The exercise of trimming a jumbo contigent

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has always been known for its persuasive powers, especially on matters related to contingents for multi-discipline games.

Since 2010 when the Government started putting more and more control into the functioning of the IOA and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) these persuasive powers have dwindled. The suspension by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) only added to the weakening of the Olympic Movement in the country.

The four-yearly debate over the size and composition of the Indian contingent for the Asian Games has to be viewed this time in this backdrop. It is no secret the IOA has twisted the criteria to its advantage through the years in order to swell numbers.

Norms diluted

The third-place criteria that was adopted by the Government for two decades was diluted by it in 2006 to allow sixth place even as the IOA had agreed to fourth place in the 2002 Games. The IOA should not be saying now that the criteria had been sprung late in the day by SAI. If it did not sit with the SAI/ministry beforehand to know the modalities of approval, then the fault lies equally at the doors of the IOA and the SAI.

Ideally, it would have been logical for the SAI to convey to the IOA and the NSFs at least six months in advance that teams that were invariably finishing outside the top eight or had not even managed a decent win-loss record in the previous games or last Asian championships might be axed, irrespective of whether such teams were provided foreign exposure or not.

To think that the women’s handball team that finished eighth and last in the last two games has been cleared once again only shows how the IOA can manoeuvre and how badly SAI had handled the subject. To say that this is only a one-time exception does not help.

In sport like sepak takraw and taekwondo the situation is not vastly different from handball. Yet they have found their way in.

The threat by the OCA about penalizing India in case it withdrew from team events after confirmation also mattered, it would seem, in the end.

Numbers, at least in IOA’s reasoning, project ‘development’ and development, real or imaginary, in turn, provides the NSFs the bargaining leverage in a variety of spheres even as those numbers provide the NOC with a chance to pack the contingent with coaches and support staff.

It is true everyone wakes up rather late in this ‘numbers game’. For the IOA, the ploy has been found to be advantageous through these past three decades and more. The IOA officials used to send letters on a daily basis to the Sports Ministry in the past to get someone cleared or added to the list once the official clearance for the bulk of the contingent was received.

The 'no-cost' formula

The “no-cost-to-Government” formula eventually used to help the entire lot go and compete in the quadrennial games, irrespective of whether a team had any standing or not. Mostly the funds were drawn from government organizations, making the “no cost” formula meaningless at least for athletes.

The final results quite often told the miserable state of particular sports but four years from then such sports would invariably get back and project an “improved” image.

The “no-cost” business has been shot down by the PMO this time.  It “shall not be a consideration”, said an official release on September 9, 2014, while clearing an Indian contingent of 679 including 163 officials and support staff. That the clearance came with just 10 days to go for the opening ceremony of the Games was a shame. A bigger shame was the fact, mentioned in the release, that the IOA submitted its list on August 21, against the stipulation of 90 days.

The elimination of the “no-cost” formula has its plus and minus points.

Why should any particular component of an Indian contingent be cleared at ‘no cost’ to Government? Are not all sports equal? This is a good argument to support the removal of the ‘no cost’ system. There is pride in representing the country and the country bears the expenditure without grudge to back the “sweat and toil” of the athletes the previous four years.

Ignominy

On the minus side is the poor returns plus the ignominy of either finishing last or near the bottom or ending up with just one win or an all-loss record in a team event when ‘also-rans’ are fielded at Government expenditure on the argument that anyone who represents India need to be funded by the Government.

Should public money be spent to gain the wooden spoon? More importantly, should such teams be approved at all?

 Claims are made every four years but the end result in a number of disciplines remains disappointing if not scandalous. If the Sports Authority of India (SAI) had recommended axing 14 disciplines including football, basketball, taekwondo and handball, it was perfectly justified since  results in these disciplines had been abysmal for long.

On the other hand, the question of course comes up about the popularity of games like football, basketball and volleyball and the need to encourage these sport if only to sustain them as sport contributing at least towards a healthy nation and needing only modest investment and the necessity to spread the Olympic Movement.

Yet, the very same people who today argue in favour of clearing all teams at Government expense will ask the question after the Games “was there any need to enter a 900-plus contingent at Government expense for such meagre returns?”

This is the dilemma of the SAI and the Sports Ministry.

Disappointment for fencing, triathlon, rugby 7s

There surely will be disappointment among the sportspersons in ten pin bowling, fencing, rugby 7s, modern pentathlon, soft tennis, triathlon and beach volleyball, the disciplines that have been dropped while clearing a contingent of 679.

Disappointment will also be there for the six women swimmers who formed the medley relay team, a couple of divers and weightlifters Rustam Sarang and Kavita Devi,  some sailors, cyclists and a few badminton players.

A question will also come up why, for example, should some weightlifters  (Sukhen Dey, Ravi Kumar and Vikas Thakur) be approved even without the minimum selection criteria (sixth-place of the last Asian Games or Asian championships whichever is higher), while a couple of others were being denied.

This phenomenon is not just confined to weightlifting but across sports, prompting the accusation that the ministry had been “selective” in excluding certain sports and individual athletes. And even in approving some managers!

The question of a large number of officials not being cleared is a matter of concern for several teams. And this is where the policy of clearing only on “cost to government” might need a review.

Policy on managers

For the past two decades or so managers were not being funded by the Government since a large majority of the NSFs could not adhere to the original stipulation of the ministry that individuals should have spend a considerable period of time with the campers_one forgets the specified period_to be eligible to get Government support.

In 2010, when the Government approved a contingent of 843 (the latest PIB release claimed that last time a batch of 933 including 324 officials was cleared) including 609 athletes, 127 coaches, 44 managers and 33 other officials, 43 of the managers were cleared on “no cost to Government” basis.

You may not require two or three managers for a sport, but in a majority of sports, if not all of them, managers do perform a function that if entrusted to a coach would mean the latter would be burdened beyond his duties on the field.

Something that the SAI and the ministry could have explored (and still can) was in clearing a few coaches as coach-cum-managers, a practice employed in the past by the Government so that  the impression that the post is being utilized just to “reward” some office-bearer of an NSF or a state association could be removed.

Cutting it down from 942 to 679 is an achievement by the SAI and the ministry and one cannot but appreciate the firm stand adopted by the SAI Director General, Jiji Thomson, and Secretary, Sports, Ajit Sharan.

As posted in an earlier piece here, China entered  647 athletes in 37 sports in the Doha Asian Games in 2006 and topped the medals tally with 316 medals, 165 of them gold.

That only showed a country need not enter 800 athletes to earn over 300 medals. You might say China is an exception and one will have to agree with that argument.

The numbers in Incheon

But look at the numbers for Incheon. Going by what the OCA released on Aug 26, 2014, China heads the list with 899 athletes, followed by the host, Korea, with 831 and Japan, with 716. India was fourth at 658.

That number was what the IOA had submitted to OCA, not what was eventually cleared by the Government. At 516 now, India will be fifth, behind Thailand, by just one entry!

It is worth noting that two countries which finished ahead of India (14 gold) _apart from the ‘big three’, China, Japan and Korea_at Guangzhou in 2010, Iran (20 gold) and Kazakhstan (18) have entered 285 and 472 competitors respectively this time.

In the week left for the Games to begin, the IOA is bound to press for more clearances. The ‘managers issue’ is a serious one. “Let-us-do-away-with-no-cost” and dump managers cannot be an ultimate solution to contingent-trimming.

The Indian MHA saga set to complete four years

It has been nearly four years since proceedings were launched by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) against 11 ‘offenders’ who tested positive for the stimulant methylhexaneamine (MHA).

Last month (August, 2014), the National Anti Doping Appeal Panel (NADAP) disposed of the cases of athletes Saurabh Vij and Akash Antil, leaving just one appeal, that of swimmer Richa Mishra, to be decided.

Hopefully, the decision should come this month, just after the fourth anniversary of MHA having made its debut before a disciplinary panel back in 2010.

Methylhexaneamine when it was added to the Prohibited List by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) in 2010 was a relatively unknown substance. At that time it was thought of as an ingredient used in a nasal decongestant since Google searches produced that information, without making it known that the medicine was no longer available in the market.

The tale of massage oils & soaps

Soon it was also publicized as a naturally-occurring substance since it was considered to be available in geranium plants, especially its root extracts.  Probably, the supplements manufacturers needed to show that MHA was a natural substance in order to freely market it. Around the same time, word spread that massage oils, bath soaps and other cosmetic products contained geranium and hence they contained methylhexaneamine. There was even a suggestion that some cooking oils contained geranium and thereby MHA!

Today Wikipedia has this to say about methylhexaneamine. 

More and more studies have claimed that geranium does not contain methylhexaneamine, though manufacturers of dietary supplements continue to claim otherwise. There is no evidence to show that massage oils or beauty soaps or face packs, claiming to contain geranium also show the presence of methylhexaneamine.

The National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) got a batch of VLCC products tested at a private laboratory and it was proved that the products did not contain MHA. A similar claim was also made by the VLCC company in the Nirupama Devi (judoka) case when it was alleged that its products had led to a ‘positive’ result for MHA in the athlete’s case.

Cutaneous absorption unlikely

It was also claimed in the Nirupama case that went up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that it was highly unlikely that the kind of levels of the substance found in the Indian athlete’s urine sample could be possible through cutaneous absorption.

It was routinely claimed by various people including athletes and lawyers in the Indian context that massage oils and soaps containing geranium could trigger a positive test for MHA.

‘Just use the soap for a few months and you get a positive for MHA’, seemed to be the argument.

Nirupama was handed down a two-year suspension by CAS, on an appeal by WADA, overthrowing the ‘reprimand’ ordered by a disciplinary panel and upheld by an appeal panel in India. The order came on November 8, 2013.

