BCCI sings old tune as Rathore softens stand

The NADA-BCCI row is back to square one. Or so it looks from the way the two sides have adopted differing postures in recent days.

The statement of the Union Sports Minister Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore on the day of Delhi Half Marathon that he was glad that cricket was getting doping control done through an outside agency has come as a surprise to those who believe in international protocols when it comes to anti-doping authority and measures.

Was the minister quoted correctly? That was the question that cropped up immediately as one saw the reports. Going through several reports the next day one realized that he may not have been defending the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in opting for its own doping control but wanted a solution to a ticklish issue to be worked out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). One could yet be wrong in this assessment.

The issue has got more clouded than it was when it started with the report that WADA wanted the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) to have control of cricket’s anti-doping tasks also in order to become fully compliant with the Code.

Clarity needed

A few points need further clarity, however.

The WADA Code and the International Cricket Council (ICC) anti-doping code give the authority to test cricketers at the domestic level to the National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO). In India’s case it is the NADA.

This authority has not been granted to the NADOs by the WADA because of the inability of the National sports federations in each country in each sport to carry out the anti-doping activities but because the sportsworld at large wanted uniformity in testing, results management, hearing procedures, sanctions etc. It also wanted an independent organization to do this work rather than various national federations or the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) being entrusted with the responsibility.

In bringing all sports under its fold in 2009, the Indian NADA did not go into the efficiency of the anti-doping system adopted by each NSF nor was it supposed to do that; it had to bring them into its fold as per the Code and it did. Except for cricket, that is.

Cricket resisted, with the BCCI refusing to accept the ICC rules, prompted by leading players opposing the ‘whereabouts’ rules in 2009 since the players felt that these were too intrusive. That position has more or less remained except for the fact that a mutually agreeable ‘whereabouts’ system was worked out by the ICC and WADA in 2010 and that in turn was acceptable to the BCCI.

The WADA gives the international federations enough space to draw up a ‘whereabouts’ system that is most suited for that particular sport. Cricket’s system is based on team training sessions and hotel locations during match days.

NADOs, however, could be having a different methodology in designing its registered testing pool (RTP). That is where the Indian problem comes, or so it is being made out. Why such a preferential treatment should be given to Indian cricketers has not been explained so far by anyone.

Now that WADA wants the NADA to be compliant in every sense the latter has to gain control over all sports in India irrespective of whether that sport has gained Government recognition or not.

Going by the ICC anti-doping code

“We do everything by the ICC anti-doping code” is a refrain that the BCCI often falls back on. The BCCI conveniently forgets that the ICC rules also demand that a NADO also be given the authority to test in domestic cricket and manage relevant tasks.

There is no method by which the ICC can get Indian cricketers tested in domestic competitions through WADA, as has been suggested or hinted by the Sports Minister.

For one thing, the ICC rules apply only to ‘international-level players’. For another, domestic testing is the prerogative of the National federation (BCCI or NADO where in existence and delegated as per ICC template for its members).

The ICC rules state: The ICC Code applies solely to International-Level Players. Cricket players participating at the national level are governed by the anti-doping rules of the National Cricket Federation under whose jurisdiction they participate (including in relation to TUEs and appeals).

Though WADA can test any athlete in any sport anywhere in the world, it is generally not in the business of testing athletes unless engaged by another agency which may not have the resources or reach to test an athlete in a foreign country, or in a situation where it is needed to conduct a few out-of-competition tests of its own. In this case, the ICC having no authority to test Indian cricketers outside the definition of “international-level” players, because of its own rules, it should be presumed it will not request WADA to test the country’s domestic players under its rules and authority.

Thus, it has to be either NADA, which, going by all rules, has the jurisdiction to test domestic-level cricketers in India, or the BCCI which exercises its “sole authority” to test domestic players and in tournaments under its banner through a special privilege granted to it by the ICC.

WADA obviously cannot go against its own Code in granting any special authority to a National federation in any sport. The Code does not contain any reference to national federations.

The BCCI’s oft-repeated, worn-out argument that it follows the ICC anti-doping code is irrelevant in this context. Every national federation in India follows its international federation's rules. Because of that it has neither usurped NADA’s rights nor ignored the international federation’s regulations.

