Is it a BCCI climbdown or another farce?

Cricket is not a dope-driven sport. It comes very low down in the hierarchy of dope-affected sports. By its illogical and obstinate stand against the attempts of the International Cricket Council (ICC) to get cricket compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has brought undue focus on the sport in the doping sphere through the past decade. If recent reports are any indication, the BCCI seems hell bent on maintaining that position, giving a special status to itself in the world of sports organisations across sports and at the same time trying to run down the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

The latest report about the BCCI suggesting a “trial run” to allow the NADA to carry out tests on cricketers is yet another farce it is going to attempt to cling onto its illogical argument. It is being reported as some sort of a climbdown by BCCI as though it is a body that can get away with anything.

It cannot be up to the BCCI to make an offer and for the ICC to accept it or for NADA to welcome it. The Code compliance issue is the sole responsibility of WADA. We don’t know what all WADA found out of ICC, its regulations and the functioning of its affiliates to be Code compliant and not compliant or what WADA advised the ICC to rectify if the latter wanted not to be named ‘non-compliant’.

ICC clause that breached Code

At least one particular clause in the ICC anti-doping code was surely unacceptable to WADA since it questioned the very authority of a national anti-doping organization (NADO) and provided an exception to the rule to accommodate the BCCI:

"13.2.2 Persons Entitled to Appeal In cases under Article 13.2.1, the following parties shall have the right to appeal to CAS: (a) the Player or other Person who is the subject of the decision being appealed; (b) the other party to the case in which the decision was rendered; (c) the ICC; (d) subject to Article 13.2.3 below, the National Anti-Doping Organization of the Person’s country of residence or countries where the Person is a national or license holder; (e) any other Anti-Doping Organisation under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed; and (f) WADA. 13.2.3 Notwithstanding Article 13.2.2(d), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the National Cricket Federation for the territory of India) does not recognize the authority or jurisdiction of the National Anti-Doping Organization for India. Therefore, the right of appeal for National Anti-Doping Organizations under Article 13.2.2(d) shall not be available to the National Anti-Doping Organization in India in respect of decisions taken pursuant to the ICC Code."

It is not clear when these rule changes were made. They are not there in the ICC rules up to January 2012. They are available since at least 19 June 2017 when the existing ICC anti-doping rules have come into force.  Article 13.2.2 was changed then and a fresh one, Article 13.2.3 brought in to legitimize BCCI’s refusal to recognize NADA’s authority. They continue to be available in the ICC rules that do not in any case provide much importance to NADOs.

The main problem of course is BCCI’s refusal to allow Indian cricketers to be tested by NADA or in a broader perspective accept NADA’s authority to be in charge of all testing and ‘results management’ in all sports including cricket in this country as stipulated in NADA rules and notified by the Government of India through the Gazette. This authority stems from the WADA Code as well as from the UNESCO Convention on Doping in Sports. India is signatory to both these international protocols.

Top players concerned about privacy

Back in 2009 when the BCCI objected to the ‘whereabouts’ clause in the Code that the ICC, which became a signatory to the Code in 2006, also had to adopt, it was explained that leading Indian players were wary of their privacy being intruded into. An argument was also floated that it would be against the Indian Constitution to subject the players to ‘whereabouts’ requirements.

"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' in October 2009.

That Constitutional issue has not affected other sports and other sportspersons some of whom have been under some ‘whereabouts’ requirements either at the international level or the national level for the past 10 years. It was just as well that other sport did not come up with this ludicrous suggestion to stall “whereabouts” because any refusal to come under any of the Code provisions would have attracted immediate sanctions by the international federations concerned, leading to resultant sanctions by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Cricket is different; Indian cricket more so. ICC can only request the Indian Board to fall in line, to allow NADA to do testing and results management in cricket domestically. It cannot enforce its own rules without pleading. That pleading has become necessary since ICC has ambitions of campaigning for cricket's inclusion in the 2028 Olympics. The sport is also likely to get the nod for 2022 Asian Games. If the ICC is declared non-compliant of the Code, this cannot come through. Once in the past, in 2008, the ICC had become non-compliant but came back to join the mainstream after correcting itself with out-of-competition testing that was non-existent in the early years of its anti-doping exercise.