On September 23, 2013 an appeal panel in India reduced a suspension from two years to one year in another MHA case, that of  swimmer Jyotsana Pansare who belonged to the famous 'batch of 11'. She was the only one among the 11 to get a reprieve like that.

Pansare got it since the appeal panel ruled that the MHA “entered the athlete’s body by use of cosmetic face pack etc”.

The panel further wrote in its order, “there is no question of these being used for enhancement of performance and it was not intended to enhance her sports performance.”

Pansare did not make any claim about having used any particular product that contained geranium or MHA. Nor did the panel seek such information from her nor for that matter did NADA offer to test such substance at the NDTL if that could be made available.

NADA chose not to reveal

Curiously, NADA, which tried in vain to bring in evidence based on laboratory report in respect of the Nirupama case at a late stage before the appeal panel headed by Justice C. K. Mahajan (retd.) did not attempt to present the same evidence before the appeal panel headed by Justice M. L. Varma (retd.) in the Pansare case.

In fact Pansare’s lawyer, Vidushpat Singhania, did argue that the panel in the Nirupama case had considered the argument about cosmetic products having led to the positive test. It was accepted by the Varma panel and it agreed that the “benefit of that case” should be given to the swimmer.

Out of the 12 original MHA cases, one, that of weightlifter Sanamacha Chanu had ended in a quick decision, since her’s was a second offence. She never tried to bring in cosmetics or massage oil into the argument and received an eight-year sanction.

Six wrestlers were all given a reprieve of 314 days as the Varma panel ruled that there were delays that could not be attributed to the athletes and the punishment of two years coupled with the disqualification of all results dating back to sample collection date was too harsh.

The Dinesh Dayal disciplinary panel had suspended all 11 athletes for two years with effect from decision date (Nov 5, 2012), more than two years after the cases began. It also annulled all results from sample collection date.

Last month, athletes Saurabh Vij and Akash Antil also received reprieves for 314 days in tune with the decisions given in the wrestlers’ case. Vij is facing a second charge, of steroid use. That decision was left pending though the panel had concluded its hearings since the question whether he could be sanctioned for a second offence could only be taken after the first one was determined.

The Varma panel upheld the annulment of all results for eight of the 11 cases_one ongoing_setting aside the order of the disciplinary panel only in respect of disqualification of results in the Pansare case!

Amar Muralidharan argues differently

Just one more case has so far deviated in the batch of 11 from the majority of the rest. Swimmer Amar Muralidharan’s father Cdr Muralidharan, appearing for Amar, argued more on technicalities rather than plead concession because of delays.

He argued about the mix-up of sample code numbers (with that of Pansare), the delay in getting the sample across from Jaipur to Delhi, the doubts about the chain of external and internal custody, laboratory procedures etc. The panel rejected his appeal.

Amar Muralidharan has approached CAS, but it is to be seen whether the swimmer has a second window of appeal available after having exhausted his right of appeal in India.

Meanwhile, methylhexaneamine, which raised quite a debate in anti-doping circles in India initially_why should it be banned if it is to be found in daily use products, was a question often asked_has remained the No. 1 choice stimulant across the world since getting into that slot in 2010.

There were 123 MHA cases in 2010, accounting for 21.4 per cent within the drug category of stimulants, 283 (39.4 %) in 2011, 320 (45.9 %) in 2012 and 169 (31.9 %) in 2013.

In India there have been 67 cases of methylhexaneamine reported and dealt with by the disciplinary panel, seven of them having been in combination with other more potent drugs  and, in one case, along with a charge of tampering with doping control procedure.

In two cases, both involving rowers during the 2011 National Games, the athletes were exonerated because of flaws in the doping control procedures.

Taken off the shelves

Methylhexaneamine, in the meantime, has been banned as a supplement ingredient in many countries following adverse reports including death of two US soldiers.

One of the more popular supplements containing MHA, Jack3d, today has its variants in Jack3d Advanced and Jack3d Micro, after supplements containing MHA were ordered to be removed from the markets of some countries including Britain, Canada and Australia. In the US, the FDA has issued warnings

 regarding the sale of MHA supplements (also known by its synonym dimethylamylamine or DMAA). The new Jack3d does not contain MHA, it has been claimed.

However, MHA continues to be one of the 'popular' substances among athletes around the world, whether by accident or design. The recent instance of Botswana’s female 400m runner Amantle Montsho is a case in point. She is facing disciplinary procedures after having been disqualified from the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

Athlete Laxay Sharma was the last of the Indian cases of MHA to be disposed of by the disciplinary panel with a two-year sanction last month.

Anti-doping authorities including WADA have issued warnings that methylhexaneamine could be marketed through a variety of names including 4-methyl-2-hexanamine, 4-methyl-2-hexylamine, 2-amino-4-methylhexane and 2-Hexanamine, 4-methyl-(9CI), apart from dimethylamylamine (DMAA) and dimethylpentylamine, the last two more common names found among the labels.

