The senior nurse at the National Institute of Sports (NIS) Medical Centre, Patiala, on Wednesday testified before a panel that she had made a “fresh register” when the original one containing information related to boxer Manjeet Singh's treatment had gone missing.
Fresh register
Nurse Nirmala Devi told the C.K. Mahajan-headed National Anti-Doping Appeal panel that she made the fresh register out of the information available in the prescription cards and that she made it within about two weeks of the boxer being reported for a doping offence.
The panel was hearing an appeal from Manjeet against his two-year suspension imposed last August by a disciplinary panel headed by Sudhir Nandrajog.
Simultaneously, the panel is also hearing an appeal from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), seeking an extended ban on the 22-year-old Haryana boxer.
The WADA which had earlier sought a life ban on Manjeet has since revised its appeal and pleaded for an eight-year ban since it was not informed initially that his first punishment had been reduced to one year on appeal.
Contradictory statements
Questioned by Justice Mahajan, Mrs Devi fumbled many times and made contradictory statements to put forward the argument that the original register, which was produced before the panel on Wednesday, had gone missing and was returned by someone at the pharmacy within one week of its disappearance.
She could not explain, however, her claim how she had started working on a new register within two weeks, and how she had ignored clostagen ointment when writing the new register if she had taken down the list of medicines from the prescription cards.
Having initially told the Nandrajog panel that a bunch of prescription cards, including that of Manjeet, was missing, Mrs. Devi told Justice Mahajan that she had handed over Manjeet's prescription card to Col. (Dr.) C.P.S. Chauhan and it had not been returned to her.
Mrs Devi tried to argue that Manjeet had illegally taken away the register and made photocopies of the relevant pages and he could have altered the contents of the register during that time.
On questioning, she, however, admitted that the one register, which did not have clostagen mentioned in any of its entries, but had soframycin, the medicine prescribed, was the one she had prepared as a duplicate. The original one had entries for clostagen on three dates in June, 2010.
With the disciplinary panel having stated that Manjeet was being penalised mainly because of the high level of clostebol (30ng/ml) found in his urine sample and the WADA also stressing its case on the level of the substance, much will depend on whether the defence can prove that such a level was possible through absorption of an ointment.
No conclusive evidence
If there is no conclusive scientific evidence to buttress Manjeet's argument, the WADA has also not submitted any research paper or other evidence to prove that 30 ng/ml (0.00003mg/ml) cannot show up in a urine sample following the application of a steroidal ointment.
The defence lawyers have argued that application of clostagen ointment over abrasions found on the boxer's body following a road accident in May, 2010, had led to the ‘positive' report.
In its supplementary brief, the WADA has contended that the appeal panel had no jurisdiction to “revisit” the merits of a previous binding decision about a suspension based on a test at a non-accredited laboratory.
It also said the analysis by a non-accredited laboratory “does not necessarily prevent the finding that an anti-doping violation has been committed.”
The WADA argument was based on the theory that results of the sample analysed by a non-WADA accredited laboratory could still be used as evidence for violations of Article 2.2 (use or attempted use of a prohibited substance).
The case was adjourned to November 24.
