Panel wanders into NADA domain; rewards athlete for ‘substantial assistance’

Just a week ago, I had raised this question in a piece on the understanding of the anti-doping rules by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) and the disciplinary panels.

Do our panels understand these rules well enough to dispense justice?

The more one browses through orders of the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP) and the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (NADAP) (as and when one is able to lay one’s hands on such documents) the more convinced one becomes about the need for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to hold workshops or refresher courses for panel members in our country to get familiarized with the WADA Code and the NADA anti-doping rules.

Take for instance the NADDP decision in the case of Tamil Nadu athlete Deepan Chakravarthi. The 400m runner was charged with an anti-doping rule violation in the all-India inter-University athletics championships held at Patiala in December, 2015. He took the silver in the 400m there.

He tested positive for stanozolol, an anabolic steroid. A four-year sanction looked extremely likely unless the athlete came up with some evidence by which he could establish it was an “unintentional” offence.

Supplements taken

Chakravarthi told a panel headed by Ms Gourikaruna Mohanti that he had taken some supplements on the “advice of coach”. The other members of the panel were Dr L. K. Gupta and Ms. Poonam Chopra.

Chakravarthi had two positive results from samples taken within a gap of three days, on December 31, 2015 and January 3, 2016. Since his adverse report could not have been found and reported to him within that short time, the offence was treated as one single violation as rules stipulate.

If the largely accepted practice in recent months had been to submit medical records and seek leniency, the panel itself in this case seemed to have stumbled onto a new clause which perhaps has been pressed for the first time in India to reduce the otherwise prescribed sanction.

The article in question is 10.6.1 Substantial assistance in discovering or establishing anti-doping rule violations.

One was happy to note that finally an athlete’s deposition had led to either a coach or a member of the support staff being hauled up by NADA before a disciplinary panel.

But on a second reading of the article one also realized that this was not in the ADDP’s domain; this was something which NADA had to decide and pursue.

The relevant article

The whole article is quoted in the order given by the Ms. Mohanti panel. It is relevant to go through the rather lengthy article here:

10.6.1.1 NADA may, prior to a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal suspend a part of the period of ineligibility imposed in an individual case in which it has results management authority where the athlete or other person has provided substantial assistance to an anti-doping organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in: (i) the anti-doping organization discovering or bringing  forward an anti-doping rule violation by another person, or (ii) which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules committed by another person and the information provided by the person providing substantial assistance is made available to NADA. After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, NADA may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility with the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the athlete or the other person and the significance of the substantial assistance provided by the athlete or other person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this article must be no less than eight years. If the athlete or other person fails to continue to cooperate and to provide the complete and credible substantial assistance upon which a suspension of the period of ineligibility was based NADA shall reinstate the original period of ineligibility. If NADA decides to reinstate a suspended period of ineligibility that decision may be appealed by any person entitled to appeal under Article 13.”

The order went onto state: “In view of the admissions and substantial assistance provided by athlete a case has been made out of substantial assistance as contemplated under Article 10.6.4. The period of ineligibility is therefore reduced to three-quarters of four years i.e. one (1) year. The athlete is directed to co-operate with NADA in providing any further assistance regarding the investigation.”

Forgetting for a moment that this was not the responsibility of the ADDP to bring in the ‘substantial assistance’ clause or to reduce the otherwise applicable sanction, one also has to look at what the athlete had deposed that prompted the panel to consider this clause.

In his written statement to NADA the athlete stated that he had not taken any prohibited substance knowingly. He also stated that his coach Rajsekar used to “give him supplements saying they were energy and vitamin tablets.” He also said that the coach had given similar supplements to other elite athletes training under the club.

Chakravarthi told the panel the same things. He said his coach used to give him and other athletes what was termed as “energy drinks”. He said he was not aware of the contents of the said drink and he had full faith in his coach. His version was corroborated by an unspecified number of fellow trainees in his club. No one apparently told the panel that the coach was supplying steroids or other performance-enhancing substances. 

The panel came to the conclusion, based on the evidence, or at least what it calls ‘evidence’, that prima facie it looked to be a case of “aiding and abetting doping violations by the said coach”.

NADA asked to probe

The panel issued directions to NADA on 22 Nov 2016 to “conduct discreet inquiry and probe into the alleged doping violation (sic) by the coach in USF Club, Chennai, in order to establish the accuracy of allegations made by the athlete.”

NADA gave a written reply (contents not known) which was taken on record. The panel noted that summoning of the coach at “this stage is premature and would negate the very purpose of a discreet inquiry”. The panel said the coach could be summoned at a later stage.

It is not known whether NADA conducted any follow-up investigation. Instead it has filed an appeal before the National appeal panel against the one-year sanction imposed. The appeal is a clear indication NADA is not going to pursue “investigation” for which it does not have any staff but press for a four-year ban.

The athlete having stated that the coach had told him to stop the supplements a month prior to competition indicated that it was deliberate doping, NADA had argued before the panel.

Even if NADA failed to tell the disciplinary panel that the “substantial assistance” clause could come into play only after the panel pronounced its verdict and it was not within the panel’s jurisdiction or responsibility to reduce the suspension period based on this clause, it has a second chance now.

All that the NADA would be required to do before the appeal panel would be to re-read Article 10.6.1.1 reproduced in the disciplinary panel order, and state that NADA, and not any panel, has to exercise its authority to provide this concession to the athlete provided certain crucial conditions were met.

Athletes often put the blame on their coaches when confronted with anti-doping rule violation charges. “My coach gave tablets” or “my coach advised me to buy supplements” is an oft-repeated explanation. Half the time it could be true also though proof is hard to come by. 
It may be recalled that all the six woman 400m runners charged in the famous 2011 doping scandal blamed the Ukrainian coach for having supplied the ginseng that they claimed led to the positive dope tests for steroids. No action was taken against coach Yuriy Ogorodnik who was allowed to leave the country quickly after the scandal broke. He was brought back to prepare the longer relay teams for the Rio Olympics with a top AFI official insisting that he was never blamed by the athletes!

Chakravarthi’s case once again brings into focus the inadequate Indian anti-doping apparatus. Something is missing here. One can understand panels or NADA missing the right interpretation of a complicated WADA rule. But this was simple, just a question of domain. Both the disciplinary panel and NADA missed it.
(updated 24 March, 2017)

Note: 26 Oct, 2018: It seems there was no appeal by any agency in this case. The original decision of the disciplinary panel, as listed on the NADA website, says one year suspension. It stands.