Saturday, Apr 19, 2003
Saturday, Apr 19, 2003 |
| Sport | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Sport
-
Sports : General
By K.P. Mohan
The question was put to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) Secretary-General, Randhir Singh, on April 8, the day he announced the 22 positive tests from the Hyderabad National Games. The question related to the topic of competitors being given the option of getting their `B' samples tested at accredited laboratories abroad. Mr. Randhir Singh assured then that procedures were being followed and everything was right on track. Now, 10 days hence, there are procedural hurdles and unanswered questions that confront the IOA and the federations as the date fixed for the latter to submit their replies, April 21, is drawing nearer. No one has requested a `B' sample test abroad. In fact the majority of the 22 would be deemed to have waived their right to get the `B' samples tested. For one thing, testing abroad is costly; for another it will automatically invite the attention of the international federations. The grey area, regarding the acceptance of such a procedure, of one test in Delhi's non-accredited laboratory and another in an accredited laboratory abroad, remains. Even as the Amateur Athletic Federation of India (AAFI) is close to completing the formalities, including the hearings, the Swimming Federation of India (SFI) has forwarded a representation from Amar Muralidharan to the IOA questioning the incomplete procedure by which he has been given a testosterone positive result. Positives for testosterone, the male hormone, the base around which all anabolic steroids are formed, is determined by the testosterone-epitestosterone ratio. Anything above 6:1 is considered as positive. Muralidharan has not been named yet by the IOA or the SFI, though he has been reported for a steroid offence and his name figures among the 22. The swimmer has pulled a FINA (international swimming federation) rule out of its doping regulations to contend that further testing would be required before he is proceeded against. The SFI is uncertain what the implications are; the IOA is a little perplexed that such a rule exists and concerned that the case could drag on at a time when it wants the federations to dispose of the matter speedily, though within the framework of international regulations. The relevant FINA rule that will apply for a testosterone positive, says: ``The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio greater than six to one in the urine of a competitor constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone excretion, androgen producing tumour, or enzyme deficiencies. ``In the case of a T/E greater than six, and in the absence of an isotope ratio measurement analysis establishing the presence of exogenous (externally produced) testosterone, or its metabolites, or establishing that the testosterone analysed is endogenous (of internal origin) it is mandatory that the relevant medical authority conduct an investigation before the sample is declared positive. A full report will be written and will include a review of previous tests, subsequent tests and any results of endocrine invetsigations. In the event that previous tests are not available, the athlete should be tested, on an unannounced basis, at least once per month for three months. The results of these investigations should be included in the report. Failure to cooperate in the investigations will result in the initial sample being declared positive.'' The FINA rules on testosterone positives are more or less the same as those available in the Olympic Movement Anti Doping Code (OMADC), the base document around which all anti-doping rules in international sport are framed. Thus, it could be said that they are universal in nature and thus should have been followed by the testing authority before the competitor was named. Much will depend on the T/E ratio in Muralidharan's case since endogenous manifestations will not show abnormal variations. Technically, the swimmer has a breathing time of at least three more months, though his problems might be far from over just by falling back on a rule. A steroid offence under FINA rules attracts a four-year suspension apart from a retro-active annulment of all results achieved by the swimmer six months prior to the positive test. The swimmer will be required to go through a series of three tests over a nine-month period to be eligible for re-instatement after serving the suspension. The IOA is likely to refer the swimmer's case back to the Sports Authority of India (SAI) laboratory where the samples were tested. The argument of some of the offenders, who have been caught with ephedrine or pseudoephedrine in their urine samples, that they had taken medications for cold will not cut much ice. This is the standard defence put up by competitors slapped with such stimulant violations. Yet, cyclist Nijappa Yentethu of Andhra could well be reprieved with just a warning. For, the International Cycling Federation (UCI) rules do provide for a suspension for one to six months or nothing bar a warning for such an offence as pseudoephedrine violation. ``However, if it is demonstrated that the offence was caused by simple inattention, a warning may instead be issued.'' So says UCI Article 129. Warning is what is prescribed for stimulant cases by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) also, while the International Boxing Federation by and large follows the OMADC that recommends a suspension of up to six months. As already reported, in rowing a steroid offence carries a life-ban. Lakshman Singh, the Chandigarh rower, whose case has been referred to the international federation (FISA) has very little to cling to, unless he, like a few others who might be contemplating legal recourse, argue that the tests had no sanctity since the SAI lab was not accredited. Of course, legal wrangles are time-consuming and and costly. The federations know it. The competitors, too.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