For example, though the re-instatement testing is no longer part of the Code, the IAAF continues to insist on these tests and every international athlete who has undergone a suspension of over two years has to undergo three reinstatement tests which the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) oversees in co-ordination with NADA. Though these tests are not mandatory for domestic-level athletes, the AFI had been going through with such tests.

The AFI also has the responsibility of conducting hearings when an Indian athlete is charged with an anti-doping rule violation in an international competition or in a test conducted by IAAF or any other competent agency on an ‘international-level’ athlete. It is another matter that during the past six years, the IAAF has entrusted this responsibility to the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) of India on a case-by-case basis.

AFI wanted in-competition testing rights

The AFI was the first National federation in India to formally write to NADA in 2008 that it wished to continue with its right to test ‘in-competition’ in its events even as it agreed with NADA’s jurisdiction to test out of competition. NADA rejected the proposal.

The competence of the BCCI to test Indian cricketers need not be questioned here to advance a proposal “let WADA test them”. That is not the debating point at this moment nor has it been in respect of other National federations in 2008-2009. If the BCCI could understand that it is not the number of tests it is conducting that is under scrutiny nor is it about its capacity to handle ‘results management’ and hearing procedures, but the right of the NADA to test within the territory of India, much of the problem could have been solved many summers ago.

By repeatedly confusing the issue with number of samples it has collected_more than any other National cricket body since 2013, but lower than the ICC_or the international sample-collection agency it has engaged from Sweden (IDTM), the BCCI might have succeeded in making out a case for its continued right to test domestically as far as the public and media are concerned. But, for the ICC to be Code-compliant, it will have to tell the BCCI to follow its code and the WADA Code.

Sample numbers take a plunge

By the way, from a high of 311 urine samples in 2014, the BCCI came down to 176 samples in 2015 and 153 samples in 2016. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), which tests under the delegated authority of Cricket Australia, was just two tests behind in 2016. The only country to have done blood tests in cricket so far, between 2012 and 2016, is Australia.

By suggesting that the BCCI could have “trusted” NADA, instead of carrying out its own anti-doping measures, Rathore has, even if perhaps unwittingly, softened the stand that the ministry seemed to have taken initially by asking NADA to go ahead with testing cricketers.  There is no room in the Code for National federations to make its choice in domestic testing including in-competition testing based on its own assessment of competence and resources of a NADO. It is a letdown NADA would have least bargained for at a time it had the backing of WADA on the issue.

Can the Indian public and the media trust the BCCI to have done a competent job when it is not even announcing either the names or the details about any hearing process for four positive cases of cricketers in its tests between 2013 and 2016 except that of Delhi pacer Pradeep Sangwan in the 2013 IPL?

The BCCI has lived up to its reputation as a sports body different from the rest of them that cannot survive without Government support and thus offer little resistance. In this case, the rest of the federations have rightly accepted the authority of NADA since the world anti-doping structure demands it. The BCCI is just showing off its financial and political clout in defying the Government and the NADA.

Bring 'disappearing' athletes and camp boycotters into Registered Testing Pool

.

Nirmala Sheoran winning the Fed Cup 400m at Patiala on 4 June, 2017 in 51.28s, the third best time ever by an Indian.



Are non-campers doping?
Athletes missing national camps is nothing new. Many athletes skipped the camps in 2015 and 2016 without being banned from future camps. 
There is a general feeling in athletics circles, especially within the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) that athletes who train away from national camps are engaged in doping since dope-testers hardly ever reach them. Action against the ‘errant’ athletes is quite often proposed but rarely taken. 

There is another section within the athletics fraternity which believes that camps provide a “protected environment” for doping, and athletes, especially the “favourites”, do manage to dope and get tipped off well in time to avoid dope-testers from the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

The fact that drugs were impounded and destroyed by the authorities at camps through the years, the fact that all the six woman quarter-milers caught in the net in 2011 were campers, the fact that a ‘doping chart’ prepared possibly by a foreign expert was in circulation in 2004 in the camp, and the fact that drugs are easily available near the NIS, Patiala, all point towards the prevalence of doping in the camps. 

