Prescriptions sufficient to get reduced sanctions (Part II)

(Part I is here)
Kabaddi player Simarjit Singh of Punjab was tested during the all-India Police championships (volleyball cluster) in Jodhpur in March 2016. He tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone) and received a reduced sanction of two years, effective from April 21, 2016.

He informed NADA and subsequently the hearing panel that he had suffered because of acute prolapse of inter-vertebral disc (PIVD) and a doctor in Amritsar had prescribed him nandrolone injection. He said he was not aware of the consequences of the drugs prescribed by Dr Vikas Bhandari. It was not clear when Simarjit underwent treatment with steroids.

Simarjit also said he had won several medals for the country and had never taken any prohibited substance nor had been found positive in the past.

NADA contended that the athlete had been competing at the international level and was familiar with anti-doping rules and that he had produced “fake, manufactured prescription”. It said this was the result of an “afterthought process”.

The panel headed by Mr. Ramnath noted that the athlete had “filed Outpatient Department register wherein at serial No. 872 his name has been mentioned and the certificate of the doctor giving nandrolone decanoate and the compound in the said injection correlate with the adverse analytical finding and is not contradicted. Therefore, intention of cheating is missing from the side of the athlete. The athlete should have mentioned in the Doping Control Form at the time of sample collection but the same was not done.

“Secondly, the athlete has not obtained TUE certificate which he should have done for the fair conduct of the athlete (sic) as it all lacking (sic)”.

The panel ruled that this came under “No significant fault or negligence” and accordingly slapped a reduced sanction of two years on the athlete.

By stating that intention to cheat was missing the panel seemed to have reached a conclusion that could straightaway reduce the sanction to two years (unintentional ingestion in the case of a non-specified substance) but stopped short of doing that.

Instead, only article 10.5.2 was applied to cut down the suspension by half.

NADA could not prove that the documents were fake as it alleged. NADA does not have the staff to investigate such cases and as has been seen in recent cases the doctor member of the hearing panel often had to contact the doctor mentioned in defence by the athlete to verify whether such prescriptions had indeed been given.

Anchal Yadav

Discus thrower Anchal Yadav of Delhi tested positive for stanozolol at the National schools athletics championships at Kozhikode, Kerala, on January 30, 2016. She was slapped with a two-year suspension from 7 March, 2016.

She told a panel headed by Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi that she was prescribed tab Winstrol (stanozolol) for knee pain by Dr Shashi Bhusan Yadav, Meerut, in November, 2015.

 Dr Yadav later confirmed that he had given such a prescription when enquired to by the doctor member of the panel, Dr. P. S. M. Chandran.

The panel concluded that since the athlete had taken the medicine for treatment and her claim was supported by prescription it was not an “intentional” offence and hence the period of ineligibility would be two years.

Like in a few other cases, the panel noted that the athlete should have taken “extreme precautions” and should also have applied for TUE from NADA. Again, like in several other cases, it was noted that the athlete did not mention the medicines on the doping control form.

Interestingly, as mentioned in several orders of the NADDP, the Tripathi panel also wrote: “It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers (are) found to be present in their bodily specimens. It is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under article 2.1”

Perhaps this particular portion from the Code is being repeated almost in every other order in an effort to drive home the point about the “strict liability” principle. But is this principle being adhered to?

An anti-doping authority does not have to prove “intent” when the substance is, say, a steroid. It becomes the athlete’s responsibility to show that it was “unintentional”. The prescriptions are coming in handy to prove this point in the post-2015 Code scenario.

Hockey player gets steroid injection

In the case of hockey player Jarmanpreet Singh of Punjab, who has completed his two-year suspension recently, the doctor not only certified the prescriptions he had given but also conveyed to the panel that he had administered injection metadec (nandrolone) to the 19-year-old player without disclosing what the injection was.

