🔗 Share this article

A prominent Norwegian football team has demanded stricter substance testing policies after a remarkable case in which a player from their female squad was found to have a banned substance from artificial turf infill in a synthetic playing surface.

Groundbreaking Decision Reveals External Hazards

A seven-month investigation wrapped up this week when global anti-doping authorities chose not to appeal the ruling of Adno that the athlete was without blame. However this unprecedented situation has revealed the risks to footballers of external contact to prohibited compounds and opened up the possibility of more issues emerging around the many man-made surfaces across Europe.

The Match and Unexpected Discovery

The possibility of a positive test was far from expected when Vålerenga met LSK Kvinner at the stadium in the location, near Oslo, this spring. But a routine doping test found four players from each club had provided tests with the banned compound DMBA. A single test, belonging to the athlete in question, surpassed the detection level of the set limit.

Investigation and Revelation

It triggered an investigation that baffled authorities from both clubs and the testing agency, which identified no common denominators in food, beverages or additional products consumed by the players involved. The individual, who has chosen to remain unnamed, expressed the anxiety caused by finding out she was facing a doping offence. “That was an awful time,” she said. “This was an extremely upsetting experience and I was confused about the situation.”

The athlete was permitted to keep playing while the case was ongoing. She believes the shadow it caused might have impacted some of her performances and was deeply relieved when an environmental investigation, which concluded during the summer, ultimately found the unusual cause.

Cause Found

It determined, after testing liquid tests and substances from multiple sites at the stadium, that the artificial infill – commonly called rubber crumb – on the pitch had contained the DMBA, which had been transferred to the players through contact. The substance is a synthetic substance that activates the central nervous system and is sometimes used in dietary supplements, even though it is banned in the nation and EU. Research showed, via peer-reviewed scientific studies, to be a compound that might be produced through breakdown of the tyre material and it has led to a certain level of disappointment that this went unnoticed during the investigation.

Without Blame Ruled

The individual was ruled as having no fault or negligence in the pioneering situation in elite sport where environmental exposure has been responsible for a perceived violation. “I was always sure I did nothing wrong and I appreciate the authorities for finding the origin to the stadium,” she said.

“However, the case and ruling appear partially luck-based. Unless the investigation could find the source as the origin, my case would have been significantly harder. As an athlete who is extremely careful, adhere to regulations and yet become involved in a case like this, it demonstrates how vulnerable athletes can be in competition.”

Ongoing Issues

The surfaces are not considered to present a danger to players but worries have been raised before about their part in plastic waste. Starting in 2031, tyre granulate will be prohibited in Europe. After this incident, sports authorities suggested that games played inside be relocated outside. Reports indicate about many hundreds such man-made fields in the country and they are common in Britain, especially at grassroots level. No international standard to guarantee playing surfaces are clear of substances illegal in sport.

Demands for Reform

The club want policies to be bolstered to acknowledge that a failed test is not necessarily linked to the individual’s behaviour, intentional or not. International regulations are built around “strict liability”. Regulations are detailed in article 2.1 of Wada’s anti-doping code, which says: “It is not necessary that purpose, responsibility, negligence or deliberate intake on the athlete’s part be proven in order to establish a positive test.”

A senior official, from the club, commented: “Surrounding elements should be high on the radar going ahead. It’s about having a holistic overview of what in the environment might cause a violation. Doping control has to develop and issues like this need to be a more significant focus of the factors that are reviewed.”

Potential Challenges

There exists an issue that, given that the risk of DMBA pollution through pitches has been highlighted, theoretically any athlete to fail a test for this cause could not be found innocent. The CEO also wonders whether the investigation would have been as detailed if just a few individuals had tested positive with DMBA in that fixture.

Future Protection

The cleared athlete said: “It is hoped other athletes in this position will have better safeguards ahead. The rules as they are today may result in {an innocent athlete|a blameless player|a