The Romanian Olympic committee (COSR) has announced that ten athletes have recently tested positive for meldonium, while Le Monde reports that Belarusians Aliaksandr and Andrei Bahdanovich also tested positive. The brothers took gold in the C2 1,000m at the Beijing 2008 Olympics and silver at the London 2012 Olympics in the same event.

The ten athletes identified by the COSR include Leonid Carp, who has qualified for the C1 1,000m and C2 1,000m at the Rio 2016 Olympics. His partner for the C2 1,000m is Stefan Strat, who also features on the COSR list. The pair were also both members of the C4 1,000m team that took gold at the Canoe Sprint World Championships last year.

Also on the COSR list are Petrus Gavrila and Traian Neagu, who both competed in the K4 1,000m at the London 2012 Olympics, finishing in eighth place. Gavrila competed with Catalin Turceag and Daniel Burciu – who also feature on the COSR list – at the Canoe Sprint European Championships last year, finishing in eighth place.

Also listed is multiple medalist Liviu Lazar Dumitrescu; Constantin Mironescu, who was part of the team that reached the final of the K4 1,000m at the Baku 2015 European Games; Elena Meroniac, who took silver in the K2 500m in Baku; and Daniela Stanciu, who competes in the high jump. The COSR held a meeting today to discuss the situation.

According to Le Monde, the Bahdanovich brothers were two of five meldonium positives occurring as a result of testing carried out on the Belarusian canoeing team, who were staying at the Centre Omnisports at Temple-sur-Lot.

Alexander Povetkin

The B sample of Alexander Povetkin has confirmed that the concentration of meldonium in the boxer’s serum is less than the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) mandated lower limit of 1 μg/mL. Russian news agency Tass reports that the concentration of meldonium in Povetkin’s sample is 0.07 μg/mL, which means that under WADA’s Guidance Notice, the case should not proceed. The World Boxing Council (WBC) has yet to announce a final decision on Povetkin’s case.

WADA excretion studies

WADA has already confirmed that its laboratories are conducting studies on the excretion times for meldonium. The first  of these was published on 4 May and was performed on ‘two healthy male volunteers’ (not elite athletes) and found that meldonium exited the body in two phases – a rapid phase followed by a slower elimination phase. It could provide some support for athletes who have tested positive for meldonium, but claim to have stopped taking it before the 2016 Prohibited List came into effect on 1 January.

‘According to literature data, the estimated half-life (t1/2) of meldonium during the initial rapid elimination phase is 5–15 h’, it reads. ‘The results of this pilot study suggest the existence of a subsequent second and substantially slower elimination phase, attributed to a proposed incorporation of meldonium into erythrocytes. The administration of a single oral dose of meldonium was detected in human urine for up to 49 days using established doping control analytical approaches and in DBS for at least 16 days. In consideration of the multi-dose administration data and reported accumulation effects regarding meldonium and the aforementioned results that suggest the incorporation of the drug into erythrocytes allowing for sustained liberation during eryptosis, detection windows after long-term administration of high but yet therapeutic amounts of meldonium span over several weeks and might even extend to months.’

In April, WADA said that there have been 172 meldonium positives since the 2016 Prohibited List was introduced on 1 January. Russia’s Minister for Sport, Vitaly Mutko, expects WADA to complete its studies into the excretion times for meldonium in mid-June, he said on Match TV (Матч ТВ). “Up to now, no one can figure it out”, said Mutko, reports Interfax. “It may be concealing itself and hiding in the organism between six and seven months”. If Mutko is right and WADA’s research finds that meldonium can remain in the body for six or seven months, then all meldonium cases would have to be cancelled, as its ban only came into force six months ago.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) today announced that 23 of the 265 London 2012 samples re-tested returned an adverse analytical finding (AAF). The 23 AAFs involved six National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and five sports, in comparison to 12 NOCs and six sports identified by the Beijing 2008 retests.

Interestingly, 8.7% of the London 2012 samples returned an AAF, higher than the 7% of the 454 Beijing 2008 retests (the IOC also announced today that one more Beijing 2008 sample had returned an AAF, brining the total to 32 of 454 retests). Both sets of retests are higher than the 1% of AAFs typically reported, as illustrated by the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) 2014 testing figures (see table).

However, to complicate the statistics, some of the AAFs from the London 2012 retests could involve the same athletes identified in the retests of the Beijing 2008 samples. “Some of them are the same”, IOC President Thomas Bach revealed in a teleconference call last week. “Athletes who participated in Beijing and London, and may qualify for Rio”.

Interestingly, the IOC felt confident in announcing that the London 2012 retests had resulted in 23 AAFs, stating: ‘The athletes, NOCs and IFs concerned are already being informed, after which the proceedings against the athletes can begin’. With the Beijing 2008 retests, it was only able to announce that ‘up to 31’ athletes had tested positive. The IOC’s Medical and Scientific Director, Dr. Richard Budgett, later revealed that the B samples of the Beijing retests had yet to be analysed and therefore, full AAFs could only be announced “in early June”.

The IOC has already confirmed that if any of the retest AAFs involve a medallist, further retests would be required before any medals are reallocated. “A positive case involving a medalist may then lead to another retest of another athlete who would theoretically feature in the medal ranking”, said Bach. “Only then, when we have the result of this other retest, then we would decide about the reallocation of medals.”

In individual sports this is fairly straightforward, however in team sports this may require reanalysis of samples taken from an entire team. If a gold medallist is identified in a team sport, this could result in a potentially huge reanalysis programme, especially if that reanalysis uncovers further positives.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is discussing how athletes from ‘contaminated’ federations could be allowed to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympics, after IOC President Thomas Bach suggested the possibility last week. The IOC said that it was unable to give details about how such a system might operate in practice, “as the process is currently under discussion”.

The topic has become a tricky point for both the IOC and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), after Yuliya Stepanova asked the IAAF Council to consider if she could be ruled eligible to compete in Rio. Stepanova and her husband famously blew the whistle on the systemic doping that was occurring in Russian athletics back in December 2014. It would be embarrassing for both bodies if the very athlete that blew the whistle on systemic Russian doping is banned from the Olympics.

Last week the IOC also asked the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to investigate allegations that the laboratory used for the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics may have been corrupted. As Thomas Bach pointed out, this raised the possibility that other sports may have been contaminated. This has not gone unnoticed by national anti-doping agencies in Canada, the US and Switzerland, who have called for all Russian athletes to be banned from Rio – not just track and field athletes.

WADA today clarified that Richard McLaren would present his report to WADA ‘by 15 July 2016 at the latest’, after which it will be published in full by WADA within five days. This is likely to make it even more difficult for a ‘clean’ Russian athlete to be able to present a strong case that they have been adequately tested and can therefore compete in Rio.

The IAAF has yet to announce whether Stepanova will be allowed to compete in Rio, as its Taskforce was to ‘report back with a recommendation, hopefully in early May’. It is expected that the IAAF Council will make a decision on her case at its 17 June meeting, which will also consider whether Russia can be readmitted to the IAAF and, hence, the Rio Olympics.

This puts the IAAF in a difficult position, as it must make a decision on both Stepanova and Russia before WADA presents its report into the allegations that the Sochi 2014 laboratory was subverted. If the IAAF readmits Russia or – alternatively – retains Russia’s ban but allows Stepanova to compete, it may have to revisit both decisions after 15 July.

Swimming coach Dirk Lange is considering legal action after a Daily Telegraph article alleged that his company was involved with attempts to conceal doping by Chinese swimmers preparing for the Rio 2016 Olympics. The article alleged that China’s swimming team turned to Lange to run a training programme in Belek, Turkey in order to avoid being tested for prohibited substances. It also alleged that Zhou Ming, who was banned for life in 1998, was in Belek coaching Chinese swimmers.