Jarmanpreet had tested positive for nandrolone in the Hockey India League in January 2015. He had approached Dr G. S. Kaler of the Kaler Hospital, Amritsar, with a complaint of lower back ache while training. He was prescribed some medicines on December 25, 2014 and on his second visit on Jan 4, 2015 he was administered the metadec injection. He received a suspension of two years.

The panel headed by Mr. Rajeev Kapoor was told that the athlete and his father, who took his son to the doctor, told the latter that he was a national-level player and no banned drug should be prescribed to him.

The panel was also told by the player that he had received anti-doping education twice in the past.

Athlete’s lawyer Vidushpat Singhania told the panel that a CAS decision in 2005 had held in the case of a ice hockey player from Belarus that the administration of nandrolone in an emergency situation could be construed as “no fault or negligence”.

It turned out that the Belarus player, without his knowledge, had suffered a “heart failure”, according to the defence put up by his lawyers and medical personnel, and he had to be administered the nandrolone injection in hospital. (It was explained and accepted by the CAS panel that nandrolone was used for such heart conditions in Belarus unlike in Western Europe).

The player could have been expected to apply for a retroactive TUE in the situation that necessitated the administration of nandrolone without his knowledge. But he did not. The CAS panel ruled in favour of the Belarus ice hockey player and completely reprieved him.

It is well known that in emergency situations medical personnel can administer banned drugs to sportspersons. There is also a provision to apply for a retroactive TUE which is generally granted without much fuss after going through hospital procedures and the nature of the injury or condition of an athlete.
(See WADA’s explanations about emergency situations and retroactive TUE here)

The Jarmanpreet case was referred to the TUE panel by NADA. NADA told the hearing panel that the TUE committee meeting on 12 Sept, 2015 observed that the prescribed prohibited medicine “is not indicated for conditions diagnosed and is not in agreement with the standard protocols for management of such an ailment. It is respectfully submitted that Dr G. S. Kaler has not certified that such medicines can be given in cases of ailment being suffered by the athlete, which itself creates a cloud on the submissions made by the athlete”

NADA claimed that the player was not able to establish he had shown utmost caution while being administered the medicines in order to claim that he bore “no fault or negligence”.

NADA also brought in the decision by the appeal panel in the Sharadha Narayana case where the Justice C. K. Mahajan-headed panel ruled in 2011 that athletes could not “hide behind the ignorance of doctors.”

Doubts raised

In the Jarmanpreet case, the panel wrote: “The panel has heard the submissions of both parties and came to the conclusion that the alleged certificate which is made the basis of defence of the athlete has been produced by the athlete but the same appears to be issued at request of the athlete in which unusual averments were inserted by the doctors which, in normal course of issuing of certificate never seen in ordinary course (sic). Though Dr G. S. Kaler acknowledged his prescription and certificate etc even the same was got verified and confirmed by the NADA officials.”

Despite the above para in which the panel has seemingly raised some doubts, it ruled that the offence was unintentional and the rule violation came under the category that provided for a two-year sanction. The panel did not go for further reduction under “no significant fault or negligence”.

The Prescription v TUE debate is bound to prolong unless NADA seriously gets down to improving its ‘athletes outreach’ programme and its website which should provide a fund of information to the athletes related to doping and anti-doping rules. Athletes must be educated about seeking TUEs in order to take medicines that could be of utmost importance to their health. And also to avoid being charged for rule violations.They also could be educated about the precautions to be taken (say for example advising the doctor about his/her status as a sportsperson) while dealing with emergency situations and admission to hospitals if they are conscious.

Panels have continued to insert paras that simply state an athlete should have taken a TUE but failed to do so. What purpose this serves is difficult to guess. 

Someone also needs to brief disciplinary panel chairpersons that it is irrelevant today to mention “aggravating circumstances” after that clause has gone out of the Code since the beginning of 2015. Almost every other order has a line that says: “No aggravating circumstances have been alleged for enhanced sanctions by the NADA”.

That clause was present in the previous Code for situations where a panel could impose a stiffer sanction than the standard two-year one. The clause was rarely put into use by hearing panels, though, around the world. “Aggravating circumstances” included anti-doping rule violations involving multiple banned substances, especially steroids. In India, there were many who were caught for multiple steroids but escaped with just the two-year sanction. The ""aggravating circumstances"clause was removed to bring in the standard four-year sanction for first-time offenders.

(Concluded)

Updated: 14 March, 2017

Addendum, March 23, 2017:

CAS slapped four-year ban on Mhaskar Meghali, costs on NADA and athlete

WADA appealed the Mhaskar Meghali decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) which in a decision dated 20 Sept, 2016 set aside the Indian ADDP decision and imposed a four-year ban on the Railway weightlifter.

The sole arbitrator of CAS ruled that the ADDP had reached an “erroneous decision”. It awarded costs amounting to 1000 Swiss Francs (approx Rs 65,900) to be jointly borne by NADA and the athlete towards legal costs incurred by WADA in the proceedings before CAS.

Mr. Christoph Vedder of Germany, the sole arbitrator, noted that the athlete had failed to establish how the banned substance (methandienone) entered her body. It was argued by WADA and accepted by the arbitrator that the medicines she took (nandrolone and Depmedrol) did not contain methandienone.

WADA contended that mere protestations and suggestions by the athlete about having used supplements or medicines were not sufficient to establish ‘no significant fault or negligence’ and the athlete first had to prove how the banned substance entered his or her body.

WADA also stated that methandienone has been the “prevalent prohibited substance” in the sport of weightlifting as shown by many decisions and was manifestly performance-enhancing in this particular sport.

NADA did not respond to the notice sent by CAS while the athlete sent a written statement (beyond the deadline prescribed, but considered by the arbitrator nevertheless)  alleging ‘sabotage’ which she could not substantiate. Since the respondents did not seek a hearing the arbitrator decided the case solely on the written submissions.

Because of the complexities of gathering information related to ADDP decisions in India as well as the paucity of information on the CAS website, such developments as the Meghali decision by CAS, go unreported in our country. In turn, the lawyers representing athletes or NADA in various cases, are denied the benefit of crucial CAS decisions that help set benchmarks for future reference.

Prescriptions sufficient to get reduced sanctions (Part I)

Can athletes be charged with doping offences in case they hold valid medical prescriptions to use banned drugs?

Yes.

Can athletes get lenient sanctions in case they have medical prescriptions _but not therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs)_to use banned drugs?

Possible.

There is an increasing tendency among anti-doping disciplinary panels in India to reduce sanctions based on medical prescriptions since the introduction of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. The new Code stipulates a standard four-year suspension in contrast to the two-year sanction of the old one and there is enough scope to reduce the punishment to just one year on the strength of a medical prescription or a hospital record.

At least that is what we have seen in India in the past two years though at least some of these decisions might not stand scrutiny at a higher level of disciplinary proceedings if they had been appealed against.

Are TUEs being misused?

A TUE allows an athlete to use prohibited drugs. Fancy Bears, the international hacking group, showed last year (and continues to show) that the TUEs can be misused by athletes to gain undue advantage. Legitimizing drug use through the use of a TUE, at least from the perspective of Fancy Bears, should be as abhorrent as doping itself.

Even as the world discusses the tightening up of the TUE granting process, we in India, should also review whether our disciplinary panels are right in reducing sanctions on the strength of medical prescriptions where TUEs would have been clearly indicated.

If indeed they are then the concessions should be given across the board and athletes told in advance that a prescription would be extremely useful in an anti-doping rule violation case.

Rules related to granting of TUEs have become tougher and tougher through the years and any attempt to get a TUE for the use of say steroids for back aches and knee pain is likely to be viewed without much sympathy. This is not to say that rules are not being bent around the world to accommodate doubtful requests or favourites. Nor is this an attempt to show that medical prescriptions produced so far in anti-doping matters in India could be viewed with suspicion. Or for that matter the doctor members of the hearing panels might have erred in their professional evaluation of such prescriptions.

The revised WADA Code (2015) has left room for interpretation when it comes to sanctions. Prescriptions come in handy in India in this topic of “interpretation”.

The rule says it would be four-year suspension if the substance is not a “specified” one (say steroid) unless the athlete proves the use was “unintentional”. If it is a ‘specified’ substance then the anti-doping authority has to prove that athlete used it intentionally to enhance performance in order to get a four-year sanction. Otherwise it would be two years.

Disciplinary panels in India, at least those prone to accepting medical prescriptions for the use of banned drugs, often come to the conclusion that if a prescription is there the athlete had reason to take a banned drug. The question of ‘cheating’ does not come in here, panels conclude. If that is the case the rule violation pertaining to a steroid abuse is quickly categorized as “unintentional” and thus slotted into the two-year sanction bracket. A panel may further reduce this sanction by applying the “No significant fault or negligent” clause.

Mhaskar Meghali

Take the case of Railway weightlifter Mhaskar Meghali. She tested positive for steroid methandienone at the Railway championships in January, 2015. She argued before a panel headed by lawyer Jasmeet Singh that a doctor (Dr Bharat B. Rathod of Vasai, Maharashtra), had given her a prescription for Deca- Durabolin injection in October, 2014 and Depo-Medrol injection in December, 2014.

Meghali had “severe knee pain”, wrote the panel in its order. It said that since her drug use was supported by medical prescription her offence was not “intentional” and thus she was entitled to two-year sanction under the rules.

The panel then went on to state that since it had established that she bore “no significant fault or negligence” she was entitled to a further reduction under article 10.5.2 which was one half of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility. That made it one year.

Meghali ended her one-year suspension in February last year.

Let’s now look at what other points the panel mentioned in its order. “On the other hand the panel is also of the view that the athlete should have taken extreme precautions and have applied for the therapeutic use exemption (TUE) certificate to NADA before taking such banned medicine.”

After having written “athlete was not aware of the prohibited medicine prescribed by the doctor”, how could the panel turn around and say she should have exercised caution before “taking such banned medicine”?

But, leave that aside. If she should have taken precautions could she be deemed to have committed “no significant fault or negligence”? Will it not be a “significant fault or negligence”, having direct bearing on an athlete’s doping infraction if he or she fails to exercise caution while taking a medicine?

Across the world, the minimum that a hearing panel looks for from an athlete in a doping case is the attempts of the latter to find out whether the drug that had been prescribed was prohibited or not. This, panels seem to believe these days, could be done at a minimum level through an internet search. That alone normally does not satisfy many of the hearing panels which seek information from the athlete about his/her attempts to contact any sports body, sports doctor, coaches etc to find out the advisability of taking a drug.

In the case of Meghali, after having taken pains to explain in its order how it concluded that the athlete was not at fault for having allowed a banned substance to get into her system, the panel seemed to have forgotten what was the substance that was found out!

Meghali tested positive for methandienone. The Jasmeet panel concluded that she had been prescribed medicines for knee pain and those medicines contained the steroid in question. NADA did not question the reasoning of the learned panel. At least the order doesn’t say it did.

Meghali was administered a Deca-Durabolin injection in October 2014 and a Depo-Medrol injection in December that year, according to the order. Deca-Durabolin, as most of us know (and a large majority of the athletes could also know it is a potent performance-enhancing steroid) is nandrolone decanoate. Depo-Medrol is methylprednisolone, a glucocorticosteroid, used for managing pain and swelling.

Neither Deca-Durabolin nor Depo-Medrol produces methandienone or its metabolites in urine. So, where did the panel get the drug that the Maharashtra woman had tested positive for? Without establishing how methandienone entered her body, how could the panel apply article 10.5.2 and reduce the sanction by half? How could it come to the conclusion of an “unintentional” ingestion of the drug when a medicine other than the one that came out of the dope test had been prescribed by the doctor?

This only show how some of the panels go into anti-doping rule violation cases brought before them. Worse, it shows how poorly NADA prepares in presenting a case before a panel. The mismatch between methandienone and Deca-Durabolin should have been spotted on day one.

