The Olympic qualification race (Part III)

Field events look more promising for Indians

Seven Indians had made it to London last time in field events_Renjith Maheswary (triple jump), Om Prakash Singh (shot put) and Vikas Gowda (discus) among men and Sahana Kumari (high jump), Mayookha Johny (triple jump) and Krishna Poonia and Seema Antil (discus) among women.

This time too the field events look more promising for more qualifiers to emerge, in horizontal jumps in particular. The standards in men’s high jump (2.29m) and pole vault (5.70m) are well beyond the present Indian crop.  The same holds true in women’s high jump (1.93m) and pole vault (4.50m).

In men’s long jump, both Kumaravel Premkumar and Ankit Sharma had 8.04m last year. Premkumar  who took the South Asian Games title at 7.62m also won the silver at the Asian Indoor Championships with an encouraging 7.92m, an indoor National record. He has six marks of eight metres or better with the National record of 8.09m having come in 2013.

The long jump standard of 8.15m may still look out of reach for the Indians but both Premkumar and Sharma are reportedly gearing up for the challenge ahead. One cannot rule out anything at this point.

One would have expected both Renjith Maheswary and Arpinder Singh to have qualified for Rio in triple jump by now. Both are waiting, however. The standard is 16.85m. Renjith came up to 16.45m in the South Asian Games at Guwahati. The last he crossed 16.85m was in 2013 in Chennai when he did 16.98m in the Inter-State meet.

Arpinder ‘s best and National record of 17.17m (12th best in the world that year) came at Lucknow in 2014. His second best is 16.84m in 2013. In 2015 he could touch only 16.41m for the silver in the National Games. This year he has jumped 15.80m indoors, during his training stint abroad. It would be hard for him to make the cut.

Mayookha shows encouraging form

In women’s horizontal jumps, Mayookha has started to make some sort of a comeback.  Her 6.43m at the SAG is still well short of the standard of 6.70m but her 14.00m in triple jump in the Asian Indoors is just 15cm shy. She had missed making the London Games trip narrowly in long jump but made it in triple jump where she failed to progress to the final and finished 22nd eventually. Her National record of 14.11m at the Asian Championships in Kobe in 2011 had held her surpass the ‘B’ standard then. Since 2011 when she also had a 14.02 in Wujiang, China, this is the first time the Kerala woman has touched 14m.

In women’s discus, India’s forte for several years, Krishna Poonia who finished seventh in London has not competed since 2014. Her best year happened to be 2012 when she set the national record of 64.76m (Seema Antil’s 64.84 in Kiev in 2004 is not recognized by the AFI but is listed as national record by the IAAF). That was the last time she crossed 60 metres. Having undergone a surgery and having been engaged in mainstream politics Poonia’s comeback to topflight athletics looks uncertain.

Seema Antil has once again moved to the US for training as she did in 2012 towards her Olympic qualification and preparation. She did reasonably well that year with a best of 62.60m and a 13th place finish in the Olympics (later upgraded to 12th because of the doping disqualification of Russian Darya Pishchalnikova who had originally finished second). Her best since has been the 61.61m in Glasgow for the CWG silver. She can still hope to reach 61.00m needed to make it to Rio though her top three marks of 63-metre-plus came 12 years ago.

Chopra goes past 80 metres

In javelin, 18-year-old Neeraj Chopra has registered some sensational marks last year as well as this year. He is now the joint National record holder with Rajender Singh Dalvir at 82.23m. The Olympic standard of 83.00m looks within reach for Chopra if not for Dalvir who has been recouping from an injury.  If the optimism expressed by the Australian coach Garry Calvert is any indication the young man from Chandigarh looks destined to scale greater heights.

The task in women’s javelin for Annu Rani and Suman Devi looks far tougher than that for the men. The standard of 62.0m is stiff when compared to the National record of 59.53m in the name of Annu Rani. Suman Devi has also crossed 59 metres this year.

There is an abundance of talent to pick from among the racewalkers.  Four additional walkers among men have made it in the 20km event from the National racewalking championships. They include 2012 Olympic 10th-place finisher K. T. Irfan who has come back from injuries.  Others are K. Ganapathi, Devender Singh and Neeraj. As pointed out earlier one will have to verify the status of the National championships as a qualifying competition for Rio before being certain about additional qualifiers. In any case only three can make it to Rio in each event.

Earlier three had made it in 20km, Gurmeet Singh, Baljinder Singh and Chandan Singh, and two had clinched in both 20km and 50km, Sandeep Kumar and Manish Rawat. Among women, National record holder Khushbir Kaur and Sapna had already made the grade in 20km. There were no fresh claimants for a place in the team from the National meet.

(Concluded)

The Olympic qualification race (Part II)

Olympic standards v National records

Where do Indian athletes stand in the Olympic qualification race?

In 22 of the 43 events (excluding four relays) that would be featured in the Rio track and field programme, the Olympic standards are tougher than the Indian National records today.  We are not counting those events in which national records were bettered in the process of achieving the standards, for example women’s shot put .

The 22 events with national marks in parenthesis: Men: 100m-10.16s (10.30s), 200m-20.50s (20.66s), 400m-45.40s (45.48s), 1500m-3:36.20 (3:38.00), 5000m-13:25.00 (13:29.70), 10,000m-28:00.00 (28:02.89), 3000m steeplechase-8:30.00 (8:30.88), 110m hurdles- 13.47s (13.65s), 400m hurdles-49.40s (49.51s), High jump-2.29m (2.25m), pole vault-5.70m (5.13m), long jump-8.15m (8.09m), hammer-77.00m (72.86m*), javelin -83m (82.23m), Decathlon 8100 pts (7658).

