EXCERPTS CONCERNING DOPING CONTROL

 

FROM

 

 REPORTS PRODUCED DURING THE LATTER YEARS

 AS AN EAA/IAAF OFFICIAL

 

 

EAA PERMIT MEETING 1998

 

b) Doping control

 

The supervisor of the doping control was Dr. med. X. Before meeting her, Mr Y informed me that it was compulsory in this country to make 8 tests instead of the EAA requested minimum of 5 tests, and I agreed to select also the three additional athletes.

 

When meeting Dr X prior to the meeting it turned out to my surprise that she was the only sampling officer, and that she had with her, only 5 sets of the EAA approved collecting material mentioned in the letter of 16 December 1997, with enclosures, from EAA to the organiser. In this case Versapack.

 

Apart from that, she had a number of the old type glass bottles for wax sealing. As, according to aforementioned letter, neither IAAF nor EAA, and consequently not I, had been informed about this, and as this would mean that two different systems would be used at the event, I had to make the choice only to select the minimum of 5 athletes, which was also in accordance with the written information Dr X had from the national federation, in which could also be seen, that at no other of the meetings she were to attend in 1998, were there a request for 8 samples.

 

However Dr X informed me that she had in due time contacted the national federation and Mr Y, and requested that a greater number of Versapack should be awailable, which, according to the aforementioned letter, should be paid for by the federation or by the organiser, but without any result.

 

I informed Mr Y of my decision, and of the fact that I found the situation to be most unsatisfactory. Mr.Y expressed the opinion that only the 5 samples were the business of EAA, everything else was a “national” matter. I therefore had to state, with reference to aforementioned letter

1)     that it beeing an EAA Permit Meeting, everything concerning the meeting was a matter for

            the EAA

2)  that I had the obligation to increase the number of samples, if anything gave me reason to do so

3)  that athletes setting a national record had the right to be tested at their own request

4)  that athletes setting an area or world record had to be tested.

 

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless, it turned out that Mr. Y, without informing me, and as it seems to me, absolutely without any authority to do so, told Dr X to perform tests on 3 additional athletes of his choice, also contrary to the instructions Dr X had from the national federation. Had he not done so, there would have been enough Versapack material, as there were no requests as under 3) and no records as under 4).

 

It seems to me highly irregular that a Meeting Director, at any kind of meeting, has got any direct influence on the doping control at his own meeting, not to mention on the selection of some of the athletes to be tested. Worse still, it is absolutely unacceptable that he overrules the decision of the EAA Representative, not to mention that in doing so, he creates serious and unnecessary problems.

 

Dr X, who informed me that she had never before tried using Versapack, worked very hard using the two systems, and with no one to assist her. She was noticeable stressed and also informed me that 8 samples were too much for her to handle alone, and that earlier there had normally been two doping officers. The only assistance she got was that the Doping Stewards surveyed the athletes also inside the toilet, which is not in accordance with the IAAF Procedural Guidelines 2.12 and 2.13.

 

Dr X wanted to retain one copy from each of the eight doping forms as she needed it as documentation for the national federation in order to receive her salary. I told her that that was not possible, as EAA in this case was the relevant authority to receive this, but accomodated her by producing photocopies for her, on which the identity of the athletes were not to be seen, at the same time telling her that she was, under no circumstances, allowed to reveal the identity of the tested athletes to anyone. 

 

Dr X took the samples with her, informing me that they would be forwarded to the laboratory by normal mail.

 

The Meeting Doctor, Mr Z, who, according to Mr Y, had nothing to do with the doping control, was however, to some extend, supervising the Doping Stewards, of which some were unexperienced, and I went over the procedures with him and Dr X prior to the meeting, and was told that Dr Z would assist when male athletes were to provide samples. As mentioned that was not the way it was done, and I do not know how well the Stewards were instructed regarding this. Otherwise it seemed to me that the Stewards performed their job very well.

 

 I have on the xxx 1998, forwarded one set of the completed doping forms to EAA under confidential cover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IAAF PERMIT MEETING 1998

 

IV  Doping control

  

The sampling officer was Dr  X, assisted by Ms Y .

 

Unfortunately Dr X made a mistake, as he forgot to write the code numbers on the forms concerning the men´s 800 m. This was discovered when I collected the forms, and the missing numbers were written on three of the copies afterwards, but obviously the fourth copy, the athlete´s copy, does not contain the numbers.

 

Before the Meeting Mr Z who, among other things, was in charge of the Doping Control, asked me to instruct the doping stewards, of which some had experience, some not. We held a joint meeting with the absolutely adequate number of stewards, which seemed very relevant and rewarding.

 

Unfortunately the stewards did not have the necessary accreditation, so that there were areas they were not allowed to enter. I therefore underlined that absolutely nobody had any authority over them, when accompanying an athlete, and if necessary they should use the notice form to obtain access.

 

 

 

 

EAA PERMIT MEETING 2000

 

 

4.1                      Doping Control Area

 

Were there adequate        - facilities                                                                                                                                            YES

                                            - personnel                                                                                                                                          NO

 

Please give a brief description of the facilities used, and the general security at the control station:

 

At my first talk with the Meeting Director X, I told him that I wanted to meet with the doping stewards before the competition. However, on competition day it appeared that it was the intention of the organizer to let one of the experienced judges, acting at an event from which an athlete was chosen, perform the job as doping steward. Thus there were no specific group of stewards which I could address. Additionally I felt somewhat doubtful as to the possibility that, at all events, there would be a judge present who had the experience, or had been properly instructed about the responsibilities, of a doping steward.     It later turned out, unfortunately, that at least in some of the cases a very young girl of perhaps 15 years, who was not a judge, had acted as a steward, and when I was at the Control Station after the meeting had finished, she appeared there together with a male athlete, whom she obviously also not would  have been able to accompany everywhere.   As the last to be tested arrived an athlete, apparently without being accompanied by a steward, and when investigating the matter, I found out the following:   The athlete had finished the competition around 19.50 hrs. According to the Doping Control Form ( but not according to the notice form), the athlete had been notified at 20.10 hrs (which is anyway too late according to the IAAF Regulations), had turned up at the control at 20.30 hrs, and the sampling procedure was finished at 21,15 hrs. However, after having arrived at 20.30 hrs the athlete had left again on his/her own, with the consent of Dr Y "in order to fetch some water in his/her car". As witnessed by me, the athlete returned again shortly before 21.15 hrs.   When questioning Dr Y about this, he said that he did not think that to be a problem, and that whether the athlete waited at the Doping Control Station or anywhere else did not matter.   During my visit to the Control Station I witnessed that the nurse present left a female athlete alone in the toilet for a short period.   When afterwards I was handed the doping control papers, I also collected seven "Notice To Athletes" still left at the Control Station, and it appeared that:   Only on one of these had the time of notification been written.   On five notifications the copy for the athlete was still attached and had not been handed over to the athlete.   Obviously the doctor responsible for the testing, Mr Y had not taken any interest in this, and had thus not been able to check whether the athletes had shown up within the one hour time limit. However, surprisingly a time of notification is written on six of the nine Control Forms, one of them being the only one, where the time of notification is also written on the notice form. However, the two times are not identical (19.30 respectively 19.40 hrs), and it appears from the Notice Form, that it has at first been presented wrongly to another athlete. Additionally, when comparing the time stated on the Notice Form with the time the event finished - around 19.00 - about 40 minutes had elapsed before the athlete was notified. Also definitely not in accordance with the IAAF Regulations.   On five out of the nine Doping Forms the time when the sampling procedure had been completed is missing. On all nine doping forms the Bottle Codes are stated wrongly also in the space concerning second samples. On one out of the nine Doping Forms the time of arrival at the Control Station is missing On two out of the nine Doping Forms the competitor´s number is missing. On eight out of the nine Doping Forms the sex of the athlete is missing. On two out of the nine Doping Forms the amount of urine is missing. None of the samples have been tested for pH.   On one Doping Control Form the athlete has written some remarks, which I cannot decipher completely, however it is undoubtedly an objection to the doping control procedure, which apparently Dr Y has not reacted to, and which may have necessitated a second test.   Only on the morning of the day of the meeting, Mr X informed me that because of an agreement between national organizers, eight test were to be taken instead of the five stipulated by EAA. Again, as he had done the day before, he, in very strong terms, expressed his great dissatisfaction, and anger that he was not to be involved in the selection of the athletes to be tested, and kept repeating that the organizer had always been used to be involved in that. I do not understand the eagerness and tenacity of Mr X to take part in the selection, and to know on beforehand which placings were selected, as definitely he had a lot of other things to attend to.   However, with the specific procedure concerning selection of stewards, it was necessitated that Dr Y informed Mr X about which placings I had selected, so that he could inform the experienced judges at the relevant events .   It  turned out that Dr Y expected Mr X to take care of the delivery of the samples to the laboratory, and that Mr X expected Dr Y to do it, both based on the argument that that was what they had always been used  to do. I asked Dr Y to take care of this, which he accepted to do.   It should be quite obvious from the above, that very little has functioned correctly in connection with this doping control, and that everyone involved in the procedure seemed to know very little about it.   When the situation at one of only two EAA Outdoor Permit Meetings in this country is like this, one cannot help wondering whether all the pretty words about fighting doping are but just that - words.

