The Electronic Telegraph Wednesday 26 July 2000 Tom Knight THE Olympic flame is burning again for Mark Richardson and Dougie Walker after the two athletes had their doping suspensions lifted in separate decisions yesterday. Richardson, 28 today, plans to race at next week's British Grand Prix at Crystal Palace and then the Olympic trials in Birmingham after being cleared by UK Athletics. He said: "I'm obviously delighted and relieved that the nightmare is over. I've not been training as diligently as I should have been but there's still time to put things right." The date of Walker's return to the track for the first time in 19 months is less certain following events in the High Court, where Mrs Justice Hallett ordered that the European 200 metres champion be free to compete again in the United Kingdom, effectively overruling his suspension which was imposed retrospectively - and therefore unfairly, according to Justice Hallett - by the International Amateur Athletic Federation pending an arbitration hearing due next month. Walker could run in this weekend's Scottish championships but, like Richardson, harbours ambitions of running in the Olympic Games in September. The 26-year-old Scot will at least have the chance to run in the trials. He added: "I can now get back to racing and see what happens. It gives me a chance. It's all I can ask for." Both athletes tested positive for nandrolone, and while the Olympic flame might resemble only a flicker for some time yet, their reinstatement suggests the casting of some light on the mystery surrounding the controversial steroid featured in a spate of recent doping cases. Richardson's reprieve came after the disciplinary panel hearing his case accepted the early findings of a nandrolone inquiry, sanctioned and part-funded by the IAAF, and conducted by British scientists. The inquiry, led by Prof Ron Maughan of Aberdeen University, follows UK Sport's Nandrolone Review which earlier this year suggested supplements as the likely source of nandrolone in athletes' urine samples. But this latest inquiry, initiated by David Moorcroft, chief executive of UK Athletics, has discovered a link between exercise and the use of legal dietary supplements which could explain nandrolone readings above the International Olympic Committee's recommended limit of two nanograms per millilitre in men. Richardson and Walker were among the three athletes used in the research which required them to provide urine samples for seven days during which they trained but took no supplements. The two athletes then supplied a further series of samples over a second week when they were allowed to take the supplements they used when they failed drug tests. The supplements were previously analysed to make sure they were safe. One set of samples was negative but the other, supplied by Richardson, showed levels of nandrolone metabolites, in some cases at levels higher than 10ng/ml. Three volunteers subsequently recruited took supplements and the only one who tested positive was the athlete who trained. The inquiry's initial report concluded that the combination of exercise and dietary supplements can result in a positive nandrolone finding. Prof Maughan said: "This is not a full explanation of what's happening with athletes testing positive but what we have are pieces of a jigsaw. The numbers in our research are very small and science likes to deal in big numbers. We need further investigation to confirm these findings." The results were, however, enough to convince Richardson's disciplinary hearing that it is possible to test positive for metabolites of nandrolone without having ingested the drug itself. Richardson said: "My name has been cleared, not on a technicality but on scientific grounds. I was looking to the authorities to get to the bottom of this mess and if they hadn't come through with this evidence, I would have been banned for two years." Moorcroft said the IAAF were fully appraised of the inquiry findings. "I hope we can put pressure on the IAAF to take a retrospective look at the other nandrolone cases involving British athletes," he said. Crucially, he also wants the IAAF to reconsider their rule on strict liability which determines that if a prohibited substance is found the athlete concerned should be removed from competition. Despite yesterday's developments, it is still possible that the IAAF will uphold that rule with Walker and the other two Britons facing arbitration hearings, Linford Christie and Gary Cadogan. They could also call back Richardson's case. Richardson's reprieve, however, suggests that the IAAF will have to reconsider their position on nandrolone when their ruling council meet next Wednesday to discuss their strategy on doping issues ahead of the Olympics. The implications for the other Britons are enormous. Nick Bitel, the lawyer representing Walker, said: "The research being done in Britain is hugely important and follows what we have said all along about the link with supplements." Last night it appeared the IAAF would honour the High Court decision. An IAAF spokesman said: "As a principle, we are against any interference in our right to set the rules for the sport around the world, but this is not a big surprise. This is a decision of the England court and only valid in British territory." Eamonn Condon WWW.RunnersGoal.com
