The Hindu : Muralidharan to be given reprieve?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Mar 11, 2004

Sport

Sport - Swimming

Muralidharan to be given reprieve?

By K.P. Mohan

NEW DELHI, MARCH 10. Swimmer Amar Muralidharan is being given a reprieve by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) Anti-Doping Commission for his doping violation at the Hyderabad National Games.

Unless the IOA top brass over-rules its doping commission, the Maharashtra swimmer, now in the Bangalore camp for the SAF Games probables, will be absolved of the doping charge. This, despite the swimmer having failed to prove that the positive test for testosterone that he returned at the 2002 National Games, was because of a natural condition.

Nearly a year after his case was left pending among a batch of 22 positives at the Hyderabad Games, the doping commission is learnt to have recommended that Muralidharan be given the "benefit of doubt''. The panel arrived at this decision after it conducted further investigations involving a series of three tests to determine whether his increased testosterone-epitestosterone levels were natural or not.

The commission has based its argument on the fact that the country did not have a an IRMA (isotope ratio measurement analysis) facility and as such it was difficult to determine beyond reasonable doubt that the testosterone found in the swimmer's urine sample was indeed introduced exogenously (from outside) or was endogenously (from within the body) produced. The IRMA determines the exogenous-endogenous aspect of certain class of substances that are naturally produced within the human body.

An athlete will be deemed to have tested positive for testosterone, the male hormone, if the T/E ratio (testosterone-epitestosterone ratio) exceeds 6:1. But then the positive is not announced or acted upon unless a complete investigation is carried out to determine whether the athlete had any background of having shown higher T/E ratio or whether there were endocrinal abnormalities that could lead to such a reading.

Muralidharan turned up a ratio of 70:1. In the three tests that were carried out in June, October and November last year, after samples were collected at Bangalore and here, the swimmer did not show anything more than 6:1.

There is no rule or convention to support the commission's argument about IRMA or an endocrine investigation. The International Swimming Federation (FINA) rules, in existence at the time of the IOA decision last April, simply says that in the absence of isotope analysis, a series of three tests had to be conducted.

The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) Code, in operation from January 1, 2004, says: "If the laboratory has reported the presence of a T/E ratio greater than 6:1 in the urine, further investigation is obligatory in order to determine whether the ratio is due to a physiological or pathological condition. In both cases, the investigation will include a review of any previous test, subsequent test and/or results of endocrine investigations. If previous tests are not available, the athlete shall undergo an endocrine investigation or be tested unannounced at least three times within a three-month period.

"Failure of the athlete to co-operate in the investigations will result in considering the athlete's sample to contain a prohibited substance.''

FINA is one of the organisations that has accepted the WADA Code.

It is not clear whether the IOA commission or the swimmer contributed to the delay in completing the three tests, the only loophole that Muralidharan could have exploited had he been found `guilty.'

Now, against all rules and convention, the commission itself has shown a way out for the swimmer's exoneration. Not because it could not complete the tests within the prescribed three months but because it felt that without the IRMA facility it would be unfair to arrive at a verdict of `guilty'. Why the commission took nearly a year to find this simple truth out will remain a mystery.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport