Sabotage theory rejected and yet athlete given concession

Can an athlete allege “sabotage”, fail to prove it in an ant-doping rule violation case and still establish that his or her positive case for a steroid had come from an “unintentional” ingestion of the prohibited substance?

Yes, if one were to go by a decision handed down by the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP) in April last year.

Commonwealth Games gold medallist Geeta Rani, whose two-year suspension has been challenged in the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (NADAP), seemed to have gained the “leniency” from the hearing panel at the first instance because of her background as an international medal-winning weightlifter and the words of praise other weightlifters, coaches and a senior officer had to offer during the proceedings.

Pending before appeal panel

According to a recent National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) newsletter, Geeta Rani’s case at the appeal panel had been adjourned for “want of certain information from NDTL”. We don’t know the details of the information sought.

Even as the NADAP waits for that information in deciding about the appeal (see addendum below to read about the appeal and relevant matters), it is pertinent to have a look at the disciplinary panel order if only to have an understanding about how Indian hearing panels interpret anti-doping rules. This decision has not been publicized so far to the best of one's belief and it does provide an interesting insight into the level of arguments that take place in the hearings in doping cases in the country.

Geeta Rani, 2006 Commonwealth Games gold medallist in the over-75kg category, first tested positive for steroid methandienone at the National Games in Thrissur,  Kerala in February, 2015. She tested positive a second time for the same substance at the All-India Police Championships in New Delhi in March.

Since notice for her first offence had not been sent by the time she competed in the Police meet, the two offences were treated as one, as per rules. A panel headed by Mr. Jasmeet Singh heard her in both cases. The other members were hockey stalwart Ashok Kumar and Dr. L. K. Gupta.

The orders in the two cases were issued separately but they were similar in arguments and conclusions. Six sittings were held from December 2015 through to March 2016 before the decision was pronounced.

“Sabotaged by competitor”

Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, counsel for Geeta Rani, submitted that the athlete was “sabotaged by the competitor Nanshita Devi.”

“The athlete has been unable to show any conclusive proof of an act of sabotage by her competitor Nanshita Devi who allegedly contaminated the drink consumed by the athlete with the prohibited substance” wrote the panel in its order.

“The athlete has been unsuccessful in showing any act of sabotage or any reason for Nashita Devi to take a step that would so adversely affect the career of the athlete. However, the athlete has produced 5 witnesses who were extensively examined and cross-examined”

The five witnesses were: Khajan Singh, Asian Games medal-winning swimmer and DIG, Sports/overall in-charge of CRPF camp; K. Amarnadh, weightlifter and coach, Ms Sukhbir Kaur, coach, CRPF women’s weightlifting team and international weightlifters Parshmita Mangaraj and Pratima Kumari.

Khajan Singh, who in the past had served as a member of the appeal panel, stated, according to the order, that Geeta Rani was cheated as per his enquiries. On cross-examination he conceded that his was only an informal enquiry among coaches, athletes etc.

The coaches and the fellow weightlifters while endorsing Geeta Rani’s impeccable credentials and her “clean record”, however, did not support the argument that Nanshita Devi had a background of indulging in sabotage.

“The evidence led by the athlete is contradictory. Mr. Khajan Singh has supported the athlete while the other witnesses have not found anything suspicious about the behavior of Nanshita Devi, but the allegation that Ms. Nanshita Devi has spiked the drink of the athlete still remains unsubstantiated. A careful analysis of the evidences (sic) shows the non-conclusive nature (sic) of the evidences (sic) and it is unclear whether there was any act of sabotage by the athlete’s competitor and is at best a preponderance of probability (sic). Hence the contention of “sabotage” alleged by the athlete deserves to be rejected”.

Unintentional or not?

Having come to the above conclusion, the panel had to find a reason to agree with the contention of the athlete that the ingestion of the banned steroid was unintentional and had occurred without her knowledge. It finds none in the end and yet gives the benefit of a reduction of the standard sanction of four years by half!

“Another important question that arises and draws our attention is whether the consumption of steroid was intentional or unintentional. Again, relying on the evidences (sic) and cross-examination of witnesses shows the impeccable reputation of the athlete and no one has any doubt on her capacity or the sportsman spirit,” the order said.

“The athlete has never before been tested positive in the many dope tests that she has gone through and since she does not compete in international tournaments and there is no reason for her to consume a steroid at this point in her career after achieving such great heights in her career

“While the witnesses have said that they never really found anything suspicious about Nanshita Devi before or after this accusation by the athlete they all seem to be adamant about their belief and trust in the athlete and positive about the fact that the athlete can never indulge in any such activity willingly (sic). Thus in this view of the matter (sic), we have no hesitation to say that this act of the athlete is not intentional”.

The rule says if the substance is not a specified substance (for example steroids) an athlete has to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional. If it is a specified substance (for example certain classes of stimulants) the anti-doping organization has to establish that the violation was intentional.  In both these cases an athlete can get a four-year sanction for a first-time offence. Otherwise it is two years.

Conclusions

The panel goes onto state in its concluding comments:

“For the reasons we have elaborated in the preceding paragraphs namely that the athlete was tested positive for a prohibited substance which she claims she did not consume and was administered to her without her knowledge. The athlete has been successful in showing the panel that the consumption of the prohibited steroid namely “17-b-amethylnorandrost-1.212-triene-3-one (metabolite of methandienone) anabolic steroid”  entered her body unintentionally and without her knowledge, we are of the view that anti-doping rule violation are (sic) not intentional and hence the period of ineligibility would be two years as per in Article 10.2.2 (sic)”.

How the substance was “administered to her without her knowledge”, a conclusion made by the panel, has not been explained.

How the athlete had been “successful in showing the panel” how the substance entered her body has also not been explained.

After all its conclusions and rejection of the defence’s arguments the panel concludes that everything that needed to be established had been done and we rule it as an offence meriting two years suspension.

The panel mercifully does not reduce it further. It goes into the possibility of applying article 10.5.2 (no significant fault or negligence) that could have further reduced the sanction but rules it out.

A “sabotage” theory being so clearly rejected by a panel which eventually accepts the very same theory to provide a lenient sanction must be rare in anti-doping history.

Deposition of a few coaches and fellow athletes about an athlete not having tested positive in the past or having a good record etc cannot be (and never is) a reason for reducing sanctions. A very large majority of the athletes who get caught are first-time offenders.

We await the decision of the appeal panel in this interesting case that, going by the NADDP decision, once again shows the lack of understanding of the rules and their interpretations from all sides concerned. 
---
Addendum, Feb 18, 2017:
Geeta Rani appealed the order of the NADDP with the national appeal panel while the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) also appealed the decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Lausanne, according to sources. 
The athlete obviously appealed to get further reduction of the sanction while WADA, not unexpectedly, was looking for a stiffer sanction. The standard sanction in the 2015 Code is four years.
Like it happened in the case of two Indians in 2011, sprinter Sharadha Narayana and weightlifter Pradeep Sharma, WADA has, at the request of NADA, sought and got a stay from CAS to allow the appeal panel proceedings at the national level. Quite often in the past WADA, which has the right of appeal at CAS as well as the national appeal panel, has appealed such cases at the national level.
In 2011, the Indian appeal panel headed by Justice C. K. Mahajan (retd) had refused to hear a WADA appeal when it was told that a similar appeal had also been filed by WADA before the CAS in the cases of Sharadha and Sharma. WADA explained that this was standard practice and only in the eventuality of the appeal being rejected in India would it pursue the CAS appeal. Justice Mahajan, however, refused to entertain such pleas and ensured that the ones before CAS were withdrawn before he started hearing the cases of Sharadha and Sharma. 
Interestingly, in both cases the Mahajan panel reversed the disciplinary panel verdict of exoneration and imposed the full sanction of two years. Shardha had tested positive for stanozolol and Sharma for testosterone.
Both produced medical evidence to argue their cases, but eventually Justice Mahajan ruled that athletes cannot hide behind the ignorance of the doctors about anti-doping rules in order to escape sanctions.
Incidentally, Khajan Singh was a member of both the panels headed by Justice Mahajan that ruled two-year sanctions for the athletes.

