The new Code kicks in rather late in India

A beginning has been made by the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) in getting four-year sanctions for first-time dope offenders in tune with the World Anti Doping Code (WADC) 2015.

The National Anti Doping Disciplinary Panel (NADDP) has suspended seven sportspersons for four years each and one for eight years_for a second offence_for doping violations reported in early 2015. This was the first batch of doping cases in India that was dealt with under the revised Code that came into effect on January 1 this year.

The delay in getting the hearing process underway as per the new rules was because of the delay in appointing the panels. After having spent several months in looking for suitable members to fill in the vacancies, especially lawyer members, the Union Sports Ministry eventually re-nominated the members of the old panels last July for another term.

Thus there was a backlog of more than 40 cases when the re-nominated panels took over. The first set of 11 cases was decided by September 7. Eight of them were anti-doping rules violations reported this year. The other three were from 2014, all of which ended in two-year suspensions.

All the eight cases of 2015, seven in weightlifting and one in cycling, ended up in lengthy suspensions, seven of them for four years and one weightlifter, who had committed an earlier offence in 2012, for eight years. All these athletes are entitled to appeal and their eventual fate would be known only after all appeal avenues are exhausted.

(The three cases from 2014 were those of two wushu competitors, Ashok Kumar Yadav and Vikash, and one judoka, Lakhwinder Singh. All three got suspensions of two years.)

33 athletes suspended for four years in 2015

The Anti-Doping Database (ADDB), a pay website run by a Norwegian company, reported up to September 21 that 33 athletes had been suspended for four years this year. It is a moot point whether these 33 include the latest cases from India.

ADDB says in 2008 the four-year suspension list had reached 48. We have to remember that in 2008 and earlier there was no standard four-year ban for first-time offenders. It was only two years for first-time offenders, with multiple violations attracting sanctions ranging from two years to life ban depending on the gravity of the offence.

The stand-alone four-year sanction available in the 2015 Code for first-time offenders looks set to breach records in India if the initial trend is any indication.

Despite the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) bringing in a crucial change in the sanctions on individuals in the 2009 Code by having a new clause ‘aggravating circumstances’ that allowed for a maximum of four-year suspension, not many anti-doping agencies made use of the clause. To some extent, this reluctance contributed to the enhanced period of suspension in the revised Code.

India, in this respect, did not have a single sanction stretching up to four years for ‘aggravating circumstances’ that could have included multiple steroid violations which were in plenty in this country. There were two suspensions for four years in the NADA records up to February this year, both for second anti-doping rule violations.

A case of impersonation

The only time NADDP imposed a stiffer sanction for what amounted to more than an “aggravating circumstances” case was when an athlete, triple jumper Shailendra Kumar Yadav sent another athlete (Durgesh Khare) in his place for a doping control at the All-India Police Athletics Championships in 2013.

Both were subjected to doping control once the ‘impersonation’ was found out. Both tested positive! Shailendra Yadav tested positive for methylhexaneamine and epitrenbolone, a metabolite of steroid trenbolone while the urine sample of Khare tested positive for steroid stanozolol.

Yadav was suspended for three years and Khare for two. The latter was punished for “tampering with doping control”. Both seemed to have got away lightly.

Talking of “aggravating circumstances,” Indian panels, especially in the latest set of cases, look to be still stuck with the 2009 Code. For, they are still writing in their orders “no aggravating circumstances have been alleged for enhanced sanctions”. That is an old clause that has no place in the revised Code. Better hit the 'delete' key!

There are two minors among the seven weightlifters sanctioned in the latest batch. Amritpal Singh and Simranpreet Kaur, both from Sangrur, Punjab were competing in the National Youth Weightlifting Championships at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, when they were tested.

Both tested positive for steroid methandienone and both blamed coach Jaspal Singh apart from suggesting that some vitamins and supplements they were taking might have caused the positive results.

But the panel could not find any evidence to link the coach to their doping infractions and thus did not pass any adverse comments against the coach.

Bring athlete support personnel to book

There is plenty of scope in the 2015 Code to get sanctions imposed against athlete support personnel but it would be up to agencies like NADA to bring forward charges. In order to do that NADA would require additional staff to pursue cases and gather evidence. The sooner NADA fills up posts, some of them reportedly sanctioned quite some time ago, the better it would be for anti-doping efforts in the country.

Apart from Amritpal and Simranpreet, the four other weightlifters who were suspended for four years were Gurpreet Singh and Nabbi Lal of Rajasthan, who tested positive at the Rajasthan State championships, Ms. Shodhana of Karnataka who tested positive at the inter-University Championships, and Harjeet Kaur of Haryana who was one among the 16 who tested positive at the National Games in Kerala last February. Jugraj Singh of Punjab who tested positive for stimulant mephentermine at the inter-University weightlifting championships was suspended for two years, this being his second offence.

The lone cyclist, Naresh Deb Burman of the Army, was found positive during the National Mountain Bike Championships for 19-norandrosterone and 19-norandrostenedieone. Burman claimed he had been taking some medicines that could have caused the positive test but he could not produce prescriptions.

Nabbi Lal, the Rajasthan weightlifter, also fell back on a plea that he was prescribed Danazol 200 (ethisterone) by a doctor of Alwar. The panel noted that the prescribed medicine could have produced 2-OH-methylethisterone , metabolite of ethisterone, in his urine sample. However, the doctor member of the panel opined that the “clinical condition of this athlete did not require the use of this medicine so, it is a case of intentional consumption of the prohibited substance as the athlete fails to establish that there was no such intention to violate the anti-doping rules” (sic).

Panel member gives opinion on athlete’s clinical condition

Lal had claimed that he was prescribed the steroid for the treatment of a lump on his chest. However, what is intriguing is the “expert” opinion of the doctor regarding the “clinical condition” of the athlete.

Are doctor members of disciplinary panels required to provide their opinion regarding “clinical condition” of an athlete who is facing an anti-doping rule violation charge?

It might be too much to expect a state-level weightlifter in India to be aware of therapeutic use exemption (TUE) and the need to get such an exemption before taking a steroidal preparation even if it might not be too convincing that an athlete could have been prescribed a steroid by a doctor for the condition he mentioned. And that to a great extent focuses on the inadequate education athletes have about doping and anti-doping measures in this country especially at the state and village levels. This is not the responsibility of NADA alone and National Federations and their State units should be expected to contribute towards awareness campaigns in the anti-doping sphere.

By the way, NADA spreading its tentacles to Rajasthan State weightlifting championships should be welcome, but will it be willing to show interest in other state championships? Or in other sports and competitions at the state level?

Harjeet Kaur, the Haryana lifter who was caught for a strychnine violation in the National Games, was also in breach of violating the provisions of ‘voluntary provisional suspension’ that she opted for when she was informed of the dope test result. She competed in a Delhi meet while under provisional suspension that drew the attention and ire of the Indian Weightlifting Federation (IWLF). She was given four-year suspension from the date of participation in the Delhi meet.

Six of the weightlifters “admitted” their guilt. Jugraj Singh did not attend the hearing.

In each of the six cases, the panel ended up saying “the athlete has failed to show any ground for elimination or reduction of period of ineligibility”.

When will prompt admission attract leniency?

The Code provides for leniency in case an athlete admits the violation. No one is familiar with the process involved. Yet, NADA and the hearing panels should try to ascertain from athletes whether they were “promptly” admitting guilt and then see if such cases could be referred to WADA for a reduced sanction.

The Code says:

“10.6.3 Prompt Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation after being Confronted with a Violation Sanctionable under Article 10.2.1 or Article 10.3.1 An Athlete or other Person potentially subject to a four-year sanction under Article 10.2.1 or 10.3.1 (for evading or refusing Sample Collection or Tampering with Sample Collection), by promptly admitting the asserted anti-doping rule violation after being confronted by an Anti-Doping Organization, and also upon the approval and at the discretion of both WADA and the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility, may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility down to a minimum of two years, depending on the seriousness of the violation and the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.”

“Admission” would mean acceptance of “intentional doping” which should not deserve any leniency! Then how can an athlete take advantage of Article 10.6.3. The legal experts may have to throw light on this.

In most of the cases, Indian athletes, after having “admitted” their guilt go on to defend themselves by suggesting that supplements might have done the damage or some doctor gave steroids for some ailment, leading to the positive test. Eventually they end up with nothing except standard sanctions.

If the athletes know that he or she would stand a better chance in gaining reduction in suspension by simply admitting the violation they should be advised to do so, especially when state-level competitors are involved.

(updated 25 Sept, 2015)

Post-script: Just chanced upon this news item of a prompt admission and subsequent reduction in sanction in the case of a Canadian athlete. Redcution of four months from a standard sanction of four years might not mean much, but then we have to keep in mind this particular case involved three banned substances, two of them steroids.