WADA drug testing better, but still falls short

For example, there is a huge discrepancy between WADA laboratories with regard to the number of IRMS tests conducted in 2013. When compared as a proportion of total IC and OOC Samples Analyzed per Laboratory (as reported in ADAMS), IRMS tests ranged from 0.06% for Bangkok (2 of 3227) to 7.36% for Salt Lake City (429 of 5823) with Lausanne 7.1% (438 of 6165). Only Montreal, Paris, Los Angeles, London, and Beijing had a rate above 4%, with Sydney at just 1.51%.

But numbers do not tell the whole story. As WADA's Technical Document on IRMS indicates, such analysis can be used beyond being a Confirmation Procedure when a laboratory receives an 'Atypical Passport Finding Confirmation Procedure Request', or a 'Suspicious Steroid Profile Confirmation Procedure', unless the Testing Authority can justify that the GC-C-IRMS analysis is not necessary within 7 calendar days. Additional IRMS analysis can be performed on any urine Sample when requested by the Testing Authority, the Athlete Passport Management Unit, or WADA, 'even if the Markers of the "steroid profile" are within the normal ranges'.

Most importantly, WADA has added the Steroidal Module program to the Athlete Biological Passport since early 2014 through longitudinal profiling of 'an athlete's normal physiological levels' by 'analyzing an athlete's steroidal variables which are collected over a period of time through traditional urine testing'. By using the athlete's own values rather than population values as a basis for evaluation, given that there is some variation with regard to the T/E ratio, IRMS tests are then done when an athlete records 'an atypical pattern based on the athlete's own expected values' regardless of a low or high T/E level.

But how can one prove that the system working, especially with the 2014 and 2015 success of Justin Gatlin who is now running faster than ever after previously been banned for testosterone use, as revealed by IRMS testing?

After asking USADA (email sent 16 June 2015) how many times IRMS testing was used to test Gatlin in 2014 and 2015, USADA (Annie Skinner) responded that it is 'not able to share specific testing information about individual athletes', but that 'CIR is regularly used, and is not used only as a follow-up to T/E ratio'. Gatlin faced 15 USADA tests during 2014 alone.

While it may be possible to still beat testing for PED use, an improving testing regime may help explain why Adverse Analytical Findings from IRMS decreased from 5.75% in 2012 to 3.2% in 2013.

What is most important with regard to testosterone testing is closing any opportunity for micro-dosing. While the IAAF Registered Testing Pool's whereabouts information allows for 'a specific 60-minute time slot (between 0500 and 2300 hours) where they will be available and accessible for testing at a specific location', this does not prevent the IAAF testing an athlete 'anytime, anywhere'.

What should also be considered in 2015 when assessing the effectiveness of the testing regime is its impact on nations which previously did not provide extensive scrutiny of their athletes. For example, while the Jamaican Antiâ€Doping Commission conducted just 23 OCT in 2013 and just one OCT between March and July before the London Olympics, WADA praised Jamaica's efforts during February 2015 to establish an effective drug-testing program after collaboration with the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport.

During 2012 and 2013, the Jamaican Antiâ€Doping Commission conducted zero blood tests, with this form of testing crucial to the detection of growth hormone which can also assist power events. However, the latest GH test, which caught two powerlifters at the 2012 Paralympics, is said to now detect use up to two weeks after administration by measuring several lasting markers, including insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1) produced by the liver.

But 2015 will be an interesting year for understanding whether drug testing is effective, perhaps highlighted best by the clash between Bolt and Gatlin at the 2015 World Championships.

While some describe Bolt, the saviour of the sport, against Gatlin who has served drug bans, others point to Bolt having worked with Angel Hernandez (formerly known as Angel Heredia) who had admitted to helping clients use performance-enhancing drugs and avoiding detection.

As other commentary suggests, if Gatlin is the subject of 'unprecedented scepticism' as a former doper, why can't scepticism be directed at a man who beats Gatlin by 0.16s in terms of personal bests.