How Tripathi panel agreed with ‘sabotage’ theory in Narsingh case

The CBI investigation into the alleged sabotage of wrestler Narsingh Yadav’s food/drink is going on, well into its second year.

The last one heard about the case was in January this year when the CBI recorded the wrestler’s statement according to this report. Yadav’s Rio Olympics dream was shattered when he tested positive in an out-of-competition dope test in June, 2016. Two tests in fact, within the space of ten days.

He was reprieved by the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) on the grounds of “sabotage” but that decision was overturned by the ad hoc division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) at Rio just before the wrestler was scheduled to compete in the Olympics.

In the hope of getting a break-through in the much-publicized doping case that unfortunately had its political overtones, the Wrestling Federation of India (AFI) pressed for a CBI enquiry and got one going in October 2016.

All this while, the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) refused to part with a copy of the order of the ADDP headed by Sanjay Mani Tripathi, dated Aug 1 2016,  as though it was state secret that if disclosed could compromise national security.

Quite by accident one managed to get a copy of the ADDP order and one can only wonder why NADA kept it close to its chest all this while. Were there outside compulsions?

Nothing sensational

There is nothing sensational in the order. But the ADDP order does give a clear picture about how amateurishly the Indian panel analyzed the ‘sabotage’ theory put forward by the wrestler and how ineffectively the NADA argued its case.

It is true that with the benefit of the CAS order of August 2016 that contains detailed, scientific analysis of the ingestion of the steroid by the wrestler and explanations regarding its metabolites etc, by WADA’s expert witness, Prof, Christiane Ayotte, one is in an ideal position to analyze the inadequacies of the NADA arguments and the hasty conclusions of the Indian panel.

But it is also true that the Indian panels in recent times have rarely shown an understanding of the scientific evidence, while NADA lacks the expertise to analyze such evidence. In the Narsingh Yadav case there is no indication in the order that expert opinion was sought either from the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL) or from independent agencies.

Thus, we have a situation where the Tripathi panel comes to the conclusion that the Narsingh case was that of one-time ingestion while WADA’s expert witness at the Rio hearing presented a convincing argument that it was not.

“That the claim of the athlete further gets support by the reason that ingestion of prohibited substance, in the present facts of matter, appears to be one time. For the reasons that the report about the indicative estimates for concentration of detected prohibited substance was found in the urine sample collected dated 25/06/2016 are substantially reduced in the urine sample collected dated 05/07/2016, rather only the long term metabolite of Methandienone was detected in the later sample. It is further important to note that report of first sample taken on 25/06/2016 was not known to athlete till the collection of second sample on 05/07/2016. Had the athlete been regular user of the prohibited substance in any form, he would have been taking it regularly and the report of sample taken on 05/07/2016 would have been positive to the extent of having the main substance. However, the report of sample dated 05/07/2016 shows the long term metabolite (LTM) of main substance only. It should also be kept in mind that in the past till 02/06/2016 none of the samples collected from athlete were found positive. It is further unconceivable (sic) that one time ingestion by the athlete would be of significant gain to him. Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion the one time ingestion by the athlete was not within his knowledge and it strengthens the claim of the athlete about the sabotage having taken place to him (sic) under the facts and circumstances,” wrote the Tripathi panel in its order.

Expert evidence contrary to Indian panel view

Just the opposite was Dr Christiane Ayotte’s expert evidence for WADA. “The ingestion was from a therapeutic dose, rather than from a suspension in water; and the long-term metabolite reading in the athlete’s first sample was 4ng/ml, yet 10 days later the long term metabolite reading in the second sample was 20ng/ml. While the reading can increase it would only do so in the first 2 or 3 days after ingestion. As there was no trace of parent compound in the first reading the likely ingestion was a few days before 25 June, 2016. The conclusion is that the long term metabolite in the second test was from a different (second) ingestion of the prohibited substance” the CAS panel summraised Prof Ayotte’s conclusions.

As reported at the time of the hearing, two of the cooks at the SAI Regional Centre, Sonepat, where the alleged ‘sabotage’ took place, deposed before the panel, on July 29, without the counsels in attendance, to confirm the allegation that an intruder was seen mixing some powder in a curry meant for Narsingh Yadav on June 5.

This incident was apparently brought up in order to convince the panel that the threat to sabotage Yadav’s food was real and an attempt was indeed made before he left for training to Bulgaria. It was on his return, the argument goes, that either on June 23 or June 24, his amino drink was spiked during a training session.