Mislabelling

Misleading labelling of supplements had led to a few athletes being given reprieve in the previous years, forcing WADA to issue a clarification in 2011 that MHA could be marketed under different names and athletes needed to be careful.

NADA’s refurbished website does not have a supplements warning or for that matter a methylhexaneamine warning even though the old website had one on MHA, placed there after more than two years of the substance being brought into the Prohibited List. Let us hope the NADA website will evolve and improve in due course.

Methylhexaneamine continues to be in the ‘specified stimulants’ category of the Prohibited List of WADA. That means a ‘positive’ result due to MHA could be argued as accidental and not an effort to enhance performance to get a lenient sanction.

What effect the new Code, to be effective from January 2015, will have on the use of supplements containing MHA is difficult to tell. The new Code contains a clause related to ‘Contaminated products’ that can attract just a ‘reprimand’ at the lowest end of fault or negligence.

The Indian appeal panel did take more than a year to deal with the 11 MHA cases_ with one of them still pending_with the last two having stretched beyond 21 months.

There seems to be a new-found urgency with the disciplinary panel hearings now since positive cases reported in June last have already been disposed of. 

It is a welcome sign that the NADA and the panels have realized the importance of delivering justice speedily unlike in civil suits. The kind of leeway given to defence lawyers in the 11 MHA cases can still delay matters. The only way to pre-empt such tactics would be to prescribe a procedure and fix a timeline as the CAS does.

The difference between a champion side and a first-round loser

Among the 33 sports disciplines recommended by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) for participation the Asian Games in Incheon is soft tennis.

While checking up the achievements of Indian teams in lesser-known sports or those where the country has had little success either at the last Games or at the continental level in recent years, during the past few days, one was impressed by the record of the Indian soft tennis team as projected on the website of the  Soft Tennis Federation of India

And this is what was stated on that website

7th Asian Soft Tennis Championship 2012 held at Chiayi City, Chinese Taipei from November 15-20, 2012. Indian Soft Tennis Team Secured Gold Medal in Team Event (Women) & Silver Medal in Team Event (Men). Players & Official List Under the below.

Very impressive achievement, one thought, though India had fared miserably in this sport in the last Asian Games.

Perhaps the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the majority of us who were wondering what a sport like this was doing in the Indian contingent were wrong.  In fact SAI had lined it up for the axe.

Even as we also doubted the capacity of Indian teams in ten pin bowling, fencing, sepak takraw, taekwondo, rugby 7s, beach volleyball, triathlon, handball, cycling and modern pentathlon, it was natural only to look at soft tennis as yet another case of “let’s join the bandwagon”.

But gold and silver in Asian Championships? What else can you hope to get?

It looked too good to be true, however. So, one checked up the Asian Soft TennisFederation (ASTF). Sure enough it had a different set of champions!

Name of Event	The 7th Asian Soft Tennis Championships
Term of the event	15-20 November, 2012
Place	Chiayi City, Chinese Taipei
Category	MEN'S	SINGLES	DOUBLES
	1st Prize 2nd Prize 3rd Prize 3rd Prize	KIM DONG HOON (KOR) UAYPORN SORRACHET (THA) HAN JAE WON (KOR) ARCILLA JOSEPH (PHI)	LAI LI HUANG . HO MENG HSUN (TPE) LEE JUNG SUB . KIM BEOM JUN (KOR) JEON JEE HEON . PARK KYU CHEOL (KOR) LIN SHIH CHUN . LIN SHENG FA (TPE)
	WOMEN'S	SINGLES	DOUBLES
	1st Prize 2nd Prize 3rd Prize 3rd Prize	SUGIMOTO HITOMI (JPN) JON MYONG SUK (PRK) KWON RAN HEE (KOR) ZOLETA NOELLE CONCHITA CORAZON (PHI)	KIM AE KYUNG . JOO OG (KOR) UEHARA ERI . ABE YURI (JPN) CHENG CHU LING . CHEN YI CHIA (TPE) ZOLETA NOELLE CONCHITA CORAZON . ESCALA DIVINA GRACIA (PHI)
	MIXED DOUBLES
	1st Prize 2nd Prize 3rd Prize 3rd Prize	KOBAYASHI NAO . NAKAMOTO KEIYA (JPN) ZOLETA NOELLE CONCHITA CORAZON . ARCILLA JHOMAR (PHI) UEHARA ERI . IWASAKI KEI (JPN) PAK KYONG CHOL . JON MYONG SUK (PRK)
	MEN'S TEAM EVENT
	1st Prize 2nd Prize 3rd Prize 3rd Prize	JAPAN （JPN) KOREA (KOR) CHINESE TAIPEI (TPE) PHILIPPINE (PHI)
	WOMEN'S TEAM EVENT
	1st Prize 2nd Prize 3rd Prize 3rd Prize	JAPAN　 （JPN) KOREA　 (KOR) PHILIPPINE (PHI) CHINESE TAIPEI (TPE)

So, where did India finish in the Chinese Taipei city?