‘Surging through’ to a 100m finish!

Every time we see a Usain Bolt powering past his rivals after 50 or 60 metres in a 100m sprint, many of us might have marveled at the speed that the Jamaican generates through those final metres.

“With a tremendous burst of speed the young sprinter raced past his rivals after 70 metres to re-write the 100m record”. I grew up in the profession reading such descriptions of the 100 metres.

Sprinters tend to hit top speed at the half-way mark in a 100 metres or by around 60 metres or just after that. Beyond 65 metres or 70 metres even the great Usain Bolt starts slowing down. There is no extra burst of speed that he can produce to outsprint the others through those agonizing 20 or 30 metres though he looks to be moving at a greater speed than through the preceding 30 metres.

Simply put, Bolt is decelerating slower than the others. It looks the winning sprinter has just shifted gears after 60 or 65 metres and lo and behold he just bursts through the final 35 or 40 metres!

The different phases of sprinting have been researched by bio-mechanics experts and physicists through decades and they came to this conclusion, explained in great detail in many an article. (Research is still going on to find out exactly what contributes to speed.)

Thus, it has been interesting to read many reports post-Rio Olympics (some before the Games, too) about Dutee Chand slowing down after 60 metres and being unable to chase down her opponents through the last 40 metres.

Dutee can of course work on her speed endurance which will make her deceleration over final 40 metres or 35 metres slower than what it is today. It will not mean she will be faster through that stretch compared to her preceding 30 or 35 metres but she may not be left too far behind.

 (Speed endurance is something which national record holder in 800m, Tintu Luka, also needs to build up in order to succeed at the highest levels. Every time she takes the field through an opening lap of 57.8s and then fails to match the rest through the final 200 or 150 metres there is an outcry to belittle the Kerala woman’s effort and that of her coach P. T. Usha. Both know what they have to do. It is easy to say “Tintu needs to build up her speed endurance” and a lot different for the athlete herself to come up to a level to beat the best in the world).

Back to sprinting. The best of the sprinters either decelerate slower than the others or else are able to maintain a high level of speed through the last 30-40 metres almost matching, but rarely exceeding, any of the previous 10 or 20-metre segments once past 40 or 50 metres. Surely once a sprinter hits top speed there is a limit to the distance he/she can maintain that speed.

Slightly deviating from the theory of slowing down at the finish, both Carl Lewis and Leroy Burrell of the US, turned in faster efforts through the last 10 metres than between 80 and 90 in the famous duel in the 1991 World championships in Tokyo which produced a world record for Lewis at 9.86s. Burrell who held the previous WR (9.90s) timed a personal best 9.88s for the second place. 

Lewis ran the final 10 metres in 0.86s compared to the preceding one in 0.87s while Burrell’s corresponding splits were 0.87s and 0.89s. In comparison, another American Dennis Mitchell, who came third, ran 0.90s and 0.87s respectively.

Lewis and Burrell were of course slower for the final 30 metres compared to the preceding 30 metres.

If Dutee Chand is getting beaten through the last 40 or 20 metres by better-rated, better-prepared sprinters and her coach feels she should be capable of putting up a better fight, if not win such races, it is her deceleration rate that matters. But that is true of anyone who might be coming second, third or fourth or down to eighth, notwithstanding of course the ‘start’ that also plays an important role. It goes without saying that the one who decelerates the least will eventually win provided he or she has the ability to hit a speed that matches the rest.

Slowing down in last 40 metres

 “My speed slows down in the last 40 metres” Dutee is quoted as saying in this report. 

Dutee has illustrious company here, as explained above, including the greatest of sprinters headed by Bolt. If not from 60 through to 100 metres at least from 70 to 100 metres.

