Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

All other sports such as squash, badminton,volleyball, atheletics etc which are not covered by any other forum heading can be entered in this forum

Moderator: Moderators

sameerph
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 20977
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:26 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: MUMBAI

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby sameerph » Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:31 pm

This is another good piece by KP Mohan on Narsingh case -

Narsingh Yadav’s Options in Aftermath of Four-Year Ban

Much the same thing except that second test was ordered by WADA.

User avatar
jayakris
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 22677
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby jayakris » Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:53 pm

KP MOhan saw a little thing in that report which had caught my eye too (I had read the CAS verdict word by word). I chose not to bring it up, as I thought it might even have been some mistake by CAS (or that I had missed some reported story earlier) -
Drawing from the ADDP’s order and submissions from Yadav’s counsel, Jitesh has been described in various parts of the CAS order as a member of Olympic medal winner Sushil Kumar’s entourage, a ‘competitor’ and an “associate of Mr. Kumar, a rival wrestler who had made threats to the athlete; these threats had been made known to the police.”

Kumar unsuccessfully fought a legal battle in the Delhi high court to get a trial with Yadav as a way to determine which wrestler would be selected for the Rio Olympics. However, this is the first time that the allegations against Kumar have been made public as part of the submissions made to a panel or as part of the orders made by such panels.

Really? Sushil actually made threats to Narsingh? Of what kind? That's mind-boggling, if it is true and can be substantiated with evidence.

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11213
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby prasen9 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:18 pm

In my heart, I wanted Sushil to go. But, in my mind, I understood that Narsingh earned the quota and it would be terribly harsh to take it away. He should have been given a chance. The best solution, imho, would have been to have a fight-out for selection. I don't know why Sushil had not competed much this year and whether he was fully fit. Anyway, time to close this chapter and move on with the youngsters for the next round in Tokyo.

Sin Hombre
Member
Member
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:59 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Chicago

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby Sin Hombre » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:07 am

Atithee wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again. Make doping legal and be done with it. It's clear that everyone does it. Just accept it and move on.


Making doping legal is killing sports, period.

There are 3 major reasons why this argument generally falls flat
- the designer drug of choice at any point of time doesn't impact everyone equally. The winner will the one whose genomes respond the best to a particular drug. Pro cycling has enough evidence of multiple people on EPO and results (ie performance improvements) varying a lot.
- with a lot of drugs, it often boils down to who is willing to destroy his body the most ie go what I call full muppet doping. Landis beating an EPO fuelled peloton by 12 minutes is the classical example. Flo Jo's impossible to beat sprint records are another, she pretty much destroyed her body doing so.
- you also guarantee that the richer countries will be in the forefront of drug development and will be on the newest and most effective ones.


The real problem is that most of the general populace treats sportsmen (and women) as heroes and refuse to even consider very obvious patterns of drug cheats. Tennis and football (soccer) fans are particularly bad in this regard. It amazes me how many tennis fans still defend Sharapova for example.

Sin Hombre
Member
Member
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:59 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Chicago

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby Sin Hombre » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:09 am

prasen9 wrote:In my heart, I wanted Sushil to go. But, in my mind, I understood that Narsingh earned the quota and it would be terribly harsh to take it away. He should have been given a chance. The best solution, imho, would have been to have a fight-out for selection. I don't know why Sushil had not competed much this year and whether he was fully fit. Anyway, time to close this chapter and move on with the youngsters for the next round in Tokyo.


The US did not even send the world record hurdler in the 100m (and she even set that WR this year) since she failed in the trials. We are a bit far from that as a nation.

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11213
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby prasen9 » Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:30 am

I think we did a switch in shooting. I also do not think that one selection event is the right way to choose a person to represent the country. I would rather have more data points and look at trajectories, fitness, form, etc. But when things are close and the right answer is not clear, I would just have a trial.