 

Were all personnel in the control station authorised?                                                                      YES

 

4.5       Name of the LOC nominated person, responsible for the doping control:

Mr X informed me that Mr Z was appointed. I asked to meet with him, but that never happened, and I did not see him in connection with the doping control.

                     

4.8                 By whom, and how, was the transportation of the samples to the testing
laboratory supervised?	Dr Y

 

 

4.9                 Were the „IAAF Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control“ adhered to?

NO

4.10                      Were the athletes co-operative?                                               YES

 

4.11     Do you have any suggestions which might improve the control procedure?

See above.

 

 

 

 

EAA PERMIT MEETING 2002

 

 

4.1                      Doping Control Area

 

Were there adequate       

- facilities                                                                                                                   YES / NO

- personnel                                                                                                                  YES / NO

 

Please give a brief description of the facilities used, and the general security at the control station:

 

In the two days before the meeting I tried to inspect the facilities, however, on the first day I was told that the rooms were occupied, and on the second that they were locked, so only about one hour before the start of the first event did I get access to the rooms. At this time there were no chairs in the waiting room, no refrigerator and no drinks. Eventually this was taken care of  just before, or during, the first events.

 

Were all personnel in the control station authorised?                                                YES / NO

 

4.7        Which type of sampling material was used?

It was marked:  “Berlinger Special AG”

 

              Whether this corresponds with the prescribed BEREG-KIT-94 is not known to

            me. 

 

4.9       Were the „IAAF Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control“ adhered to?        YES / NO

At a meeting with the organisers, attended also by Mr X, it turned out that they did not have, and did not know the above IAAF doping control guideline book, and also that they intended to use some national forms as Notice to Athletes and Doping Control Form. I had the IAAF notice form copied, and the doping control forms adjusted in handwriting, so that they contained the required information (copy enclosed).

 

The organisers had planned for two doping stewards, which I got upgraded to five, and on the day of the meeting, I instructed the stewards about their task and responsibilities.

           

4.10     Were the athletes co-operative?                                                                          YES / NO

 

4.11        Do you have any suggestions which might improve the control procedure?

 

As the doping control officers did not speak a major language, an interpreter should be provided, and information as to which language(s) that could be used should be provided on beforehand.

 

 

 

 

IAAF INDDOOR PERMIT MEETING 2002

 

 

 

4.1                      Doping Control Area:

 

Were there adequate                              - facilities                                                    YES / NO

                                                                  - personnel                                                  YES / NO

 

Please give a brief description of the facilities used and the general security of the control station:

 

 

Were all the personnel in the control station authorised?                      YES / NO

 

The doping control was performed by X, who obviously was very experienced and efficient, and very co-operative. He was ably assisted by Ms Y.

 

 

4.3                      Please name the LOC nominated person responsible for the doping control:

 

 

4.5                      What sort of sampling material was used?

 

 

4.6       Was the transportation of the samples to the testing laboratory

supervised by a member of the Organising Committee or National Federation?                                                                                                                 YES / NO

 

Delivered by the sampling officer personally.

 

4.7     Where the “IAAF Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control” adhered to?                      YES / NO

 

However, for some unknown reason, it appears that a doping steward left

one notified athlete alone for about 15 minutes.

 

4.8                      Were the athletes co-operative?                                                 YES / NO

 

4.9       Do you have any practical suggestions which might improve the control standards?

 

 

 

 

EUROPEAN CUP 2003

 

Excerpt from a report produced by another EAA Technical Delegate

 

Doping control

7. Which type of sampling material was used?                                                         Urine

 

 

 

 

May 2004

Georg Facius