THE World Anti-Doping Agency has denied suppressing research findings.
A biology professor at Oslo University, Kristian Gundersen, has claimed he was offered a research grant by WADA but rejected it because their conditions were unacceptable and "illegal under Norwegian rules on academic freedom ".
He said WADA wanted the right to amend his research data and provided The Herald with a copy of the contract which appears to uphold his view.
We initially approached WADA on Monday, a public holiday at their Montreal headquarters. By the time they responded to further enquiries on Tuesday we had gone to press with a story of mice, men, and a possible explanation for the unprecedented sprinting of convicted doping cheat Justin Gatlin. And expressed a personal view that such cheats should be banned for life.
A spokesman for the agency stated, however: "Under no circumstances are WADA suppressing research findings. WADA do not interfere with the science of funded studies."
The clause in the contract to which Professor Gundersen took exception, said: "Draft publications shall be submitted for review to WADA Science Department at least 30 days prior to submission for publication. WADA shall reserve the right to comment and request reasonable modifications which shall be adopted by the Research Team."
Professor Gundersen said after reading the "small print of the contract I could not accept it".
WADA told The Herald: "The reason for WADA retaining the right to read the research study prior to submission for publication is to ensure that the outcomes of the anti-doping research have not deviated in any way from the original purpose of the study."
We have, however, found other evidence of WADA blocking publication of research they commissioned themselves.
They wished to determine more accurately how many athletes use performance-enhancing drugs. More than 2000 track and field competitors were reviewed in a survey which guaranteed anonymity. It revealed that an estimated 29% of competitors at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu, and 45% of those at the 2011 Pan-Arab Games in Doha said they had doped in the past year. Fewer than 2% of anti-doping samples analysed by WADA laboratories in 2010 were positive.
The New York Times carried the story in August 2013, under the heading: "Anti-doping Agency Delays Publication of Research." It stated researchers were eager to publish their results, exposing the reality of drug cheating that "far more athletes are doping than might be imagined, and that current drug-testing protocols catch few of the cheats".
A final draft of the study was submitted to WADA who "ultimately told the researchers they could not publish their findings at this time", stated the American newspaper. They cited three of the research team who sought anonymity because they had signed confidentiality agreements.
We put this to WADA yesterday. At time of going to press we were still awaiting a response.
When Professor Gundersen heard WADA's earlier response, he said their denial: "Is not the reason that was given to me by WADA. The explanation is also inconsistent with the contract clause which clearly states WADA have the right to demand changes to the research reports. Either the spokesperson is misinformed, or he is lying to you."
The research at Oslo University's department of Life Science demonstrated that muscles boosted by anabolic agents retain a "memory" of the effects which allow the benefits to continue long after steroids are no longer being used.
This research on mice, if replicated in humans, could explain the unprecedented performances of the 2004 Olympic 100 metres champion Gatlin, who ran the fastest time of his life at 33 - nine years after he failed a test for steroid use.
It was an attempt to secure funding to explore "muscle memory" in humans that prompted the dialogue between Professor Gundersen and WADA.
The professor says he is not a doping expert and that the issues surrounding Gatlin and longer suspensions are "political". WADA have had to fight hard to increase the former two-year suspension to four. But we are surprised that in light of Gundersen's research they are not pushing for more. There is insufficient protection for honest athletes.
The chairman of UK Athletics, Ed Warner, in an interview published yesterday, advocated what we proposed to the International Association of Athletics Federations in February this year: exclusion of Russia until they clean up their act. The IAAF said then they did not wish to compromise WADA investigations when we suggested exclusion as an option for them and the Olympic movement. We suggested they exercise it before it is too late.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article