What could be the validity of a test done in a laboratory that is not accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)?
This question came up on Monday when the Monika Devi doping case was resumed before the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, headed by Sudhir Nandrajog.
Nandrajog raised this question as he sought to ascertain the facts regarding the testing done on Monika's samples in June-July, 2008 that led to her exclusion from the Indian Olympic squad for Beijing.
The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) backed by Dr. Shila Jain, Scientific Director, National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL), contended that the laboratory, named Dope Control Centre (DCC) then, indeed had the authority to test and the tests were accepted and recognised by WADA.
The lawyer representing NADA, Rahul Kumar, and Dr Jain also argued that the laboratory had by then gained accreditation from the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) under ISO17025 certification and this was valid enough.
Nandrajog was not prepared to accept the argument and asked the counsel to bring in documents to support the NADA claim. The hearing was adjourned and Monika was allowed time to file her reply to the rebuttals filed by NADA.
Nandrajog raised a pertinent point, whether a ‘B' sample test could be pursued at all when there could be no validity about the ‘A' sample testing since ‘B' sample testing could only be in pursuance of a ‘positive' ‘A' sample test.
Monika's ‘B' samples were tested in the WADA-accredited Tokyo laboratory in January, 2009. Incidentally, the remainder of her ‘A' samples were also tested there.
Actually, ISO17025 is only a pre-requisite standard for WADA accreditation and does not grant approval to the tests done during the probationary period of a laboratory.
The NADA rules and the WADA Code can only be applied for tests conducted in WADA-accredited laboratories. NDTL gained WADA accreditation in September, 2008. It has now been extended up to December 31, 2010.
