Curtis Myrie, Contributor
I TOLD you that resolutely would I be standing at the finish line of science, following the race being run on Merlene Ottey's adjudged positive test returns on the banned substance nandrolone.
Determined strides towards this end were going to be taken for this was the type of persistence needed, in pursuit of the truth.
A 'specific gravity' of the given variables to be analysed was going to be maintained. Objectivity would be the rule upheld. It would decide and determine steps to clear the hurdles. Balance would be used to clear the bar.
The arbitration panel of the International Amateur Athletic Federation cleared Merlene Ottey, the heralded athlete of the decade, on matters of due science. That was the subject of scrutiny - not the scale of suspicions. At issue were ph and specific gravity readings, taken into account, to determine consistency in urine samples.
It's always done, measured by a dipstick from the samples taken. If the ph is at 1.025 (as was the reading for Ottey when the sample was taken) then a special formula is applied, which takes into account the recordings of ph, specific gravity, the adjudged substance or metabolite test levels, and, in the case of nandrolone, the ratios of the metabolites NA:NE, largely to determine the exogenous or endogenous sources of the substance found - calculating, as it were, whether if it was administered or naturally produced.
This ratio was as a result of research work done by the late Meinfeld Donike and others. This acclaimed scientist, head of the International Olympic Committee's Cologne lab, a man foremost in the field of hormone study, reported from research that when administered, the ratio of nandrolone metabolites NA:NE was 3 - 5:1, while from endogenous sources 1:1. Please, do note, for it is to be stressed, That the ratios of Merlene Ottey were 1.4:1 in sample A and 1:1 in sample B. Long before this came to arbitration, if these ratios were upheld, Merlene Ottey should have been declared not guilty.
The point of contention here by Ottey's defence team at the arbitration was that the ph reading of 1.025, recorded when the sample was taken, should have been used for the formula applied, and not the ph reading of 1.019, recorded by the lab, when the sample was received - particularly when it is to be noted that the minor meet in Switzerland was being held on an extremely hot day and ph and specific gravity could be affected by the athletes dehydration.
In addition, it was also of note, that the sample took almost two days to reach the lab (and it is to be mentioned that time and conditions of travel do at times affect the consistency of the sample taken - there have been instances).
Yet it must be mentioned that no one is charging impropriety on the part of the lab, though the IAAF has reported an error has been committed. The lab, as is meticulously done everywhere, took its own ph and specific gravity reading. It must also be said, from our examinations, that often those readings at the collection centre and lab are similar. So the practice has been one where Labs use their own ph and specific gravity test returns. In Ottey's case, however, there were exceptional circumstances, specifically the variance in ph readings where at such levels (1.025) the special formula is applied.
When applied (again, with the adjudged metabolite test returns and ratios duly considered) Ottey posted adjusted nandrolone levels below the stipulated 5 nanogrammes for women. Scientific sources stress, that importantly, it was also as a result of her levels recorded - 15 and 10 in the first sample and 14 and 11 in the second. The point that is being made here is that although in other cases there may be similar ph readings of 1.025, the recorded metabolite levels are higher than in Ottey's samples. The resulting computations, for adjusted levels, would still have higher returns than the margins stipulated. As such, don't expect other athletes to be cleared in like fashion.
A number of those presently waiting on arbitration are going to have to take their cases to the Court of Tribunal.
This then should remove all doubt of Ottey's guilt ... and please, let's stop the gibberish about her getting off on a matter of technicality. It's imbecile. The hurdle, the bar was cleared on specific matters and issues of science, given the steps being followed for particular circumstances and conditions.
Stop the witch hunt, the 'duppy stories'. Let's have an end to the drivel. We know how some of you, obsequiously, believe as Jamaicans we're only champions of chicanery, reflections of your own conduct. Constantly, your pilgrimage is that of proving us all as charlatans. Unlike you, we're not all quacks.
She stands, she strides, as the genuine article, an athlete of unimagined durability. You'd rather others be larger than life, but believe it or not Ottey is that portrait, than pin-up poster. Ambassador at large, the world's undisputed sprint queen is as real as you can imagine.
Remove from track side, the suspicions and the 'suss'. Time to join our applauding gallery. We still challenge, however, the stipulated levels, given findings of prevailing bodies of science which note in particular that women, ingesting certain food supplements, ovulating, and under the stress of training, can and do record higher than the accepted levels.
And we will not agree with your sample method of the initial test for nandrolone conducted exclusively on European males, for we note the likely burst of disclaimers if such a test was done on Africans alone. We are heartened by the fact that the governing bodies have now undertaken to do more research. As was said by queen Merlene, it is science that will absolve us all.
It's a race that's always to be run.
Curtis Myrie is a sports journalist and marketer, specialising in promotional campaigns, advertising, television production and publications.