Women: 100m-11.32s (11.38s), 100m hurdles-13.00s (13.38s), high jump-1.93m (1.92m), pole vailt-4.50m (4.15m), triple jump-14.15m (14.11m), hammer-71.00m (62.74m), javelin -62m (59.53m).

Qualified in 10 events

Of the 21 events left Indian athletes have already qualified in 10 of them, men’s marathon (Nitendra Singh Rawat, Kheta Ram and T. Gopi),  shot put (Inderjeet Singh), discus (Vikas Gowda), 20km walk (Gurmeet Singh, Chandan Singh and Baljinder Singh), 50km walk (Sandeep Kumar and Manish Rawat) and women’s 800m (Tintu Luka), marathon (O. P. Jaisha, Sudha Singh and Kavita Raut), 3000m steeplechase (Lalita Babar), Manpreet Kaur (shot put) and Khushbir Kaur and Sapna (20km walk).

The 11 other events are: Men’s 800m and triple jump; women’s 200m, 400m, 1500m, 5000m, 10,000m, 400m hurdles, long jump, discus throw and heptathlon.  These are events in which the Olympic standards are lower than our National records and yet some of them would be too stiff to even think of attaining.

Take for example the men’s 800 metres. Sriram Singh’s fabled record set in the Montreal Olympics in 1976, that of 1:45.77, has stood the test of time. It looks set to last for many more years. The next best to the Rajasthan and Army athlete’s national record is 1:46.26 by Pankaj Dimri at Patiala in 2010. Dimri’s best after that happens to be 1:49.38 in 2012. The Olympic qualification standard stands at 1:46.00. Jinson Johnson, India’s best two-lapper last year who took the Asian championships silver, has a PB of 1:47.58.

Looking at the 22 events where the national records would not be enough to crack the Olympic standard, as in the past, we can look at the field events with more hope than the track events. And within track events we can look at distance events with a little more optimism than the sprints. Not in terms of the prospects of those who have already clinched a berth but towards qualification alone. The qualified athletes’ chances could be analyzed at a later date.

In men’s sprints, Dharambir Singh’s national record of 20.66s for the 200m and Arokia Rajiv’s PB of 45.57s for the 400m, both clocked last year, may look encouraging when viewed against the standards of 20.50s and 45.40s. They are in no way easy to achieve and it would take Herculean efforts from both these athletes if they were to nail these marks.

The men’s 100m standard of 10.16s should settle all debates even before someone starts talking about the chance of an Indian athlete making it. The Indian record stands at 10.30s. For comparison purposes we can recall the feat of American Jim Hines in 1968 when he became the first man to break the 10-second barrier with a time of 9.95s to win the Olympic title in Mexico City.

Turning our attention towards women sprinters we find both Dutee Chand and Srabani Nanda, the Odisha athletes, are chasing the 200m norm of 23.20s. Dutee is yet to proceed on a foreign training mission that she wants to undertake desperately even as she has expressed doubts about the recent IOC Consensus statement on sex reassignment and hyperandrogenism.

IOC, IAAF not to block Dutee

This correspondent was told by the IOC recently that not only was Dutee eligible for Rio but the IOC had no plans to bring in its own hyperandrogenism rules like it had for the 2012 Olympics. It wanted the issues raised by Dutee’s appeal to the CAS and the latter’s stay on the IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations to be resolved before it thought about its own fresh rules. It, however, asked the IAAF to pursue the case in CAS.

The IAAF, according to a report in the Toronto Star, was not thinking in terms of going back to CAS within the time available before Rio.

That should leave Dutee in some comfort in her efforts to target the 23.20s for the 200m, presuming that the 11.32s standard for the 100m looks beyond the reach of any of the Indian sprinters right now. The National record in 100m is 11.38s.

Dutee has a best of 23.57s in the 200m clocked in the Asian junior championships in 2014. Srabani Nanda has 23.54s clocked while winning the bronze in the Asian championships in Wuhan last year. Only Saraswati Saha (22.82 NR in 2002), Vinita Tripathi (23.04s in 2000) and Rachita Mistry (23.10s in 2000) have clocked better than 23.20s in the history of Indian athletics.

A relatively easier task awaits M. R. Poovamma in the 400m where the standard is 52.20s. Poovamma has a best of 51.73 clocked in 2014. The Karnataka woman had a 52.60s in one of the Asian GPs last year while she won the South Asian Games title in a hand-timed 54.1.

Jisna in fray for Olympic norm

One more athlete from among the big batch of probable relay runners is sure to aim for Olympic qualification in the individual 400. The 17-year-old Jisna Mathew had a PB of 53.14s clocked while taking the Commonwealth Youth Games silver last year.  Coach P. T. Usha feels her ward has the potential to go for the Olympic standard.

O. P. Jaisha’s PB of 15:18.30 for the 5000m in Incheon Asian Games (standard 15:24.00) gives her the confidence that she would be able to make it in this event, too, apart from the marathon for which she has qualified but which she is not keen on running. A final decision has to be taken in consultation with coach Nikolai Snesarev who is reportedly in favour of Jaisha running the marathon. A place in the final in the 5000m is a possibility for Jaisha. But will it be greatly different from a top-20 finish in marathon? 
Suriya Loganathan (PB of 15:45.75 at South Asian Games in Guwahati) could be expected to work hard towards qualification.

In men’s 5000m and 10,000m the standards of 13:25.00 and 28:00.00 look beyond the reach of Indian distance runners. Both are better than the existing National records in the names of Bahadur Prasad (13:29.70 in 1992) and Surender Singh (28:02.89 in 2008).