User avatar
jayakris
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 22677
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby jayakris » Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:37 am

Sin Hombre wrote:The US did not even send the world record hurdler in the 100m (and she even set that WR this year) since she failed in the trials. We are a bit far from that as a nation.

Yeas, but the three they picked at the trials (done before Kendra Harrison set the WR last month) swept the medals at the Olympics. One useful point behind doing such trials is that the one who withstands the pressure of that is probably better at withstanding the pressure of the Olympics, depending on how much domestic competition there is. When we see the US athletes calmly do the job at the Olympics, it is because they know what they had to do to make it to the Olympics and they know that they are not facing anything much worse. That model doesn't work for India, except in some cases.

sameerph
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 20977
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:26 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: MUMBAI

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby sameerph » Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:47 am

prasen9 wrote: I also do not think that one selection event is the right way to choose a person to represent the country. I would rather have more data points and look at trajectories, fitness, form, etc. But when things are close and the right answer is not clear, I would just have a trial.


Fully agree. In case of Sushil-Narsingh selection, Sushil had not even fought once in an international competition after his CWG gold 2 years back. There are numerous lower level events taking place regularly across world. If Sushil was interested in participating at Rio, he should have requested WFI to send him to 1-2 of those events. He did not even participate in the professional wrestling league which took place in India last year.
On the other hand, Narsingh had fought and won a medal at a world championships only a year back. So, WFI rightly took a decision to not consider Sushil even for trials.

User avatar
jayakris
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 22677
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby jayakris » Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:05 am

sameerph wrote:This is another good piece by KP Mohan on Narsingh case -
Narsingh Yadav’s Options in Aftermath of Four-Year Ban
Much the same thing except that second test was ordered by WADA.

I am not sure if KP Mohan is right about the sports minsiter Vijay Goel's suo motu statement to the Parliament on July 28th. That becomes an issue, as WFI has started another angle of attack today, saying that the second NADA test on Narsingh on July 5th was done on a tip from Sonepat, and that the people who spiked Narsingh's food/drinks had done more spiking to make fully sure and wanted him tested again. KP Mohan says the minister had stated the 2nd test to have been under WADA order, which would mean that WFI is giving BS.

But I went and checked the minister's statement (official link) and this is what he said, "7. In the meantime in view of the advice of WADA, another sample of the wrestler was taken on 5 th July, 2016."

That was some curious wording from the minister. "In view of the advice"??? .... What does that mean? I don't think it means that WADA ordered it. But it could mean that too.

But, since a big reason why CAS went against Narsingh was the expert testimony about the quantity of substance found in the 2nd test, the question of why the 2nd test was conducted becomes very important.

Mugundan
Member
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 6:17 am
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Kerala

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby Mugundan » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:23 am

sameerph wrote:This is another good piece by KP Mohan on Narsingh case -

Narsingh Yadav’s Options in Aftermath of Four-Year Ban

Much the same thing except that second test was ordered by WADA.

WADA having asked for it, as announced by the minister, goes and asks NADA in Rio (if WFI is to be believed): "How come you did a second test on July 5 so close to June 25?"
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/sports/i ... ident.html
This is laughable; WFI trying to search out new conspiracies including the above in which a junior officer from SAI, Sonepat informs NADA that doping is going on here, please come and test these guys, NADA promptly goes in collects a few sample, they get Narsingh for a second time.
No one really bothers about that second test till WADA springs Dr Christiane Ayotte as its expert witness in Rio. She says the readings, 5ng/ml for June 25 and 20ng/ml for July 5 show a clear sign that there had been a second ingestion.
Narsingh lawyer tries to say that "yes yes. there must have been a second spiking".
They get back to India and then WFI unravels the mystery of the second test: a conspiracy hatched again by the rival gang in which SAI and NADA collude; the rival gang put another lot of the drug in Narsingh's drink, making sure that the second test would come positive if the first one missed it. They then inform NADA through the SAI official. Mission accomplished.
The only problem with this sensational revelation is that nearly a month earlier the Sports Minister had told Parliament that NADA had done a second test as requested by WADA!
Now, how will WFI counter this? After all the minister had made a suo motu statement in Parliament; you have to trust that he wouldn't have made a mistake nor would NADA have in conveying it to him (though unethical and highly questionable)
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=147871

Mugundan
Member
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 6:17 am
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Kerala

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby Mugundan » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:32 am

jayakris wrote:KP MOhan saw a little thing in that report which had caught my eye too (I had read the CAS verdict word by word). I chose not to bring it up, as I thought it might even have been some mistake by CAS (or that I had missed some reported story earlier) -
Drawing from the ADDP’s order and submissions from Yadav’s counsel, Jitesh has been described in various parts of the CAS order as a member of Olympic medal winner Sushil Kumar’s entourage, a ‘competitor’ and an “associate of Mr. Kumar, a rival wrestler who had made threats to the athlete; these threats had been made known to the police.”

Kumar unsuccessfully fought a legal battle in the Delhi high court to get a trial with Yadav as a way to determine which wrestler would be selected for the Rio Olympics. However, this is the first time that the allegations against Kumar have been made public as part of the submissions made to a panel or as part of the orders made by such panels.

Really? Sushil actually made threats to Narsingh? Of what kind? That's mind-boggling, if it is true and can be substantiated with evidence.

Surprised that such an allegation was made and was allowed to get into the CAS order.

Mugundan
Member
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 6:17 am
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Kerala

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby Mugundan » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:45 am

jayakris wrote:
sameerph wrote:This is another good piece by KP Mohan on Narsingh case -
Narsingh Yadav’s Options in Aftermath of Four-Year Ban
Much the same thing except that second test was ordered by WADA.

I am not sure if KP Mohan is right about the sports minsiter Vijay Goel's suo motu statement to the Parliament on July 28th. That becomes an issue, as WFI has started another angle of attack today, saying that the second NADA test on Narsingh on July 5th was done on a tip from Sonepat, and that the people who spiked Narsingh's food/drinks had done more spiking to make fully sure and wanted him tested again. KP Mohan says the minister had stated the 2nd test to have been under WADA order, which would mean that WFI is giving BS.

But I went and checked the minister's statement (official link) and this is what he said, "7. In the meantime in view of the advice of WADA, another sample of the wrestler was taken on 5 th July, 2016."

That was some curious wording from the minister. "In view of the advice"??? .... What does that mean? I don't think it means that WADA ordered it. But it could mean that too.

But, since a big reason why CAS went against Narsingh was the expert testimony about the quantity of substance found in the 2nd test, the question of why the 2nd test was conducted becomes very important.

Did WADA "order" it? Or was it a request?
Even if the word used was not "advice" a communication from WADA regarding a second test (there can be no doubts about such a communication) would mean the SAI-NADA conspiracy theory has to be trashed.
Why a second or a third test was done on an athlete during such a short period of time has normally no relevance in anti-doping practices. An athlete if he/she is targeted can (would) be tested any number of times.

Mugundan
Member
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 6:17 am
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Kerala

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby Mugundan » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:48 am

Jay's explanation about what "advice" may mean could possibly provide the WFI an escape route from this embarrassing situation!

User avatar
jayakris
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 22677
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby jayakris » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:52 pm

Mugundan wrote:WADA having asked for it, as announced by the minister, goes and asks NADA in Rio (if WFI is to be believed): "How come you did a second test on July 5 so close to June 25?"
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/sports/i ... ident.html

This is quite curious. WFI may be right that some Sonepat official tipped off NADA. So what? That is their duty if they felt something was going on (hats off to the guy who did it, if you ask me). Now, this stuff that WFI says that WADA asked NADA in Rio why they did a second test so soon, doesn't wash. The CAS verdict reports all kinds of details that came up at the hearing (whether relevant or not) like the names of the cooks who had made the statements, threats made to Narsingh etc, none of which really entered their deliberations/decisions. But they do not mention anything about WADA asking NADA why the test was taken, at the CAS hearing.