When international testers came looking for Indian athletes

Most of us remember the “disappearance” of leading athletes from the Patiala camp in 2006 when WADA/IAAF came looking for a batch of athletes. A disciplinary panel was set up by the AFI to look into the ‘disappearing act’ but eventually nothing came of it. Now, there seems to be an urgency to crack the whip; pardon the cliché. The AFI has said that it would not allow those invited and still skipping the camp to compete in the selection trials for international meets. The Commonwealth Games in Gold Coast, Australia, and the Asian Games in Jakarta, are scheduled next year.

This is an extreme step that might not pass legal scrutiny, but we will come to that later. There is a need to highlight another point that has come up in this AFI decision to keep “reluctant campers” away from selection meets.

This report  dated 31 October says Nirmala Sheoran, the top 400m runner of the country, has been “untraceable” for the AFI. It says it appears the AFI decision to bar camp absentees from selection meets has probably arisen out of the Nirmala episode.

Stunning timings

Nirmala had trained on her own somewhere in Haryana in 2016 also when she qualified for the Rio Olympics 400m with a stunning 51.48s in the Inter-State meet at Hyderabad. She went out in the first round in Rio with a 53.03s. Nirmala competed only in the Inter-State and the Olympics in 2016.

She appeared at the Fed Cup at Patiala this year and once again destroyed the field with another sensational 51.28s, prompting fans to acclaim her performance. She qualified for the World Championships with that timing but before going to London she won the Asian title in Bhubaneswar with a modest 52.01s.

In London, Nirmala made the semifinals, with another 52.01s, a creditable feat considering the routine manner in which Indian athletes fail on the global stage. But in the semifinal she could manage only a 53.07s and went out. It was her poorest timing in 2017. Once again, the 22-year-old Haryana athlete competed only in limited meets, the Fed Cup and Asian championships at home and the World Championships.

The top brass in the AFI was not convinced, though, even before Rio. Now, there is further cynicism. Of athletes skipping National camps, this is what the AFI chief, Adille Sumariwalla, has stated in the above report: “They keep hiding here and there, telling us ‘we will come after 15 days, we will come now, we will come later’. When they think it is safe for them, they come.”

Understandable concern

Sumariwalla’s concern is understandable. Both in Rio and London, the Indian athletes fared poorly overall. The AFI keeps projecting medals, at least for the Commonwealth Games and the Asian Games, in assessments given to the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Sports Ministry but things do not pan out to expectations eventually.

But why is the AFI searching for Nirmala? Why is the NADA not doing this? And why is NADA not marking ‘missed tests’ against her name if she is not found at the place where she was expected to be at a specified point of time during the course of a day? Does NADA have her in its Registered Testing Pool (RTP)? If not, how can NADA exclude a top athlete like Nirmala?

So, we come to the disturbing conclusion that Nirmala is probably not in the NADA’s Registered Testing Pool (RTP). There can be no other explanation for NADA seeking her ‘whereabout’ information from the AFI, as one surprisingly learnt the other day.

NADA’s responsibility is to send out testers to an athlete’s chosen place for ‘whereabouts’ testing at the specified time and if found missing, initiate steps to mark a ‘missed test’. Three such misses in a 12-month period would mean a possible anti-doping rule violation that can attract a two-year suspension.

If Nirmala has not been included in the NADA RTP it is a shocking development. She topped the national lists in 400m in 2016 and this year with timings that had not been matched for over a dozen years at home, 51.48s (No. 3 in Asia) and 51.28s (No. 2 in Asia). It is natural for any follower of Indian athletics and people aware of anti-doping systems to believe that she would be there in the RTP.

NADA can seek to send a notice to the athlete through the National Federation. Say, to inform the athlete that he/she has been included in the RTP or he/she had missed a test and needed to explain things further in order to avoid a ‘strike’ against his/her name. But NADA would be expected to send a communication directly to the athlete’s registered residential address (obtained from the federation), with a copy to the NSF, in all such instances. It should not be asking the federation, “where can we find” Nirmala. It should have got her address long back and by now should have either included her in the RTP or if she is already ‘in’, then send testers to collect samples.

