Anti-doping

[Paul McKeown]

I note that Geir Helgemo has been suspended by the World Bridge Federation for failing an anti-doping test.

What is the current status of anti-doping in chess?

There was a great hoohaa in the early 2000s, and Ivanchuk famously had his massive tantrum at the 2008 Olympiad, but got away with it, but it has all gone relatively quiet for a long time.

There was some chatter about Carlsen recently throwing a wobbler, or so I heard, in Moscow.

What will be the status of chess tournaments held in Russia, and all its players and officials, too, if the IOC anti-doping ban goes ahead?

Do small tournaments need to carry some disclaimer that FIDE or WADA reserve the right to come down mob-handed and hand out funnels and bottles, will the players please just behave nicely should this transpire?

[Alex Holowczak]

While I was in Moscow for the World Rapid & Blitz, I had a conversation with the apparently very level-headed and sensible Chairman of the FIDE Medical Commission, Dr. Marape Marape.

There were anti-doping tests in Moscow, as part of FIDE's continuing drive to tick boxes as part of a bid to be part of the Olympic Games. There were tests in the Chess World Cup earlier in the year. There were not equivalent tests in St. Petersburg last year. He is hoping that continental Championships also do this going forward.

It is important to distinguish between professional and amateur. Tennis was recently criticised by WADA in that this dividing line was not clear. It is very clear in golf, football, cricket and pretty much every other sport I can immediately think of; or at least a pragmatic dividing line can be drawn if it needs to for this purpose. In chess the dividing line is unclear too in my opinion, for example Luke McShane has been described as "the strongest amateur in the world", yet his Elo is approximately 200 points higher than players like Mark Hebden and Keith Arkell, who would probably describe themselves as professional players. So it remains unclear to me what an appropriate event to have a doping test is and what isn't. Elite Round Robins/GCT almost certainly would fall under that category, but what about Gibraltar with 2700s in the top 10 at the top of the ranking list and 2000s at the bottom? It's unclear. WADA appears to only really interested in doping in professional events. A cricketer in the ongoing South Africa-England series might be subjected to a doping test, but no one is going to come knocking on the door of a cricket club 5th XI playing in County League Division 17 Southwest. On balance, I think the organisers of the Richmond Rapidplay don't need to concern themselves too much with the doping tests.

The testing that is being done is very similar in nature to the Anti-Cheating scan process. You select players at random and ask them to provide a sample that day. In addition to that however, the top players in the world have been informed that an investigator may come and knock on their door at some point and ask them to provide a sample, as they would with a top level tennis player or athlete. The only difference between the two processes is that with Anti-Cheating, the arbiter reports to the Anti-Cheating Commission, who in turn put together an investigatory chamber to investigate and present the Ethics Commission for sanctioning. With Doping however, the Medical Commission is judge, jury and executioner in that they also decide the sanction, which can then only be appealed to CAS. My personal view is that this difference of process doesn't seem right.

RUSADA was not used at the Rapid & Blitz, and by all accounts it will not be used in the Olympiad or other events of equivalent stature in Russia either for the foreseeable future, and FIDE has made appropriate alternative arrangements with another national anti-doping agency.

I've just Googled Geir Helgemo, and by all accounts it would take something similarly silly to be caught doping in chess. If you drink a few cups of coffee during the game, notwithstanding the status of caffeine on the list as a banned substance, you will not fail the doping test because you will be below the threshold. However, if you binge-drink a crate of Red Bull cans before a game, then you may well!

[Kevin Thurlow]

"With Doping however, the Medical Commission is judge, jury and executioner in that they also decide the sanction, which can then only be appealed to CAS. My personal view is that this difference of process doesn't seem right."

I agree. Actually the whole post is very good.

There seem to be some issues with WADA. They are entitled to criticise some sports, because basically, drug testing is not done properly in many cases. It is quite easy to feel some sympathy for drug cheats as you suspect there's an awful lot of others who have not been caught, or caught and there has been a cover-up. But WADA haven't covered themselves in glory either. Also, some testing laboratories have reported incorrect results.

If chess is going to claim to be a sport, it might be worth trying to get an exemption for caffeine (and some other drugs), because they have no measurable effect on performance. There are precedents - alcohol is banned in driving, flying and shooting events (difficult to disagree with that...) but is allowed in others.

[Brian Towers]

If chess is going to claim to be a sport, it might be worth trying to get an exemption for caffeine (and some other drugs), because they have no measurable effect on performance.

The problem with going down that route is that there are no drugs which are performance enhancing for chess. The corollary is that chess cannot, therefore, be a sport because it fails the requirement of having an established drugs testing regime with an associated list of banned substances. Hence the current charade.

[Alex Holowczak]

The problem with going down that route is that there are no drugs which are performance enhancing for chess.

I am in no position to comment, but in the opinion of the qualified doctor with whom I spoke, it is wrong to say that there are no drugs which are performance enhancing for chess.

He did accept, however, that the advantage one might gain from doping in chess is less than the advantage that might be gained in cheating with electronic devices.

[Paul McKeown]

Thank you, Alex Holowczak, for a reply that is cogent, relevant, interesting and useful! (A rarity on the forum...!)

[Brian Towers]

The common denominator of the three classes of banned drugs for chess (caffeine, Modafinil and amphetamines) is that they keep you awake. If you have a good night's sleep the night before (and don't suffer from narcolepsy) then there are no benefits for chess players. On the other hand the one piece of research I have seen on this suggests that they make you more indecisive and hence more likely to lose on time.

[Alex Holowczak]

Thank you, Alex Holowczak, for a reply that is cogent, relevant, interesting and useful! (A rarity on the forum...!)

I shan't make a habit of it.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I am in no position to comment, but in the opinion of the qualified doctor with whom I spoke, it is wrong to say that there are no drugs which are performance enhancing for chess."

I agree (twice in one day...) I assume I spoke to a different doctor, but he mentioned a drug (not caffeine, Modafinil and amphetamines), which might help. I did look at some papers and he was probably right, but the side-effects appear unpleasant, which is why I won't name it (until there's a big scandal about its over use.) Side effects of the three above are worrying as well!

"On the other hand the one piece of research I have seen on this suggests that they make you more indecisive and hence more likely to lose on time."

That's probably right - over use even of caffeine makes you shaky as well, you might even grab the wrong piece. An IM did experiment with cannabis, but found he just slumped over the table feeling pleased with himself. (Cannabis has side-effects as well.)

Don't take anything unless doctor tells you to, except caffeine in moderation is probably ok.