But then we also have to keep in mind that the first 10 or 20 metres is not going to be too fast. The push off the blocks and the initial momentum will take much more time than the stretch between 40 and 70 metres when sprinters would have hit peak speeds.

Usain Bolt reached a maximum speed of 12.27m/s (44.172km/hour) in his world record 9.58s in the 100m at 65.03m in the Berlin World Championships in 2009. According to a biomechanical analysis conducted by the DLV (German Federation) Scientific Research Project, Bolt hit 99 per cent (12.15m/s) of his maximal velocity at 48.18 metres.

Bolt covered his 10-metre segments in that historic, stunning world record in: 1.89s, 0.99, 0.90, 0.86, 0.83, 0.82, 0.81, 0.82, 0.83 and 0.83. He had a reaction time of 0,146s, the fifth best in the eight-man field.

That means Bolt’s best average speed was recorded between 60 and 70 metres (0.81s). In the next 10m he slows down a bit (0.82s) but amazingly maintains 0.83 for the last two 10-metre segments.

Carl Lewis, in his Tokyo WR hit top average speed between 70 and 80 metres (0.83s) and then timed 0.87 and 0.86s for the next two 10 metres, according to available statistical data.

It is difficult to imagine the newly-crowned Olympic 100m champion Elaine Thompson of Jamaica would have said that Dutee needed to improve her “surge” from 60 to 80m and later from 80 to 100 metres to win medals in higher level competitions, as explained by the latest Dronacharya awardee coach, N. Ramesh in a recent report.

Poor start

 The Jamaican who despite a 0.157s reaction time (second poorest) in the 100m final in Rio clocked a 10.71s to take the gold might have meant Dutee needed to work on her speed endurance so that she was able to maintain better rhythm through the final stretch for a better finish. Trying to work up extra pace through 60 to 80 or through 80 to 100 would not fit into the scientific analysis established through many years of work by experts. It defies logic too.

Incidentally, Dutee’s was also the second poorest reaction time in her 100m heat (0.151s) when she timed 11.69s. The poorest was by “preliminary qualifier” Patricia Taea of Congo at 0.159s. She clocked 12.41 to be placed eighth and last, a rung behind the Indian star.

Dutee blamed her poor performance (11.69s as against her national record of 11.24s in Almaty in June) to the late evening start  (11 p.m) which she explained was her “sleeping time”.

(Updated Oct 5, 2016)

Neeraj Chopra inducted into IAAF registered testing pool

Neeraj Chopra, the sensational World Junior javelin champion, has been included in the latest (Sept 21) Registered Testing Pool (RTP) of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

Chopra is the first Indian to be included in the IAAF RTP since 800m runner Tintu Luka and triple jumper Arpinder Singh went out of the list in September, 2015.

Chopra, just 18, became the World Junior champion at Bydgoszcz, Poland, on 23 July this year with a junior world record throw of 86.48m. It was the Indian senior national record as well.

Till the time he nailed the under-20 world title and the world junior record, Chopra had tried to attain the Olympic qualification standard of 83.00m, but in vain. An attempt was made by the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) to get his name cleared for participation in the Rio Olympics as a special case. (Under-20 and senior athletes use the same javelin weighing 800gm).

However, the IAAF expectedly rejected the request, pointing out that there were other requests also for consideration after the expiry of the qualification deadline on July 11 and it was not possible to entertain any of them. There is no provision for a wild card entry in Olympics.

Chopra has been tipped to become India’s future Olympic champion. At the rate at which he has improved, the Chandigarh youngster surely looks set to scale greater heights.

The ‘whereabouts’ requirements

Being in the IAAF RTP, Chopra will now need to provide his daily ‘whereabouts’ to the IAAF on a quarterly basis. Failure to be present at a designated spot given by the athlete on a particular day for a one-hour period to be available for dope-testing may attract a ‘whereabouts failure’. Three ‘whereabouts failures’ (that may include ‘whereabouts filing failure’ also) can lead to a suspension of two years.

Chopra had been on a three-month training programme, along with a batch of Indian athletes, in Spala, Poland this season while aiming for the Olympic qualification and preparing for the World under-20 Championships. He could not, however, reach the standard for Rio.

The closest that he reached prior to Olympic qualification deadline was the 82.23m (equaling National record) in winning the South Asian Games title in Guwahati in February (Olympic qualification standard 83.00). After that he had marks of 79.54, 79.51, 79.73, 75.52, 77.60, 78.71 and 79.23 (July 10, a day before the OG deadline). He is currently coached by Australian Garry Calvert.

It  was surprising the past year that despite India having been No. 3 in the matter of dope offenders in 2013 and 2014, with athletics in the country topping the lists, with 28 and 29 respectively, the IAAF did not include an Indian athlete in its registered pool. (Russia topped the overall lists in both the years.)

Post-2010 Asian Games the IAAF had placed as many as ten Indian athletes in its registered pool. The list kept changing through subsequent months till in April 2014 all Indians were removed from the list. Tintu Luka, brought in first in March 2012, was brought back along with Arpinder in September 2014.

IAAF tests at least 20 Indians

Despite the apparent leeway given to Indian athletes in the matter of IAAF registered pool (it was always explained that priorities had to lie elsewhere with world’s top-ranked athletes and those who were in the regular watch-list), the IAAF did test a surprisingly large number of (at least) 20 Indian athletes in 2015.

Again, quite surprisingly, the man who topped the IAAF testing numbers happened to be a lesser-known shot putter, Kashish Khanna. A University champion in 2011, Khanna had won the Open title in 2014 apart from coming third in the inter-State meet in 2012. He was tested more than four times by the IAAF last year and he was the lone athlete to fail an IAAF test. He was given a two-year sanction by the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP) for a steroid offence.

Prominent among the others to have been tested up to three times by the IAAF in 2015 were:  Shot putter Inderjeet Singh (now under provisional suspension for a doping offence reported by NADA), walkers Gurmeet Singh, Manish Singh Rawat, Chandan Singh and Baljinder Singh, triple jumper Arpinder Singh, Tintu Luka, steeplechaser Sudha Singh, quarter-milers Debashree Majumdar, Anu Raghavan, Sini Jose, Anju Thomas and Priyanka Mondal, and javelin thrower Annu Rani.

Those who were not tested by the IAAF in out-of-competition tests in 2015 included steeplechaser Lalita Babar, marathon runners O. P. Jaisha and Kavta Raut; sprinters Dutee Chand and Srabani Nanda; quarter-milers Ashwini Akkunji, Priyanka Panwar, Nirmala Sheoran, Jauna Murmu, Anilda Thomas and M. R. Poovamma; triple jumper Renjith Maheswary, long jumpers Kumaravel Premkumar and Ankit Sharma, sprinter Amiya Mallick, discus throwers Seema Antil and Krishna Poonia, and shot putter Manpreet Kaur (Sr).

NADA registered pool

The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) started a ‘whereabouts’-based testing programme in May, 2015 with an initial list of 41 athletes in track and field in its domestic pool. Yet, by May this year NADA found itself stymied in its efforts as a majority of the athletes in its list went abroad for training towards Rio Olympics preparations.

However, NADA managed to bring in charges against three leading athletes this season, with Inderjeet failig an out-of-competition test and sprinter Dharambir Singh and quarter-miler Priyanka Panwar testing positive in competitions.  All three are currently under provisional suspension.

A larger ‘whereabouts’ pool in athletics and closer monitoring should be NADA’s aim in the coming season while the IAAF could be expected to co-ordinate with other agencies testing at remote locations where Indian athletes could be training in the World Championships year.

With a few international statisticians raising doubts about some of the marks achieved by Indian athletes at home and abroad towards Olympic qualification, it is imperative to keep a close watch on anti-doping efforts in the coming season in Indian athletics.

Anything to become an Olympian!

The 2016 athletics season in India is still continuing. And as it invariably happens, the international calendar has practically wound up barring the road races.

