The Norwegian football team has called for stricter anti-doping regulations after an extraordinary incident in which a player from their women’s team tested positive for an illegal stimulant from shredded tyre granulate in an artificial pitch.
Landmark Decision Reveals External Risks
An extensive process concluded this week when Wada decided against appealing the conclusion of Adno that the athlete was not at fault. Yet this unprecedented situation has brought attention to the potential dangers to footballers of external contact to banned substances and opened up the chance of more issues emerging around the numerous synthetic pitches across Europe.
The Game and Unexpected Result
The spectre of a doping violation was not expected when the club faced their opponents at the stadium in Lillestrøm, near Oslo, this spring. Yet a standard drug test found four players from each club had provided tests with the prohibited substance DMBA. A single test, submitted by the athlete in question, exceeded the detection level of 50 ng/ml.
Investigation and Revelation
This led to an investigation that baffled authorities from the two teams and anti-doping Norway, which found no shared factors in diet, beverages or other supplements used by the individuals involved. The individual, who has opted to stay anonymous, expressed the stress brought on by discovering she was facing a doping offence. “This was a horrible moment,” she said. “It was a very distressing situation and it was hard to comprehend the situation.”
She was able to continue her career while the inquiry continued. She believes the stress it cast may have affected some of her performances and was deeply relieved when an external inquiry, which wrapped up during the summer, at last identified the unusual cause.
Cause Found
Officials concluded, upon examining water samples and compounds from different areas within the facility, that the rubber crumb – known popularly as rubber crumb – on the pitch had harboured the stimulant, which had been passed on to the individuals through contact. This compound is an artificial material that stimulates the body’s nerves and is occasionally found in health aids, although it is illegal in the country and the European Union. Studies indicated, through academic research, to be a substance that can occur from the decomposition of the synthetic infill and there is some annoyance that this wasn’t detected during the investigation.
No Fault Determined
The athlete was found to have borne no fault or negligence in the pioneering situation in professional athletics where environmental exposure has been leading to a suspected doping offence. “I was always sure I was innocent and I thank the authorities for tracing the source to LSK-Hallen,” she said.
“However, the process and outcome seem a bit random. If Adno had not been able to find the source as the cause, my position could have been much more difficult. If you are very cautious, follow all the rules and nonetheless end up being drawn into a case like this, it demonstrates how at risk individuals may be as an athlete.”
Potential Problems
The surfaces are not considered to pose a health risk to players but concerns have been expressed previously about their role in plastic waste. Beginning that year, rubber crumb infill will be barred from sale in the EU. After the Vålerenga case, the national association advised that games played inside be relocated outside. It is estimated about many hundreds these artificial pitches in the country and they are also widespread in Britain, especially at amateur sports. There is no global rule to ensure synthetic pitches are clear of materials banned in competition.
Urgent Adjustments
Vålerenga are urging the rules to be strengthened to acknowledge that a failed test is not always linked to the individual’s behaviour, deliberate or accidental. International regulations are built around “absolute responsibility”. Regulations are detailed in the specific clause of Wada’s anti-doping code, which states: “It is not necessary that purpose, blame, negligence or deliberate intake on the athlete’s part be demonstrated to confirm an anti-doping violation.”
The CEO, representing the team, commented: “External conditions really need to be a top priority going ahead. It requires maintaining a complete picture of what surrounding conditions could lead to a positive result. Anti-doping work needs to improve and these situations have to become an increased priority of the elements which are assessed.”
Future Implications
There remains a worry that, given that the danger of exposure through surfaces has been flagged, in theory any athlete to test positive for the same reason would not be able to avoid responsibility. Rudd also wonders if the investigation might have been as detailed if a single athlete had shown results with the substance during the game.
Hope for the Future
The cleared athlete said: “With luck future players in this position will have stronger legal protection ahead. The rules in their current form can lead to {an innocent athlete|a blameless player|a
