Indian cricketers follow ‘whereabouts’ rules but out of bounds for NADA

There is a misconception in our country that the International Cricket Council (ICC) does not follow the World Anti Doping Code (WADC) or is not one of its signatories, that the Indian players have continued to avoid “whereabouts”-based out-of-competition testing and that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has resisted all attempts so far to bring Indian cricketers under the “whereabouts” clause.

None of these is true. The ICC is an anti-doping Code signatory and it had fulfilled the conditions set out by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) to the extent of being among the ‘Code compliant’ agencies in 2015. Those that were not compliant had been named by the WADA which also declared some others as only “provisionally compliant”. None of the international federations was named.

The ICC has stated, according to a report in The Hindu, that the BCCI and the Indian players were very much part of its anti-doping activities and they were also fulfilling their “whereabouts” responsibilities.

Popular notion

The popular notion among sections of sports administrators, journalists and even among those associated with anti-doping measures in this country that Indian cricketers were outside the purview of anti-doping ‘whereabouts’ rules seemed to have gained ground since 2009 when leading Indian cricketers reportedly expressed reservations about agreeing to the ‘whereabouts’ clause.

The Indian stars were concerned that their privacy would be intruded into, especially when they could be holidaying or wanting to take a quiet break at home with family.

The BCCI sided with the players as the ICC, by then declared non-compliant by WADA primarily because of the lack of ‘whereabouts’ testing, tried to bring in the ‘whereabouts’ clause.  It was not until August 2010 that the ICC drafted a fresh ‘whereabouts’ document that was acceptable to the WADA as well as the BCCI.

The interesting point about the ICC ‘whereabouts’ rules has been the system of two sets of players with the IRTP list having only a slim chance of including an ‘active’ international player.

Only a player with a past doping record is certain to get included in the IRTP if he happens to be active at that time. If a player with a doping record has not played international cricket during the preceding 12 months he will not be included.

The ‘promotion’ from the National Player Pool (NPP) which contains the top five batsmen and bowlers in the ODI rankings from the top eight ODI countries, to the IRTP will depend on breach of ‘whereabouts’ rules. NPP players who have violated the rules three times in a 12-month period would be pushed up. Those players who are not getting to play or be part of a touring team for specific periods would also be elevated to the IRTP.

IRTP requirement

The IRTP players have to provide residential address apart from match venues and training locations unlike the NPP players who need give only the team training address, match venues and team hotel address. When a player is representing a country, the respective Boards would file this information.

Even for domestic matches a National Federation can perform this task for a player but the player would ultimately be held responsible for any breach of rules. The BCCI, it is learnt, does the job for Indian players in domestic matches as well as tour matches.

The ICC spokesman has insisted that the BCCI has been and continues to be part of the ‘whereabouts’ policy framed by the ICC. That should set at rest whatever speculation that had been doing the rounds in India about the top Indian cricketers not being subjected to ‘whereabouts’-based testing.

“But they don’t follow WADA Code, do they” is an oft-asked question about cricketers and anti-doping measures in India. Sadly, no one has tried to correct this misleading perception.

ICC rules silent on NADOs' authority

There is however one aspect that is still disturbing from an anti-doping perspective, not just with the BCCI and Indian cricket, but with the ICC. That relates to domestic testing.

The BCCI does have a domestic testing programme and also conducts out-of-competition testing. But it does not have a domestic ‘whereabouts’ programme.  The ICC says members are encouraged to adopt the domestic anti-doping template that the ICC had devised. It also says as per WADA Code there is no requirement for a National federation to have a domestic ‘whereabouts’ programme.

In fact according to the ICC the WADA expects only an international federation and/or a National Anti Doping Organization (NADO) to have a ‘whereabouts’ programme.

Surprisingly, the ICC anti-doping code has only limited reference to NADOs. It mainly pertains to approval of therapeutic use exemption (TUE), its rejection etc.

On the other hand we have the WADA Code that states:

“5.2.1 Each National Anti-Doping Organization shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes who are nationals, residents, license-holders or members of sport

organizations of that country or who are present in that National Anti-Doping Organization’s country.

“5.2.2 Each International Federation shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes who are subject to its rules, including those who participate in International Events or who participate in Events governed by the rules of that International Federation, or who are members or license-holders of that International Federation or its member National Federations, or their members…

“5.2.4 WADA shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority as set out in Article 20.”

The WADA Code does not give any authority to any National federation in any sport to test athletes. If a country does not have a NADO then the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of the country has the authority to conduct national-level testing.

Since 2009, the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) has tried to get a response from the BCCI about its intentions to test in cricket. All efforts have proved in vain so far.
The BCCI does not consider itself as a National Sports Federation since it does not seek any funds from the Central Government. NADA seems to have gone along with that argument. There could be a debate about the status of the BCCI, whether it could be considered an NSF irrespective of its financial independence.

BCCI's apprehensions

The BCCI’s apprehensions (read players' concern) could again be related to ‘whereabouts’ information to be provided by the players in case they were to come under NADA rules.

Unlike the ICC rules, the NADA rules (based on the WADA Code 2015) do require athletes to provide ‘whereabouts’ information for the entire duration of a year on a quarterly basis. This will necessarily include breaks from competition when the players could be at home or at a holiday destination in India or abroad.

We know at least the top players were apprehensive about this requirement even if all of them might not have outright rejected it in 2009.

Even if the BCCI starts its own ‘whereabouts’ testing in domestic cricket, it is quite likely it would be on the pattern of the National Player Pool of the ICC where only match venues, training locations and hotel information need to be given.

If NADA takes over this task things could be drastically different.

In the UK, The National Anti-Doping Organisation for England and Wales cricket is UK Anti-Doping (UKAD).In Australia, the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority (ASADA) that country’s NADO, has authority to test cricketers and bring forward cases of violations.

The Lodha committee recommendations do mention the WADA Code though not directly in reference to the need to delegate authority to the NADA in cricket.

It is not that cricket is a high risk sport as far as doping goes. In 2013 and 2014 cricket, world-wide, produced just one adverse analytical finding each in ICC testing. In 2013 there were four other cases reported from constituent units. However, in the last month of 2015 alone, we have had two prominent cricketers testing positive, Pakistani leg-spinner Yasir Shah and Sri Lankan wicketkeeper Kusal Perera.

In a country like India where cricket is now almost a year-round sport, the need to go in for testing other than at team hotels and grounds might yet look a needless exercise, though a beginning towards domestic 'whereabouts' testing could be something that can be set in motion by the Board, and it would be welcomed too by all agencies.

With the ICC initiating discussions with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to explore whether cricket could get into the Olympic programme and what needed to be done towards this, it is to be expected that it would take all possible measures to ensure that the sport remains fully Code-compliant.

(Amended 8 Jan 2016)