07 Dec 2011
Worldrowing.com asks Denis Oswald about the Austrian Anti-Doping Case
Worldrowing.com – ?WADA’s website carries a statement attacking FISA about its decision on the Austrian rowers. We would like to ask a few questions about this case and about the difference of opinion with WADA. First, some background on the doping case please??
Denis Oswald ? ?On FISA’s behalf, WADA conducted an unannounced visit to the Austrian Rowing Federation training camp in Ottensheim on August 1st. They tested eight rowers on that day. In fact, Martin Kobau, one of the eventually positive rowers had already gone home to Carinthia that evening but, after a phone call, volunteered to return to Ottensheim to be tested.
On August 19th, FISA was informed of the positive case and Matt Smith immediately ordered surprise tests to be conducted that same day on the whole Austrian team. The results of the follow-up testing were reported the next day, August 20th and were all negative. Then Matt informed the Austrian Federation of the three positive A samples from the original testing and placed a provisional suspension on these three rowers. They were not allowed to compete in Milan after two of them had been World Champions in 2001.?
WR.com ? ?What were they positive for and what was the explanation??
DO ? ?They were positive for a metabolite of Nandrolone, the anabolic steroid. In order to help their athletes, the Austrian Anti-Doping Lab put up a website with a list of tested and clean substances. The athletes consulted that site and purchased a product which was on the list and supposedly clean. But it was not. After the positive results, the Austrian Anti-Doping Agency immediately tested pills in the container of the Mega Ribosyn and corroborated the testimony of the rowers that this container was contaminated. This list of ?clean? products was immediately removed from this website.?
WR.com ? ?What was FISA’s decision and why??
DO ? ?FISA considered that the three athletes had no intention to cheat. Food supplements are not forbidden but athletes must be very careful in choosing them. It is why they must be able to rely on good sources of information before using such a product. What could be a better source than an IOC accredited laboratory. It is difficult to ask athletes to take other measures. Therefore, we considered that a six-month ban would be appropriate. Our assessment would have been different if the advice had come from their own medical entourage or another less reliable source.
The ban was not back dated as the athletes had already been suspended from 21st August 2003. A longer ineligibility would have deprived them the World Championships 2003 and the Olympic games 2004 which would have been equivalent to a two year suspension. This would have been totally disproportionate and unfair. FISA has always been very strict and has never hesitated to be the toughest federation but we must also take into consideration all the circumstances of the case and not be unfair whilst trying to be tough.
WR.com ? ?What is the conflict with WADA? Why do they accuse FISA of misapplying the World Anti-Doping Code??
DO ? ?WADA Director General, David Howman, wrote to us March 5th accusing us of misapplying the World Anti-Doping Code. This offence took place in 2003 and these rowers are subject to the rules in place at the time of the offence which were FISA rules, not WADA. Our rules state clearly ?It [the Executive Committee] will impose the penalty it considers appropriate, in conformity with the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (?OMAC?) in force at the time of the infringement.?
In any case, we consider our decision takes correctly into consideration the interest of world sport to fight against doping and the personal circumstances of the case and the athletes.
WADA has issued their ?statement? too quickly and have criticised our decision before carefully checking their facts and before having heard our case. Such an attitude does not foster the confidence of the International Federations in WADA.