The tenure guidelines-Part II

The Evolution of the National Sports Code

The 1975 Government guidelines were aimed at disciplining the NSFs in the wake of criticism in Parliament and media. Primarily, these guidelines attempted to restrict the terms of the office-bearers so that there was no monopoly. These guidelines were amended in 1988, 1997 and 2001 before the ministry under M. S. Gill further amended them again in 2010. Eventually, under Ajay Maken, the ministry incorporated them in the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.

The Sports Code is a collection of administrative orders, notifications and circulars including the guidelines of 1975 amended from time to time. Its legal validity was questioned by the IOA in the Delhi High Court even as the IOA, the NSFs, the Government and the IOC were engaged in resolving the issues that arose following the IOA’s suspension by the IOC. The court dismissed the IOA petition on the 9th of this month and held that the Sports Code was valid.

Delhi High Court ruling

“The Central Government can insist upon adherence to these provisions, without the aid of legislation. It is also held that the Sports Code does not violate the freedom under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Neither are its provisions arbitrary. The tenure restrictions impugned in this case can and are insisted upon as a part of the public interest in efficient and fair administration of such NSFs,” the bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and  Justice Najmi Waziri said in its order.

The court also ruled that the Union Government can legislate on sports. There had been a debate through the past four decades or so whether the Centre could legislate on sports, a State subject.

Intervening in the case, lawyer Rahul Mehra, a bitter critic of the IOA and the NSFs, now also a member of the AAP, argued that the IOA and the NSFs did perform ‘public functions’ and thus “ought to be accountable”.

Mehra argued that Indian teams’ participation in international competitions came within the domain of the Union Government, that the IOA and the NSFs were “substantially funded” by the Government, that as long as these bodies continued to perform public functions they were bound to be accountable.

The 1975 guidelines, imposed during the period of Emergency, were followed by and large by the IOA and the NSFs, till the late V. C. Shukla took over as president of the IOA in 1984. He helped IOA and the federations get rid of them.

Uma Bharti's noting

Despite attempts to implement the guidelines, the federations largely ignored the tenure clause once Shukla gave them the political backing that was needed.

During the BJP Government’s time, there was at least one instance when the Sports Minister, Uma Bharti, reportedly advised that the tenure guidelines be “kept in abeyance”.

A noting made by her on a report submitted by the then IOA president, Suresh Kalmadi, in August 2002, stated that“(i) From our experience, the clause limiting the tenure of office bearers two terms for four years each as mentioned in the 1975 guidelines appears to be impractical and it should be scrapped.

(ii) Conformity to the code of conduct should be made a condition for giving financial assistance to the N.S.Fs and IOA.”

Justice Gita Mittal of the Delhi High Court, hearing the Narinder Batra v Union of India and others case, however, noted, in 2009, that there was no decision of the ministry to keep the guidelines in abeyance and no order by the ministry to the effect that the guidelines were scrapped, though the above noting was on record.

Justice Gita Mittal, said in her order“…every noting contained in a Government file is not a binding and enforceable order of the competent authority.”

The court ruled that the government guidelines were valid and enforceable. It also stated that the federations should suffer the consequences of non-adherence to the guidelines which included withdrawal of recognition and financial assistance.

That set the stage for M. S. Gill to amend the guidelines further. He did not want a set of guidelines to remain in the government files without any one seriously following it. He was also prepared to give some concessions.

 He brought in the stipulation of 12 years or three terms for a president (from two consecutive years, the second one on a two-third majority), and put an age cap of 70 for all sports officials, incorporating the theme from the IOC rules.

Following a dialogue at the IOC Headquarters in Lausanne, in June, 2010, among the IOC, IOA and a ministry delegation headed by its Joint Secretary, Injeti Srinivas, who was the architect of the Sports Code and the man who rebutted the IOA’s constant ‘autonomy’ arguments, much seemed to have been achieved only to be frittered away in subsequent months.

The IOA agreed to a set of constitution amendments but took a somersault at Ranchi and went back further at another meeting in New Delhi in 2011

By the time the IOA elections arrived in December 2012, the Delhi High Court had intervened again. It told the IOA to follow the National Sports Code and hold elections under its rules.

Politics within the IOA meant that the IOC took an exaggerated view of the “interference” from the Government, warned the IOA about consequences and suspended it even before the elections. The impasse was allowed to continue for more than a year.

The understanding that the Sports Minister Jitendra Singh reached with the IOC officials, in the presence of IOA representatives in Lausanne, was that the IOC would help the ministry draft the National Sports Bill, which by then had undergone two revisions from its initial draft stage.

The recent court ruling has said that the government may continue with the Sports Code till appropriate legislation is passed.

Jaitley's arguments

It is pertinent to note here that none other than Arun Jaitely, representing the Board of Control for Cricket in India, in presenting the arguments against the Sports Bill before the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee, in May, 2011, had expressed reservations about the Bill. He pointed out that many of the provisions in the Bill were contrary to what they had in the BCCI constitution, especially those on tenure, and thus they would not be acceptable to the BCCI.

Jaitley argued that it was beyond the powers of the Centre to legislate on sports, at least on several aspects concerning sports, a State subject. He forecast several hurdles that could come up when such an exercise was undertaken. He also expressed doubts whether the stipulation of the Government that a federation could use ‘India’ only when it had the approval of the Government was tenable.

The recent High Court order has upheld the right of the Union Government to legislate on sports.