Fortunately, the ASTF was very prompt in replying to a request for details of the 2012 Asian championships, today (Sept 3, 2014).

The results showed that India had played consolation finals in both men and women’s sections having lost in the first round in both sections, to Mongolia in the men’s and to People’s Republic of Korea in women’s. India beat PRK in men’s consolation final and beat Nepal in women’s.

How can a National Federation, recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and the IOA, as claimed by it on its website, be giving a false standing of its teams on its website?

One does not know what the IOA would have stated in its proposals to the ministry about soft tennis. But surely, in this age where you tend to believe what is stated on the website of a federation, this is shocking.

Post-script-

What is soft tennis? This is how the Asian Soft Tennis Federation website describes it-

Soft tennis is a kind of tennis which was developed in Japan on regular tennis.　Soft tennis　is　similar　to　regular　tennis　with　some　common　aspects　but　with　also　some　differences.　The　main one being the use of much softer rubber balls. Hence the name “soft tennis” As the game uses these soft balls certain unique features have developed, such as a lighter and more flexible racket with a lower string compression. Unique techniques and game manoeuvring also make the best use of the softness of the ball. You can hit the ball hard with a good and comfortable feeling and will find it easy to control the ball. With a soft ball, light racket, low string compression and reduced speed of the ball after bouncing on the court, everyone, irrespective of sex and age, can enjoy the game of soft tennis. This is summed up by our catch phrase “Soft Tennis for Anyone and Everyone”.

IOA begins numbers game for Asiad

There is a familiar ring to the ‘numbers game’ that is being played out in New Delhi these days in respect of India’s contingent for the Asian Games in Incheon, Korea. This is a four-yearly phenomenon and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) invariably ends up the “winner” in this intriguing game with the Sports Ministry.

Not disheartened a bit by the modest returns from the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, where India’s medal haul slumped somewhat _even allowing for the fact that there were several events which provided medals to the country in Delhi in 2010 that were scrapped this time_the IOA has proposed a jumbo-sized 942-member contingent for the Incheon Games.

“More the merrier” has remained the favourite theme for the IOA through decades and despite widespread criticism in the past about the manner in which it goes about the task of finalizing its contingent and the eventual results returned in the games, the IOA has stuck to its policy of appeasing all National Sports Federations (NSFs), keeping in mind the vote bank that comes in handy during elections.

Then there is the question of “political equations”. Those NSFs that can tug at the ‘political strings’ will gain compared to those that may not have such clout.

A classic example in the Asian Games context could be cycling. A 13-member Indian cycling team expectedly drew blank in the Commonwealth Games. They might have been sent to gain exposure in the run-up to the Asian Games or else might have been proposed by CFI since almost every other federation was fielding a team, mainly on the argument that the organizers were going to foot the bill any way (How much the Government of India spent eventually on the contingent has not been disclosed yet).

Since cycling is not a medal-winning sport for India, the media focus stayed away from Indian cyclists in Glasgow. The Indian results are, however,  revealing if not shocking as shown below, right at the end of this piece.

Does cycling have a case?

A nine-member team has been proposed by the CFI for the Asian Games, comprising the same members who finished miserably in Glasgow.

It is true cycling does not have adequate infrastructure facilities in India and the sport has been neglected for long. But should that mean a team is entered for multi-discipline games where the standards would be expectedly much higher than what the Indians would have encountered?

Among the sport that the Sports Authority of India (SAI) may not recommend for clearance to the Sports Ministry could be ten pin bowling, fencing,  modern pentathlon, rugby and triathlon, PTI reported the other day quoting SAI DG Jiji Thomson. The report also mentioned football and table tennis as having been lined up for the chopping block.

But cycling?

That is where political clout should matter.

The CFI is headed by Mr. Parminder Singh Dhindsa, Minister of Finance and Planning, Punjab Government, and son of Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, former Union Sports Minister, now Rajya Sabha MP, and Akali Dal leader. Senior Dhindsa had headed the CFI in the past.

What happens to cycling in the Asian Games context could be just one of the questions here.

Fencing, ten pin bowling, modern pentathlon, rugby and triathlon, to name just a few from the long list that the IOA has submitted, could be having as little chance as cycling of earning a medal in Incheon for India.

Fencing, Ten Pin Bowling join the queue 

Fencing did not earn anything better than a 33rd place among men and 14th place among women in the last Asian championships held at Suwon, Korea in July this year. But the IOA has recommended  men and women’s squads.

 In ten pin bowling, every Indian except Shaik Abdul Hameed (ranked 20th) is below 61 among men in Asia. There is no Indian woman ranked in the top 100 in the continent. Yet we have a team for the Asian Games.