The Tripathi panel wrote: “It is claimed by the Athlete that actual sabotage took place either on June 23, 2016 or June 24, 2016 either in the food or in drinks which is supported by the complaint dated July 26, 2016 to the Police naming the perpetrator. The Panel cannot lose the sight of the fact that the said Mr. Jithesh was present inside the SAI Training Centre, Sonepat as wrestler in the category of cadet between April 12, 2016 to (sic) July 05, 2016 and kitchen area or the training area was very much accessible to him. Under the circumstances the claim of the Athlete that Mr. Jithesh is involved in the incident dated 23-24 June, 2016 appears to be justified”.

Sabotage theory upheld

The panel has concluded there was an “incident” either on June 23 or June 24 based on the allegations made by the athlete, his training partner and rest of his entourage! Eventually, unsure of the date on which it occurred, unsure of the modus operandi of the perpetrator/s, unsure about the number of times such ‘sabotage’ might have been carried out, the panel ruled that it was indeed sabotage.

“For the reasons said above Panel concludes that the athlete deserves the benefit of article 10.4 of the Anti-Doping Rules of NADA 2015 as there is no fault or negligence on his part and he is a victim of sabotage done by a competitor”, the order said.

Vijay Kumar Paswan and Pankaj Kumar were the two mess workers examined by the panel. A third person, Rahul Kumar, was also examined. They were witness to an intruder mixing something in the dish that was being prepared and an unusual froth coming out of the curry on June 5.

Paswan identified Jithesh as the person who was seen “pouring something in the saute in the kitchen”. Pankaj Kumar saw the “outsider” but could not identify him by name. Speculation was that the testimony by the cooks, done rather hush hush, could have been the clincher but it turns out there was nothing much to it.

The allegedly spiked curry became irrelevant in terms of it causing the positive test for methandienone since it was thrown out.

From the order, it seems, the curry was being prepared specially for Narsingh Yadav (and not for general consumption as had been made out in some earlier reports) by his close confidant and wrestler Chandan Yadav.

The Tripathi panel gives much credence to complaints registered with the Haryana Police regarding threat to Narsingh’s life, likely disturbances at the Sonepat centre etc in apparently coming to the conclusion that the situation was ripe enough for someone to “sabotage” the wrestler’s food or drink.

Another wrestler and Narsingh’s sparring partner, Sandeep Tulsi Yadav, also had turned in a positive test for the same steroid, methandienone at that time. After a year’s wait, Tulsi Yadav was recently suspended for four years. A panel, headed by Ms. Gouri Karuna Mohanti concluded:” In view of the decision rendered by CAS in the case of Mr. Narsingh Yadav, who was the room-mate and training partner of the present wrestler Mr. Sandeep Tulsi Yadav, we find no compelling reason to arrive at a conclusion contrary to the view of the CAS.”

Training partner ingested it later

Incidentally, Dr. Ayotte opined that “there was at least 12 to 20 hours difference between the ingestion of the prohibited substance by the Athlete (Narsingh) and by his roommate (Tulsi Yadav)”.

This was also damning evidence, like the metabolite concentration levels, that more or less punctured the theory of an intruder mixing powder in amino drinks. This, coupled with Dr Ayotte’s assertion of a second ingestion by Narsingh, meant the intruder, if indeed he succeeded in entering the training area and mixing steroids in other competitors’ drinks, did it on two different occasions for Narsingh and also managed it on another occasion for Tulsi Yadav.

CAS dismissed the sabotage theory of Narsingh Yadav thus: “The panel noted in the closing remarks that the Athlete’s counsel submitted that he may have been subject to further sabotage, but all in all found sabotage (s) theory possible, but not probable and certainly not grounded in any real evidence. The Panel therefore determined that the Athlete had failed to satisfy his burden of proof and the Panel was satisfied that the most likely explanation was that the Athlete simply and intentionally ingested the prohibited substance in tablet form on more than one occasion.”

The Tripathi panel did not name the “competitor” that Narsingh claimed was behind the ‘manipulation’ to prevent his Rio participation. The CAS panel named Sushil Kumar as the “competitor” and Jithesh was alleged to be working on behalf of the double Olympic medal-winner. The Mohanti panel which ruled on Tulsi Yadav, also named Sushil Kumar in its order.

The truth, hopefully, should come out at the end of the CBI investigation, which Narsingh hopes will vindicate him. If the investigation establishes Jithesh’s role in the ‘sabotage’ and his connection with Narsingh’s ‘competitor’ (Sushil) then there could be hope for Narsingh that he could approach the Swiss Federal Tribunal for a review. He has completed one year of his four-year suspension. How much longer would he be expected to wait?

'Testing time' for Indian athletes as IAAF picks five for its RTP & NADA chips in with 64

Long jumper Nayana James (pic) is among five Indian athletes chosen by the IAAF for its Registered Testing Pool

Sudden improvement in performance, consistent results at the international level, a top-20 or top-30 ranking in the world or credible “intelligence” information about an athlete indulging in doping practices often attract the attention of those who draw up the Registered Testing Pool at the International Associations of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

For more than a year now, the lone Indian in the IAAF Registered Testing Pool (RTP) happened to be javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra. His meteoric rise in world javelin rankings last year, culminating in the world junior record of 86.48m to win the World junior title in Bydgoszcz, Poland, perforce prompted the IAAF to place him in the RTP along with the rest of the top javelin throwers in September 2016.

Now, probably looking at the Commonwealth Games in April next year, and the improved performances shown by these athletes through the past year or two, the IAAF has brought in five Indian athletes into its RTP, at the same time leaving out Neeraj Chopra, rather inexplicably.

The IAAF five

The five in the Nov 15 RTP are: 400m runner Muhammed Yahya Anas, shot putter Tejinder Pal Singh Toor, javelin thrower Devender Singh Kang, long jumper Nayana James and shot putter Manpreet Kaur.

Of these five, Kang is facing a doping charge for marijuana, a recreational drug that may attract a milder sanction than most other prohibited substances. Manpreet has been charged with a combination of steroid and stimulant offence that could get her a maximum of four-year suspension. She is presently under provisional suspension.

Kang is not serving any provisional suspension since the substance comes under the ‘specified’ category. Both cases are scheduled to be taken up by the newly-reconstituted disciplinary panels.

The IAAF invariably includes suspended athletes in its RTP. The IAAF also happens to be one of the few international federations that has retained the ‘re-instatement’ testing clause in its rules after that provision was removed from the WADA Code.  A minimum of three re-instatement tests are still prescribed. And these tests would be done at the athlete’s costs.
Athletes in the registered testing pool are required to provide their "whereabouts" to the anti-doping organization concerned. They are also required to indicate a one-hour slot every day of the year for testers to be able to collect samples at a pre-designated place. 'Whereabouts' information can be filed on a quarterly basis. Three 'whereabouts' failures or filing failures can attract a sanction of two years.

Anas, Toor, Kang and James are first-time entrants into the IAAF RTP.  They seemed to have been excluded from the domestic RTP of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) when they hit big-time but now have been included in it.

NADA sprang a pleasant surprise the other day by announcing an RTP list for six sports including athletics. In an impressive list of 178 sportspersons, there are 64 track and field athletes in the NADA RTP.

We do not know at this point whether NADA was aware of the IAAF RTP list and the Indians in it when it drew up the domestic RTP that contains all the five Indians listed in the IAAF pool. To duplicate the effort is likely to be a waste of resources though NADA can and should try to co-ordinate with the IAAF in order to space out the frequency of testing to have the optimum impact as far as these five athletes are concerned.

Racewalkers missing

Missing in the NADA RTP are TOPs beneficiaries, walkers K. T. Irfan, Ganapathy Krishnan and Manish Rawat plus several of the 4x400m relay runners who are likely to be included in TOPs (if not already in it), including the No. 3 woman quarter-miler this season, M. R. Poovamma. Athletes in the TOPs list, in all disciplines, are expected to be brought under the NADA radar through its testing pool.

Manpreet Kaur was in the IAAF RTP in October-December 2010 but went out quickly. Now, she is back. It was learnt she was tested recently by some agency, causing a flutter since people did not expect an athlete serving a provisional suspension to be tested. However, the IAAF does reserve the right to test an athlete while under suspension. Manpreet had tested positive in samples collected at Patiala and Bhubaneswar apart from China during an Asian Grand Prix leg this year. The infraction in China involved a steroid (metenolone) apart from stimulant dimethylbutylamine (DMBA), a substance she tested positive for in three separate tests.

From a 46.66s runner for the one-lap event in 2015, Muhammed Anas made a sensational foray into international athletics in the Olympic year with two national records for 400m on successive days in a meet in Bydgoszcz, Poland (45.44s and 45.40s) but went out in Rio in the first round with a 45.95s effort.

This year he cracked the national record again (45.32s) in New Delhi, but went out once again in the opening round in the World Championships in London with 45.98s. His best since clocking the national record this year has been the 45.61s in the Services championships in Bengaluru in August.

Twenty-three-year-old shot putter Tejinder Toor’s rise through the last two seasons has also been equally spectacular as that of Anas. Having hit big-time with a 19.24m for fifth place in the World University Games in Gwangju, Korea, in 2015 (where the now provisionally-suspended Inderjeet Singh won the gold), Toor improved his PB to 19.93m in New Delhi last year. Toor has two marks over 20 metres this year, an achievement that surely attracted world attention though he could not qualify for the World championships. He won the silver at the Asian championships in Bhubaneswar.

Staggering feats

Kang’s feats this year were also staggering. From a best of 80.21m last year he stretched his PB to 84.57m, claimed the bronze in the Asians and made the finals in the World championships in London, a feat that the better-rated Neeraj Chopra could not achieve. The top six marks of Kang’s career have come this year, a year in which, according to his own admission, he had been battling injuries.

Kang has had an up and down career so far.  He did 76.60 in Chennai in June 2014, got selected for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games but failed to go through the qualifying round with a sub-par 70.56m. He set a PB of 78.57 in the Fed Cup at Patiala a little over a fortnight after Glasgow but slumped to 72.21 in the National in New Delhi.

This season Kang has shown consistency. His marijuana offence could be disturbing for someone who is pushing 29 and admits that he may not have too many years left in his career. Under former world record holder Uwe Hohn of Germany, Kang was expecting to scale greater heights when the IAAF picked him for its RTP.

Manpreet Kaur has had the experience of being in the IAAF RTP and could be expected to handle things smoothly if she comes back into competition from her multiple anti-doping rule violations. The shot putter jumped from a PB of 16.39m to 17.96m at the Kolkata National in 2015, almost maintained that form through 2016 with a best of 17.94m and hit world headlines with an 18.86m in Jinhua, China, in the Asian Grand Prix meet in April this year.

That is where she tested positive for metenolone and DMBA. She tested positive for DMBA also at the Fed Cup at Patiala and the Asian Championships at Bhubaneswar.

Incredible progression

Nayana James (pic above) jumped from being a 5.76m jumper last year to a 6.55m jumper this season, a stunning improvement that had pundits raising their eyebrows. As a junior she had done 5.94m to take the National Youth title in 2012 but after that nothing much had been heard about her till she crossed six metres to win the Inter-University title at Coimbatore in January this year.

Then came the 6.55 at Patiala. That pushed her into the No. 1 slot in India for the season and fourth in the Asian lists. She did 6.42m for bronze in the Asian championships.

Will James maintain her 6.40-plus performance through the crucial 2018 season? That is the question uppermost in the minds of the athletics experts and followers. If we compare India’s best long jumper ever, Anju Bobby George, with James in terms of progression alone we will find that Anju’s best in a glittering career was 26 cm at the age of 21 between 1998 and 1999 (from 6.11 to 6.37). James, 22, has added 79cm to her 2016 best or (if we take her previous best of 5.94m in 2012), 61cm in a five-year span. Incredible improvement that was bound to attract the IAAF anti-doping department.

NADA had more than 40 athletes in its RTP in 2015 and possibly in subsequent months till now. It is doubtful that NADA carried out around three-to-four out-of-competition tests in 2016 on each of the 40-plus athletes it had on its RTP as is expected of an anti-doping organization when an athlete is included in its RTP. It is to be hoped the IAAF would retain the five Indians presently in its list till the Asian Games next year. And perhaps add a few more to that list!

Despite the ever-increasing number of dopers in Indian athletics, the IAAF has not been turning much of its attention towards our athletes in terms of including them in its registered pool. The logic, of course, would be the Indians are yet to touch world-class. Only Kang made the final of the last World Championships and steeplechaser Lalita Babar was the lone Indian finalist in the Rio Olympics.

The largest batch of Indian athletes in the IAAF RTP was 41 in 2006 when 40-odd Indian athletes left their training base at Potchefstroom, South Africa, in a hurry as the South African NADO, working on behalf of either WADA or the IAAF, went looking for them.

Then, following the outstanding success of Indian athletes in the 2010 Commonwealth Games, followed by the Asian Games in Guangzhou, China, the IAAF roped in seven Indians but dropped them from the list in about a year’s time. The 2011 ‘catch’ of six woman quarter-milers was triggered by the IAAF tests on Mandeep Kaur and Jauna Murmu. Four others, Priyanka Panwar_now under eight-year suspension_Sini Jose, Tiana Mary Thomas and A. C. Ashwini were also caught in that campaign, carried forward by NADA.

NADA will need to pursue its out-of-competition testing based on domestic RTP more diligently in the coming months to protect India’s image on the international stage as well as to provide the ‘clean athletes’ a level-playing field. As mentioned in previous write-ups, timing is important. There will be little point in testing athletes just a couple of weeks before a qualifying competition or major championships. Quality testing should be the need of the hour, not testing for the sake of beefing up numbers.