The Olympic year expectedly produced a string of “world-class performances” by Indian athletes. Administrators and fans alike expressed their happiness at the perceived strides the Indian athletes had made in the run-up to the Rio Games.

Coaches and administrators were not wary of forecasting “several” places in the final at Rio for the Indian athletes.

Can there be a medal, too? The question naturally came up. 

They did not rule it out, pointing out that a medal depended on a given day’s form. Anything could happen, they assured us. The Sports Authority of India (SAI) looked at a few charts and graphs and came to the conclusion a medal or two was possible.

The biggest Indian athletics squad numbering 36 (two athletes, shot putter Inderjeet Singh and sprinter Dharambir Singh, were suspended following positive dope results) in the largest Indian contingent for the Olympics, at 118, was entered.   Some of them spent months abroad in training camps that ostensibly provided ideal weather, accommodation and food.

Beats the Sydney number

The 36 beat the 29 that went to Sydney for the 2000 Games. Just as in Sydney, where K. M. Beenamol was the lone Indian athlete to cross the first round, in Rio, too, only one athlete came through the preliminary round. Steeplechaser Lalita Babar was a proud 10^th-place finisher in the Olympics.

Racewalker Manish Singh Rawat, with a 13^th-place finish in 20km, and marathon runners T. Gopi and Kheta Ram, finishing 25th and 26th, were other honourable exceptions from the Indian side in an otherwise dismal performance.

So, how did so many of our athletes record ‘phenomenal performances’ at home and abroad in order to qualify for Olympics and then fail so stunningly in Rio?

Some of us had reservations about at least some of the marks achieved by Indian athletes prior to Rio.  Were these performances “genuine” was a question that came up rather disturbingly.

No additional athletes, barring steeplechaser Sudha Singh had qualified from domestic meets this year in April and May, and through competitions in Poland, Chinese Taipei and Kyrgyzstan till the last week of June. Then the rush started culminating with the Bengaluru meet on the final day of Olympic qualification on July 11.

Now, less than a month after the Olympics, a few of the prominent international statisticians have also raised doubts about such performances. Not just from India but from other countries as well.

Mirko Jalava, who runs the very popular, highly acclaimed, Tilastopaja.com, Finland, that provides huge statistical data on athletics has listed as many as 39 results under the ‘doubtful/suspicious’ category that led to Olympic qualification.  

Three of the ‘suspicious’ results are by Indian athletes, two at Almaty, Kazakhstan in June and one at Bengaluru in July.

The doubtful Indian marks

The Indian marks listed are the 8.19m in long jump by Ankit Sharma and the 23.03s for the 200m by Srabani Nanda in Almaty, and the 17,30m achieved by Renjith Maheswary in triple jump in Bengaluru.

One more Indian result, that of 11.24s for the 100m by Dutee Chand in Almaty, has been mentioned among others as a possible consequence of a “faulty” timing system in the Kozanov memorial meet in the Kazakhstan city.

The only “consolation” for Indians in this assessment could be the fact that many other countries with several “doubtful” results have been listed by Jalava who has forwarded his list to the working group appointed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) to look into these qualification marks achieved apparently through dubious means.

Mercifully, even the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), one heard, has raised “doubts” about some of the marks achieved by Indian athletes towards Rio qualification in its post-Olympics assessment.

“My suspicions are purely statistical, nothing to do with doping.,” Jalava wrote in an e-mail to this correspondent the other day.

Tilastopaja removes all doubtful results

Tilastopaja.com has removed all the ‘suspicious’ results including those by Dutee Chand (11.30s and 11.24s for 100m in Almaty on June 25) and Dharambir Singh (20.45s for 200 in Bengaluru on July 11) and categorized them as “irregular/doubtful”.  (Dharambir’s timing in any case is likely to be disqualified following his positive dope test)

These marks will no longer be listed at least on Tilastopaja as personal best or season best or national record (where applicable).