Dane Lloyd Pereira

The Mumbai FC player was charged with a 19-norandrsterone (nandrolone) violation in the 2015 I-League. He stated before a panel headed by Jasmeet Singh that he was advised Deca-Drabolin injection by Dr A. B. Pawar, Sukhsagar Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, for left knee pain and stiffness which was diagnosed as chronic patellar tendinitis.

NADA argued that the drug concentration was 17 times more than the permitted level of nandrolone (2ng/ml), the athlete had failed to inform the doctor that he was a sportsperson and he neither applied for a TUE nor mentioned the drugs on his doping control form.

The panel accepted Pereira’s contention that the positive test was because of the Deca-Durabolin (nandrolone) injection and he was unaware of the drug or the consequences when he was administered the injections in February, 2015. The dosages or duration of treatment were not mentioned in the order.

The panel, accordingly, ruled that this was a case where the athlete was able to prove that the ingestion of the drug was unintentional and that meant the offence carried a two-year sanction. The panel then went on to reduce it further under article 10.5.2 (“no significant fault or negligence”) and ordered a one-year suspension.

“Should have taken precaution”

Like in several other orders, the panel wrote towards the concluding paragraphs: “On the other hand the panel is also of the view that the athlete should have taken extreme precautions and have applied for therapeutic use exemption (TUE) certificate to NADA before taking such a banned medicine.”

Like in several similar cases the question naturally comes up, if the player had not taken precautions could he be deemed to bear “no significant fault or negligence”?

Does the AIFF have an education programme to familiarise players with anti-doping rules and banned substances? Does the I-League have any such programme? These are questions that naturally crop up.

Neither the AIFF nor the I-League website has any anti-doping information at present. NADA will need to utilize its website for more of education purposes and, through the Sports Ministry, advise and enforce strict compliance by National Federations of providing minimum anti-doping information on their websites. In most cases, ministry’s directives about information being put up on websites go unheeded.

Under the circumstances, if the athletes continue to presume that prescriptions rather than TUE would be required to take banned drugs no one would be able to fault them. 

(Contd) (Part II is here)

(A previous piece on prescription v TUE is here)

CAS ordered a four-year suspension on Pereira on an appeal by WADA in January 2017. 

The sole arbitrator stated:

1. The application of Article 10.2.3 of the NADA Anti-Doping Rules (NADA Rules) and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code) do not require that the athlete knowingly ingested a prohibited substance and therefore had “direct intent” in committing the anti-doping rule violation; it already suffices if the athlete had “indirect intent” or “dolus eventualis” only, i.e. if his or her behaviour is primarily focused on one result, but in case a collateral result materializes, the latter would equally be accepted by the athlete. Accordingly indirect intent is established where the athlete i) knew that there was a significant risk that his conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation; and ii) manifestly disregarded that risk. 

 2. An athlete who takes a medication on the package of which a prohibited substance is listed knows or should at least know that the medication contains the prohibited substance. Furthermore, if e.g. the same medication is prescribed to the athlete on four different occasions, the athlete has ample time at his or her disposal to verify whether the medication contains any prohibited substances. If under those circumstances the athlete does not even e.g. perform a simple internet research regarding the medication, but only relies on – wrong – advice by his (team) doctor(s), he or she manifestly disregards the risk and commits the anti-doping rule violation with “indirect intent”. In this context there is an inherent significant risk that medications may contain prohibited substances; this is all the more so with respect to medications that are taken by intramuscular injection and are certainly not administered inadvertently through, e.g. a tablet. 

3. Given that athletes are under a constant duty to personally manage and make certain that any medication administered is permitted under the anti-doping rules, an athlete cannot simply rely on a doctor’s advice; it follows that e.g. the prescription of a particular medicinal product by an athlete’s doctor does not excuse the athlete from investigating to his or her fullest extent that the medication does not contain prohibited substances

4. The finding that a violation was committed intentionally excludes the possibility to eliminate the period of ineligibility based on no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence.

