#dnaEdit: To cheat or not

With tennis star Maria Sharapova testing positive for meldonium, a substance she has been ingesting for 10 years but added to the banned list from this year, the link between doping and cheating in sports requires greater attention. Meldonium is an anti-ischemic drug, produced out of Latvia, that helps improve blood circulation, particularly to the brain, and for those with heart conditions that cause restricted blood flow to the heart. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) monitored the use of the drug for a year after noticing its use by several athletes across sporting disciplines before taking the decision to ban it. Though Sharapova is yet to be punished (she has only been provisionally suspended), her contention is that she used this to treat a variety of medical conditions including magnesium deficiency, an irregular heartbeat, and a family history of diabetes. This has been countered by medical experts who point out that the drug is used for courses of four to six weeks, and is generally not used in the US, her country of residence, for medical purposes. Perhaps, Sharapova did use the drug as a performance-enhancer for a decade, but what justifies her continued use after the ban? Sharapova has a probable explanation; she claims she missed out on the e-mail sent by the WADA in September 2015, informing her that meldonium would fall in the banned list from January 1, 2016. 

It can be argued that in these times of heightened awareness about doping in sports, top athletes and their team members should have stayed apprised about the latest substances added to the doping list. In October, it was reported that meldonium was found in the urine samples of 182 of 8,300 athletes. There is also no clarity on whether Sharapova had in the past proactively disclosed her use of meldonium in doping control forms that athletes must submit along with urine samples. However, some bigger issues have also cropped up after Sharapova’s failed test. In most sports, drug tests are conducted by the respective sporting federations and there is an inherent conflict of interest in such testing. Because sporting federations aim to prevent embarrassment to the sport, there have been instances of failed drug tests being hushed up, more so when the sportsperson is a towering presence in the game. Further, in many countries, including India, the substance testing regime have been questioned on grounds of rigour and regularity.

The WADA, pushed by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is taking a tough line against Russia’s role in doping. A WADA report in November alleged state-sponsored support for doping in Russia and sought the ban on Russian athletes from the 2016 Rio Olympics until the country cleans up its anti-doping regime. Russia has now indicated its willingness to cooperate with the WADA to clean up its act. The WADA report was, however, silent on India which has the most number of dope-tainted athletes after Russia and Turkey. However, if the WADA were to turn its attention to India after dealing with Russia and Turkey, there is international embarrassment waiting just around the corner. But the WADA process of review of substance abuse also has its critics. Its agenda is driven by the USADA and the reviews are conducted behind closed doors without adequate consultations with the larger medical and sports science community. The WADA requires that for a substance to be added to the banned list, it must meet two of three criteria: it must induce performance enhancement, contravenes the spirit of sports, and is harmful to the athlete’s health. Many appeals against doping bans have successfully argued over the subjective merit of these criteria and about the athlete’s intentions or ignorance to ensure shorter ban periods. These arguments are likely to be echoed by Sharapova’s legal team too. The world requires a consistent, independent drug testing regime where individual countries and federations cannot pull their weight.

Unfortunately, we are still a long way from reaching there.