The Hindu : Sport : WADA to review IWF’s decision

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 18, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Sport

Sport - Sports : General

WADA to review IWF’s decision

K.P. Mohan

NEW DELHI: The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has said that an anti-doping organisation cannot stop ‘results management’ in a ‘positive’ dope case just because of an athlete’s retirement.

Reacting to queries related to Satish Rai being exonerated by the Indian Weightlifting Federation despite a ‘positive’ test for a steroid at last year’s National Games in Guwahati, WADA’s Media Relations Manager, Frederic Donze, stated on Wednesday that WADA had requested a copy of the full decision of the Indian federation through the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) and would review the reasons for the decision upon receipt of the documents.

Donze’s clarification

Asked about the contention of the Indian federation Secretary, Sq. Ldr. B.R. Gulati (retd.) earlier that his body had also been in touch with WADA on the issue, Donze clarified: “WADA was not consulted by the Indian Weightlifting Federation on this case. The proper avenue for such a consultation in any case is the International Weightlifting Federation. WADA has not received any notification of this decision yet.”

Startling verdict

In a startling verdict, not based on any recommendation of a hearing panel, the Indian federation had exonerated Rai without even a two-year ban on the argument that the Karnataka lifter, who represented Andhra at the last National Games, had retired from the sport.

“The (IWF) President, under his condonation powers, has decided to close the issue as redundant and irrelevant in view of your assurance, notwithstanding merits of the case and your submissions,” said an IWF letter, dated June 13, signed by Gulati, PTI reported.

Decision to be reviewed

Meanwhile, the Indian federation, with a little prodding from the Union Ministry, is learnt to be reviewing its decision to exonerate Rai.

The lifter actually faced a possible life ban since the Guwahati violation was his second offence.

The first one had come in the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games.

Earlier, in a communication to The Hindu, Gulati argued that Rai’s first offence was covered by the WADA code (2003) para 10.3. “This clause, inter-alia stipulates “the specified substances which are particularly susceptible to unintentional anti-doping rules violations because of their general availability in medicinal products or which are less likely to be successfully abused as doping agents”, Gulati wrote in an e-mailed reply on July 10.

‘Specified substances’

Gulati has referred to ‘specified substances’ in the Code.

A competitor will have a chance to prove that he did not take such a specified substance to enhance performance and seek a lesser sanction.

Rai, however, tested positive for the stimulant strychnine in Manchester. Strychnine is not a ‘specified substance’.

The WADA Code of 2003 was not in operation in 2002. It came into effect on January 1, 2004.

The document that should be considered, if at all, is the Olympic Movement Anti Doping Code (OMADC) that governed doping matters in Olympic sports between 2000 and 2004.

It does not have a category named ‘specified substances.’

Multiple violation case

In a multiple violation case, had the athlete committed one offence under the ‘specified substances’ category, he would at best be facing a two-year ban for a second offence.

The chairman of the committee appointed by the federation President, Harbhajan Singh, to look into the doping case, G.R. Beig, has pointed out that the federation took its decision to exonerate Rai without consulting the panel or the rest of the Executive Committee members.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport