🔗 Share this article

The Norwegian football team has urged more rigorous doping control rules after an unprecedented case in which a footballer from their women’s team was found to have a banned substance originating from artificial turf infill in an artificial pitch.

Landmark Decision Exposes External Dangers

An extensive investigation ended this week when Wada decided against appealing the decision of Norwegian anti-doping officials that the athlete was not at fault. However this groundbreaking ruling has brought attention to the potential dangers to athletes of surrounding contamination to banned substances and raised the chance of more problems emerging around the numerous artificial pitches throughout Europe.

The Game and Surprising Finding

The possibility of a banned substance was not anticipated when the club met their opponents at the stadium in the location, near Oslo, on 22 April. However a routine substance check found multiple individuals from each side had provided tests showing the prohibited substance DMBA. A single test, from the individual, exceeded the Wada reporting threshold of the set limit.

Investigation and Revelation

It triggered an inquiry that confused officials from the two teams and Adno, which discovered no common denominators in food, beverages or other supplements taken by the athletes concerned. The individual, who has decided to be unnamed, expressed the anxiety brought on by finding out she was facing a doping offence. “It was an awful moment,” she said. “It was a deeply unsettling situation and it was hard to comprehend the situation.”

The athlete was allowed to resume her sport while the case proceeded. She believes the stress it created could have influenced some of her performances and was very grateful when a surroundings probe, which ended during the summer, ultimately found the unexpected origin.

Origin Revealed

Officials concluded, following analysis liquid tests and substances from various locations within the facility, that the artificial infill – known popularly as tyre granules – on the field had harboured the DMBA, which had been transmitted to the individuals through contact. This compound is a man-made compound that stimulates neurological functions and is sometimes used in health aids, even though it is illegal in Norway and Europe. It was known, by scientific analysis, to be a substance that can occur through breakdown of the tyre material and there is some annoyance that this wasn’t detected during the investigation.

No Fault Found

The individual was ruled as having no fault or negligence in the pioneering situation in elite sport where external contact has been responsible for a suspected positive test. “I was always sure I did nothing wrong and I thank officials for tracing the source to the venue,” she said.

“However, the process and outcome feel somewhat arbitrary. Had officials failed to identify the granulate as the cause, my case could have been significantly harder. As an athlete who is extremely careful, adhere to regulations and nonetheless end up being facing this type of incident, it demonstrates how at risk individuals may be in competition.”

Ongoing Issues

These pitches are not deemed to pose a health risk to athletes but concerns have been expressed in the past about their role in microplastics pollution. Beginning that year, rubber crumb infill will be barred from sale in Europe. Following this incident, the Norwegian Football Federation recommended that indoor fixtures be moved outdoors. It is estimated roughly numerous such synthetic surfaces in the nation and they are also widespread in the UK, particularly at grassroots level. No international standard to ensure synthetic pitches are without materials prohibited in competition.

Calls for Change

The team are calling for regulations to be strengthened to accept that a positive doping test is not necessarily caused by the individual’s behaviour, deliberate or accidental. International regulations are built around “strict liability”. These are detailed in the specific clause of Wada’s anti-doping code, which states: “Officials do not need that purpose, blame, irresponsibility or deliberate intake from the individual be shown to determine a positive test.”

A senior official, the Vålerenga CEO, stated: “Surrounding elements must be high on the radar moving forward. It requires developing a complete picture of what in the environment might cause a positive result. Anti-doping work must evolve and such cases have to become a much larger part of the factors that are reviewed.”

Future Implications

There remains a concern that, now the risk of contamination through pitches has been highlighted, theoretically any individual to show a violation for similar circumstances would not be able to escape liability. Rudd additionally considers whether the probe might have been as thorough if a single athlete had returned samples including DMBA during the game.

Looking Ahead

The cleared athlete said: “With luck future players facing similar circumstances will have improved rights going forward. Regulations as they are today may result in {an innocent athlete|a blameless player|a