What decision the IAAF would take in respect of such doubtful marks is yet to be seen. The IAAF website does list all these marks as valid and regular.

Jalava’s “suspicious” list comprises nine athletes from Uzbekistan, six from Kazakhstan, five from Armenia, four from Moldova, three each from India and Iran, two from Georgia and one each from Bermuda, Bahrain, Costa Rica, Egypt, Jamaica, Saudi Arabia and Samoa.

A total of 52 results (not necessarily Olympic qualification marks) have been flagged by Jalava as “suspicious” with Kazakhstan alone contributing 13 of them, all but one from Almaty!

The Finn makes these observations in respect of Indian athletes:

Men: Long jump Name                      Country                                             Standard Ankit Sharma IND                                8.19 -16 Suspicious mark: 8.19 +0.1 Almaty KAZ 26 June 2016 Best outside suspicious: 7.92 0.0 Patiala IND 6 May 2016 Perf Rio 2016: 7.67 +0.1 Rio de Janeiro BRA 12 August 2016 Sequence of marks 2016: 7.89 – 7.66 – 7.81 – 7.76 – 7.92 – 7.67 – 8.19 (incl. 8.19-8.17-8.14) – 7.76 – 7.67 (Rio) Reason for suspicion: No jumps further than 7.92 outside Almaty in 2016, then suddenly three marks at 8.14 or better. Triple jump Renjith Maheswary IND                     17.30 -16 Suspicious mark: 17.30 +0.9 Bangalore IND 11 July 2016 Best outside suspicious: 16.56 Hyderabad IND 29 June 2016 Perf Rio 2016: 16.13 +0.5 Rio de Janeiro BRA 15 August 2016 Sequence of marks 2016: 16.45 – 16.16 – 16.35 – 16.47 – 16.56 – 16.43 – 17.30 (incl. 17.30-16.93-16.75-16.55) – 16.13 (Rio, incl. 16.13-15.99-15.80). Reason for suspicion: Result so much further than other meetings in 2016. Result achieved on the last day of qualification, July 11th. Women: 200m Srabani Nanda IND                               23.07 -16 Suspicious mark: 23.07 +0.7 Almaty KAZ 26 June 2016 Best outside suspicious: 23.36 0.0 New Delhi IND 30 April 2016 Perf Rio 2016: 23.58 -0.1 Rio de Janeiro BRA 15 August 2016 Sequence of marks 2016: 23.91 – 23.43 – 23.85 – 23.57 – 23.70 – 23.36 – 23.39 – 24.85 – 23.55 – 23.84 – 23.70 – 23.83 – 23.34 – 23.07 – 23.58 (Rio). Reason for suspicion: Entry standard achieved in Almaty is out of sequence. Three previous meets 23.84-23.70-23.83, then suddenly 23.07 and back to 23.58 in Rio. Looks like a possible timing problem, like in the W 100m in the same meet: Three best Almaty vs Rio: Zyabkina KAZ 22.66-23.34 Safronova KAZ 22.95-23.29 Nanda IND 23.07-23.58.

 The explanation regarding Dutee Chand’s timing can be made out from the following observations in respect of Kazakh Rima Kashafutdiinova’s 100m timing in Almaty:

Rima Kashafutdinova KAZ 1 11.31 -16 Suspicious mark: 11.31 +1.2 Almaty KAZ 25 June 2016 Best outside suspicious: 11.63 0.0 Bishkek KGZ 18 June 2016 Perf Rio 2016: 11.84 +0.3 Rio de Janeiro BRA 12 August 2016 Sequence of marks 2016: 11.67 – 11.63 – 11.46 – 11.31 – 11.84 (Rio). Reason for suspicion: Bettered 100m personal best by 0.32 seconds in one competition, which is impossible. There is a possibility, that the timing was faulty in Almaty in this race. Almaty vs Rio Zyabkina KAZ Almaty 11.15- Rio 11.69 Chand IND 11.24-11.69 Jassim BRN 11.26-11.72 Kashafutdinova KAZ 11.31-11.84. The differences are 0.44, 0.45, 0.46 and 0.52. Zyabkina’s best before Almaty was 11.27 in May and she ran 11.38 in Bishkek just a week before the 11.15. She then continued with 11.63 in France before 11.69 in Rio.

