It begs the question: Why do elite athletes risk using prohibited substances? In the Indian context, the answer is simple: the lure of cash awards that are offered as incentive for winning medals at the international level is strong. But that would be true if it were only the athlete is responsible. In a nation starving for success in the sporting arena, it is our hunger that drives athletes and those guiding them to seek shortcut methods. From the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to the National Sports Federations to the coaches and trainers, everyone wants good results from the elite athletes.

Let us address some more basic questions on doping.

When their samples turn up adverse analytical findings, can athletes claim ignorance about how the prohibited substance entered their system? Not really. For, athletes are expected to be aware of what gets ingested into their system and they alone are responsible for everything that shows up in their samples. Even if coaches and trainers advocate the use of supplements, athletes become solely responsible for consuming them. There has been some talk in the corridors of power about how semi-literate or illiterate athletes cannot be blamed if they do not know what is being prescribed to them. Modern elite athletes have learnt to even ask their family physicians if some medicine they prescribe contains any prohibited substances.

Who decides on the list of prohibited substances and methods? The World Anti Doping Agency publishes a list on October 1 each year for the following calendar year. The list is drawn up by a panel of experts. The list identifies substances and methods prohibited in-competition, out-of-competition and in particular sports. The substances are classified by categories like anabolic steroids – both those that are ordinarily capable of being produced by the human body and those that are not – stimulants and masking agents. Of course, athletes can apply for Therapeutic Use Exemption for medical reasons.

Who carries out the anti-doping tests? The samples of two athletes – Manjeet Kaur and Juana Murmu – turned up positive in tests conducted by the sport’s world body, International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF). The six others who returned adverse analytical findings were among those tested by the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) at the request of the Athletics Federation of India.

These tests will be frowned upon by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) as it abhors pre-competition testing that would ensure that only ‘clean athletes’ are sent for competition and they do not test positive in competition. These tests could be interpreted as NADA’s compliance with what is possibly a systematic doping programme followed in National camps.

Can dietary supplements used by athletes lead to them testing positive for prohibited substances? WADA says dietary supplements are a matter of concern because in many countries the manufacturing and labeling of supplements may not follow strict rules, leading to a supplement containing an undeclared substance that is prohibited under anti-doping regulations. Taking a poorly labeled dietary supplement is not an adequate defence in a doping hearing.

So, what is in store for the athletes who tested positive recently? The athletes whose samples return an adverse analytical finding are notified by the Anti Doping Organisation – in this case, the Athletics Federation of India – and are handed provisional suspensions from their sport. They are given the opportunity to ask for the B samples to be tested in their presence or in the presence of their representatives.

Some of these athletes have already had their B samples tested and others are in the process of doing that. If the B sample also throws up an adverse analytical finding, the AFI will proceed with the result management process including the right to a fair hearing within three months. The hearing will then be conducted by a panel constituted by the AFI.

AFI will then determine what sanctions will apply to each individual case. Athletes are given the opportunity to establish a basis for eliminating, or reducing the sanction, or having the sanction partially suspended. Sanctions for violating anti-doping regulations may range from a reprimand to a lifetime ban. The period of ineligibility may vary depending on the type of anti-doping violation, the circumstances of an individual case, the substance, and the possible repetition of an anti-doping violation.

Of course, athletes have the right to appeal any decision regarding a positive test or a sanction imposed following an antidoping rule violation. Athletes must file the appeal before an appeal body within the AFI or the Court for Arbitration in Sport.

What does India need against doping in sport?

The official machinery needs to stop paying lip service to the anti-doping philosophy since most adverse results in sports like weightlifting and athletics have come from National camps that are run by the Sports Authority of India at its centres across the country. There has to be a realisation that doping does not only bring shame but also has adverse effect on the athlete’s health.

Collectively, India needs to ensure that the desire to win international recognition does not include a desire to win by unfair means. And this has to start from the very top of this machinery – from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, the Sports Authority of India, the National Sports Federations and percolate down to the athletes and fans.

Since out-of-competition testing is one of the best ways to curb the menace, NADA has to ensure that its test distribution and testing itself is stricter than its results show then to be. In 2010-11, NADA carried out as many as 2684 tests across all sports and found 122 samples positive. Yet, out of 1483 out-of-competition testing that it carried out, just 12 tested positive. The low percentage of positives is an indication that there is something seriously wrong with NADA’s testing programme. To start with, NADA must ensure that the samples are not replaced.

(This article first appeared in The Economic Times on Sunday, July 10-16, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with that, really. But now, much of India is groaning in disappointment, shock and even anger that three of these are among the eight athletes who tested positive for banned substances. Sadly, there is a mad rush to point fingers in all directions but not where it really matters – the system as a whole that seems to encourage winning by hook or by crook.

It is time for the sports community to introspect. For long, as a nation, we have paid lip service to and been callous about a vibrant anti-doping programme. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports will point out to the setting up of the WADA-accredited National Dope Testing Laboratory and the National Anti Doping Agency to curb the menace of doping. And if it believes that it has done its bit by sacking an overeas coach, it is wrong.