In a letter to the Australian newspaper, Lange argues that the ‘discrete’ Turkish location mentioned in the article is the Gloria Sports Arena (pictured) in Antalya. He also argues that ‘on May 19 2016, WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] representatives were here to take samples from the Chinese swim team’. He also points out that the Chinese swimming federation have said that Ming has never been in Belek; that swimmers coached by Ming have never been in Belek; and the reason for relocating the camp from Austria to Turkey was due to visa restrictions.

Interestingly, the Chinese swimming federation statement mentioned by Lange did not deny that Ming was coaching athletes. It is understood that he has recently returned to training athletes, after his lifetime ban was reduced to eight years. It has recently been reported that two swimmers coached by Ming have tested positive for doping.

Fourteen Russians are amongst the 31 retrospective positives announced from the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) retests of 454 ‘selected’ doping samples taken at the Beijing 2008 Olympics. In a statement, the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) said that it had received notification from the IOC in relation to ‘14 athletes in three sports’.

Russian state news agency Tass, stating ‘Match TV’ (Матч ТВ) as its source, named the 14 athletes including ten medal winners (see table below). The list includes two members of the women’s 4 x 400m team, which took silver in Beijing and tallies with the ‘three sports’ identified by the ROC.

Three of the athletes identified have served doping bans in the past. Anastasiya Kapachinskaya was a member of the women’s 4 x 400 team that took silver in Beijing. She won the 200m at the 2004 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) World Indoor Championships, but was stripped of the title and banned for two years after testing positive for stanozolol. Denis Alekseyev was part of the 4 x 400m team that took bronze in Beijing, and has just returned from a two-year ban after testing positive for Dehydrochloromethyltestosterone in June 2013. Inga Abitova, who placed 6th in the 10,000m at Beijing, was given a two-year ban in 2012 for an abnormal haemoglobin profile in her athlete biological passport (ABP).

IOC response

The IOC could not confirm if Tass’ reports are correct, as it has yet to issue an adverse analytical finding (AAF) to any of the 31 athletes. The IOC’s Medical and Scientific Director, Dr. Richard Budgett, said that analysis of the athletes’ B samples will take place at start of June.

If this analysis matches the A sample analysis, then adverse analytical findings (AAFs) will be issued to those athletes concerned. The athletes will then be given the chance to explain how a prohibited substance ended up in their system. If they cannot, then an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) will be issued.

If an ADRV is determined, medal reallocation could prove tricky, as it would require the reanalysis of more samples. “A positive case involving a medalist may then lead to another retest of another athlete who would theoretically feature in the medal ranking”, said IOC President Thomas Bach in a recent teleconference call. “Only then, when we have the result of this other retest, then we would decide about the reallocation of medals”.

This could prove especially difficult if ADRVs are determined for the Russian relay team members. For example, in the case of Yulia Chermoshanskaya, this will involve retesting at least 12 more athletes before the final medal table for the 4 x 100m can be determined. As a single positive test results in team disqualification, if more positives are identified in those retests, then medal reallocation could become even more complex and take even longer.

Pressure on Russia

Currently, only Russian athletics is excluded from taking part in the Rio 2016 Olympics, as its membership of the IAAF has been suspended. That Russians make up almost half of the 31 retrospective positives announced by the IOC puts further pressure on the IAAF, whose Council will be deciding if Russian athletics has done enough to be readmitted at its meeting in Monaco on 17 June.

“’I don’t think the IAAF has any grounds not to restore our team to competition for the Rio Olympics”, Russia’s Minister for Sport Vitaly Mutko told journalists. “Personally, I am in favour of individual punishments for athletes who violate anti-doping rules”. Anti-Doping Organisations (ADOs) such as Anti-Doping Switzerland and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) have called for a total ban on Russia taking part.

The IOC has appointed the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to investigate allegations that the former Director of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, subverted the doping control process at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics anti-doping laboratory. Despite this, WADA has recently allowed the Moscow laboratory to perform blood analyses for the ABP.

“WADA has granted approval to the Anti-Doping Centre Moscow to exclusively conduct blood analyses in support of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP)”, a WADA spokesperson told The Sports Integrity Initiative. “However, this does not mean that the lab has been reaccredited”.