt go on to defend themselves by suggesting that supplements might have done the damage or some doctor gave steroids for some ailment, leading to the positive test. Eventually they end up with nothing except standard sanctions.

If the athletes know that he or she would stand a better chance in gaining reduction in suspension by simply admitting the violation they should be advised to do so, especially when state-level competitors are involved.

(updated 25 Sept, 2015)

Post-script: Just chanced upon this news item of a prompt admission and subsequent reduction in sanction in the case of a Canadian athlete. Redcution of four months from a standard sanction of four years might not mean much, but then we have to keep in mind this particular case involved three banned substances, two of them steroids.

The sooner NADA launches biological passport programme the better

The National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) topped the percentages of positive tests recorded among those National Anti Doping Organisations (NADOs) that tested more than 4000 samples during the year 2014.

The Indian anti-doping body registered 2.3 per cent with a tally of 99 positive cases from 4340 samples to top the charts though Indian NADA was No. 2 in 2014 in the total number of positive tests (99), behind the Russian NADO (114 from 12556 samples at 0.9%) and just ahead of the French NADO (98 from 7434 samples at 1.3%).

Many other countries were ahead on the percentage of positive tests recorded with much lesser numbers of samples. For example, South Africa had 55 positive cases from 1919 samples (3%) while Turkey had 65 from 2392 samples (2.7%).

Athletics in front

Athletics once again contributed the maximum to NADA’s success in 2014, with 29 positive cases from 1246 samples including 75 blood samples, amounting to 2.3%. Weightlifting, with 23 positive cases from 418 samples was at 5.5%. Athletics had 28 positive cases from 1314 samples (2.13%) in 2013 while weightlifting had 19 from 727 samples (2.6%) that year.

Officials have often attributed the higher percentages of doping incidence in Indian athletics to the proliferating drug use at departmental level, but National-level athletes have not been meager in number during the past six years.

In a total of 143 cases brought forward before the National Anti Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP) in athletics since the inception of NADA in 2009 and up to 2014_including five athletes who tested positive for a second time during this period_there had been 53 athletes who had either competed at the senior National level or the Junior National level.

This amounts to 37 per cent of the total number of cases, not a figure to be dismissed as negligible or not relevant.

Fourteen of them were senior National champions, almost all of them internationals. There were several others who were National Games champions, Junior National champions or medal winners at senior and junior levels in all-India meets including competitions like the Federation Cup and Indian Grand Prix.

Of the 143, two women athletes were reprieved. One was a case of evasion against former Asian champion in 400m, Manjeet Kaur that could not be proved. The other was that of CRPF thrower Saroj Sihag, former National champion and National Games champion whose steroid violation case in 2010 was dismissed due to faulty procedures.

(Out of 573 cases reported by NADA since 2009 and handled by hearing panels up to February this year, 116 cases were from weightlifting, 41 from powerlifting, 40 from wrestling, 38 from boxing and 31 from kabaddi.)

Departmental meets the villain?

It is true that departmental meets, especially in Police and the Services, do ‘net’ quite a few dopers in athletics. But then, it is also true that regular dope testing in a departmental meet like that of the Railways, the largest public sector unit that employs athletes in India, did not start till 2013. That too when a long jumper set a national record and the media pointed out the lack of dope-testing arrangements at the meet that prevented the record-setter, Kumaravel Premkumar, being tested on the day of the competition. It is a different matter that Premkumar holds the official national record of 8.09m set at that meet!

Steroids have remained the choicest drug of the Indian athletes through all these years. In 142 cases where positive dope tests were reported among athletes in the 2009-2014 period, there were as many as 118 cases of steroids, a whopping 83 per cent. Many of them were for multiple steroids use.

Stanozolol the choicest drug

From sprinters to jumpers to throwers and even to the odd cross-country runner everyone seemed to have preferred steroids. Steroids provide explosive power and strength to sprinters, jumpers and throwers while endurance runners generally go for red blood cell boosters like EPO. 

Not surprisingly, stanozolol, made famous by Canadian Ben Johnson at the 1988 Olympics, tops the table with 44 cases in Indian athletics from 2009 through to 2014.

Even world-wide, stanozolol continued to be the drug of choice with 239 positive cases in 2014 in all sports accounting for 20 per cent within the steroids category. Though it is a prescription drug, in India it is easily available at drug stores across the country, especially near training centres and gymnasiums. Winstrol and Menabol are two of the popular brands that contain stanozolol.

Nandrolone and its metabolites (30) and methandienone (25) were the other leading steroids among athletes in NADA testing since 2009. Others including testosterone, methyltestosterone, drostanolone, oxandrolone and boldenone accounted for the rest.

The propensity for steroid consumption among Indian athletes should bring into focus the ‘steroidal module’ in the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) launched by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) at the beginning of 2014.

The NADA which is yet to start an ABP programme based on haematological values should hopefully be launching a ‘steroidal module’ too in the near future so that the bulk of the dopers are kept track of. This module would be based on urine tests in contrast to the other one based on blood testing results.

New ABP programme in steroids

How useful the ABP programme based on steroid variations is to be known only, especially at a time when micro-dosing of drugs has been shown to be effective in beating the drug testers.

The Sunday Times-ARD expose into deep-rooted, widespread doping in international athletics has focused on the inadequacies of the anti-doping efforts and the sooner the ABP programme gets off the ground in India, for both blood and steroid values, the better it would be for Indian athletics.

The Rio Olympics qualification race would further hot up soon and there is no time to lose either for NADA or the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) in declaring a ‘new war’ on dopers.

NADA did no blood tests to detect EPO and other related substances in 2014 while its in-competition urine testing came up with two positive results, the first ones in India, for these class of substances.

We still await the results of disciplinary procedures launched against these two offenders just as we await the outcome of the ‘whereabouts’ programme in athletics started by NADA last May.