The Hindu : Sport : Manipulation can't be ruled out, says SAI enquiry

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Oct 16, 2004

Sport

Sport - Sports : General

Manipulation can't be ruled out, says SAI enquiry

By K.P. Mohan

NEW DELHI, OCT. 15. An in-house enquiry conducted by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) has come to the conclusion that manipulation in sample collection could not be ruled out in respect of the pre-departure dope testing done on the weightlifters who competed in the Athens Olympic Games.

The enquiry was ordered by the Director-General, SAI, following the doping scandal involving two of the Indian woman lifters, Pratima Kumari and Sanamacha Chanu, at the Athens Games. The enquiry was conducted by the Executive Director (Operations), C. R. Gopinath.

The enquiry report has suggested that the `B' samples of Pratima and Chanu, collected here on August 2, may be sent to an accredited laboratory abroad to ensure the credibility of the Dope Control Laboratory under the SAI. If those samples turned up positive, then a further enquiry would be needed, the report has suggested.

It may be recalled that both Pratima and Chanu had turned up `negative' in the tests done here prior to their departure for Athens and this fact had repeatedly been stressed by the lifters as well as officials after the controversy erupted in Athens. Both lifters had also demanded that their `B' samples with the SAI lab be tested. Pratima tested positive for steroid testosterone at Athens while Chanu was positive for the diuretic, furosemide.

The report has found several discrepancies in the sample collection procedures. It observed that while the sample collection of Karnam Malleswari was witnessed by Ms Sudeshna, an attendant working in the Medical Centre, who is trained in the dope control procedures, that of Pratima, Kunjarani Devi and Chanu was witnessed by one Ms. Shalu, a daily wage employee at the Medical Centre, who was not a trained hand in such a procedure.

Kunjarani's urine sample collected on August 2 was not accepted by the laboratory since the colour of the `A' sample did not match that of the `B' sample. She was asked to provide a fresh sample on August 4. The sample was collected by Dr. Sarla, a Medical Officer working in the SAI Southern Centre, Bangalore, who was in Delhi on her way to Athens with the Olympic contingent. She did not have proper authorisation to perform that job.

"It has also been noticed that sample collection (of Kunjarani) was not witnessed by any person. On questioning Dr Sarla, it was informed that doctor herself had witnessed the sample collection. However, column of signature for witness was found blank in the collection form,'' states the report.

"In the identification of sportspersons, there is a signature in all the forms but the names and designations of the persons who signed the forms were not mentioned,'' the report said.

"From the above it is clear that approach in sample collection was casual and no seriousness has been shown...''the report observed.

Quoting from procedures given in the WADA guidelines, the report said that due care had to be taken by the Dope Control Officer and persons who were attending or witnessing the sample collection so as to ensure that the athlete was not cheating in the process of sample collection.

"Sample collection made at the J. N. Stadium is not very satisfactory. The possibility of manipulation cannot be ruled out,'' the report stated.

The report suggested several measures for improvement of security at the laboratory, storage of samples and their registration procedures. It was suggested that the windows of toilets (where sample collection was done) could be properly covered with net so that the ``possibility of exchanging any bottle from outside could be stopped.''

The report further stated that there should be proper frisking of athletes before they entered the toilets during sample collection procedure to ensure that they were not carrying bottle, balloon or other implements. It was also suggested that the store of the laboratory could be shifted to the "other end of the lab'' so that access to the lab could be restricted to authorised persons only.

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

Sport