Here is WADA's International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI). They clearly say under section II (Standards for Intelligence gathering and Investigations) in page 60 - 12.3.2 When there is reasonable cause to suspect that an anti-doping rule violation may have been committed, the Anti-Doping Organization shall notify WADA that it is starting an investigation into the matter in accordance with Code Article 7.6 or Code Article 7.7, as applicable. Thereafter the Anti-Doping Organization shall keep WADA updated on the status and findings of the investigation upon request. (The actual codes are in another document but 7.6 and 7.7 are the basic violation items; no need to read the code itself).

That seems to indicate to me that a tip actually might have had to be there for the sequence of events to go the way it did. IF their investigation was indeed based on tips from Sonepat (as opposed to their standard random and targeted testing plans in-competition and out-of-competition), then they had to inform WADA. So, it is possible that they did get a tip to do the first test, were in touch with WADA as required, then got a second tip, and WADA advised them to go ahead and test again. Somebody from WADA must have asked the standard question just to establish an obvious fact at the hearing, to get an answer that NADA communicated with WADA like they were required to. WFI may be using it to further their angle and make it sound like it's all a conspiracy. But it does not prove that there was sabotage. Just that NADA did get a tip-off on doping, of which I am glad, if they got it.

The minister may have made the statement based on information that NADA was in communication with WADA before the 2nd test, and just said "in view of the advice of WADA". Yeah, he left some wiggle room for everybody with the curious wording!

Mugundan
Member
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 6:17 am
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Kerala

Re: Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

Postby Mugundan » Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:04 pm

Jay, Testing and Investigations do not come into routine positive dope test reports. That is a different field altogether related to intelligence gathering, investigations, whereabouts failures etc.
"there is reasonable cause to suspect that an anti-doping rule violation may have been committed"(to quote a portion from the text posted) in itself will indicate that this is not a positive dope test since there is nothing to presume that "there is a reasonable cause to suspect", for, after a positive there cannot be anything to doubt that a potential anti-doping rule violation has taken place.
A positive dope test is handled by Article 7.2 onwards to 7.6.
The Lab will forward a copy of the report to the testing authority (NADA in this case), the International Federation Concerned (UWW) and the WADA when a positive test has to be reported. NADA takes over from then on, conducts a provisional hearing, issues a provisional suspension, fixes a date for a hearing in due course after consulting with the chairman of the disciplinary panel etc.
There is no investigation after a routine positive test (as in the case of Narsingh on June 25) that has to be informed to WADA on a regular basis etc.
The IST on Testing and Investigations relate to such investigations that are outside positive tests which would be handled on a case by case basis by the testing authority on a day to day basis. As you have pointed out this is related to Article 7.6 and 7.7:
7.6 Review of Whereabouts Failures
Review of potential filing failures and missed tests
shall take place as provided in the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations. At such time
as the International Federation or National Anti-Doping
Organization (as applicable) is satisfied that an Article
2.4 anti-doping rule violation has occurred, it shall
promptly give the Athlete notice, in the manner set out
in its rules, that it is asserting a violation of Article
2.4 and the basis of that assertion. Other Anti-Doping
Organizations shall be notified as provided in Article
14.1.2.
7.7 Review of Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Not Covered by Articles 7.1–7.6