All that NADA needs, as per rules, is a five-day gap after posting a communication to consider that the notice was “deemed” to have been delivered. The TOPs (Olympic Podium) list should have at least triggered the process if NADA had not included current leading athletes in its ‘whereabouts’ programme.

‘Whereabouts’ information filed by chosen athletes provide an anti-doping authority a window to test the athletes at a pre-designated location opted for by the athletes for testing during a one-hour slot every day through the year. Athletes are expected to file quarterly information and may make last-minute changes, if required, through mobile phones or e-mails etc.

Timing is crucial in testing

Timing is important in any out-of-competition testing. There is no point in testing when athletes have “washed” their systems clear of traces of drugs in time for competitions. (Some advantage is always retained even after washing it out. In certain cases it may be a huge advantage).

With the Commonwealth Games coming up in April next year, NADA can now hope to test Nirmala or any other athlete, on a ‘whereabouts’-based schedule (if not already registered) only next year since January 1 will mark the beginning of a new quarter while October 1 was the last one.

If NADA had not been reviewing its ‘whereabouts’ list in all sports on a regular basis, it has gone against the regulations of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), as available in the International Standards for Testing and Investigations. It is supposed to do it at least on a quarterly basis if not earlier and then add or delete names to/from the list depending on its criteria.

NADA’s initial ‘whereabouts’ list in athletics in May 2015, contained 41 names. Three of them (shot putter Inderjeet Singh, sprinter Dharambir Singh and 400m runner Priyanka Panwar) were charged with anti-doping rule violations last year. Dharambir and Panwar have since been suspended while Inderjeet’s case is going on.

On a rough estimate at least 20 of the rest of the athletes in that list should be out of the RTP by now, if they have not been so far, since they are no longer among the top athletes or else have stopped competing regularly. At the same time, a big batch of athletes including all those chosen for the TOP scheme who are already not in the RTP could be expected to be included in the line-up. You don’t spend lakhs of rupees for training athletes abroad or hiring foreign coaches, and provide Rs 50,000 per month pocket allowance without subjecting athletes to dope tests, do you?

Those among the 19 already in the NADA RTP of 2015 (presuming that the top athletes in that list would have been retained even if NADA had updated the original list several times over) are: K. T. Irfan (20km walk), O. P. Singh (shot put), Lalita Babar and Sudha Singh (3000m steeplechase) and Annu Rani (javelin). World junior champion javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra is the only Indian athlete in the IAAF RTP at present and thus NADA may not need to include him in its RTP.

Sixteen more athletes are expected to be added to the TOPs list, among whom Arokia Rajiv, M. R. Poovamma and Anilda Thomas were in the 2015 RTP and could be expected to have been retained till now.

The ability or otherwise of NADA to test athletes training at various locations in the country, even if some of them are outside the camps, should not force the AFI to restrict a selection meet (in this case the Federation Cup and the Inter-State meet in 2018) to campers. It can, at best, argue that only the ‘campers’ and those training abroad with the permission of the AFI and SAI, may be selected to represent India, but not refuse entry to National meets. Even that would be questionable and could be challenged in courts.

Exclusion could be challenged

If the athletes training outside the camps manage to clock timings and distances that match the selection criteria and are still dropped, we may yet again have court cases like we had in 2016 when quarter-miler Anu Raghavan sought legal recourse for inclusion in the Olympic squad, and Asian 1500m winner P. U. Chithra approached Kerala High Court this year to gain her ‘legitimate right’ for inclusion in the team to World Championships. In both cases the pleas became infructuous since they were taken up rather late though the courts were inclined to rule in favour of the athletes.

Incidentally, Anu Raghavan and Anilda Thomas, along with the country’s top 400m man, Muhammed Anas, are training outside the camp in Kerala, and according to this report, are keen to pursue their own programme.

The AFI would be well advised to persuade NADA to include those athletes who are training outside camps in the RTP and advise the former to do at least two tests a month from now on up to the Commonwealth Games. If the process of RTP registration is delayed, NADA could be told to make surprise visits to known training centres of these athletes and carry out a test every fortnight or so. NADA needs to put in wholehearted efforts to achieve this. An attitude of “let’s not test them four or five times a year” will not help.

