Making a mockery of Govt directive!

One of the conditions laid down by the International Association of Athletics Federations in its revised anti-doping rules that came into force on January 1, 2019 is the incorporation of those rules into the rules of the national federations.

This provision is nothing new. It has been there for quite some time. But with the new categorization of countries and new set of obligations for each group of countries in the fight against doping, this provision assumes more significance than ever before.

The IAAF has categorized member nations as per its own assessment about doping in athletics across the world, with category ‘A’ that includes Kenya and Ethiopia being considered as that having the “highest risk” for doping in the sport. India is in category ‘B’ along with 56 other countries. Those 56 include practically all leading nations in athletics in the world including the US, Britain, Jamaica, France, Germany and South Africa. Any country may be in danger of being sanctioned if it has three or more international-level athletes who have committed anti-doping rule violations during a 12-month period.

Has the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) amended its constitution to fall in line with the IAAF regulations? Since some of these regulations were part of the IAAF anti-doping rules in the past, did the AFI get them into their constitution or make a reference to it in its constitution?

Reference to IAAF rules is there in the AFI constitution, but not about following the latest IAAF anti-doping rules or that of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

Outdated rules

In fact, the AFI constitution, amended up to 14 April, 2013 contains a mixture of IAAF anti-doping rules and its own rules that may date back to the 1990s! As per these rules, the AFI units and the AFI are competent to deal with anti-doping measures in the country and the AFI tribunal would be the competent hearing authority. The truth is, individual federations have had practically no role to play in anti-doping exercise in India since the advent of NADA in 2009.

These are outdated that need to go out of the AFI constitution. But that alone is not the issue now. Should AFI be incorporating the IAAF anti-doping rules either directly or by reference into its constitution? If that is accomplished, then where will the NADA rules come in?

The AFI can always argue that it had long ago put up a note on NADA on its website, as mandated by the Ministry of Sports, but that note does not say much about anything. It says AFI "liaises" with IAAF and NADA on all issues connected with anti-doping. It also says AFI is in “compliance with IAAF rules for anti-doping and WADA Code”. Both are wrong assumptions.

The IAAF in its revised rules has provided a provision to such National federations that may have to delegate the anti-doping task to another organization because of a legislation or government order that it could achieve its obligations through such organization. But the federation would be held “in breach” if the relevant organization fails to meet the requirements of the National federation under the IAAF rules. In short, if NADA errs, AFI would be held responsible!

No change in more than three years

Back in November, 2015, one had written a piece on AFI and other National Federations being in breach of NADA anti-doping rules and the WADA Code in not incorporating the rules into their constitution by reference or directly in their constitutions. There has not been any appreciable change in the attitude of the federations through the past three years.

The AFI has stuck to its constitution though it is one of the few federations that have placed on record on its website some anti-doping rules, even if outdated and inadequate, and some provision to acknowledge the existence of NADA. By no stretch of imagination can this be construed a delegation of authority to NADA to manage anti-doping activities or an admission that NADA rules would apply. Now that the IAAF has also insisted that its rules need to be incorporated by the National federations, the AFI has its task cut out.

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has a page on its website that mentions anti-doping. It is a token statement about doping and its ramifications and could have been presented in a more detailed, meaningful manner. But at least the IOA has something over there rather than having nothing at all.

What about other leading federations?

Hockey India the lone exception

As one found in 2015,  Hockey India is the only federation among Olympic sports in India to have clearly delegated the authority to NADA to carry out anti-doping measures and results management,

One wished HI could have displayed these anti-doping rules under a separate ‘anti-doping’ head rather than buried it under HI rules on its website. It also has another set of rules under ‘technical’ that includes FIH anti-doping rules.

The following federation websites have no mention of anti-doping rules: Archery, fencing, football, handball, swimming, rowing, basketball, volleyball, wrestling, table tennis, judo, yachting, equestrian, tennis, triathlon and shooting.

The following have some reference to anti-doping rules though no mention regarding the authority to test etc having been delegated to NADA: Athletics, boxing, cycling, weightlifting and golf.

The following federations have either quoted WADA rules or given links to WADA Code or international federation rules: Canoeing and kayaking and badminton.

