Robert Helenius’ doping test has caused a stir worldwide. However, it is not necessarily a doping violation.
PDO
of Robert Helenius and Anthony Joshua Matchroom Boxing, which was the promoter of the match between
The promoter’s special announcement was supposed to mean a doping violation, but the testing manager of the Finnish Sports Ethics Center Katja Huotari points out that this is not necessarily the case.
The press release stated that an “adverse analytical finding” was found in Helenius’ tests. According to Huotar, this does not automatically indicate a doping violation.
– Adverse Analytical finding, does not mean that it is a doping violation, but that it is just a finding. This can mean, for example, that a medicinal substance has been found in the athlete’s sample, for which he has a right to differ, says Huotari.
Exemption means that the athlete has permission to use a substance on the list of prohibited substances and methods in sports, for example due to illness. However, there are other possible explanations for the finding.
– An alternative could be that the background of the finding is, for example, a dietary supplement or the use of a prohibited substance, both of which lead to a doping violation.
Huotari reminds that a discovery does not automatically mean a violation, but the investigation process is only started after the discovery.
“Non-steroidal agent”
PDO
Later on Saturday, Helenius published his own statement on the matter. He said that he received information about the positive test result because of a “non-steroidal substance”.
General information the banned substance would be a so-called estrogen blocker whose active ingredient is letrozole.
– Letrozole is a compound that is used, among other things, in the treatment of breast cancer. It prevents the formation of estrogen from testosterone. As a result, the testosterone concentration in the body rises, a medical expert from Suek tells Iltalehde Pekka Rauhala.
Suek lists the substance in the category “Substances and methods prohibited at all times”. The effect of the substance in question on performance is not in the same category compared to anabolic steroids.
Helenius strongly denies the intentional use of prohibited substances.
Volunteer?
EPA / AOP
The professional boxing association that organized the Joshua match is not covered by the World Anti-Doping Regulations (Wada). Therefore, the activity does not follow the anti-doping regulations administered by Wada, but the regulations of the vaguely identically named Vada.
Although the organizations have a similar name and a similar purpose, they are two completely separate organizations.
– Vada’s operation is similar to Wada’s, but not completely one-to-one. It is good to understand that we are talking about different organizations. For example, Vada has a list of prohibited substances and methods, which is not exactly the same as Wada’s, says Huotari.
Vada, or Voluntary Anti-Doping Association, is responsible for testing boxers and free fighters. The word “voluntary” translates into Finnish as “vapaaaehtoinen”, but Huotari says that taking the test is not as voluntary as the name might suggest.
– On the website, it is clearly stated that the athlete commits to doping tests eight weeks before the scheduled match. After the contract has been committed, it is not possible to talk about a voluntary test, but the athlete is committed to the system.
Huotari reminds that the test period can be shorter if the matches are agreed on a quick schedule, as was the case with Helenius.
The main principle
The expert reminds that the world’s and Finland’s anti-doping regulations have other contents than testing athletes.
The main principle of the organizations is to educate athletes and other actors about what is prohibited, how the processes proceed and what all anti-doping activities involve.
Suek does not cooperate with Vada, and Huotari does not know exactly how the organization operates.
– I can’t evaluate the operation of Vada, and how this organization handles its affairs. However, it is important that if there is surveillance, the target should be aware of what is being monitored and how.
If the information about the “unfavorable finding” turns into an unequivocal doping scandal, Helenius can expect a long and expensive processing and appeal process. At the same time, the processing phase of several months would interrupt Helenius’ efforts to get back to international matches.
Time is not on the side of the 39-year-old conqueror.