With Kheta Ram and T. Gopi having made the marathon grade and not likely to go for qualification on the track, only Suresh Kumar Patel, from among those regulars in distance events, can be considered as one athlete who could be aiming for the standard in 10,000m. He has PBs of 13:42.28 and 28:58.22 for the two distance events.

The hurdles look tough for both men and women. The 110m hurdles standard of 13.47s looks intimidating in front of the National record of 13.65s in the name of Siddhanth Thingalaya. It was in chasing the 2012 ‘B’ standard of 13.60s that Thingalaya got injured in Brussels. Since then he has not been able to strike top form though he did equal his National record at Patiala in 2014.

Early 2016 season suggests Thingalaya is at least making a serious attempt to get back into top gear for the outdoor season. In two successive meets in the US, at Seattle and at Flagstaff, Arizona, in January, Thingalaya clocked indoor national records for the 60m hurdles in heats and finals to bring it up to 7.80s.

There is no serious contender to qualify in the 400m hurdles given the fact that the best man last season, Durgesh Kumar Pal timed 50.29 in the Fed Cup, his PB which is way off the standard of 49.40s. Joseph Abraham’s National record stands at 49.51s.

Among women there was some talk of Ashwini A. C. or Jauna Murmu going for the 400m hurdles standard of 56.30s. Their performance in the South Asian Games did not suggest they could be serious contenders. Murmu had 57.69s and Ashwini 58.92s. But they are athletes who have come up with most unexpected results in the past and one cannot rule out anything at this stage. P. T. Usha's National record of 55.42s set in the Los Angeles Olympic still stands after nearly 32 years.

No one has come close to Gopal Saini’s National mark of 8:30.88 for the 3000m steeplechase clocked way back in 1981. The Olympic standard happens to be 8:30.00. The best that any of the contenders among the current batch of Indians had timed was 8:36.36 by Jaiveer Singh in 2011. Naveen Kumar  had a best of 8:42.79 last year.  He has a PB of 8:40.39.
(updated 29 Feb 2016)

(Contd in part III)

The Olympic qualification race (Part I)

How tough are the entry standards in athletics for the Rio Olympics? Apart from the 18 athletes who had achieved the standards up to the end of the South Asian Games how many other Indians could reasonably be expected to at least aim for these standards?

Less than six months remain for the Olympics and less than five months for the athletes to achieve the standards.

As had been the pattern in the past, with a large majority of the athletes the target has remained “qualification for the Olympics”. You can’t blame them of course. When the standards themselves are so high as to make most of them beyond the reach of lesser-rated athletes at the international level, qualification alone would look and feel a “great achievement”. The fans are also happy if an athlete whom he or she follows makes the grade. The federation will of course be elated if the numbers get swelled.

No one is interested in looking into whether targets, set at the beginning of a season, or under a long-term development plan, were achieved at the end of a particular year. Camps, camps and more camps are held as though these camps would produce the miracle that Indian athletics is looking for.

Two finalists in 2012

To be fair to the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), the Sports Authority of India (SAI), the athletes and the coaches, it must be admitted that the last Olympics produced one of the best results for Indian athletics in a long time when one considered the two final places for our athletes. Vikas Gowda (8th) and Krishna Poonia (7th) made the discus finals, K. T. Irfan took a gallant 10th place in 20km walk and Tintu Luka made the semifinals in the 800 metres.

Unfortunately, there was hardly any analysis of the performance of the rest of the 14-member squad many of whom fared disappointingly.  Discus thrower Seema Antil was close to making the final, though. That squad contained four walkers plus one male marathoner while this time we already have seven walkers including two women and six marathoners including three women who have made the cut-off.

(At the time of writing four more male walkers had reportedly made the ‘cut’ in 20km event through their performance at the National racewalking championship at Jaipur, but one would wait for confirmation about the status of the event before confirming their qualification. At the time of writing the IAAF had not listed the Indian National championships among the approved walk events in 2016 that would allow qualifiers to be eligible for Olympics. It might have been because of a delay in communication or else there actually was no prior approval. One needs to check this out further.)

That leaves just five others, shot putter Inderjeet Singh and discus thrower Vikas Gowda among men, and Tintu Luka, steeplechaser Lalita Babar and shot putter Manpreet Kaur (Sr.) among women to have obtained the norms for Rio.

Athletics is one sports discipline in the Olympics where they don’t ask you to go through a set of qualifying events or earn quota places or clock standards in pre-designated or pre-approved meets (except road events). In relays teams would be eligible based on their placings in the World Relays (up to top 8) plus rankings based on two best timings for the next eight.

Tougher standards

Otherwise an athlete can achieve a standard in any national or international event where the IAAF rules are in place and competent technical officials are around to make sure that everything is according to rules.

This time, though, the standards have become tougher than before. The IAAF has done away with the practice of ‘A’ and ‘B’ standard. There is just one standard now. It is stiffer than what used to be the ‘B’ standard where a country could field one athlete in an event with ‘A’ standard allowing up to three.

This is why the Indian athletes are seemingly struggling to attain these standards which could have been achieved from May 1 last year and can be achieved up to July 11 this year. For 10,000m, marathon, race walk and combined events the qualification period started from January 1, 2015.

The IAAF has fixed certain target numbers for each event and accordingly fixed the standards. If the slots are not filled athletes could be invited to fill up places according to a ranking list, irrespective of having achieved the standards.

(Contd. Part II)

Indian cricketers follow ‘whereabouts’ rules but out of bounds for NADA

There is a misconception in our country that the International Cricket Council (ICC) does not follow the World Anti Doping Code (WADC) or is not one of its signatories, that the Indian players have continued to avoid “whereabouts”-based out-of-competition testing and that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has resisted all attempts so far to bring Indian cricketers under the “whereabouts” clause.

None of these is true. The ICC is an anti-doping Code signatory and it had fulfilled the conditions set out by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) to the extent of being among the ‘Code compliant’ agencies in 2015. Those that were not compliant had been named by the WADA which also declared some others as only “provisionally compliant”. None of the international federations was named.

The ICC has stated, according to a report in The Hindu, that the BCCI and the Indian players were very much part of its anti-doping activities and they were also fulfilling their “whereabouts” responsibilities.

Popular notion

The popular notion among sections of sports administrators, journalists and even among those associated with anti-doping measures in this country that Indian cricketers were outside the purview of anti-doping ‘whereabouts’ rules seemed to have gained ground since 2009 when leading Indian cricketers reportedly expressed reservations about agreeing to the ‘whereabouts’ clause.

The Indian stars were concerned that their privacy would be intruded into, especially when they could be holidaying or wanting to take a quiet break at home with family.

The BCCI sided with the players as the ICC, by then declared non-compliant by WADA primarily because of the lack of ‘whereabouts’ testing, tried to bring in the ‘whereabouts’ clause.  It was not until August 2010 that the ICC drafted a fresh ‘whereabouts’ document that was acceptable to the WADA as well as the BCCI.

The interesting point about the ICC ‘whereabouts’ rules has been the system of two sets of players with the IRTP list having only a slim chance of including an ‘active’ international player.

Only a player with a past doping record is certain to get included in the IRTP if he happens to be active at that time. If a player with a doping record has not played international cricket during the preceding 12 months he will not be included.

The ‘promotion’ from the National Player Pool (NPP) which contains the top five batsmen and bowlers in the ODI rankings from the top eight ODI countries, to the IRTP will depend on breach of ‘whereabouts’ rules. NPP players who have violated the rules three times in a 12-month period would be pushed up. Those players who are not getting to play or be part of a touring team for specific periods would also be elevated to the IRTP.

IRTP requirement

The IRTP players have to provide residential address apart from match venues and training locations unlike the NPP players who need give only the team training address, match venues and team hotel address. When a player is representing a country, the respective Boards would file this information.

Even for domestic matches a National Federation can perform this task for a player but the player would ultimately be held responsible for any breach of rules. The BCCI, it is learnt, does the job for Indian players in domestic matches as well as tour matches.

The ICC spokesman has insisted that the BCCI has been and continues to be part of the ‘whereabouts’ policy framed by the ICC. That should set at rest whatever speculation that had been doing the rounds in India about the top Indian cricketers not being subjected to ‘whereabouts’-based testing.

“But they don’t follow WADA Code, do they” is an oft-asked question about cricketers and anti-doping measures in India. Sadly, no one has tried to correct this misleading perception.

ICC rules silent on NADOs' authority

There is however one aspect that is still disturbing from an anti-doping perspective, not just with the BCCI and Indian cricket, but with the ICC. That relates to domestic testing.

The BCCI does have a domestic testing programme and also conducts out-of-competition testing. But it does not have a domestic ‘whereabouts’ programme.  The ICC says members are encouraged to adopt the domestic anti-doping template that the ICC had devised. It also says as per WADA Code there is no requirement for a National federation to have a domestic ‘whereabouts’ programme.

In fact according to the ICC the WADA expects only an international federation and/or a National Anti Doping Organization (NADO) to have a ‘whereabouts’ programme.

Surprisingly, the ICC anti-doping code has only limited reference to NADOs. It mainly pertains to approval of therapeutic use exemption (TUE), its rejection etc.

On the other hand we have the WADA Code that states:

“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 license-holders of that International Federation or its member National Federations, or their members…

“5.2.4 WADA shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority as set out in Article 20.”

The WADA Code does not give any authority to any National federation in any sport to test athletes. If a country does not have a NADO then the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of the country has the authority to conduct national-level testing.

Since 2009, the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) has tried to get a response from the BCCI about its intentions to test in cricket. All efforts have proved in vain so far.
The BCCI does not consider itself as a National Sports Federation since it does not seek any funds from the Central Government. NADA seems to have gone along with that argument. There could be a debate about the status of the BCCI, whether it could be considered an NSF irrespective of its financial independence.

BCCI's apprehensions

The BCCI’s apprehensions (read players' concern) could again be related to ‘whereabouts’ information to be provided by the players in case they were to come under NADA rules.

Unlike the ICC rules, the NADA rules (based on the WADA Code 2015) do require athletes to provide ‘whereabouts’ information for the entire duration of a year on a quarterly basis. This will necessarily include breaks from competition when the players could be at home or at a holiday destination in India or abroad.

We know at least the top players were apprehensive about this requirement even if all of them might not have outright rejected it in 2009.

Even if the BCCI starts its own ‘whereabouts’ testing in domestic cricket, it is quite likely it would be on the pattern of the National Player Pool of the ICC where only match venues, training locations and hotel information need to be given.

If NADA takes over this task things could be drastically different.

In the UK, The National Anti-Doping Organisation for England and Wales cricket is UK Anti-Doping (UKAD).In Australia, the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority (ASADA) that country’s NADO, has authority to test cricketers and bring forward cases of violations.

The Lodha committee recommendations do mention the WADA Code though not directly in reference to the need to delegate authority to the NADA in cricket.

It is not that cricket is a high risk sport as far as doping goes. In 2013 and 2014 cricket, world-wide, produced just one adverse analytical finding each in ICC testing. In 2013 there were four other cases reported from constituent units. However, in the last month of 2015 alone, we have had two prominent cricketers testing positive, Pakistani leg-spinner Yasir Shah and Sri Lankan wicketkeeper Kusal Perera.