India lost all its matches in men’s and women’s in the last Asian Games in sepak takraw. Still when the ‘four-year itch’ starts, we just can’t stop thinking of entering the team again.

The story is the same in several disciplines. But then, a free ride is always an enjoyable proposition. The bigger the component of athletes, the bigger the complement of coaches and officials, that has been the underlying philosophy of the IOA all these years.

It is not that everyone wants to go abroad. It is a matter of prestige. If you are an athlete you should be in the Indian team for any big event that is happening. And if you are an official, your standing will go up only if you manage a few trips.

If India crossed the century mark at the 2010 Commonwealth Games at home, the total medals tally at the Guangzhou Asian Games that followed happened to be only 65 including 14 gold medals.

This time the question after a none-too-impressive collection of 64 medals including 15 gold in the Glasgow Games, could be how many can the country win in Incheon.

Quite often you hear athletes complaining that they had been “dreaming” of this participation for four years and that all their “hard work” would be down the drain if they do not go. Of course there would be disappointment, but that disappointment is more for the country when the games begin and the Indians start losing or bringing up the rear.

On the other hand, you hear NSFs bringing in the argument that their athletes need “exposure”.

Exposure in Asian Games?

Exposure at multi-discipline games for the sake of exposure would be foolish. Exposure at Asian championships level or smaller international meets, even through bilateral exchanges should be fine.

A recent statement from the Malaysian Sports Minister is of some relevance here and should be an example for Indian sports administrators as well as politicians.

Multi-discipline games will have to be treated as events that attract a fair amount of media attention and thereby affect a country’s prestige and standing. Just because a country might have spent some money on training a team in preparation for an event like this should not eventually mean that unless that team competes in that event the money would have been wasted.

Take the Indian example. The Government spends money every year on priority disciplines as well as non-priority disciplines, whether there is Asian Games or Olympic Games. Of course extra money is sanctioned for teams preparing for big events especially in priority disciplines.

China had 647 athletes, 316 medals in Doha

China entered 647athletes in 37 sports in the Doha Asian Games in 2006 and topped the medals tally with 316 medals, 165 of them gold. Awesome!

At the same games, India had a 400-plus contingent competing in 31 sports and took 54 medals including 10 gold to end up eighth on the medals table.

This time the IOA has proposed 662 athletes, in 33 of the 36 sports disciplines included in the Asian Games programme, leaving baseball, cricket and karate. The BCCI refused to field a team while the IOA ignored the claims of a National federation in karate which had the affiliation of the world body recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and submitted an entry late in the day (after a trial conducted by it) which was rejected by the Olympic Council of Asia. How baseball was left out is not known.

No great insight into Indian sports is needed to assess India’s medal chances in the forthcoming games. A large majority of the sports that the IOA has proposed are there to show that they too have higher ambitions, they too have athletes capable of competing at higher levels and they too can win the odd bronze medal. If the sport cannot even be shown as good enough to compete at the Asian level, then interest in it will wane, funding will come in a trickle and the sport might just fade away.

Coming as it always does shortly after the Commonwealth Games, the Asian Games do show up Indian sport, the medal collection in weightlifting and wrestling come down, that in shooting gets reduced to single digits and overall the sense of well-being projected by the CWG gets shaken.

And this is where the SAI and the Government should be careful about not adding also-rans, those teams that end up with ‘played-three-lost-three’ records, those athletes who stand no chance of figuring in the top six, forget about earning a medal. At least not on Government expense.

In 2006, the IOA had created quite some confusion for the organizers in Doha

in a similar situation as is available today. Then also the Government had cut the contingent size, dropping a few team events.

Finally, almost everyone managed to go, the IOA pulling out teams in basketball, fencing and sepak takraw. Incidentally, sepak takraw has been proposed this time, too, despite the fact that the Indian men and women lost all their matches in the last Games in Guangzhou in this sport.

There is a provision in the National Sports Code by which the Government can refuse to allow a team to use the term ‘India’in an international competition.

Will the Government fall back on the “no cost to Government” formula while clearing a few teams and athletes who might not measure up to any standard? Or will it stop some teams from participation, something that has never happened?

Eventually when a “no cost” formula is worked out, the federations extract substantial funds from employers, most of them Government organizations or Public Sector Undertakings.

 Indian cyclists at CWG 2014

Track events

Men

4000m team pursuit-India 4,31.714 (finished 6^th and last in qualification)

1000m time trial- Amrit Singh 1,06.903 (13^th), Amarjit Nagi 1,08.117 (14^th), Alan Baby 1,10.579 (16th and last) (The odd man out was Jesse Kelly of Barbados who came in between the Indians,  otherwise a ‘clean sweep’ for the last three places!)

Men’s team sprint (qualifying)-7th . India (Alan Baby, Amrit Singh, Amarjit Nagi) 49.233 (8^th was Barbados, 9^th was Bangaldesh)

Men’s sprint (qualifying)-Amarjit Nagi (22^nd),Amrit Singh (23^rd), Alan Baby (25^th), 28 cyclists in all.

