The GENESIS of contention

Dividing opinions

Bengaluru: Sports science, once a peripheral support system, is now central to elite sport; shaping not just performance but careers. Few examples capture this evolution better than Jasprit Bumrah, whose unconventional bowling action -- marked by short run-up and explosive release -- has long been a subject of biomechanical scrutiny, with experts pointing to the stress it places on the lower back. 

Rather than altering the action drastically, the management has focused on careful workload monitoring and structured rehabilitation, allowing him to remain effective across formats despite recurring injury concerns.

Globally, similar stories show how deeply sport has embraced science. Lionel Messi's longevity at the highest level has been aided by meticulous load management and injury-prevention protocols while Stephen Curry rebuilt his career through movement science after early ankle issues. 

In India, this transformation in Olympic sports has gathered pace over the past decade or less. For that matter, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) has increasingly leaned on biomechanics and performance analytics to bridge the gap with global standards. The appointment of German javelin expert Klaus Bartonietz proved pivotal in shaping the rise of Olympic champion Neeraj Chopra as the duo found common ground in their ideas. 

While sports science since then has proved crucial in development of other athletes too, AFI's latest foray into Project GENESIS has sparked both intrigue and unease. 

Announced following discussions at the federation’s Annual General Meeting in Kohima earlier this month, the initiative proposes DNA testing of India's top track and field athletes with the stated aim of improving injury management and long-term performance planning. 

According to the federation's official communication, the project -- titled Genomics for Elite Sports Integrated System -- is aimed at "optimising athlete performance, health, recovery and injury prevention through the integration of genomics into high-performance sport".

The circular further notes that the initiative has been developed in collaboration with a genomics firm and is part of AFI’s broader push towards "modern, evidence-based, and ethical scientific practices" in pursuit of sustained international success. 

AFI spokesperson and World Athletics vice-president Adille Sumariwalla reinforced this position, stating that much of the existing genetic research is based on Western populations and India needs its own dataset to better understand its athletes. 

Yet, for all its ambition, the rollout has raised more questions than answers. 

Athletes, already navigating a complex regulatory environment, have found themselves uncertain about what the testing entalis and how the data will be used or misused. 

"The circular came at a time when all women athletes are supposed to undergo SRY Gene Test," a top athlete said on condition of anonymity. "It almost feels like a way to control athletes and this DNA testing feels no different at this point with not much clarity given about it. I just hope athletes will have the option to say no without scrutiny." 

The scepticism among athletes is understandable as the idea challenges traditional training methods and long-held beliefs around performance and injury management. Crucially, the lack of a clear transition into mainstream practice has meant that even those somewhat familiar with the concept remain unconvinced of its immediate value. 

Part of the confusion lies in what DNA testing for athletes actually involves.

Unlike biomechanics or physiological testing -- which provide immediate, measurable outputs -- genetic testing works on probabilities. It attempts to identify markers linked to traits such as muscle composition, collagen strength, and inflammation response, all of which can influence injury risk or recovery patterns. 

Dr Tvisha Parikh, consultant sports medicine physician at Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital, explains the premise. 

"There are certain physical attributes which help in sports performance, and when genetic testing is done, patterns emerge," said Dr Parikh. “For instance, sprinters may share certain genes, while endurance athletes may have others. So if we identify these markers, it can guide training decisions.” 

However, Dr Parikh, who also served as deputy chief medical officer for India at the Paris 2024 Olympics, cautions against overestimating its current utility. 

"It is definitely not fully established, it is developing. We already have other forms of testing that are quite useful. Genetics is just one part of the larger picture," she said. 

She illustrates this with an example from conventional sports science where she worked with India's new marathon national record holder Sawan Barwal, whose endurance to run the marathon was identified after a VO2 max test, which measures the maximum amount of oxygen your body can utilise during intense exercise.

"We tested an athlete’s VO2 max and found it to be extremely high, which suggested he was better suited for endurance events rather than shorter distances. That shift came from performance testing as we had previous data to compare it with. Similarly, with any test, including genetic testing, someone must know how to interpret and use the results. Otherwise, it has limited value," she said.

That distinction is critical as DNA testing does not determine success but merely provides an additional layer of information.

Globally, the commercialisation of genetic testing has added another dimension to the debate. Several laboratories now offer athletes detailed genetic profiling, and there has been growing uptake in the west. Former high jump world champion Blanka Vlasic acknowledged this shift.

"Towards the final phase of my career, I saw athletes indulging in sports science, and it’s prevalent nowadays," said the Croat. "If it came around my time, when I struggled with injuries, I would have loved to use it. Perhaps I would have had a more successful career."

Yet, while sports science in its broader sense has become indispensable, DNA testing still sits at the margins. Unlike established tools such as biomechanics and workload monitoring, genetic profiling has yet to deliver consistent, real-world outcomes that would justify widespread adoption. 

That is partly because science itself is still evolving. It also reflects in AFI’s cautious rollout as the federation has, for now, limited the programme to top athletes, with no clear roadmap yet on whether it will scale into a broader system. 

In that sense, Project GENESIS appears less like a fully-formed framework and more like an early-stage step whose long-term direction is still taking shape. The circular, however, emphasises this as a step towards integrating genomics into a broader high-performance framework. 

That suggests the implications are long-term as genetic data becomes meaningful only when accumulated over years and across large populations. Until then, its application may remain limited. 

Dr Ashok Ahuja, former head of sports science and medicine at NIS Patiala, believes the real value of such initiatives will emerge when combined with technology. 

"This kind of data will have to be processed through artificial intelligence," Dr Ahuja said. "We are already using AI for injury prevention by analysing movements such as kinetics, kinematics, angles... When you add genetic data to that, it becomes a massive database that cannot be handled manually."

He also pointed at the growing importance of epigenetics: the interaction between genes and environment. 

"It is not just about what you are born with. Environmental factors, training conditions, even early development can influence how genes behave. So genetics alone cannot explain everything," he said.

“That again points at the fact that all this is still a developing field. Over time, as more data is collected, we will be able to see whether injury incidence reduces. That is when its real value will be understood," he said.

Prima facie, Project GENESIS represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is building a scientific foundation tailored to its athletes and the challenge would be in execution while ensuring transparency, safeguarding athlete privacy and clearly communicating the purpose of the initiative. Because in the absence of clarity, even the most advanced science can breed mistrust.