“This regulation (subject to any subsequent amendments) should, till appropriate legislation is framed by Parliament, bind the parties and all NSFs as a condition for recognition, aid and crucially, for the use of the term “India” by any team in International Olympic sporting event,” the court ruled.

With the new government taking over, it could be assumed the Bill would once again be pushed to the backburner.

NSFs bow to Govt.

What happens to the Sports Code is a matter of conjecture. Almost all the NSFs have bowed to the ‘might of the Government’ during the past two years, attacked as they had been in the media following the CWG scam, ridiculed as they had been by the public, harassed as they had been by the government in approving their long-term plans, and cash-starved as they had been through all these years.

Even if they become financially independent, they would not be able to use the term ‘India’, as confirmed by the recent Delhi High Court order.

The athletes have generally supported the Sports Bill since it gives more representation to active and retired athletes in administration, and gives them the hope that better days could be ahead.

The Archery Association, though de-recognized because of Malhotra’s re-election, has been getting government support through different channels since the government does not want athletes to suffer. The same has been the case with the boxing federation since its de-recognition because of the ‘termination’ of its relationship with the international federation.

Malhotra, who served the IOA as its Senior Vice President till the last elections, is not new to government de-recognition. The AAA had suffered it in the past, too. As Chairman of the briefly revived All India Council of Sports (2002-2004) during the Vajpayee government, he could have recommended the scrapping or modification of the guidelines, but he did not, probably since no one was following those guidelines.

Too late for IOA?

The disenchanted bunch of sports officials, unable to fight back against the government since without the latter’s support the sport could suffer irreparably, may try to revive the debate about tenure guidelines now.

It is too late perhaps to interfere with the amendments carried out to the IOA constitution, incorporating the tenure guidelines as prescribed by the government since they had the approval of the IOC also. Any fresh change will again require the IOC’s approval.

Individual federations could be a different matter if the tenure and age clauses are removed from the Sports Code/guidelines. It will be a retrograde step, though.

There are other issues also, especially in the proposed Bill, those related to sports election commission, appellate sports tribunal and code of ethics.

Any attempt to tinker with these provisions in the Bill,_provided the Bill is being taken up_ may prove disastrous since it could send a wrong message to the public at large.

V. K. Malhotra has his task cut out.

(Concluded)

The tenure guidelines-Part I

Will the new Govt retain National Sports Code?

What could be of immediate interest to sports-lovers as the BJP Government takes over?

Obviously the priority that the Government will provide to sports and the budgetary allocation for it may figure uppermost in the minds of a majority of sports-lovers.

They could also be expected to look out for any new sports development plan, fresh financial incentives to sportspersons and additional thrust in the preparations of teams for this year’s Asian Games and the Commonwealth Games.

Also of interest could be any indication of a possible bid to host the 2019 Asian Games, and possibly Olympic Games sometime in the future, plus a call for a thorough revamp of the existing sports administration in the country including that of the Sports Authority of India (SAI).
But is that all? A lot many people, especially sports officials, could be looking at possible policy changes that the new Government may bring in.

Of immediate concern to the National Sports Federations (NSFs) would be the fate of the National Sports Code, especially its provisions related to tenure and age restrictions for office-bearers of the NSFs including the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

BJP leaders Arun Jaitley and Vijay Kumar Malhotra have in the past expressed opposition and reservations about the proposed Sports Bill.

Sports officials had suggested during the time the International Olympic Committee (IOC suspended the IOA in December, 2012, that it was only a matter of time for a new government to take over and the issues related to the National Sports Code and the tenure guidelines could be sorted out with the change in government.

AAA de-recognised

Malhotra, one of the veteran BJP leaders, heads the Archery Association of India (AAI), which had been de-recognized by the Government on the argument that he had served more than three terms as its president and had crossed the age of 70 against the guidelines incorporated in the National Sports Code.

The outgoing Union Sports Minister, Jitendra Singh, had said in December, 2012, “the (Delhi) High Court in its Civil Writ Petition No.195/2010 dated 15.02.2012 and 17.09.2012 had directed that the Government shall not grant recognition to the Archery Association of India unless they hold elections as per the Sports Code. In view of the directions of the High Court, the Government has no option but to withdraw the recognition of the Archery Association of India."

Malhotra, a former Chief Executive Councillor of Delhi, one of the most experienced sports administrators in the country, a strong critic of Government ‘interference’ in the autonomous functioning of the NSFs, especially its “draconian Sports Bill” (which is yet to be introduced), has long held the view that Olympic sports should be governed by the Olympic Charter without ‘interference’ from the Government.

“Let the Government seek accounts for the grants that it gives, let it regulate participation in international competitions and in the matter of invitations to foreign teams when foreign policy issues could be involved, let it create and maintain infrastructure, let it manage the Sports Authority of India, but leave the selection of teams etc to the federations.

“And, more importantly, in a democratic set-up let there be no stipulations about tenure, age etc of the sports officials. If it is not there for other registered societies, why should it be there only for sports bodies? “

This in a nutshell had been the argument of Malhotra all these years.

The Government, the media, at least a section of the Parliamentarians and the public, on the other hand, had been singing a different tune. Put curbs on them, make them accountable, let them not spoil the talent in this country, let there be more transparency in their functioning.

Forced to bring in regulations to control and restrict the authority of the NSFs, the government the past three years had become bolder, practically dictating terms in sanctioning coaches and camps, approving and rejecting foreign exposure requests, allotting funds for development, coaching and competitions etc.
The Government’s argument has been since public funds were being utilized and the name of the country was being used in international fora it had a duty to perform to explain to Parliament and public how funds were being utilized and how selection etc was being done.