Jalava’s compilation gives a deep insight into the possible manipulation that goes on to facilitate Olympic qualification.

Bahrain’s Hajar Saad Al-Khaldi for example is shown to have improved her PB in women’s 100m from 11.91s in 2015 to 11.28s in Sofia, Bulgaria, on June 18 this year (OG standard 11.32s). She clocked 11.59s in Rio.

Moldovan woman shot putter Dimitriana Surdu jumped from her PB of 15.04 in 2015 to 17.85 in May this year to cross the Olympic standard of 17.75. Then came back to her original standard of 15.25 in Rio.

Discus thrower Nataliya Strutulat of Moldova did a 61.85 at home (OG standard 61.00). Her best outside her home this season was 57.52m. Predictably she slumped to 53.27m in Rio.

Hubbeling also raises doubts

 Meanwhile, Heinrich Hubbeling, the German statistician who brings out the annual Asian athletics rankings, has also brought out a list of ‘doubtful’ results. But this list is small, 13, and it does not mention an Indian result.

Hubbeling said some of the qualifiers managed standards in preliminaries but stayed away from finals.  A few of them tried to hide their form in Olympics by not finishing their competitions there.

Like Jalava, Hubbeling has also removed “doubtful” results from his top lists and is waiting to see whether the IAAF would be doing something in this respect.

Hubbeling’s list (matching that by Jalava) comprises five athletes each from Uzbekistan and Armenia and one each from Georgia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

A few samples from the list:

Uzbek Leonid Andreyev, a 33-year-old decathlete whose best was 7879 in 2014 achieved 8250 points in Tashkent (Olympic standard 8100) including five individual personal bests with that in high jump going up from 1.99m to 2.09m!

Amaliya Sharoyan, a woman long jumper from Armenia, registered 6.72m (standard 6.70m) at Elbasan, Albania, on May 21, did 6.15 at Pitesti, Romania, on June 6 and then managed 5.95 in Rio Olympics!

Georgian shot putter Benik Abramyan recorded 20.54 in Almaty on May 24 to improve his PB from 18.48 in 2011. (OG standard 20.50m). He had 18.72m in the Olympics. Incidentally he had served a two-year doping ban from 2012.

Uzbek woman 400m hurdler Natalya Asanova improved from her 2012 PB of 56.85 to 56.19 (OG standard 56.20). She had marks between 58 and 59 during the season except for one more of 56.33 in Tashkent three days before her Dushanabe PB. She timed 62.37s in Rio!

All these indicate, not for the first time though, how Olympic qualification standards are achieved in athletics. You can qualify through any national-level or any small international-level meet. Unlike in swimming, for example, there is no requirement of a pre-designated meet.

The AFI could arrange a few international relay races at short notice in Hyderabad and Bengaluru just in time to beat the July 11 deadline for our teams to qualify. Relay qualification earlier used to be through IAAF-designated meets. Not that it made qualification foolproof.

Unless the IAAF stipulates conditions for getting national and international meets approved for the purpose of qualification for Olympics (or World championships) “world-class” performances would be churned out in Dushanbe, Tashkent, Almaty and Hyderabad but quite predictably such athletes would fail miserably in the championships.

Sometimes these performances may be No. 1 or 2 or 3 in the world that season. That should not mislead the fans. But they do get misled. That is where the credibility of the sport gets eroded.

If the credibility has to improve, qualification process has to be tightened. Let National federations invite IAAF-appointed technical delegates with impeccable credentials to oversee qualification meets. And of course there has to be mandatory dope-testing under the supervision of IAAF/WADA delegates.

Well, they might say this could turn out to be very expensive. Yes, spend the money to protect clean athletes; spend it to uphold the purity of sport, spend it to bolster the credibility of the sport.