The record ratification debate continues

“Is dope-testing of record-breakers in Indian athletics a farce?”

This was my inaugural piece on my blog on May 1, 2014.

Almost three years later, I must repeat that question. With a touch of disappointment that things haven’t improved. Coming as it does when the Athletic Federation of India (AFI) has just raised doubts about the lack of dope-testing information in relation to a clutch of National records set in 2016 this may sound rather harsh. But the truth is the very fact that such doubts have cropped up after months shows how haphazardly this stipulation is being still pursued.

Absence of dope test information

“The EC did not ratify the National Records in (the) absence of Anti-Doping proofs and it will be done at (a) later stage” said an AFI Press release after its Executive Committee meeting in New Delhi on Feb 26.

Later stage? How can postponing such a decision change anything as far as anti-doping records are concerned?

The National records in question mainly came in June and July last year. There were others too as we will see in subsequent paragraphs. But will anyone be able to throw more light on tests done in June and July last year at this point of time?

Let us first look at the two cases of record-breakers mentioned in a recent PTI report, that of sprinter Dutee Chand and long jumper Ankit Sharma. It is being said the dope-testing at these meets has come into question since the Almaty laboratory was suspended by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) last June.

Dutee Chand clocked 11.30 (heats) and 11.24 (second in final) in the 100 metres in the Kozanov Memorial at Almaty on June 25.

WADA’s suspension of the Almaty laboratory’s accreditation for four months was effective from June 24, 2016.

Would the laboratory have accepted samples for testing a day after its accreditation was suspended? Would the Kazakhstan Athletics Federation have engaged the services of the laboratory after the latter’s accreditation was suspended?

Let us for a moment presume that WADA’s announcement, made public only on June 28, was unknown to the Kazakhstan federation (or any other agency that might have been engaged by it) and it arranged to collect samples in the Kozanov meet on June 24 and 25 and submitted the same to the lab.

What was the laboratory supposed to do?

“That all samples not yet analyzed and all samples currently undergoing “A” or “B” confirmation procedures and all samples where a presumptive analytical finding has been reported as of the date of this decision shall be securely transported and with a demonstrable chain of custody to another WADA-accredited laboratory as soon as possible and no later than 14 calendar days following the date of this decision,” stated the decision of the chairman of the WADA Executive Committee.

This means even if the samples were collected in Almaty on June 24 and 25 and sent to the WADA-accredited laboratory there for testing, the lab would have transferred all the samples (even those that were already being tested in case there was a communication gap that prevented the June 24 “effective” date being implemented) to another WADA-accredited laboratory.

Suspended labs don't test

The status of the Almaty lab at the time Dutee set the National records, eclipsing her own 10.33s clocked in New Delhi in April last year, should not thus come in the way of ratifying or not ratifying a national record of India. Because that is not an issue here since the Almaty lab would have either left the completion of the ‘A’ sample testing process to another lab or else transferred the whole sample to the latter.

If the samples were collected (and this is a big ‘if’) in the Almaty meet on June 24 and 25 and these included Dutee Chand’s (another ‘if’) then the AFI can get the information from the Kazakhstan federation or the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). It should have got it by now since dope-testing should be completed within days rather than months and the reports are out promptly rather than held back in suspense.

For an entirely different reason, unrelated to doping and testing, noted athletics statistician Mirko Jalava of Finland had raised doubts over some of the marks set in Almaty. This can be looked up here.

Now let us look at Ankit Sharma’s sensational 8.19m in long jump that was nine centimetres better than Kumaravel Premkumar’s record set in New Delhi in 2013. Premkumar’s dope test then was done more than 24 hours after he finished his competition, much against regulations, but that is a different matter.

Sharma’s NR also came at the Kozanov in Almaty on June 26. He had an 8.17m also within that series that actually bettered the old record.

What can the AFI find out about either the status of the Almaty lab or the fate of Ankit Sharma’s urine sample (if it was collected) eight months after the event?