The villains?

The sports administrators having long been painted ‘villains’ in this constant tussle with the government, there was a general belief that more stringent controls were necessary to curb malpractices and to keep a watch on biased selection of teams. The chorus grew post-CWG.

The media, when it could turn its attention away from cricket, had been highlighting deficiencies in the functioning of the Olympic bodies, but as it turns out, cricket, the most popular of the sport and one which gets all the media attention, especially the television, seems to be the most mismanaged rather than being the most professionally-administered as had been made out all these years.
Just because a sport earns money, it does not mean there cannot be mismanagement.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, however, is the only body that refuses to register itself with the government as a National Sports Federation since it does not want to come under government control and curbs. More importantly, it does not want to be subjected to the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005.

No Cabinet support for Maken

Sports Minister Ajay Maken was keen that the BCCI be brought under all regulations, especially the RTI Act. He could not, however muster enough support from within the Cabinet when he brought up the draft Bill in August , 2011.  By highlighting the BCCI angle, he might have actually lost a chance to push through that Bill, at least in the Cabinet. He could have been better off by concentrating on the rest of the NSFs, mainly those in charge of Olympic disciplines. 
Maken's arguments were indeed valid and are still valid, those about the cricket bodies taking concessions related to stadia, entertainment tax, land allotment etc though these aspects do not come under direct financial assistance from the Central or State governments.

Put in cold storage , the draft got revived with  the ministry appointing a committee under Justice Mukul Mudgal to fine tune it before placing it in the public domain in July, 2013. Nothing much has been heard about that since except a statement from the Minister to confirm that they would be sitting with the IOC and re-drafting the Bill so that it does not encroach on the ‘autonomy’ of the NOC and the NSFs.

Sitting with the IOC to draft a Bill that would attempt to control the NSFs might sound strange especially when you consider the fact that the IOC suspension was mainly related to "Government interference" in the autonomous functioning of the sports bodies.
There we go again. Autonomy. We will come to that later.

(Part II is here: Kaypee's Capers: The tenure guidelines-Part II (kaypeem.blogspot.com)

Watch how the bout outside the ring develops!

From now on, Indian sports scribes will have to use a strange abbreviation_BI (TBOTR)_when they report on boxing in the country!

The International Boxing Federation (AIBA) has granted “provisional” recognition to a new body named Boxing India (The Bout Outside the Ring) that is expected to govern the sport in India,  if a claim made by the new body is to be believed.

The Indian boxing administrators are in a tizzy and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) officials smell a rat.

The new body, with the craziest of names for a National Federation, seems to have been formed by a group of officials in Maharashtra owing allegiance to none of the factions at the national level, but with the support of two business houses which were earlier connected with sponsorship of boxing.

Ostensibly, the nomenclature (The Bout Outside the Ring) seems to be to pre-empt a clash of names with another ‘Boxing India’ mooted and supported by a group that had been claiming majority.

The Indian Boxing Federation (IBF, formerly Indian Amateur Boxing Federation) had been in the news around the time the IOA was suspended by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in December, 2012, first for being suspended by the AIBA, then for being provisionally suspended by the Sports Ministry before the AIBA “terminated” its status last March.

Manipulation of elections

When initially the AIBA suspended the IBF, it was stated that this was done because of “manipulation” of elections held in September, 2012. Strangely, even though the task seemed to be clear for the ‘suspended IBF’, which was ordered to hold fresh elections by the Sports Ministry also, the Indian body dragged its feet for months together, inviting the calamity that seems to have struck it now.

Or was it the AIBA that contributed to the ambiguity and delay?

For all its pious statements, the AIBA also seemed to be unsure of itself in this ‘suspension drama’. It first said there were manipulations in elections, then it cited the suspension of the IOA by the IOC as the reason for the Indian boxing body’s suspension and still later demanded that the IBF re-draft its constitution to AIBA’s satisfaction.

Things got clouded further thanks to the confusing and contradictory statements being issued by the IBF officials and the schism that seemed to have developed within the boxing fraternity in the country. One group was led by the outgoing president, Abhay Chauthala, and the other by Bengal association chief Asit Banerjee, having the support of the outgoing Secretary, Brig P. K. M. Raja, a well known figure in international circles.

More loyal than the king

The AIBA wanted to be “more loyal than the king” when it said it was suspending the IBF also because of the suspension of the IOA by the IOC. Not many leading International Federations did that nor did the IOC seek such a course of action from them. The IOA had only been suspended, not de-recognized by the IOC.  Yet, the AIBA chief, Dr Ching-Kuo Wu, led the way in penalizing the IBF.

The AIBA rules are such that it can suspend a National Federation without much formalities. “A National Federation may be suspended in accordance with the Code of Ethics, the Disciplinary Code and Procedural Rules by the Executive Committee, the EC Bureau or the Disciplinary Commission, if need be with immediate effect,” say the AIBA rules.

Many sports administrators suspected that the politics involved in the IOA-IOC row had led to the rigid stand that the AIBA had taken though the latter diluted its stand later by allowing Indian boxers to compete under the AIBA flag at international competitions.

After having corresponded with the Sports Authority of India (SAI) initially in the interest of the boxers_rightly so_the AIBA later adopted a stand that it would not entertain any communication from the government or its agencies.