NADA’s work comes across as weak in planning and in implementation. For example, in 2010-11, NADA carried out as many as 2684 tests across all sports and found 122 samples positive. Yet, out of 1483 tests in out-of-competition testing, just 12 tested positive. Out-of-competition testing is the best way to curb the doping menace but the low percentage of positives is an indication that there is something seriously wrong with NADA’s testing programme.

At least one athlete has accused chaperones of taking money to change urine samples collected at the National camps. And until Mandeep Kaur and Jauna Murmu’s samples turned up positive in tests carried out by the sports top body, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), Indian sportspersons were suspected to be slippery customers as far as out of competition tests went.

It is not very difficult to understand why athletes feel encouraged to take recourse to short cuts. A champion thrower once asked me – and in all earnestness – if I believed that Indian sportspersons stood a chance of winning at the international level. “Do you know how much time someone from the lower strata of society would take to make Rs 50 lakh?” he asked.

Even as we await the report of the enquiry committee that will be set up, let us take up the one big question: Who is responsible? To be honest, it is the athlete who is responsible for keeping himself or herself clean. Ignorance, illiteracy or even semi-literacy, are all no excuses. Simply stated: if a banned substance is found in an athelte’s urine sample, only he or she is responsible. No elite athlete, however illiterate, can take recourse to ignorance as an excuse.

We must not forget that they alone are responsible for what they ingest or use.  Indeed, in accordance with WADA Code, athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance being found in their bodily specimen. This means that a violation  occurs whether or not the athlete intentionally or  unintentionally, knowingly or unknowingly, used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault.

Yet, if weightlifters and athletes test positive when training in national camps run by the Sports Authority of India at its centres of excellence, how can the National Sports Federations be held responsible? If the coaches are employed by – and paid by – the Sports Authority of India, should the athletes and officials of National Federations alone be accountable?

It can be argued that the Sports Authority of India has played the role of the silent conspirator in the doping programme for some of our elite athletes. It can also be argued that those who fund the training of these athletes – and therefore fund the intake of supplements – are also responsible for not delivering the right products to them.

And, the net widens to include us. Indeed, it is a social problem but until all of India collectively admits that it is not a sports-conscious nation, it really should not expect its athletes to conquer the Asian firmament. Once the pressure on the sports fraternity – athlete, coaches, sports officials and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sport is reduced – the pressure may come down. Alternatively, our society, including India Inc, must awaken and ensure that our elite sportspersons do not have to find it hard to follow their dreams.

It is a pity that the popular media – and the nation – wake up to the looming menace of doping only when it has got along shame. There is a need for the media to be vigilant at all times so that our athletes – elite and casual alike – tread carefully when it comes to finding ways to enhance performance..

It can only be hoped that the current spate of positive results from track and field will spur the nation – its policy makers, athletes, sports officials, media and fans – into asking itself the question: Do we really need medals at any cost? Are we so desperate that we are ready to put the health of young athletes at stake?

If we answer these questions honestly, we will able to cherish hard-earned victories for a long time rather than cast our minds back to wonderful times and wonder if those were the result of smart short cuts adopted by the system, with the athelete at the centre of the universe. And only then will the cheers echo as such.

• The plea of ignorance is not a valid argument at all. The onus was, is and will be on the athlete to ensure that the medicine does not contain a prohibited substance.
• If an athlete has had to take such medication under prescription, he has to indicate that in the form that he signs when his urine sample is being collected for testing.
• The ban must be for two years and not one since Asif has not apparently made a case umder exceptional therapeutic use.
• IPL does not have the authority to ban Asif from all cricket. It can only ban him from IPL. The only ones who can ban him from all cricket are ICC and, more specifically, PCB.
• Sadly, neither ICC nor PCB has taken the issue up with the seriousness it deserves.

“As an international governing body, the ICC maintains a zero tolerance in the area of doping,” said ICC Chief Executive Haroon Lorgat. “We are proud of the fact that we have been testing at our events since 2002 and in that time we are yet to have an adverse analytical finding. Together with our members, we are committed to the implementation of a new ICC Anti-Doping Code (2009) that will seek to ensure we have a great sport with a great spirit.”
It looks like Asif and his advisers have decided not to appeal against the ban. For, if he did appeal against the ban before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), there was a good chance that the ban would have been extended to two years. With ICC and PCB not acting on the IPL decision, it looks like he will get away with just a year’s ban.
Just a few months ago, CAS ruled that a simple prescription from a doctor and a doctor’s advice to use the medicine were not grounds enough to conclude that an athlete had taken all possible steps to ensure that the medicine did not contain a prohibited substance. The IPL tribunal did not even need to be aware of the CAS ruling and should have imposed a two year ban.
Based on that, PCB should have been conducting a hearing with Asif – charging him with dope violation and, since is it such an open and shut case after Asif admitted before the IPL tribunal that he had used a Nandrolone-laced medicine, imposed a two year ban under the WADA code.
In fact, had Asif not gotten away on technical grounds in 2006 when he was suspended after testing positive for Nandrolone before the ICC Champions Trophy, he would have been a fit case for a life ban after his second violation. But he seems to be living on the edge and getting away with it because of official ignorance and laxity.