Quite often AFI officials claim that the athletes within the camps are tested every ten days or fortnight. That is what they imagine and that could be the most ideal situation to have. But in reality, the numbers are much smaller. As per WADA statistics, NADA did only 358 out-of-competition tests in athletics in 2016.

Let us assume around 100 athletes could be part of the camp every year. Let us also assume it could begin around December or January and the season could stretch up to October. Say two tests every month for ten months per athlete. That will work out to 2000 out-of-competition tests per year among campers in athletics alone. NADA did only 2699 tests, in and out of competition, in all sports put together in 2016!

BCCI and ICC should not get special status

There is an air of inevitability about the row that erupts between the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) at periodic intervals. Every time it hits the headlines, various theories are put forward by the organisations involved in the posturing to explain why NADA is keen to test cricketers and why the BCCI wants to “protect” them or its autonomy.

Invariably, an impression gains ground that cricket need not be a ‘low vulnerable’ sport in doping terms, and that Indian cricketers are running shy of being dope-tested. For good measure, the ‘security angle’ involved in the ‘whereabouts’-based dope-testing exercise is often bandied about as though the only way to come to know of the places of residence of top-level cricketers is through the anti-doping ‘whereabouts’ route and that domestic matches are held in such secure environs no one would be able to see or approach the players. By implication, NADA’s credibility to safeguard data related to athletes’ ‘whereabouts’ is doubted.

Privacy and security (and, at a later stage, the apprehensions about blood-testing) were talked about in relation to Indian cricketers and ‘whereabouts’ at various intervals during the past eight years when NADA tried in vain to take control of domestic cricket testing. None of this reasoning might have been founded on logic but once the argument was made, the Board officials easily latched onto it and the media was too happy to oblige.

Take for instance the latest argument of the “top leadership of the BCCI” regarding NADA’s much-publicised attempt to test leading cricketers:

“The top leadership of BCCI believes that trying to get a Virat Kohli or Mahendra Singh Dhoni sign the ‘whereabouts’ clause is one of the main reasons behind NADA wanting BCCI to come under its wing”, says an agency report that was attributed to an unnamed BCCI official.

Now, why should NADA be keen to get Kohli or Dhoni sign the ‘whereabouts’ clause when they are already in the ICC ‘whereabouts’ (National Players) Pool?

Anti-doping agencies are expected not to duplicate efforts while drawing up their pools or testing individual athletes. It stands to logic then that even if the NADA gets the right to test cricketers, Kohli and Dhoni may not be obliged to file ‘whereabouts’ information with NADA since they would have already filed the information (as per ICC requirements) to the ICC. Just for the fun of it, if NADA still wants them to file information, they may, however, have to oblige.

The ‘whereabouts’ information collected by one agency is available through ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration and Management System) to other relevant agencies that have the authority test an athlete. The ICC having a different approach to ‘whereabouts’ compared to many other international federations and NADOs, it is true the Indian NADA might not get the information it could be seeking from ADAMS alone.

ICC National Player Pool

The top five ODI batsmen of a country, along the top five bowlers and the wicketkeper with the most number of ODI appearances constitute the National Player Pool (NPP) of the ICC. Needless to say, both Kohli and Dhoni have been part of that pool for long and continue to be in it.

It is not essential for an anti-doping authority to base its ‘whereabouts’ data on residential addresses or holiday locations. The International Standards for Testing and Investigations gives the option of seeking information based on ‘team activity’. What is expected is the address of a venue where an athlete could be located for one hour every day as per his/her filing on a quarterly basis. It could be a training ground from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m every day of the quarter or year or else it could be a hotel during match days.

The ICC does not seek residential addresses of its players in the NPP_the IRTP players have to provide the address_ except a player’s “nominated address” to be given to the National federation for the purpose of communications. The International Standards, however, require that addresses where athletes are living be given.

