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?