Wednesday, Apr 23, 2003
Wednesday, Apr 23, 2003 |
| Sport | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Sport
-
Sports : General
By V.V. Subrahmanyam
In a bid to come out clean, Yentethu — who picked a bronze, silver and gold in the Games — has something interesting to say on the issue. He has also written a letter to the Cycling Federation of India and a copy of which is available with The Hindu. The 22-year-old South Central Railway employee insists that he has not taken any drugs purposely. "On the advice of my coach Dilip Kumar Jagtap, I took "D'cold" syrup between December 14 and 17 to get relief for severe cough,'' he said. This is clearly aimed at conveying the message that neither he nor his coach was aware that the syrup contains the banned substance. It is a different issue as to how many exactly read the colourfully brought out 46-page Doping Control Guide of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. Didn't they reach the people for whom they were meant? It is pertinent to recall that even Mr. L. Venkatram Reddy, secretary of AP Olympic Association, feigned ignorance on seeing any such guide during the entire Games. Yentethu is stressing the fact that he had given the urine samples on December 18 after the bronze medal performance in the 30-km individual time trial, and on December 20 after winning the gold in the 120 km mass start road race. Then, the cyclist picks holes in the contention of the Indian Olympic Association. Even on the presumption that his dope tests conducted on December 18 were to be positive, why should he be penalised when the test on December 20 sample didn't give any results. This is interesting. For, Yentethu is keen to know as to what stopped the officials from revealing the results of the second dope test too. No doubt, there is a sense of relief on his face when the Article 129 Clause 1 of the UCI regulations was quoted. It says: "In cases of doping where the substance detected is ephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, pseudoephedrine, coffeine, stychnine or related substances, the rider shall be penalised as follows: 1. First offence (which is the case with Yentethu) other than intentional doping: Suspension for a period of between one and six months. However, if it is demonstrated that the offence was caused by simple inattentiveness, a warning may instead be issued. In this case, a subsequent doping offence with a "soft'' substance, other than intentional doping, will be considered as a first offence for which the suspension must be imposed. Clause 2 of the same Act says that only for second offence or intentional doping, suspension for a period of between two and eight years is recommended. Then, comes the most crucial aspect of the rules and regulations on which Yentethu is building up his defence. Article 134 states that punishment can be meted out only in relation to the particular event for which the dope tests were conducted and not make the athlete suffer for the other events too. This is what Yentethu is emphasising in his arguments. According to Mr. K. Krishna, secretary of AP Cycling Association, he had already briefed the Federation officials and even submitted documentary evidence to prove that Yentethu is innocent and avoidable aspersions were cast on him. Interestingly, the CFI has already in a communication (a copy of which is also available with The Hindu) clearly stated that it has decided to take back all the medals won by the cyclist and the vacant positions will be filled by upgrading the lower-place winners. The athletes in the Hyderabad Games have very little reason to make anyone believe that they were ignorant on many counts on the drugs issue. For, on Page 45 of the Dope Control Guide, it is stated that the Medication Advisory Committee appointed for the National Games can be approached to seek advice regarding status of a drug to be used for medication, drugs which can be safely used for illness and injuries and any clarification to be sought regarding the sampling procedure and\or the prohibited list of substances. In fact, Dr. S. Mukherjee told The Hindu that about 600 brochures were printed and they were available to anyone who was interested in knowing the minute details. They were also circulated especially to the Andhra contingent. "It is really sad if someone says now that he or she was ignorant. I had personally visited each camp at least five times briefing them about every aspect of the sensitive issue. We have even advised the athletes not to take even cough syrup or any D-cold,'' he explains. It is also pointed out that the athletes were specifically told to use the Ayurvedic drugs Coughlet and Honeytus, which do not contain the banned substances. "And, we gave the contact numbers to all the athletes interested in knowing about these things before going to any medical shop,'' he said to another query. The logic seems to be clear here — the competition is National Games and not a rural sports meet where one can presume that the athletes to be ignorant. Even if some of them were, they had the chance to be enlightened. Amidst this scenario, the question remains — who is fooling whom?
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