Team activity

Neither the ICC nor the NADA (as and when it gets to test cricketers) would be expected to gather information from individual players if such information could be obtained from a team and which could be used during ‘team activity’. The ICC ‘whereabouts’ testing is based on team sessions at training venues and stay at hotels during match days. The International Football Federation (FIFA) also have similar rules for its main registered pool.

It is not absolutely necessary for an anti-doping agency to have ‘whereabouts’ data to test players it is targeting. An athlete could be tested any time between 6 a.m and 11 p.m any day of the year at any location, even if the athlete is outside the ‘whereabouts’ list. WADA has the authority to test any athlete any time in any sport anywhere in the world subject to timings restrictions.

It was not until May, 2015 that the NADA got together a national registered pool in any sport in India. A beginning was made with athletics and weightlifting followed. You might then wonder what the fuss was all about during the 2009-2010 period when the BCCI refused to accept the ICC ‘whereabouts clause’, ostensibly trying to protect the privacy of its leading players, and also refused to come under the jurisdiction of the NADA.

Breach of ‘right to privacy’

It was made out that the then Attorney General had advised the BCCI that the ‘whereabouts’ clause could be in breach of the Constitution since the “right to privacy” guaranteed in the Constitution could be violated.

"We need to find a solution to the practical problem India is having, which is a constitutional issue of the country, which is why we decided to suspend the 'whereabouts' clause," ICC CEO Haroon Lorgat was quoted as saying by 'Cricinfo' after an Executive meeting of the world body, PTI reported on October 8, 2009.

Could there be a Constitutional issue only for the cricketers and not for other sportspersons in India? No one asked the question, it seems.

No one was also bothered about seeking a legal opinion whether the Government of India was breaching the Constitutional rights of the athletes since it happened to be a signatory to the UNESCO Convention against Doping in Sports, which in turn endorsed the WADA Code that had the ‘whereabouts’ provision. Moreover, the Government by then had also set up the NADA which followed the ‘whereabouts’ provisions.

The US, UK, Germany, France and Australia, to name just a handful of leading democracies in the world, have adopted the Code and have ‘whereabouts’ rules in place without their judiciary questioning them about privacy intrusion. The same applies to blood sampling, once thought to be extremely contentious and likely to run into hurdles especially in Europe but now accepted the world over as part of a procedure that anti-doping authorities need to follow.

Blood testing

Indian cricketers, according to reports, are still wary of blood being drawn for testing. In short, Indian cricketers have been painted as a set of sportspersons who are special. Whether they themselves have expressed fears over NADA’s authority, the ‘whereabouts’ clause and blood sampling or whether this has been a BCCI-spun narrative is difficult to tell.

If WADA can protect personal data (notwithstanding hacking) and have rules in place to regulate such data, if NADA could handle dope tests and ‘whereabouts’ information of other sportspersons with the confidentiality expected of it, cricketers should not feel scared. After all, NADA is a signatory to the Code while the BCCI is not.

Attempt to gain special status

The ICC has unfortunately attempted to acquire for itself a special position among the Code signatories, and to provide a more special status to the BCCI that has refused to acknowledge the authority of the National Anti-Doping Organisation.  Declared ‘non-compliant’ to the Code in 2008 by the WADA, the ICC had managed to have its own set of ‘whereabouts’ rules that were later okayed by WADA. But now the ICC seems to have violated the Code again by amending its rules, probably in 2016.

Even as it has retained the contentious amendment to the rule that legitimizes the refusal of the BCCI to recognize NADA’s jurisdiction, the ICC has maintained that it was satisfied with the BCCI anti-doping policy that had adopted the ICC template. The ICC has rarely gone against the BCCI in matters of anti-doping especially in recent years.

But has the BCCI really adopted the ICC template for National Federations? A firm ‘No’ is the answer.  There are 58 references in that template for National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs); none in the BCCI anti-doping rules!
There is a clear assertion of the status of the NADO in the ICC template but none has been adopted by the BCCI. Despite this, the ICC has approved and acknowledged the BCCI's refusal to accept the rules and still contended that the latter follows the template.
This is what rule 5.1.1 of the ICC template says:

“Testing shall only be undertaken for anti-doping purposes, i.e. to obtain analytical evidence as to the Cricketer’s compliance (or non-compliance) with the Rules’ strict prohibition on the presence/Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. The National Cricket Federation shall be responsible for assisting the NADO to draw up and implement a test distribution plan for cricket played under its jurisdiction in accordance with Article 4 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. Where there is no NADO, or the NADO does not include sufficient Testing for cricket played under its jurisdiction in its test distribution plan, the National Cricket Federation shall be responsible for implementing such Testing. The National Cricket Federation will engage one or more third parties to conduct such Testing on its behalf. All such Testing shall be conducted in substantial conformity with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and the Cricket Testing Protocols.”

One is not aware of any other International Federation not recognizing the authority of a NADO either directly or allowing one of its member units to defy the National body and providing a provision about it in its own rules. International federations in athletics, football and swimming, among dozens of others, have rules that provide for domestic testing and ‘results management’ responsibilities to be delegated by the National federations to the NADOs.

Quite a few of the International federations, however, stop short of entrusting the sole authority to test at the national level to NADOs where they are in existence.

National federations not Code signatories

National federations are not counted among the anti-doping authorities in the Code which has the international federations, major event organisers, regional bodies and NADOs as its signatories. A National federation may yet conduct tests at the domestic level under the authority and rules of an international federation, a clause not mentioned in the Code but available in the International Standards for Testing and Investigations (2017).

This does not give a national federation the right to defy a NADO nor does it provide it a chance to take over various responsibilities of the latter. 

NADA has allowed this to drag on for too long. It should have sorted this out right at the beginning, back in 2009. Now the issue has got clouded and there is only focus on ‘whereabouts’ testing and the need of the Indian cricketers to provide NADA with such information in case the latter becomes a testing authority for cricket. Of course, the ever-popular “privacy” angle is often mentioned in reports.

For an anti-doping body that is yet to have all Olympic sports under its ‘whereabouts’ window, cricketers should not be prime targets under NADA’s ‘whereabouts’ programme. The rules require ADOs to collect whereabouts information only if they plan to test an athlete out of competition three or four times a year.

In the WADA testing figures for 2016, cricket figures among the low rankers with only three adverse analytical findings, the same as golf, one more than darts and one less than archery. The Indian NADA should not try to make it out as though cricket is dope-driven or the BCCI does not bother about transparency, citing the example of one positive test by BCCI last year about which there is no further information. There is no information about three other cases from 2013.

Top-ranked cricketers are liable to be included in blood sampling though ICC has not done any blood tests so far. In the past two years only the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has done all the blood tests on cricketers (33) except two by Jamaica.  In the four previous years (2012-2015) cricket did not have a blood sampling at all as per WADA figures. Cricket is not considered an endurance sport and thus the lack of urgency to draw blood from players despite the repeated slant given in news reports that “Indian players will be subjected to blood tests”.

Time for WADA to intervene

Unless WADA intervenes and directs the ICC to rectify the situation vis a vis its Indian unit, the stalemate would continue. WADA has reportedly written to the ICC but the latter has denied it. Any concession to the ICC by WADA would be unjustified while the Government needs to tackle the BCCI through the legal route if required. 

NADA’s attempts to go ahead and start testing cricketers, on the strength of a communication from WADA and a directive from the ministry, may not succeed since it does not have the authority to test cricketers. That authority must be given by the BCCI which should then incorporate the NADA rules into its own constitution or governing document for NADA to begin testing cricketers.

NADA might have done tests in other sports without this ‘delegated authority’ all these years and might continue to do so but the BCCI is not going to allow this “assumed right” go unchallenged, if it is bent upon a confrontationist path.

If a cricketer, on the advice of the BCCI, refuses to submit himself to sample collection, or the BCCI refuses to impose a sanction on a player (if a positive test comes up and a panel orders a suspension), NADA might not be able to do much legally and within the framework of the Code.

Merely falling back on the plea that the NADA’s status and rules were published in the Gazette of India might prove inadequate in a legal battle if the beleaguered BCCI, burdened already with legal issues, decides to fight it out in the courts. The sooner the parties sit across the table the better it would be for sports and anti-doping in India.

 

(amended Nov 2, 2017)