In a country like India where cricket is now almost a year-round sport, the need to go in for testing other than at team hotels and grounds might yet look a needless exercise, though a beginning towards domestic 'whereabouts' testing could be something that can be set in motion by the Board, and it would be welcomed too by all agencies.

With the ICC initiating discussions with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to explore whether cricket could get into the Olympic programme and what needed to be done towards this, it is to be expected that it would take all possible measures to ensure that the sport remains fully Code-compliant.

(Amended 8 Jan 2016)

Corruption in sports administration scored new ‘high’ in 2015

The year just ending has proved a watershed year for corruption in sports. This happened to be the year when sports administrators were exposed, across sports, across continents. It is not that corruption had not been heard of in the field of sports in the past. But the magnitude of corruption reported in football and athletics through the course of the year surpassed all that had preceded the two.

We do not know yet the full story in these two shameful episodes in international sports and quite possibly they may occupy a dubious high for decades to come.

The FIFA Ethics Committee has since banned for eight years Sepp Blatter, who resigned as its president  a few days after being re-elected for a fifth term, and Michel Platini, one of France’s World Cup legends and till recently President of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Blatter had looked invincible just as his discredited president Jao Havelange till the latter was shamed in the ISL scandal.

Blatter and Platini banned

Blatter and Platini were banned for financial irregularities in which Blatter was said to have paid two million dollars of FIFA money to Platini in what was described as “disloyal payment”. They were banned from all football activities. Both have vowed to fight the ban. They have the right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In the wake of corruption charges in football, several other deals clinched in the past were subjected to close scrutiny and there were allegations that bribes were paid to officials to secure the 2018 World Cup for Russia and the 2022 World Cup for Qatar. Not just that, seven FIFA officials were arrested in Zurich in May by Swiss authorities following an FBI investigation in May last. More were arrested later. It proved a black year for football with prospects of worse to follow in the next year and beyond.

Football officials were not alone in gaining the ‘privilege’ of being arrested. None other than the former President of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Lamine Diack was arrested by the French Police for an alleged cover-up of doping cases. He was released on bail later.

This should rate as the ‘mother of all corruptions’ in the field of sports though at this point nothing has been proved and Diack’s son, Papa Massata Diack, himself accused of corruption, has denied that his father was involved in any dubious practices.

Along with Diack another IAAF official, Gabriel Dolle, the head of IAAF anti-doping, was also charged in the corruption scandal based on hushed up doping charges against Russian athletes. The extent of the corruption or the alleged fraud committed by IAAF officials were not known by the end of the year since a second report into the details of the athletics corruption by the Independent Commission of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) was withheld in order to facilitate police investigations.

Biggest expose into doping cover-ups

In the biggest expose into cover-ups in doping, German TV journalist Hajo Seppelt revealed the widespread doping practices in Russian athletics, first in December 2014 through a documentary on German channel ARD, and then further through damaging revelations about possible blood doping in international athletics in collaboration with the Sunday Times in August this year.

Also triggering by then an IAAF Ethics Commission investigation was the charge by marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova about extortion demands made by top IAAF and Russian officials. Her agent Andrei Baranov spilled the beans first of the former London and Chicago marathon winner being asked to shell out 3,30,000 pounds sterling for abnormal blood test results being suppressed in order to help her compete in the London Olympics. Shobukhova was eventually suspended and she demanded and apparently received at least some money back.

Seppelt’s first report, based primarily on Russian anti-doping official Vitaly Stepanov and his athlete-wife Yulia Stepanova,  led to the formation of the Independent Commission by WADA. Headed by former WADA President Richard Pound, the commission released an explosive report in November that explained the ‘state-sponsored’ doping in Russian athletics.

The IAAF, with the newly-elected president Sebastian Coe under pressure, suspended Russia from all athletics activities and laid down conditions for its return. Though the exclusion of Russian athletes from the Rio Olympics is not certain at this moment, it is a possibility that no one is ruling out.

Heads rolled in the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) as well as the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) which was suspended by WADA. President Vladimir Putin promised co-operation in tackling the doping menace.

The Russian ‘doping machinery’ has raised serious doubts about the efficacy of the anti-doping structure worldwide.  Surely there must be other countries that could have adopted the same “system” as Russia. Sadly, the ‘zero tolerance’ slogan that we keep hearing has turned out to be as hollow as it was always suspected to be by athletes and coaches.

If the president of an international federation could be engaged in a doping cover-up and a national network could be ‘protective’ of dopers, could be bribed and could be manipulated, what hope can “clean athletes” have in other countries?

Second report on Jan 14

The true extent of the involvement of IAAF officials in the cover-up would be known only when the WADA Commission releases its second report. It is now expected on January 14. So far, for the record, it must be mentioned that the officials have either directly or through sources close to them denied any involvement which was to be expected only.

As athletics officials have repeatedly said, and as Richard Pound and others in the WADA have said, doping is not a problem confined to athletics. Nor for that matter should anyone think that Russian athletics alone could have been affected by a state-abetted doping programme.

Indian athletics, in perpetual denial mode on the doping front, would do well to take note of the recent happenings, especially at a time when the president of the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) Adille Sumariwalla is a Council member of the IAAF. The reappointment of the previously sacked, dope-tainted Ukrainian coach Yuriy Ogorodnik has certainly not enhanced the stature of the AFI in the anti-doping world.

Kenyan athletics had already been in the news for its poorly managed anti-doping efforts. Today both the WADA and the IAAF have turned their attention towards that country which we all thought had only natural distance runners who grew up running miles and miles to schools. Marathoner Rita Jeptoo’s doping infraction was the biggest news of Kenyan doping in the year when perceptions about Kenyan athletics changed dramatically.