Such public posturing was necessary to show that even as the IOC talked about “government interference” as the prime reason for suspending the IOA, a recognized International Federation controlling an Olympic sport could not have been seen to be hobnobbing with a government agency in preference to, say an ad hoc body formed by it.

In March last the ministry de-recognized the IBF. By then the issue had become so complicated that no one knew exactly what the way forward was for federation. If it was all about elections, then everyone seemed to be ready to hold fresh elections.

If it was about the introduction of a new nomenclature of ‘chairman’, an ostensible ploy to keep Chauthala in the Executive Committee, probably under the mistaken belief that he would require an Executive position within the federation to be eligible to contest the IOA elections, then that stage was over long ago when the IOC annulled the elections.

The fresh IOA elections were eventually held in February this year without Chauthala or Lalit Bhanot being eligible, as per IOC diktats and amended IOA constitution.

IOA resists temptation

Left to the newly-elected IOA it would have quickly recognized one of the factions and recommended to the AIBA for approval. But a compromise seemed to have been struck when AIBA approved the formation of an ad hoc body formed by the IOA to run boxing in the country.

By now, two factions had clearly emerged and one of them, led by Brig Raja, claiming support of a majority of the State units, was ready to go through with a general body meeting and elections when the AIBA delivered its ‘knock-out punch’ in its ‘Bout Outside the Ring’.

The other group is led by Abhishek Matoria, someone unknown in boxing circles till Chauthala brought him in at the September, 2012 elections, to step into his shoes, leading to the chaos that prevail today.

The ad hoc committee, which should have been the body that should have convened the meeting, and held elections under the supervision of the IOA and the Government, seemed to have been taken unawares by this development.

AIBA rules flouted

IOA Secretary-General Rajeev Mehta has talked about the AIBA move being against the rules of the IOC.

It is not just against the IOC rules, it is also against AIBA’s own rules!

An application for a provisional membership of AIBA has to be accompanied by, among others, documents from the IOA as well as the Union Sports Ministry confirming that the “the applicant supervises boxing in the relevant country and which confirms the identity of the members and officers of the applicant.”

In this case, the IOA does not even know that the AIBA has issued such a provisional recognition to a body supported not by a number of state units but formed by a business group or groups.

The Sports Ministry would require a federation to have recognition by the world body as well as by the IOA and the Asian Confederation in that sport before it takes up its recognition.

But was there not an inkling that AIBA could be up to something like this when it said in March last, “It is believed that the only way to get the sport of boxing back on track in India would be for it to be left in the hands of trustful, clean and honest people who love boxing and to give the opportunity to any group of people with passion and love for our sport to submit applications for the establishment of a new National Federation. AIBA will however not tolerate any government or sports authority interference in this process.” 

That last portion betrayed an ignorance of the ‘truce’ that the IOC brokered in Lausanne in May last year to resolve the dispute with the IOA, with the full backing and understanding of the Government of India

It is now certain with AIBA having apparently informed one of the factions that it would not have at least two former office-bearers contesting the elections, and on the basis of an understanding of the above statement, that AIBA would virtually dictate who should be the office-bearers of a National Federation.

From December 2012 onwards the AIBA has behaved in the most autocratic fashion in dealing with the Indian situation, no matter what subterfuge the Chauthala group would have played in the IOA and IBF elections.

A toothless NOC?

Now, with a duly-elected National Olympic Committee which is recognised by the IOC as well as the Government, in place, with an ad hoc body which has the blessings of AIBA as well as the IOA and the Government, and the amended constitution and other documents ready with all groups, a proper democratic elections in which the erstwhile state units of the IBF could be given a chance to vote should have been the proper way forward.

Let us imagine that the Boxing India (Bout Outside the Ring) is going to hold elections. Who will form the electoral college? With the Delhi High Court clearly stipulating in a recent order that the NSFs would adhere to provisions in the National Sports Development Code, a proper electoral college will have to be formed and approved by the electoral officers and circulated before elections are held.

Obviously, the electoral college cannot just comprise a few Maharashtra officials plus a few officers of the sponsoring companies, no matter how deeply they could be involved with the sport of boxing and how simple the AIBA rules could be to deal with such a membership application. Unless of course a major faction is just waiting on the sidelines to join the body that has gained provisional recognition in order to scuttle any plans the other group might have.
The ‘law of the land’ will have to be followed in any case and following the High Court ruling in the IOA case, the Sports Code has become the most important document governing federations in this country.

Before the  proposed new body gets full membership rights at the AIBA Congress, whenever it is held, the IOA and the Asian Boxing Confederation, if necessary, with advice from the IOC, should try to sort out this mess.

The Olympic Movement would lose its credibility if International Federations impose their will in the garb of promoting sport even when groups of individuals or sports bodies are willing to follow laid down procedures and democratic norms.

Will the new Govt. bite the Asiad bait?

Quite expectedly, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has jumped into the fray and expressed its desire to bid for the 2019 Asian Games, recently  deserted by Hanoi, Vietnam.

In four months time, the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) will pick an alternative city following Hanoi’s pull-out, citing financial constraints.  Indonesia which hosted the 1962 Asiad in Jakarta and which lost Surabaya’s bid to Hanoi in 2012, is reportedly the front-runner to step in as replacement host.

The IOA has also expressed its keenness to go for yet another bid for the 2019 Games, after it was turned down by the outgoing government following the 2010 Commonwealth Games scam. The IOA had bid for the 2014 Games also, losing in a two-way contest to Incheon, 13-32 at Kuwait City in 2007.