WADA has to come in

This is not an issue between NADA and BCCI as has been made out. That stage was over long ago. Now it is a question of the WADA declaring ICC as ‘non-compliant’ since one of its member units has rules that are in breach of the Code.

That is why it is difficult to understand that a tripartite agreement is going to be reached among ICC, BCCI and NADA to carry out a six-month trial by which NADA would test 10 per cent of the samples of the Registered Pool of players of the BCCI.

If one has understood the reports, they are saying NADA would get to have authority to collect 10 per cent of the out-of-competition samples under RTP to be tested by the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL).

The immediate question that arises is, what about the rest of the authority, to test in-competition, to do other out-of-competition tests, to conduct ‘results management’ and to draw up registered testing pool etc?

More surprising is the response of the NADA Director-General, Navin Agarwal.

“It is a good move, though we haven’t received any official communication from the BCCI. If the BCCI is willing to work with NADA, we are willing to (support). It is the right thing,” Agarwal said

“We go by the WADA guidelines and we handle all the federations and we are willing to accommodate whatever (concerns) the BCCI (may have)," he added. .

The BCCI has been arguing through the years. “We are not a national sports federation”. That might be true, but it makes no difference to the anti-doping structure.

If you are the national body recognized by the international federation controlling a particular sport you are liable to come under the WADA Code and the National Anti-Doping Organization’s rules. There should be no escape from that. There is no requirement for a body to be registered or recognized as a National Sports Federation.

After having taken a tough stand initially in November 2017 about bringing Indian cricket under NADA’s authority, the Union Sports Ministry softened its stand thereby allowing BCCI to have misleading notions about its own powers and infallibility.

The goof-ups cannot be an excuse

Of late, the BCCI had also started changing its tune further. It had started pointing out “goof-ups” by NADA in some cases that has led to a few negative reports being re-opened. In the latest case, javelin thrower Devinder Singh Kang has been exonerated by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and WADA after NDTL withdrew its 15-month-old ‘positive’ report.

For one thing, it is the laboratory under scrutiny here and not NADA. For another, even if NADA had faltered, it is not the BCCI’s job to issue a certificate of “competence” and agree to join the rest of the sports fraternity in allowing NADA to conduct testing. Any adverse opinion should come from WADA. National federations do not have the luxury of picking its testing agency or laboratory as per competence and reputation. Moreover, the BCCI also has been using NDTL for its sample testing requirements and it cannot now be saying “sorry, we were using sub-standard facilities”. As for sample collection etc, again it is not strictly a choice for BCCI to fall in line or not.

This is where the BCCI and possibly the ICC have apparently not grasped the situation. NADA is not an agency like the IDTM that the BCCI and several other international federations and anti-doping agencies have engaged for their sample collection. It is a National anti-doping authority having jurisdiction over the entire sports structure in the country. Its rules are non-negotiable and so are the WADA rules.
Just imagine if the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) were to say, "we are not happy with NADA DCOs, their sample collection process and result management. Now onwards, we will do our own dope-testing and hearing process!" That is not an option available to any national federation or for an international federation to accommodate in its rules. 

“IDTM has been doing a good job, ICC is WADA-compliant, so we too are WADA- compliant and we need not be NADA-compliant” is a refrain only the anti-doping illiterate will express.
The BCCI's hearing process and some of its decisions in the few doping cases that it has handled should also come into scrutiny when it talks of NADA's "inefficiency". Of particular interest to those following anti-doping was the decision in the Yusuf Pathan case. He was deemed to have been under suspension when he actually competed! An earlier piece on that is here.

The ICC has a ‘whereabouts’ policy that is based on team training venues and team hotel. It does not require individual players to provide ‘whereabouts’ in order for testers to spot them at specific locations throughout the year. NADA’s requirements may be different though it would be extremely surprising if NADA was to pick a leading player who is already on the ICC ‘whereabouts” list. Even if this was to happen, what harm would be done if an Indian cricketer’s whereabouts are made known? Will security be compromised? Is it difficult to know in these Googling days where M. S. Dhoni stays or where Virat Kohli’s residence is?

(Updated 19 March 2019)