The paradox in athletics

Surprisingly, Kenya finished on top of the medals table at the World Championships in Beijing to drive home a point that it was not just a matter or doping that gave it the edge.

Or was it really a true indication? In-competition testing, especially at World Championships have invariably turned in meager ‘catches’.

This is the paradox that athletics faces today. If a country makes a huge impact on the track there would be raised eyebrows. No one wants to believe that races could be won simply through fair means. Conversely, the Russian and Kenyan examples have given a big boost to those in lesser-developed athletics nations to argue that “everyone dopes” and the only way forward could only be through doping.

It is for the IAAF , WADA and the International Olympic Committee to restore the credibility of the sport.  Coe had talked about an independent testing agency under the IAAF to carry out testing even before he got elected as president. At the same time, the IOC President Thomas Bach had proposed that WADA or an separate unit under WADA take over all international testing and ‘results management’ and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) take over hearing of all doping cases.

Obviously you cannot have an IAAF independent agency and WADA or a WADA-supervised agency to test international athletes at the same time. If that were to happen then the IAAF could be expected to pump more money into its own testing programme than that run by the WADA. And this can happen in other sports as well.

Additional funding for WADA will have to come from all stakeholders, not just the IOC or a group of countries. Otherwise the question of bias and conflict of interests would come in. If WADA has to take over testing, a question would also crop up whether it could be expected to monitor its own testing programme. At the moment WADA is engaged in laying down standards, formulating a uniform anti-doping Code, and monitoring including monitoring of its accredited laboratories.

Focus on cricket administration 

Back home, the focus was on cricket administration. And in keeping with the world-wide phenomenon, cricket bodies also came under closer scrutiny and were exposed. The reign of N. Srinivasan as the Board President and the International Cricket Council (ICC) Chairman came to an end as the Indian Board grappled with a variety of issues related to a report by a Supreme Court-appointed committee that went into the functioning of the Board, and was asked to give recommendations for reforms apart from handing out sanctions against some of the leading characters involved in the IPL  scam.  

The New Year is expected to unveil the final shape of the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee. Reports already attributed to sources suggested that there could be far-reaching changes in the very structure of the Board in the committee’s recommendations. The legal wrangles could be expected to continue.

If the BCCI is not seeking recognition as a National Sports Federation from the Government of India, can reforms be thrust down its throat? Will it relent? Can politicians be barred from contesting posts in the BCCI? If it can be done in cricket then why can’t such a policy be enforced in all other National Sports Federations? These are questions that the courts would eventually have to rule on.

Even as the BCCI was bracing itself up for further reforms at the behest of the court-appointed committee, the Delhi and Districts Cricket Association (DDCA) found itself in trouble with corruption charges leveled against it. Former cricketer-turned BJP MP Kirti Azad was in the forefront of the campaign against the DDCA, supported by former India captain and spin legend Bishan Singh Bedi, among others. They have been at it for years now.

That the campaign turned into a political 'tamasha' between the BJP and the Aam Aadmi Party  (AAP) was inevitable given the background that the Finance Minister Arun Jaitely, one of the BJP heavyweights, was the head of the DDCA earlier. Azad alleged corrupt officials were shielded, without naming Jaitley at least initially.

Indian Boxing continued to be in limbo thanks to the continuing war that the International Federation (AIBA) waged against the Indian federation (BI). Not satisfied with its early exclusion of the Indian body, AIBA got into the act again and even formed an ad hoc body to run the sport in the country when it had also collaborated with the IOA to form another ad hoc body earlier. 

There were faction fights in other Indian sports bodies as well, basketball being a prominent federation. 

Can there be a clean-up of the sports administration in India? It looks doubtful with the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the BCCI in no mood to relent. The IOA and the NSFs have been constantly fighting against what they term “intrusion” of the Government into their autonomous functioning. It is to be seen what fresh proposals the Justice C. K. Mahajan committee will come up with to fine tune the National Sports Code that lays down, among other things, the tenure and age limit of the office-bearers of the NSFs.

AICS revived

Also of significance is the re-appointment of Vijay Kumar Malhotra as the head of the yet-again-revived All India Council of Sports (AICS). It was Malhotra’s continuation despite the age stipulation that forced the Government to de-recognize the Archery Association of India. He has since stepped down from the post though he could be expected to be sympathetic towards the lot of NSF officials who want to cling onto their positions. What role will Malhotra and AICS play?

The courts so far have taken a dim view of the functioning of the federations including the BCCI. Any attempt to dilute the provisions in the guidelines on tenure, first enforced in 1975, would be suicidal. At a time when the call for a complete revamp of the sports administrations across sports has gone around the world, in the light of the FIFA and IAAF scandals, India should be looking forward to bringing in more transparency and accountability in the functioning of the National sports federations.

As Richard Pound said in his speech at the ‘Play the Games’ conference at Aarhus, Denmark, in October last, “autonomy of sport is an outdated relic from an earlier era”. Sports administrators have to realize the time has come to strictly follow the “good governance” principles not just on paper but in practice, too.

EPO makes its Indian debut

Fifteen years after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) introduced a test for the detection of erythropoietin (EPO) India has opened its account for an anti-doping rule violation for the red-blood-cell boosting drug.

Distance runner Hari Shankar Sharma, who tested positive for EPO at the All-India Police athletics championships at Madhuban, Haryana, in November last year, has been suspended for two years by the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP).

That this case, dating back to 28 November, 2014 could be decided only on 5 November, 2015 was due to a combination of reasons.