The 2010 Commonwealth Games were projected, especially in the international media, for all the wrong reasons. Yet there should be lessons in plenty for the IOA and the government from the organizational drawbacks that the Games eventually highlighted.

CAG Report

More than all that the CAG report on the CWG also provides a detailed assessment about how the government had gone about believing what the IOA projected initially and how it had kept hiking the organizational budget without the IOA bringing on board any credible revenue-raising mechanism.

The ploy of a ‘loan’ that the IOA received from the government, which prompted former Sports Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar to suggest that the IOA could as well take that amount as loan from a bank, was nothing more than that, just a ploy to fool the public. The Organising Committee ended up in the red eventually and the Govvernment had agreed that it would write off losses.

Much of the hype created by vested interests about multi-discipline games boosting tourism, during and after the games, the economy getting a tremendous thrust, the games themselves generating enough revenue to considerably off-set the organizational expenses, the country earning goodwill among participating nations, the country raising its stock among the comity of nations and the games boosting sports standards in the city and the country have turned out to be myths.

The 1982 New Delhi Asian Games was a pleasant experience. It was done without the extravagance of the 2010 CWG, but with efficiency. The promise of a tourist rush did not come through, however, in 1982. Nor did it come in 2010 when hundreds of rooms remained unoccupied despite claims by the OC.

The marketing for the 1982 Asiad was a disaster with the firm engaged for the purpose eventually going into litigation against the Organising Committee. Nothing much was earned and even if some money did accrue legal costs would have wiped out profits if any. One is not sure whether the case has been settled even after three decades.

Biased projections

The 2010 Commonwealth Games proved a bigger disaster in terms of organization. Instead of earning praise and goodwill, the Games continue to be projected for the scams they generated. Unfortunately, the best publicized pictures of the games happened to be the ‘paan’-stained, muddy washbasins and toilets at the Games Village.

We did not hear much in the Indian media about what kind of water or toilets were provided by the Russians in Sochi during the last Winter Olympics. 

Today, as the IOA talks about bidding for the 2019 games, the plus point that will come up is sure to be Delhi’s capacity to host a big event because of its sports facilities and civic infrastructure. It is debatable whether the existing facilities would suffice five years from now to host an Asian Games with its 35-discipline sports programme and athletes from 45 member countries.

Should Delhi alone be the venue for multi-discipline games just in case the new government swallows the bait thrown by the IOA and India does get the nod from the OCA?

Why Delhi alone?

City and sports development planners will say it is better to opt for another city rather than concentrate on just one city. Japan picked Tokyo (1958) and Hiroshima (1994), China had Beijing (1990) and Guangzhou (2010), Korea had Seoul (1986) and, Busan (2002) and now has Incheon (2014). Only Thailand stuck to Bangkok for four editions of the Games, in 1966, 1970, 1978 and 1998.

It will be argued that India last hosted these Games back in 1982 and it would be 37 years when the games would return to their birth place (1951). “Isn’t it time for us to host another edition of these games?”, the question is bound to be asked.

We should look at the financial implications before jumping at it. New Delhi will need additional sports and civic infrastructure, though it can be managed with minimum extra venues and some sprucing up of existing stadia. The OCA may not agree and that is where the problem can arise.

That the Nehru Stadium renovation for CWG cost Rs 961 crore is a frightening thought, though!

Vietnam’s initial budget for hosting the 2019 Games, that of $150m was a thoroughly under-estimated projection. Experts said it could go up as high as five times. The Vietnamese were generally believed to be against such expenditure according to opinion polls and the government had to bow to their sentiments.

The cost factor

Busan spent $2.9 billion in 2002, Doha $2.8 billion in 2006 and Guangzhou anything between $17 billion and $20 billion in 2010 (if unofficial estimates are to be believed) for hosting the Asian Games. Incheon is expected to spend more than $1.6 billion. The cost could go up further.

The OCA, unlike the IOC in respect of the Olympics, does not extend any financial support to the host. On the contrary, it takes away a considerable portion of the local organising committee’s revenue earned through sponsorship, ticketing and merchandising.

According to a study conducted by Hong Kong in 2010, it was reported that the OCA takes 33 per cent of the all games revenue including 100 per cent of television income as “contribution”.

"I'm sure that if we reveal the OCA's requirements to host the Games, even the public will ask us not to host it because of the steep amount. It needs to be reviewed," Sieh Kok Chi, the secretary general of the Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM), was quoted as saying in a recent report following Hanoi’s pull-out.

How much did we spend on the last CWG and what were the initial projections?

From Rs 1200 crore to Rs 18,532 crore!

According to the CAG report on the 2010 CWG, the cost of hosting the Games went up from a projected Rs 1200 crores in 2003 to Rs 18,532.31 crore by December, 2010! The final figures are perhaps still being sorted out. (The figures here include Rs 461 crore spent for the Commonwealth Youth Games in Pune).

The expected revenue projections went up from Rs 840 crore in the 2003 bid document to Rs 900 crore by March 2006 and Rs 1780 crore in the revalidated budget of July, 2008, according to the CAG. The OC finally made Rs 682.06 crore out of which Rs 440.43 crore had been realised by February 2011.

The CAG noted that revenue generation costs amounted to Rs 266.47 crore leaving a net revenue realization of just Rs 173.96 crore. Pittance when you look at the projections in 2008.

Verify IOA claims

The new Sports Ministry would do well to pick out the salient features of the excellent CAG report on CWG while presenting its note to the Cabinet, if the proposal reaches that stage. The IOA claims about revenue generation will have to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Estimates of additional infrastructure and organisational expenses, not to speak of the OCA’s revenue-sharing pattern, will also have to be thoroughly vetted by the experts.

The new government would also do well to remember that the Games would come in any time between September and November 2019 by which time another General Elections would have been gone through and another Government would be in place!

 But, forgetting all that, should we spend, say four billion dollars, at a conservative estimate, for a sports event when our annual budgetary allocation for sports comes to just around Rs 1200 crore? We still lack basic infrastructure to help our ‘elite’ sportspersons prepare without handicaps for big events, or to encourage budding talent in several parts of the country. 

Time to chase ‘dopers’, workshops can wait

This is the Commonwealth Games and the Asian Games year.  One would have expected the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) to be geared up to tackle the doping menace in the country that increases when multi-discipline games are around.

The bedrock of anti-doping measures is out-of-competition testing. For that to be effective at any level, an anti-doping agency has to have a ‘whereabouts’ programme.

Surprisingly, NADA has struggled with its ‘whereabouts’ during the past two years when it showed its desire to implements the programme, fed up as it was with athletes evading testers at national camps.

A ‘whereabouts’ list forces an athlete to make himself/herself available at a particular spot for at least one hour on any given day as per advance information submitted by the athlete.

But NADA is busy nowadays, it seems, with its plans to hold workshops in its larger project of ‘education and awareness' programme. Nothing wrong with this of course, provided the primary task of weeding out the ‘cheats’ is being accomplished.

In order to “identify, advise and formulate” an anti-doping education plan NADA has formed an Expert Group. It plans to hold 100 workshops in 2014-15 across the country in collaboration with various stakeholders.

Expert Group

The Expert Group is loaded with disciplinary/appeal panel members, current and former, and doctors. In order to assess the awareness levels among athletes and coaches, it would have been ideal to have representatives of the current athletes and coaches, having years of experience in the national camps. Especially from among Olympic sports, say athletics, weightlifting, wrestling, instead of a game like chess_which is surely not known for its doping problems_which one of the members, Bharat Singh Chauhan represents as a former player and administrator in this panel. He also happens to be a former hearing panel member.

Should the ministry/NADA opt to bring in representatives of coaches and/or athletes, care could be taken to keep away “known doping sympathizers” from among coaches and to include “clean” athletes in order to understand their problems in getting information or to ascertain whether current educational material is percolating down to the campers.

A similar exercise of taking representation from among coaches and support personnel engaged in several coaching programmes of the SAI could also have been undertaken.

The awareness campaign has been termed ‘IEC’ which apparently means Information, Education and Communication.

And that raises the question, should there not be a ‘communication’ and/or ‘information’ expert in this Expert Group?

Should we also not have a Federation or IOA representative in it? After all, they are people who should be aware of the problems of the athletes, the types of awareness campaigns that go on in the camps, what the roles their coaches play at such locations etc.

Shockingly, there is no one from NADA in the panel. That means there will be none to provide an insight into what NADA had achieved in this sphere for the past five years, whatever little it could be.

Pick from WADA 

You may also ask, what more can this panel find out and recommend that is not available in  WADA’s ‘Education and Awareness section?.

For the past two years, NADA has tried to revamp its website without success. Whether because of bureaucratic hurdles or because of lack of interest, its website has remained dormant since mid-2012.

In this age of ‘electronic information’, it is extremely disappointing to see that the NADA website has retained a “Coming Soon” message on its Home page for nearly two years. The internet having revolutionized communication systems, there could be no agency in the world that does not utilize this facility to its fullest advantage. Education and awareness can begin here rather than in committee rooms.

NADA’s website  is an apology in comparison to that of its counterparts in the UK, USA, Australia etc.

Despite being in existence for five years, the NADA website has not even managed to place on record the names of the suspended athletes on a timely basis (within 20 days of a decision being given by a panel is mandatory as per WADA Code), does not have a ‘supplements warning’ section, has nothing on ‘education programme’ nothing for the athletes barring some rules and a copy of the Prohibited List (the 2014 List was posted only last month), nothing for coaches and support personnel and practically nothing for the media, barring some age-old schedules.

No sign of the new Code

It is yet to post the 2015 WADA Code which has been published in almost all the websites of anti-doping authorities all over the world months ago. And it has plans to hold seven Workshops that would deal with the 2015 Code which has brought in several changes to the 2009 version.

NADA is also yet to print the 2014 Prohibited List and distribute it among all the stakeholders.

Take a look at the UK Anti-Doping website  and you are likely to be thoroughly impressed by the sheer volume of information available there.

Do also check out the USADA website to have more idea about how NADOs utilize websites.

One can be assured the ‘Expert Group for IEC campaign” will surely recommend that NADA set up a “vibrant, dynamic, informative, user-friendly website” that will cater to the needs of the athletes, support personnel, media, National Federations,  SAI, schools, universities etc.

Drug Reference Online

In order to make the website more helpful for the athletes, NADA should lose no time in getting a Global Drug Reference Online (DRO) in place in collaboration with either the UKAD or the USADA.

The DRO is of great help to the athletes who can check out drugs, even those prescribed by a doctor and find out whether those are prohibited. It is also available in Australia, Germany, South Africa, Canada, Switzerland and Ireland

The proposed workshops could be beneficial if the presentations and discussions there could reach doctors manning government dispensaries in remote villages who prescribe nandrolone or stanozolol (steroids) for typhoid or methylhexaneamine (MHA) and mephentermine (stimulants) for cough and cold! And if budding, ill-educated athletes in villages could be told of the harmful effects of steroids etc.

There would be little point in several scientists and doctors, coaches and officials, and athletes who are already familiar with the prohibited substances and methods, the dangers of doping, the WADA Code and disciplinary procedures being told of all these all over again as it quite often happens in these types of workshops and seminars.

The ‘whereabouts’ awaits NADA’s attention as it concentrates on the National campers getting ready for the Commonwealth Games, less than four month away, and the Asian Games after that. Routine camp visits will not be of help as it looks to have been the case since, apart from departmental meets and some junior meets, NADA has not had an important ‘catch’ for several months.

USADA’s one-year suspension of Tyson Gay leaves too many questions unanswered

So, Tyson Gay gets one year for a steroid! There are others who have served or are serving two-year suspensions for the use of cannabis!

Is this fair?

The attempt here is not to condone the use of recreational drugs, but to delve into the issues that surround this curious case of this American sprinter, the second fastest man in athletics history (9.69s for 100m), who had been an ambassador for the USADA in its ‘Project Believe’ programme in which athletes offer themselves to be tested additional times.

We do not have all the facts leading up to this one-year sanction imposed by the USADA and unless the US anti-doping body reveals all that contributed to this decision, there is going to be speculation only.

Amidst speculation, we can analyze the rules and see whether the USADA decision can fit into the WADA Code and the rules of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and what could be lying ahead in case there is to be an appeal by these bodies to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Gay tested positive for_we now know_a steroid on three occasions in June, 2013, two out-of-competition tests and one in-competition test at the US championships that served as the trials for the 2013 World Athletics Championships in Moscow. Since all the three tests were conducted in quick succession, the offence has been treated as just one, as per rules.

Could it be testosterone or nandrolone?

The fact that an IRMS (isotope ratio mass spectrometry) analysis was done to determine whether the substance came from within the body or outside may indicate that it could be testosterone or nandrolone or any of their metabolites or precursors.

We don’t know whether there was a disciplinary panel hearing. The USADA statement simply says, Tyson Gay accepted “loss of results dating back to July 15, 2012 and a one-year suspension for his anti-doping rule violation”.

Gay has returned the 4x100m relay silver medal from the London Olympics. The US team as a whole stands to lose its medal.

The admission by the athlete he had started using a product that contained a prohibited substance on and subsequent to July 15, 2012, raises the question, “how could he have avoided a positive test since then, through the London Olympics, and up to June, 2013?”

Obviously, there is more to this story. So, we should wait for the complete facts to be brought out either through a detailed USADA statement or through an appeal.

The USADA statement says Gay was eligible for up to three-quarter reduction of the otherwise two-year sanction under the Code (or a six-month suspension) for the “substantial assistance” provided to it in investigating the circumstances of his positive test.

What the rules say

This is where the interpretation of the rules could get blurred.

Article 10.5.3 (substantial assistance) of the Code says  an anti-doping agency may “suspend a part of the period of ineligibility imposed in an individual case” where the athlete has provided substantial assistance which results in establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person or leads to establishing a criminal offence.

After a final appellate decision, the agency can suspend a period of ineligibility only with the concurrence of WADA and the concerned international federation. In this case, the IAAF rules say that its Doping Review Board has to agree to the contention.

“Suspend a part of the period of ineligibility imposed in an individual case” can only mean, a panel would have imposed a sanction and an agency, in consideration for the ‘substantial assistance’ provided by the athlete, was “suspending” a portion of the period pending a final appeal by agencies having the right of appeal.

That Gay stayed away from all competitions and withdrew from the US team for the Worlds when he was notified of his positive dope test should not mean anything. A provisional suspension, after an initial review, is mandatory under the rules when an ‘A’ sample returns positive.

A dope doctor or a rogue company?

It is possible that the USADA may have tracked down someone or some company engaged in some illegal activity and may hand over the case soon to relevant authorities or is poised to charge another athlete or athletes.

It is a different matter whether that sort of ‘culmination’ of ‘substantial assistance’ would satisfy the IAAF or WADA.

There had been reports in the US media suggesting that Gay could have used a ‘cream’ prescribed to him by an Atlanta-based “anti-ageing specialist”.

An agency that painstakingly pieced together a mountainous volume of evidence against Lance Armstrong resulting in his life ban can only be expected to come out with the ‘whole truth’ in this case at some point of time. We shall wait for the USADA to complete its 'ongoing investigations'.

Is dope-testing of record breakers in Indian athletics a farce?

The latest controversy over the ratification of National records in athletics, as reported by Mail Today   opens up yet another debate about this contentious subject.

Why should there be any controversy over ratification of a National record? You may well ask. Is it not a routine matter that should be handled by the federation as per set standards and policies?

That is where the problem comes. There are no laid-down procedures and criteria that the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) can apply! Conventions rather than rules or policies have dictated the procedures of the AFI through the years in the matter of ratification of National records.

To be fair to the AFI, it must be mentioned here that it has during the past decade at least followed the basic criteria of accepting a National record, on the lines of what the international federation (IAAF) does for World Records_the track should have been certified, the implements should be of the ‘approved’ category; the wind-reading should have been recorded and qualified officials and a technical delegate appointed by the federation if it happens to be a domestic meet should have been there on duty..

P. T. Usha objects

When in the year 2000 (Olympic year) a clutch of National records were bettered including that in the women’s 100 metres and 400 metres, the legendary P. T. Usha, whose records that were eclipsed, wrote to the Sports Ministry to suggest that there should be some rule by which record-setters were dope-tested.

The ministry passed on the suggestion to the AFI which readily agreed to introduce the dope tests for record-breakers. After all, dope testing was in vogue during that time in Indian athletics and to bring more respectability and credibility to the records and record-breakers it was imperative that the athletes be tested..

Less than two years later, the AFI rejected four ‘national records’ including that of Rachita Mistry’s 11.26s for the 100 metres, set in Bangalore, in 2000, on the argument that no dope tests were conducted in these cases.

A few other records set in the same Olympic year, as well as later, however got the nod of the AFI’s ratification panel. There were a few records that could have raised a doubt or two, but then dope tests were conducted in these meets and there was little point in questioning the veracity of the records. It was another matter that we will never come to know whether the record-setters were tested!

Were there dope tests?

Years passed without any one questioning the ratification of any of the records. The question about dope-testing the record-setters should have been raised, for, it was a policy decision of the AFI and the public at large, especially the followers of the sport, the media and, above all, the athletes themselves had a right to know.

We know several of the men’s discus records were set abroad by Anil Kumar and Vikas Gowda. Were there dope tests in those meets? Even when athletes posted National records in Olympics, were they dope-tested there?

“This will mean we can’t accept any of the records that were set in major international meets during the past few years,” said an AFI official last year, rather ruefully.

Yes, it is very difficult to stick to that stipulation. There is a provision, however, in international dope-testing. You can ask a meet organizer to test your record-setting athlete at your expense. Several countries do that.

The AFI has talked about laying down criteria for the acceptance of National records. Until that happens, the federation should clarify what is a ‘competition’. It should also clarify whether a dope test done 24 hours or 48 hours after a competition could be accepted.

Among the records recently accepted by the AFI is one in men’s shot put (20.69m), set by Om Prakash Singh in Szombathely, Hungary, in May, 2012.

By all accounts, Om Prakash was the lone competitor using the standard 7.26kg shot in that ‘competition’ where there were juniors and sub-juniors using 5kg and 4kg shots.

The then AFI Technical Committee Chairman, P. K. Srivastava, was quoted by The Hindu as stating then that the Szombathely competition in which Om Prakash competed could not be considered as a “bona fide competition”.

Yet, not only has the AFI approved that record, even the IAAF statistical publications have that mark as India’s National record, even though the IAAF statisticians, one was told, normally go by the IAAF rule for world record ratification, in these cases also. And that rule says there should be a minimum three athletes in an individual event for a record to be accepted.

IAAF has a different Indian record

Talking of IAAF-approved National records of India, there is one in women’s discus by Seema Antil, that of 64.84m set in Kiev in 2004 that stands out against our own recently-approved mark of 64.76m set by Krishna Poonia in Hawaii in 2012.

How can there be such a discrepancy? It seems Seema’s 2004 effort in Kiev was not supported by documentation. You may well ask whether any of the other records set abroad by Indian athletes during the past decade had been supported by documentation!

But that is beside the point. The IAAF has listed several ‘Indian bests’ with a rider that there was no dope control at these meets. Does it have some proof that Seema Antil was dope-tested in Kiev during the 2004 competition? Or for that matter Om Prakash Singh was tested in Szombathely in 2012?

Also in focus is a record in men’s long jump by Kumaravel Premkumar, set in New Delhi’s Nehru Stadium during last year’s Inter-Railway Championships. There was no dope testing there on the day the Tamil Nadu lad posted 8.09m, better than Amritpal Singh’s nine-year-old record by one centimeter.

Department wakes up late

For such departmental meets, the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) sends a team if there is a request from the organizers and an assurance that the expenses would be met by the latter. The Railway Sports Promotion Board (RSPB) woke up rather belatedly.

Premkumar was tested the next day or maybe even later than that. An ‘in-competition’ test has to be done immediately after the event.

The Indian Express quoted the AFI Technical Committee Chairman Tony Daniel as saying, “"In the absence of anti-doping protocol at the meet, his leap cannot be ratified by the AFI because he was not tested immediately after the event. Winners must give samples for testing within an hour of completing an event. This is a well-established international practice and cannot be violated."

Yet, Daniel presided over the committee meeting that approved Premkumar’s record as well as a number of other records where also there were no dope tests.

India shares the dubious distinction of being toppers, with Russia, in the matter of ‘dope cheats’ in athletics. The AFI has to wake up and follow its own proclaimed policies even as it grapples with the formulation of the criteria for accepting National records.

Were dope tests done in these cases:

Men
110m hurdles	13.65	Siddanth Thingalaya	Brussels	17-06-12
Long jump	8.09	Kumaravel Premkumar	New Delhi	05-08-13
Pole vault	5.13	K. P. Bimin	Jabalpur	23-08-12
Shot put	20.69	Om Prakash Singh	Szombathely	12-05-12
Discus	66.28	Vikas Gowda	Norman, USA	12-04-12
20km walk	1:20:21	K. T. Irfan	London	04-08-12
50km walk	3:56:48	Basant Bahadur Rana	London	11-08-12
Women
Discus	64.76	Krishna Poonia	Hawaii	05-05-12
20km walk	1:34:28	Khushbir Kaur	Moscow	13-08-13