AFI should have dealt with those records that were supported by dope-testing records or rejected all of them if the intention was (is) to strictly enforce dope-testing for record-breakers. If none was available where it could lay its hands on a dope-testing procedure or a report, then also the logical way out would have been to reject all. Dithering over a set of procedures is not going to help the federation or give confidence to the athletes.

Amidst all this, the world junior record of 86.48m in javelin by Neeraj Chopra last July in the World Under-20 championships cannot be put under the uncertain category. For one it is a world-under-20 record; for another the Chandigarh youngster won the gold at a world meet. A world record in any category would necessarily require a dope test and a medallist at a world meet would also be put through a test.

But should the AFI reject a National record set in the Olympics or World Championships in other cases? “How can you reject a record set in an Olympics” is often the refrain from officials.

The counter question could be “does the AFI have dope-testing records of national-record-breakers in Olympics or World Championships?”

Say for example, does it have the dope-test report of steeplechaser Lalita Babar who clocked a fabulous 9:19.76 in Rio on way to a historic entry into the final?

Did the AFI make a request to the organizers in Rio to test Babar immediately after she finished the race and officials came to know of the national record? Many other countries make such requests and pay up when their athletes set national records in such global meets. There is always a provision to do extra testing if a delegation pays for it.

Simply believing that dope-testing measures would be of the highest order at an Olympics and that would be sufficient to endorse a record set there would be illogical if not foolish, The Independent Observer Team noted that 4125 participants in the Rio Olympics had “no record of any testing in 2016” of which 1913 were in the ten high risk sports identified by the Olympic dope-testing Task Force.

Several other marks also in focus

The question about lack of credible documentation including dope test reports to support the national-record-ratification process should come up in respect of the following marks set abroad also apart from those by Dutee Chand and Ankit Sharma:

Men: 400m: 45.44s Muhammed Anas, Bydgoszcz, Poland, June 24; 45.40s Muhammed Anas, Bydgoszcz, June 25.

110m hurdles: 13.59 Siddhanth Thingalaya, Clermont, May 14, 13.54 Thingalaya, Phoenix, June 11.

4x400m relay: 3:02.17 Indian team, Erzurum, Turkey, 12 June.

20km walk: 1:20:21 (equals NR) Devender Singh, Nomi, Japan, March 20.

Women:

3000m steeplechase: 9:26.55 Sudha Singh, Shanghai, May 14.

4x100m relay: 44.03 Indian team, Beijing May 18; 43.42 Indian team, Almaty, July 4.

In all cases it is essential to find out first whether any dope-testing was conducted at the above meets. If there indeed was dope control then whether Indian athletes were tested. If not whether such athletes were tested at any WADA-accredited laboratory within the stipulated time after an event at the request of AFI or the athlete, under the charge of a competent authority, if indeed such a request was made.

In all such cases the AFI should go by what the concerned authorities have to say and not what the Indian coaches, managers and athletes might have to say about the presence of dope control and about Indian athletes having been tested.

This is not to suggest that any of the other records, especially those set at home, should be okayed without a scrutiny. Of course there are several others from the past which were okayed without a fuss after having raised doubts over them initially not just because of lack of dope-testing but also because of the doubtful nature of “competitions”.

The AFI is understandably finding it difficult to gather information about “negative” dope tests in National meets. The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) is not expected to provide that information. Only the ‘positive’ cases are reported and conveyed to athletes and federations unless the information is of relevance in a hearing process or an investigation and is sought by a panel. There might have been a deviation in the recent past but NADA would hopefully have learnt a lesson from that experience.

Thus, there should be nothing that should hold back the Technical Committee from ratifying Renjith Maheswary’s triple jump record of 17.30m in Bengaluru on July11 last if he was dope-tested. If there are other considerations, the AFI should come clean.

This issue of National records and dope-testing has dragged on for years without anyone being the wiser. The AFI must give its ruling and stick to it.

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)