The New Delhi Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL), a WADA-accredited laboratory, is shown to have tested the ‘A’ urine sample on 10 March, 2015. But apparently confirmatory evaluation was by then done by another WADA-accredited laboratory in Seibersdorf, Austria and that explained the first delay. The Austrian laboratory is the Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) for tests done by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

Delays

By the time the ‘B’ sample test was done and presence of EPO confirmed it was May. There was a further time lag since the hearing panels had ended their term in February this year and were not reconstituted by the Government till July.  Actually the old panels were re-nominated then and a further reconstitution done only last month. Sharma’s case got delayed in the backlog and was taken up on 20 October.

Sharma did not put up a credible defence, going by the order issued by a panel headed by Mr. Ramnath and including international shooter Moraad Ali Khan and DrL. K. Gupta. The Rajasthan runner who took the gold in the 10,000 metres (30:07.48, ranked 7th in India in 2014) and the silver in the 5000 metres (14:35.38, ranked 12th) at Madhuban, argued that he had undergone treatment for an elbow injury in 2014 and was prescribed some medicines. There was no prescription to back up that claim. He also said he had consumed calcium and vitamin tablets.

Sharma was lucky that his case came under the old Code (2009) and not 2015 since the minimum sanction under the new rules would have been for four years unless unintentional ingestion was established.

What is EPO?

EPO is a hormone produced by the kidneys. An increase in EPO will mean extra red blood cells which in turn will mean supply of more oxygen to the muscles. Artificially it is prepared through recombinant DNA technology. It is used to treat anaemia in the medical field but it also happens to be favourite among endurance athletes for doping purposes. The Tour de France has been notorious for EPO misuse. American Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping and banned for life, admitted that he had benefited from the use of EPO.

Just as Armstrong pointed out in the documentary the ‘Armstrong Lie’, EPO detection is difficult since its half life (period during which it could be detected in blood) is around four to five hours. Initially the IOC accepted a method of blood test and urine test to confirm EPO ‘positive’ just in time for the Sydney Olympics. Not many were caught in the initial years.

Subsequently, as science and detection methods evolved, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) was able to approve a stand-alone urine test, though it is costly to conduct. Many anti-doping agencies including international federations even now use a combination of blood and urine tests; many use blood tests for screening purposes.

By 2008 the dopers were onto CERA (Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator), a new form of EPO that was used to help dialysis patients or people with kidney problems.

Biological Passport

Since 2009, WADA has introduced the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) programme by which an athlete’s blood sample is tested and variables recorded during different stages in order to assess misuse of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA). Suspect cases are followed up for target testing or else brought up as an anti-doping rule violation charge if sufficient evidence is gathered.

The recent uproar over ‘leaked data’ published by German TV ADR in collaboration with the Sunday Times of U. K. related to EPO misuse and blood doping by elite athletes including medal winners in Olympics and World Championships from several countries, Russia topping that list.

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is still looking into that issue while a second report by WADA Independent Commission that could be expected to deal with the blood doping allegation among others could be out by December-January.

Recent studies have shown that micro-dosing in EPO is extremely difficult to catch. Athletes can continue to dope and not get detected through micro-dosing, a BBC journalist proved 

The NADA is yet to begin haematological ABP programme though blood samples from India are taken and international agencies could be expected to keep a watch on the data generated over a period of time in order to carry out target testing at least.

NADA has however started steroidal ABP (urine sample) by which an athlete’s steroidal pattern is kept track of. WADA started the ABP (blood) programme in 2009 and the steroidal module in January 2014.

EPO is costly. Its testing is costlier than routine testing of urine samples, making agencies do tests only on a very limited number of samples for the drug. EPO is available in the Indian market. How athletes, cyclists etc could be misusing it in India could be assessed better once the ABP programme is set in motion.

Quite interestingly, a second EPO ‘positive’ reported in India in 2014 also came from the Police championships at Madhuban. It is another distance runner who ran alongside Sharma. His case is expected to be completed soon.

Just because only two athletes have been caught so far in India for EPO should not mean others were not using it. The detection window being small the others might have been lucky to escape.  We should also remember that NADA came into being only in 2009 and the New Delhi laboratory was accredited less than a year earlier. The ‘passport’ as and when introduced should nail many EPO users in future.

Meanwhile, K. M. Rachna, hammer thrower from UP, who stood second in the National Games in Kerala last February, has been suspended for four years by the NADDP. She was one of the 16 to have tested positive at the games. Rachna had tested positive for steroid metenolone.  
(amended 27 Nov 2015)

National Federations' apathy (Part II)

(Click here for Part I)

Gazette notifications 

Before the hearing panels were re-nominated last July, NADA had imposed its authority for six years on the NSFs and their athletes largely on the strength of a gazette notification dated January 6, 2009.

One more gazette notification was issued on June 2, 2015, notifying the revised NADA anti-doping rules based on the 2015 WADA Code.

Quite pertinently, the gazette notification, in 2009 as well as in 2015, says the same things that the rules also stipulate. That is as per the gazette notification “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…”

The notification is not saying that once the rules are published in the Gazette of India, it would be construed that the federations have already incorporated these rules into their constitutions/governing documents/rules.

A gazette notification precludes the need to further publicize or inform the public or concerned authorities about the subject of the notification. It need not fufil the requirements to be met by the authorities as detailed in the notification. Simple logic says that. There could of course be a legalistic or bureaucratic interpretation to this which the legal fraternity or the bureaucracy can look into.

Debate over enforcement of new rules

The enforcement of the 2015 NADA anti-doping rules to cases that came up before the gazette notification in June including 16 from the National Games in February this year was under a cloud at one stage, with the disciplinary panel raising doubts about its validity without having either “notified” (gazetted) or circulated among all stakeholders well in advance.