40km points race-Heat 1. Shreedhar Savanur  DNF,  Heat 2- Amit Kumar and Sombir finished with zero points to be 14^th and 15^th overall among 17 cyclists

Keirin-Heat 1 Amarjit Nagi finished last,Heat 2 Alan Baby finished last,Heat 3 Amrit Singh finished last but one. In repechage Amrit Singh and  Alan finished last again, Nagi managed to come ahead of one Barbados cyclist

20km scratch race- Heat 1-Amit Kumar DNF, Sombir DNF, heat 2 Savanur DNF

Women

3000m individual pursuit-Sunita Yanglem (17^th/19) 4,07.614

500m time trial-10. Deborah 36.611, 11. Mahitha Mohan 38.869, 13.Kezia Varghese 39.387 (one Jamaican ‘spoilt’ the sequence for Indians coming in at 12th).

Sprint (Qualifying)-10. Deborah 12.483, 11. Mahitha Mohan 13.059, 12. Kezia Varghese 13.162

(13th and last was a Jamaican)

25km points race-Sunita Yanglem DNF

10km scratch race-Sunita Yanglem DNF

Road races

Men

168.240km

Shreedhar Savanur, Sombir, Amit Kumar, Arvind Panwar, Manjeet Singh, all five DNF

(only 12 riders finished in all, 127 riders did not finish)

Individual time trial 38.4km-37^th/56 Sombir  59,10.76

Indian women did not compete in road races.

Hyperandrogenism (part II)

Is testosterone the key?

The Caster Semenya story in 2009 eventually led to the IOC and the IAAF bringing in guidelines to keep track of gender ambiguities.

There is a general notion that the IOC abandoned ‘gender verification’ completely in 1999. This, the IOC Medical Commission Chairman, Arne Ljungqvist, has argued, was wrong.

To quote Prof Ljungqvist, from an essay he co-authored with Dr Myron Genel, in The Lancet in December, 2005,“The International Olympic Committee should be commended for the decision it took in 1999, which was misinterpreted by many. Gender verification has not, as some believe, been completely abandoned. The rules state that the medically responsible body at a competition maintains the authority to arrange for verification of an athlete's sex if it is called into question.”

Gender verification 

Surely, two years before it brought in the new regulations on hyperandrogenism among female athletes, the IAAF exercised its option of “gender verification” in the case of Semenya, leading to protests from all around. There was even a racial twist given to the controversy.

It took the IAAF a year to take a decision when a medical panel ruled that she could be reinstated. That happened  on July 6, 2010.

In 2011, the IAAF brought in its new regulations on hyperandrogenism among female athletes. The following year prior to the Olympics, the IOC approved its policy on hyperandrogenism. Both bodies were careful in not mentioning anything about “gender verification” and “sex tests”.

However, even though the crux of the argument centred around hyperandrogenism, the detailed evaluation suggested at least in the IAAF document does point towards a gender verification process.

There is a clinical examination  followed by an endocrinal investigation followed by a “full examination and diagnosis” should such a stage come about on an opinion given by an expert panel. Level 3 examination would be conducted at a ‘specialist reference centre’ .

The IOC document does not give too many details while laying down the procedures for investigating such cases of female hyperandrogenism. It also does not provide a figure for testosterone cut-off levels in determining whether it is high or within the female range.

However, critics of the new policies of the IOC and the IAAF have argued that there still cannot be any conclusions drawn by testosterone levels.

Flawed rules?

In an article titled ‘Out of Bounds? A Critique of the New Policies on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes’, four scientists led by Katrina Karkazis of Stanford Centre for Biomedical Ethics,  have argued that the new policies are flawed on three grounds (1) the underlying scientific

assumptions; (2) the policymaking process; and (3) the potential to achieve fairness for female athletes.

“We find the policies in each of these domains significantly flawed and therefore argue they should be withdrawn.”

This was published in June 2012. The IOC brought in its regulations in the London Olympics that opened on July 27, 2012.

Ms. Karkazis and Ms. Jordan-Young have continued to fight their battle against hyperandrogenism regulations. So have several other scientists and activists.

In another article in the New York Times in April this year , titled 'The Trouble with too much T', Ms Karkazis and Ms Jordan-Young have argued that ‘sex-linked performance’ was not mainly because of testosterone, according to recent research.

Prof. Ljungqvist explains

The IOC and the IAAF have not reacted to fresh criticism. Prof Ljungqvist told the NYT in June 2012, prior to the London Games, “People are always asking me, ‘Why have you done all this?’ I say, ‘We cannot pretend that intersex people do not exist.’ To let them compete in women’s sports can be unfair, so we must look into it.”

Prof Ljungqvist also told the paper that the testosterone cut-off level in the IOC document was deliberately not mentioned.

