Investigative Reporter

You may remember that a while back, I posted an item on some disturbing news concerning the way nandrolone, the banned substance that led to a number of doping suspensions in tennis, apparently can be created by organic chemical interactions in the human body. I tracked down Richard Evans, who writes the “Roving Eye” column for the New York–based publication TennisWeek because I remember him vigorously challenging the ATP tour’s “paranoid obsession” (Evans’ words) with drugs and cheats.

The stimulus for Evans’ crusade was the suspension in 2004 of British player Greg Rusedski, who tested positive for 5.5 nanograms of nandrolone following the Indianapolis tournament in 2003. The anti-doping bureaucrats acknowledged that levels of between 2.0 and 5.0 are inconclusive because of the way the body itself can produce nandrolone in various ways, such as through exercise (what a coincidence!) or eating poultry or meat containing nandrolone.

A recent story in the Telegraph seemed to support Evans and other anti-doping dissidents. I went back and dug up Evans’ January 2004 story in TennisWeek. Here’s his money quote. He’s quoting Dr. Werner Franke, a molecular biologist and doping specialist from Heidelberg, Germany:

It looks like the anti-doping establishment needs to really rethink its positions and policies.