The objections were eventually overcome by NADA which now has again revamped the hearing panels with the induction of a new set of chairpersons to head the two panels and a few other members including hockey Olympian and World Cup-winning captain Ajitpal Singh and trap shooter Moraad Ali Khan.

It is difficult to imagine that six years have gone by and the NSFs (barring Hockey India perhaps and any other which might have escaped one’s attention) have either retained irrelevant anti-doping rules or provided meaningless background and/or links or just met the requirement mentioned in the Sports Ministry circular last March, among 23 points, that they provide a note on their websites about ‘compliance to WADA/NADA Code”.

Examples of Federation websites

A few examples of information available on the websites are mentioned here and you will readily grasp the cavalier manner in which this topic has been dealt with by many of the NSFs.

The Swimming Federation of India (SFI) does not have anti-doping rules but does have links to FINA and Swimming World magazine!

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) constitution is silent on anti-doping rules but the website does provide links to WADA and NADA.

The All India Tennis Association (AITA) does not have a mention of anti-doping rules while the Badminton Association of India (BAI) has an anti-doping section minus any reference to NADA. It has links to WADA and Badminton World Federation anti-doping rules.

Football (AIFF) and Table Tennis (TTFI) also do not have any reference to anti-doping on their websites.

Cycling (CFI) and shooting (NRAI) have complied with the ministry notification of March 2015 by giving a small note about how they follow NADA rules and the names of those who had tested positive.

The Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association has a page devoted to ‘anti-doping’. But one would be quickly disappointed. It has background on WADA, Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention and the UNESCO Convention against Doping in Sports. But nothing on NADA rules, no link to WADA Code or Prohibited List.

Definition of NADO!

Kabaddi (AKFI) gives the definition of a National Anti Doping Organization (NADO). Within that one can learn that a NADO does have certain authority, if you were unaware of such an authority.

The Judo Federation provides a note about having held a seminar. Perhaps it understood the ministry’s circular meant just that only. It also lists two suspended athletes.

The Equestrian Federation constitution, as available on its website, does not mention anti-doping. The Squash Rackets Federation of India (SRFI) on the other hand provides links to NADA rules 2015,WADA Code, WSF anti-doping rules, WSF jurisdiction, WADA education and awareness, 2015 Prohibited List and the MYAS compliance list. Yet it does not state that NADA rules would be the rules by which SRFI and squash players would be governed.

Let us take a look at some of the National Federations in other countries and at least try to understand what is needed:

Tennis Australia

“Under this Anti-Doping Policy, TA recognises the authority and responsibility of Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority ASADA under this Anti-Doping Policy and the ASADA Act and ASADA Regulations (including carrying out Testing). TA shall also recognise, abide by and give effect to the decisions made pursuant to this Anti-Doping Policy, including the decisions of hearing panels imposing sanctions on Individuals under their jurisdiction.”

UK Athletics

“In accordance with Rule 5.1 of these Rules, UKA has appointed UK Anti-Doping ("UKAD") to carry out the Testing of Athletes and the results management process. A copy of the Notice confirming UKAD's appointment was first published on the UKA website on 14 December 2009 and is reproduced in Schedule 3 of these Rules. The Notice remains in force.”

USA Swimming

“Doping control-In-Competition Testing: All competing athletes at USA Swimming competitions are subject to drug testing conducted by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and FINA under the In-Competition Testing program. 

“While all USA Swimming athletes are eligible to be tested out of competition, athletes in the Registered Testing Pool will be tested regularly and at any time between the hours of  5 am and 11pm daily. Athletes may be tested by USADA, FINA and WADA.”
 British Weightlifting

“The anti-doping rules of British Weight Lifting are the UK Anti-Doping Rules published by UK Anti Doping (or its successor), as amended from time to time. Such rules shall take effect and be construed as the rules of British Weight Lifting.”

NADA has to pursue

NADA has done a good job during its six years of existence by trapping more than 570 athletes who were found to have violated anti-doping rules. We can always argue that doping is so rampant in India that the numbers were bound to be high. But then someone has to not only catch them but also get sanctions imposed on them.

With a set-up that is clearly understaffed NADA needs to get tough with the NSFs, with adequate backing from the Sports Ministry, to get the rules business sorted out for its own good. The Ministry could be expected to clearly define what is needed to be put up on the NSFs’ websites in terms of anti-doping rules, education and awareness programme, rights of athletes, warnings about use of dietary supplements, and useful links to rules and news.

Just by asking them to put up a note this is what the ministry will get (a representative sample from AIFF website):

“Regular samples are collected during various I-League and other major tournaments under the supervision of NADA officials. One case has been tested positively. Name: Dane Pereira,Club: Mumbai FC. Test conducted on: 23^rd Feb 2015 at Mumbai.”

This information is something the ministry can  easily get from NADA office. More importantly this is of no great use to the players, coaches, public or the media. The players/athletes, especially the younger ones, need to be educated about the ramifications of doping, the health issues, the anti-doping rules, NADA’s authority, consequences of doping, “strict liability principle” that is applied when someone tests positive, the process of sample collection, rights of an athlete, the hearing process, right of appeal, latest news about prohibited substances and the need to be vigilant about consumption of dietary supplements, among other things.

At a time when UNESCO is calling for more efforts to educate the athletes about the dangers of doping, we seem to lag well behind in taking simple initiatives.

(concluded)
NOTE: Since publishing, some federations have updated their websites and rules. Here is the IWLF anti-doping policy:

http://www.iwlf.in/pdf/anti-doping-policy-of-iwlf-effective-december2016.pdf