Dhe sports director of Hamburger SV, Jonas Boldt, has expressed criticism of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) with regard to professional Mario Vuskovic, who tested positive in a doping test. “When you look at the whole procedure, it raises many, many questions,” said Boldt on Saturday evening after the 0: 4 in the friendly match of the second division soccer club against the first division club 1. FC Köln. “I think that we are also being left to our own devices a bit by NADA. We are ready to clarify all this, but the cooperation from the other side leaves a lot to be desired, ”said Boldt on the TV channel Magenta TV.
Vuskovic is still banned because after the positive A- the evaluation of the B-sample also brought the same result: positive for erythropoietin, a drug that was formerly used to treat cancer, increasingly appeared in sports from 1990 onwards because it was too common in endurance athletes massive leaps in performance. In professional football, the intake has become known again and again. Sufficiently validated verification methods have also been available in sport for a good twenty years.
Boldt’s displeasure is understandable because, as the professional’s employer, he has to observe rights and obligations and must undoubtedly be interested in a quick decision in order to be able to act. However, HSV is not a party in the process. These are the players and above all the German Football Association (DFB). It is one of the few associations in Germany that has not yet assigned NADA the full supervision of a procedure in the event of a positive test.
“Somehow they refused”
Strictly speaking, therefore, NADA is also not a party to the proceedings and is more or less forced to hold back. According to Boldt, Vuskovic protests his innocence and cannot explain the positive results.
The defender offered to have a DNA test done. “But somehow,” said Boldt, “they rejected it.” That would not correspond to the regulated course of the process. A DNA test is not planned, as the path from the test to the laboratory is usually secured and there should also be data from the athlete, such as a steroid profile, which can be compared to rule out mix-ups. Complaining about a procedural error seems to be Vuskovic’s strategy.
In the next few weeks there will be a hearing before the DFB court. In case of doubt, it would also be discussed whether the sample could have been manipulated to the detriment of the player. In the history of doping disputes, it has usually been the other way around: manipulators have tried to alter their samples in their favor or to render them unusable. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that the urine sample will not be assigned to the source by means of a DNA test. Vuskovic currently has to keep fit alone. He faces a four-year ban.