“If you have a cut-off level, the upside of it is you have an absolute trigger, and lawyers like that,” he said. “The downside is that if an athlete is just below the level, you cannot act on it. Because those levels can fluctuate, we will leave those decisions with the experts”, he said.

What IOC says

Ms. Sandrine Tonge, IOC Media Relations Manager, stated in a reply last month' "Some hyperandrogenic women will develop male-like characteristics since they have receptors in their cells that make the androgen act on the tissues. This is called "functional hyperandrogenism." Other women are "androgen resistant," since their cells do not have receptors for the androgens. They will, therefore, not develop male characteristics. That may be called "non-functional hyperandrogenism" though it is usually called "androgen resistance" or "androgen insensitivity." The two categories can easily be distinguished by a simple clinical examination. There are also lab methods available to ascertain whether there is an androgen resistance or not.

 "Mechanisms that could trigger an androgen investigation include (i) discrepancies within an athlete’s biological passport, (ii) the athlete may have symptoms that make her consult her team doctor, (iii) a pre-participation health examination may reveal there is a problem, (iv) suspicion may arise in the doping control station, (v) a doping control analysis may reveal an abnormal hormone pattern."

Though the terminology is ‘hyperandrogenism’, in reality only testosterone levels are tested and that, critics have argued, does not prove whether an athlete’s performance could be enhanced just by an elevated level of the male hormone. (Androgen is a general term for a set of male hormones, not just testosterone).

There is also this constant argument about a Michael Phelps having long limbs and tall basketballers having a decisive advantage, all natural attributes gained through the genes. Why not a naturally-occurring extra testosterone in a female body? So goes the argument.

The IOC/IAAF rules have not been put to legal scrutiny so far. If Dutee Chand goes to CAS with the support of the Government of India, there could be several groups and individuals who would be ready to chip in either financially or with legal backing.

Semenya post-2012

It would be pertinent to point out the performance of Semenya post-2012 in respect of the argument that testosterone levels have no great bearing on how fast an individual can run or swim or lift weights.

In 2009, the BBC reported  that Semenya’s testosterone levels were found to be three times more than that expected in a female.  (The present IAAF cut-off of 288.18ng/dL for testosterone is actually three times more than the accepted levels of testosterone found in a female though exceptions could be there).

Though the IAAF did not ban the South African, then just 18 (like Dutee Chand is today), straightaway, it kept her participation in abeyance for a year during which period she could have been expected to have undergone some hormone therapy or medical intervention to “correct” her condition.

Sensational improvement

At the Berlin World Athletics Championships, Semenya clocked a season-leading one minute, 55. 45 seconds, an improvement of around eight seconds for the 800 metres from her winning time at the Commonwealth Youth Games in Pune in October 2008, her best till then. She beat Kenyan Janeth Jepkosgei, the defending champion, by a margin of 2.45 secs in Berlin, the biggest ever in the event.

To date that timing ranks 26th on the all-time charts. Semenya is the only athlete apart from Kenyan Pamela Jelimo to have clocked comparable timings post-1990s. Jelimo, the 2008 Olympic champion at 19 years, is third on the all-time lists with her 1, 54.01 in Zurich in August, 2008. The world record of 1,53.28 was clocked by Czech Jarmila Kratochvilova in Munich in July 1983.

Semenya won the 800m silver at the London Olympics in a time of 1,57.23. Since August 2012 she has shown a dip in form, raising speculation that she could have gone through a hormone therapy to bring down her testosterone levels or might be going through such a therapy.

The slump

Now 23 years, Semenya's best last year was 1,58.92.  She did not have another sub-two-minute last year. She has 17 sub-two timings in all. This year her best has been 2,02.66 clocked in Rome in June. 
She did not make the ‘cut’ for the South African team for the World Championships in Moscow last year nor did she make it to her country’s team for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

Among others to whom she has lost this season was India’s Sinimole Markose who took the second place at Kuortane, Finland, on July 13 when the South African finished fourth.

One has to draw one’s own conclusions about the slump in Semenya’s performance levels, though the odd injury or reported wedding plans could have contributed to some decline.  So far this season, she has not won a race outside home.

On the topic of SAI contemplating  financial assistance to Dutee Chand for hormone therapy or surgery, one can only speculate the reasons for the type of medical intervention in the absence of credible information, which in any case should not be revealed.

Can Santhi hope for aid?

A question also arises whether SAI would be prepared to help Santhi Soundarrajan, another athlete who was stripped of her silver medal in the 800m at the Doha Asian Games in 2006, following a 'gender verification' procedure, rectify her condition by going to Stockholm or the US or any hospital that the Government may choose to get her medical aid.

The fact that much of Dutee Chand’s “hyperandrogenism” case has been discussed in the media _and is still being discussed_while we have no clue about the case of a Semenya even today, five years after she was found to have gender ambiguity, only proves the point India cannot handle such matters with any degree of confidentiality.
(Concluded)

(amendments including additions made on 23 Aug, 2014)