In the same IST details of other possible investigations (which will require WADA being kept informed) have been listed (portion of it below);
12.3 Investigating other possible anti-doping rule violations
12.3.1 Anti-Doping Organizations shall ensure that they are able to
investigate confidentially and effectively any other analytical or nonanalytical
information or intelligence that indicates there is reasonable cause
to suspect that an anti-doping rule violation may have been committed, in
accordance with Code Articles 7.6 and 7.7, respectively.
[Comment to 12.3.1: Where an attempt to collect a Sample from an Athlete
produces information indicating a possible evasion of Sample collection
and/or refusal or failure to submit to Sample collection after due notification,
in violation of Code Article 2.3, or possible Tampering or Attempted
Tampering with Doping Control, in violation of Code Article 2.5, the matter
shall be investigated in accordance with Annex A – Investigating a Possible
Failure to Comply.]
12.3.2 When there is reasonable cause to suspect that an anti-doping rule
violation may have been committed, the Anti-Doping Organization shall
notify WADA that it is starting an investigation into the matter in accordance
with Code Article 7.6 or Code Article 7.7, as applicable. Thereafter the Anti-
Doping Organization shall keep WADA updated on the status and findings of
the investigation upon request.
12.3.3 The Anti-Doping Organization shall gather and record all relevant
information and documentation as soon as possible, in order to develop that
information and documentation into admissible and reliable evidence in
relation to the possible anti-doping rule violation, and/or to identify further
lines of enquiry that may lead to the discovery of such evidence. The Anti-
Doping Organization shall ensure that investigations are conducted fairly,
objectively and impartially at all times. The conduct of investigations, the
evaluation of information and evidence identified in the course of that
investigation, and the outcome of the investigation, shall be fully
documented.
[Comment to 12.3.3: It is important that information is provided to and
gathered by the investigating Anti-Doping Organization as quickly as possibleand in as much detail as possible, because the longer the period between the incident and investigation, the greater the risk that certain evidence may no
longer exist.
Investigations should not be conducted with a closed mind, pursuing only
one outcome (e.g., institution of anti-doping rule violation proceedings
against an Athlete or other Person). Rather, the investigator(s) should be
open to and should consider all possible outcomes at each key stage of the
investigation, and should seek to gather not only any available evidence
indicating that there is a case to answer but also any available evidence
indicating that there is no case to answer.]
12.3.4 The Anti-Doping Organization should make use of all investigative
resources reasonably available to it to conduct its investigation. This may
include obtaining information and assistance from law enforcement and other
relevant authorities, including other regulators. However, the Anti-Doping
Organization should also make full use of all investigative resources at its
own disposal, including the Athlete Biological Passport program, investigative
powers conferred under applicable rules (e.g., the power to demand the
production of relevant documents and information, and the power to
interview both potential witnesses and the Athlete or other Person who is the
subject of the investigation), and the power to suspend a period of
Ineligibility imposed on an Athlete or other Person in return for the provision
of Substantial Assistance in accordance with Code Article 10.6.1.
[Comment to 12.3.4: WADA’s document entitled ‘Coordinating Investigations
and Sharing Anti-Doping Information and Evidence’ provides guidance on
how to build efficient and effective relationships with law enforcement and
other relevant authorities that will facilitate the sharing of anti-doping
intelligence and information and the co-ordination of investigations.]

WADA keeps track of all International Registered Pool (IRTP) athletes in all sports. Whenever a positive is reported, especially when it is that of an IRTP athlete, there will be special attention to it.
In the run-up to the Olympics (and also based on independent intelligence reports) WADA might have sought a second test on the wrestler by "advising" NADA to test him again. This is a confidential communication not to be revealed to the public. In this case it was revealed. IRTP athletes being tested repeatedly is routine in the world. It is of course possible that NADA received an intelligence tip-off, conveyed it to WADA which in turn suggested another test. NADA would have been well within its rights (as you said) to received such reports and to follow-up with a test on its own.
WADA discussing with NADA about the second test or the need for it in Rio looks extremely doubtful. NADA apparently had a local lawyer (one Mr. Singh) and it sound incredulous that WADA officials would come and discuss with him the necessity for a second test at a time they would be busy handling several other doping cases waiting to be cleared for Olympics.
I am convinced that WADA "advised" NADA to do a second test as stated by the minister in Parliament for whatever reason and that led to a more detaiiled scientific defence of WADA's argument in the case.


Return to “Other Sports/Olympics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests