The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has upheld an
appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and imposed a four-year
suspension of Indian weightlifter Geeta Rani for an anti-doping rule violation
committed at the National Games in Kerala in 2015.
The CAS also ordered the National Anti-Doping Agency
(NADA) and the weightlifter to share the arbitration costs to be determined by
the CAS office. In addition to this CAS
also ordered that NADA contribute 5000 Swiss Francs (approx Rs 3.4 lakh) toward
the legal expenses of WADA.
In what had turned out to be a bizarre case of alleged
‘sabotage’ that was never proved, both the disciplinary panel (NADDP) and the
appeal panel (NADAP) gave Geeta Rani a two-year suspension instead of the
standard four years stipulated for a steroid offence.
Geeta Rani, gold medallist in the over-75kg category
in the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, had tested positive at the
National Games for steroid methandienone. She alleged that another
weightlifter, Nanshita Devi who was her competitor had spiked her drink leading
to the positive test.
Khajan Singh’s statement crucial
Crucial in the hearing held before the ADDP headed by
Mr. Jasmeet Singh were the depositions of five witnesses including Khajan
Singh, former Asian Games silver-winning swimmer and DIG, Sports, CRPF, who was
overall in charge of the CRPF camp in New Delhi.
Coaches and other weightlifters completed the set of five
witnesses brought in by Geeta Rani at the hearing. They all had praise for the
international weightlifter, an Arjuna awardee, but could not convincingly support
the charge against Nanshita Devi.
Khajan Singh stated that he had made some informal
enquiry and found that ‘sabotage’ was a possibility. He said Geeta Rani was “cheated”.
On cross-examination, Khajan said: “It was an informal verification rather than
an inquiry of a literal sense.”
The CAS arbitrator pointed this out in his order and stated
further that Khajan Singh’s inquiry did not reveal how the prohibited substance
actually entered the athlete’s system. He also could not show how a “third-party
attack by Nanshita Devi might have happened.”
Other witnesses did not find anything suspicious about
the behavior of Nanshita Devi.
The panel came to the conclusion that the athlete had
been unsuccessful in showing “any act of sabotage or any reason for Nanshita
Devi to take a step that would so adversely affect the career of the athlete.”
‘Sabotage’ not proved
Despite its own admission that “sabotage” had not been
proved, the panel concluded that the weightlifter was able to show that the
ingestion of steroid was unintentional. Accordingly, it ordered a two-year
suspension. (An earlier blog piece on that decision is here)
The appeal panel headed by Justice G. C. Bharuka
(retd) ruled that since the athletes left their belongings including water in a
common change room it was quite “probable” that spiking could have taken place.
This inference, it stated, was sufficient to hold that the athlete could not be
held guilty of committing anti-doping rule violation intentionally!
NADA could have filed a counter appeal before the
Bharuka panel but it did not. It also apparently did not have much to argue
against the findings of the ADDP or the arguments made by the appeal panel.
The sole arbitrator of CAS, Prof. Dr. Martin Schimke,
Dusseldorf, Germany, quoted from previous CAS panel orders to state: “Mere
raising of unverified hypothesis or allegations and speculations as to how the
prohibited substance entered the athlete’s body is in no way sufficient proof
of how the substance entered such system.”
The sole arbitrator further wrote: “In light of the
above and contrary to the findings in the Appealed Decisions, the Sole
Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has failed to establish the way in which the
Prohibited Substance entered her system and therefore has failed to satisfy her
burden of proof with respect to the origin of the prohibited substance. In
addition, there are no other exceptional circumstances and /or evidence
submitted which could justify the assumption of lack of intent. The violation
of the anti-doping rule must therefore be deemed intentional.”
Evidence needed to back charge
Had there been a little more care taken by either of
the panels in India the CAS situation could have been avoided. Both Indian panels
found no evidence to support a charge of “sabotage”. Both could have accepted,
as CAS did, that “sabotage” was always a possibility but an athlete needed evidence
to prove such a charge.
NADA finds itself with an additional financial burden
which it could not have bargained for. At a time when its resources are beings stretched,
it is a setback for the agency which at least now onwards should attempt to
present a more detailed case in such instances. An “informal inquiry” by a
superior officer of the athlete in question in a police force was considered
good enough to establish an allegation that there could have been a “sabotage”.
There was no serious attempt by NADA to rebut the arguments put forward by the
athlete.
This is the second time CAS has overturned a ‘sabotage’
decision by an Indian panel. Wrestler
Narsingh Yadav was exonerated of a steroid charge prior to the Rio Olympics in
2016 by a panel which accepted his argument that his amino drink was spiked by
someone acting on behalf of his close competitor.
Yadav was scheduled to compete in Rio Olympics when
CAS overturned the Indian decision and slapped on him a four-year suspension.
The wrestler is waiting for a CBI enquiry to be completed and hoping that the
investigation would establish his innocence and the ‘sabotage’ theory, possibly
leading to a re-opening of the case.
