Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs (Doping)

[prasen9]

Sameer, methandienone has been used by bodybuilders and weight-lifters to build body strength. One theory could be that for whatever reason Narsingh thought he needed more strength to medal in the Olympics. So, he used the steroid about two months before the Olympics knowing that it would go out of his body by then. Sometimes, athletes can be incredibly stupid. They think that they will not get caught. Did the WC have all the top wrestlers participating?

[sameerph]

Yes, it pretty much had all the top competitors. It was also a qualifying event for Rio Olympics and Narsingh qualified from there.

[prasen9]

Maybe he got a good draw there? Or for whatever reason, he thought the others were doing drugs too and he needed to do it?

[jayakris]

Here is CAS's deliberation and verdict in complete form. WADA seems to have really blindsided the Indian side with the expert witness (Dr. Christiane Ayotte) from Canada. Ultimately, the decision was based on her analysis of the concentration and the timing of ingestion which do not seem to match with the sabotage scenarios presented. CAs acually admits that there is a possibility for sabotage but that the probability is low, if the expert scientist's analysis holds. They even say that the expert testimony is disputable.

I can now get an idea of why NADA's lawyer (or the replacement of the original one) could have been ill-prepared. To counter an expert testimony in short time would be tough. But then the question comes back to what exactly was the scientistists in India with NADA were saying. The Indian appeals panel had a duty to consider scientific evidence the same way as CAS did. Had they done that, the NADA lawyer would have had counter-opinions to give the Canadian expert, one would think. I have to assume that NADA either didn't do that, or that they were not allowed to offer such analysis to the appeals panel (under external pressure). Again, it all seems like a massive botch-up job, under pressure.

On the other hand, if I am reading it right, Narsingh may have a chance to get this reversed in Swiss courts, if counter scientific analysis can be provided (I suspect that it won't be easy), and if Jithesh's is nabbed and truth brought out on what (if any) he had done in this whole scenario.

[prasen9]

Every expert testimony is disputable. CAS is just keeping some leeway in case the expert made an error. But, it seems rather solid.

[jayakris]

Every expert testimony is disputable. CAS is just keeping some leeway in case the expert made an error. But, it seems rather solid.

Yes. It was only standard wording, but why I feel this might get disputed is because I don't think the Indian side got any chance to even check if it could be disputed, as there was no time for it. That doesn't mean that they will find any counter-opinion though. Dr. Christaine Ayotte is no small fish. She is a bit of a crusader against the doping problem. Here is a Guardian article from 2005 after the whole THG story - Scientists find new designer steroid, which talks about Dr. Ayotte and Dr. Don Catlin of Los Angeles as a couple of people at the forefront of the fight.

[sameerph]

Narsingh continues to say that he is innocent making emotional pleas -

Narsingh Yadav says if his ban is not reviewed, an innocent person would be tainted for life

but, some of his answers do not appear believable -

The ad hoc panel of the CAS had claimed that Narsingh’s dope offence was not due to one-time ingestion of the prohibited substance and its concentration in the first test result (of June 25) was so high that it had to come from an oral ingestion of one or two tablets of methandienone, rather than from a drink where the powder had been mixed with water.
When Narsingh was asked about it, he said: “My drinks were spiked a number of times during my practice sessions. I was so busy practicing that I did not keep a watch on my drinks while training in Sonepat.”

[Mugundan]

Here is CAS's deliberation and verdict in complete form. WADA seems to have really blindsided the Indian side with the expert witness (Dr. Christiane Ayotte) from Canada. Ultimately, the decision was based on her analysis of the concentration and the timing of ingestion which do not seem to match with the sabotage scenarios presented. CAs acually admits that there is a possibility for sabotage but that the probability is low, if the expert scientist's analysis holds. They even say that the expert testimony is disputable.

I can now get an idea of why NADA's lawyer (or the replacement of the original one) could have been ill-prepared. To counter an expert testimony in short time would be tough. But then the question comes back to what exactly was the scientistists in India with NADA were saying. The Indian appeals panel had a duty to consider scientific evidence the same way as CAS did. Had they done that, the NADA lawyer would have had counter-opinions to give the Canadian expert, one would think. I have to assume that NADA either didn't do that, or that they were not allowed to offer such analysis to the appeals panel (under external pressure). Again, it all seems like a massive botch-up job, under pressure.

On the other hand, if I am reading it right, Narsingh may have a chance to get this reversed in Swiss courts, if counter scientific analysis can be provided (I suspect that it won't be easy), and if Jithesh's is nabbed and truth brought out on what (if any) he had done in this whole scenario.

Throughout the Narsingh Yadav episode and debate at home, several experts had been commenting on TV that steroids are taboo for wrestlers since they would be concentrating on losing weight rather than gaining it. One journalist said on TV last night that Narsingh couldn't have used the substance since it was of no use to him!
This piece in Firstpost helps clear some misconceptions about steroid use among wrestlers, weightlifters, boxers etc since that group of substances happens to be the front-runner among all weight-specific sports across the world:
http://www.firstpost.com/sports/with-no ... 65710.html
Why did not the Indian panel consider scientific evidence as CAS did, to repeat Jay's poser:
Here is Indian Express today that says NADA DG in fact had stated to the media that the concentration of methandienone had fallen in the second sample (July 5)!! This surely gives the impression that the NADA DG was trying to mislead the media. The same set of lab documents would have been analyzed by Dr Ayotte and she could come to a simple conclusion.
But could the Indian panel have been trying to be fair? Or was NADA DG neutral after political pressure having been brought to bear on him? These are questions that the Indian media has to probe in the coming days.
http://indianexpress.com/article/sports ... s-2991255/
Yes, CAS (and WADA) has left a window open for Narsingh to approach Swiss court in case the sabotage theory could be established. But he may have to counter Dr Ayotte's contention that it looked to be an oral ingestion of the drug rather than a dissolved substance in water. And of course the glaring variation in readings in the June 25 and July 5 samples that proved that it was not a one-time ingestion. Narsingh's lawyer's attempt to say that the intruder might have done it a second time also apparently did not find favour with CAS.
NADA by the way did not try to argue the case on merits in CAS. That would have meant questioning its own arguments before the Indian panel (as 'prosecutor). It concentrated on WADA's right to appeal before NADA has consumed its time to appeal and CAS ad hoc division's jurisdiction on a test conducted weeks before. CAS rejected both, with very valid arguments.
NADA contesting WADA's right of appeal etc has left a bad taste in the anti-doping fight in India.

[Mugundan]

I hope India won't face the kind of thing that Russians faced. How embarrassing that a country that doesn't even know how to dope right, and never won anything with doping, faces all this bad publicity.

Absolutely and to think that our athletes may be doping just to qualify for Olympics !!! ( as is apparent in case of number of track and field athletes.

It is Narsinsh's case which baffles me. He is not a previous dope offender and has won a medal at the world championships last year where he would have been tested for sure. If his offense was intentional as CAS is saying does that mean that he was not confident of not repeating his WC result and therefore resorted to doping or that he might have doped before WC too and did not get caught ? Is it possible ? And if he did it intentionally this time why did he think that he will not get caught ?

Someone like Mugu who is aware of how this happens may throw some light or other can also chip in.

Doping is all about doping to the maximum, gaining maximum and not getting detected when the crucial time comes. Getting tested in big championships and not turning in a positive is no big deal. All the dopers do that. IOC must have done around 4500 tests in Rio? Will there even be 20 positive tests? May be eight years later, some 50 may come out including some 10 or 12 medal winners.
It is always difficult to analyze performance of wrestlers, boxers etc and come to any conclusion regarding dope taking or not. But we can have a good idea about track and field athletes since performance vary considerably. Indians did just that in Rio and we (as well as the authorities hopefully) are aware now of what might have happened.

[Sin Hombre]

Agree with mugu.

All dopers stop a week or two before major events. Just because someone didn't get detected once doesn't mean they weren't doping. There are also lots of cover-ups.

Chris Froome is a good example. He is a British hero, but for various reason, I am 99%+ certain he is on the juice. Just because, like our friend Maheshwari, he has never been caught doesn't mean much. All pro cycling fans, including myself, knew Armstrong was doping long before he was caught (and that too as a crusade after his retirement for personal gains for the lawyer).

[sameerph]

Thanks, Mugu and Sinhombre. I get what you are saying.

But, then how often is out of competition testing done like it happened in Narsingh's case ? The frequency needs to be increased if many of the suspected dopers are not getting caught in competitions. If many are going scot free then those who are not taking it will be also encouraged to do it. They will be feel that if everyone is taking it and I am not , I do have an unfair disadvantage.

[Prashant]

Keeping the samples for many years & re-testing as technology improves is the only way to catch some of the dopers now. And even that is iffy.

The women's 100M WR & OR are both owned by one of the most glaring dopers in history based on every shred of circumstantial evidence, but she was never caught.

[sameerph]

I think out of competition testing was not there during the period of 100M world record holder which you are mentioning. After the out of competition testing was introduced it must be now more difficult for dopers to escape.

A lot of them may be still going scot free. Probably they need to increase the frequency of out of competition testing or some other way to make it more fool proof.

[Atithee]

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. No kids are being influenced and if the individuals want to poison their bodies for whatever reason they choose, so be it. Look at marijuana, several states have legalized it. Who are we fooling? It's never going to work.

At the very least, we will save a few pages here in this forum. It's ironical to devote so much to doping discussion here when it's largely irrelevant to our success/failure in any sport.

And let me say one more thing -- all Indian sports/others in general care about is being selected for their "foren" trip. If a medal happens, toh chandi hi chandi. The showering of largesse on even the medal winners is really shameful. There is no country in the world with our level of resources which is so woeful in the world sports arena. Sadly, our system teaches us to milk it for all we can with means be damned. After all, end justifies the means.

[prasen9]

More testing means spending a lot more money.