Gymnastics, Modern Pentathlon, taekwondo and rugby were not assessed for want of available data in public domain.

Some of the federations do not have any mention at all about doping on their websites while many have fulfilled the requirement ordained by the Sports Ministry in 2015 to include a note on anti-doping as part of its 23-point formula needed for transparency.

The ministry’s points included one that read: “Note on efforts for having dope free sports and compliance to WADA/NADA Code along with details of cases found positive during the last calendar year and action taken thereon.”

The ministry could have instead sought a clear statement on the following lines: “Our federation has incorporated the anti-doping rules of NADA into our constitution. We agree to abide by the anti-doping rules laid down by NADA from time to time and will follow the WADA Code and the anti-doping rules of the International Federation”

There is no need to give an account of the cases of the past year and “action taken thereon” since that should be the responsibility of NADA. A federation can of course provide a list of suspended athletes with duration and dates. But more than all that every federation should be told to upload the WADA Code and Prohibited List and the NADA anti-doping rules.

Anti-doping section needed

Every federation should have a section on its website devoted to anti-doping that may include latest literature on anti-doping, athlete-friendly information like sample-collection procedures, rights and responsibilities of the athletes, formalities involved with filing ‘whereabouts’ information if the athletes are in the registered testing pool of a national body or an international one, hearing procedures in first-instance and appeal stages, information about supplements, anti-doping education material, links to important websites including NADA and WADA and messages from former internationals urging the athletes to stay clean.

Most of the federations have dismissed the Ministry fiat contemptuously, it would seem. Only some of the federations have completed the format of 23 points. On doping some of the points that came out glaringly on checking up websites are:

Yachting Association of India: The federation has reproduced the Ministry’s letter of 26 Feb 2015 asking the federations to upload the 23-point fact-sheet. There is no other mention of meeting the requirements as instructed by the ministry.

National Rifle Association of India: “WADA/NADA compliance: We conducted dope tests during 61st National championships and ISSF World Cup final. No positive case was found.”

All India Tennis Association: “Compliance with WADA as per ITF Guidelines”

Wrestling Federation of India: Has 13 of the points listed. There is no mention of anti-doping! 

Rowing Federation of India: “Regular testing was done during out of competition and in competition. No positive cases were found. Annual report is being submitted to FISA. Regular contact Meetings with the Rowers at every championships.”

It is appalling that a ministry directive of 2015 has been ignored by some of the federations and not fully implemented by many others. It is also unfortunate that at a time when the Internet has become part of our lives, the federations either do not have a section on anti-doping or have outdated rules and practically nothing of use to the athletes in this field.

With doping continuing to show no signs of abating in this country, it is imperative that the IOA and the NSFs make all-out efforts to educate and inform the athletes about the subject. It is also essential to keep the media and the public informed about what the federations are doing. Having outdated anti-doping rules in the constitution will not help no matter how many references a federation might make of other rules in separate, disjointed documents. Having no mention of doping at all in a constitution is something the concerned international federation and the WADA may have to look into.

The understanding of the Ministry and NADA and possibly the IOA and the federations that a Gazette notification in 2010 was adequate to take care of the requirement to have the federations incorporate the anti-doping rules into their governing documents, is erroneous. Even if we accept that nothing more needs to be done in this regard, the federations will ideally have to prominently display an ‘anti-doping’ section on their websites including NADA anti-doping rules and the latter's authority over the entire gamut of domestic testing in all sport, not just a note on “WADA/NADA Code compliance”.

WADA perhaps has realized that not all countries have NADOs that have got the national federations to incorporate their rules. Thus, it has brought in an ‘athlete consent form’ in which the athlete has to accept the WADA rules and agree to subject himself/herself to the jurisdiction and authority of the international federation/national federation/NADO as the case may be.

The IOA and the NSFs have to wake up. More importantly, the ministry has to enforce its 23-point guideline of 2015 to ensure that the information it had sought to be placed in the public domain is actually available on the websites. After nearly four years of the ministry directive, if some of the federations still have information related to 2014-2015 on their websites, it is nothing short of mockery.