Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
Who is to be blamed?
|
Although stringent punishment has been recommended for the athletes caught in the dope scandal during the 32nd National Games, several questions remain unanswered. Should the athletes be tainted, while the officials and coaches go scot-free? V.V. SUBRAHMANYAN analyses the issue with the case of cyclist Nijappa Yenteth.
|
THE INDIAN Olympic Medical Commissioner may be perfectly right in recommending stringent punishment to the tainted athletes caught in the doping scandal during the 32nd National Games in Hyderabad last December. But, there are quite a few questions which are still unanswered. And, rather unfortunately, the focus seems to be more only on athletes while letting the officials and the coaches go scot-free even as latest developments reveal that they cannot escape from the firing line so easily.
Take the case of the crestfallen cyclist, Nijappa Yenteth of South Central Railway. In a state of shock and uncertain whether he would hit the track or not again, there is something to cheer him up as the Railway Sports Control Board has decided in principle to go slow with regard to taking action against its athletes caught in the doping scandal during the 32nd National Games in Hyderabad.
This was disclosed to The Hindu by N.R.Chowdhary, secretary of the RSCB, who was in Hyderabad in connection with the Weightlifting Federation of India elections recently. "We cannot take any action suo moto based on what has appeared in the media,'' he emphasised. And, he also pointed out that the Railways is no mood to take any hasty action. "It is not that we are trying to defend these tainted athletes. But, first we should be convinced of the circumstances leading to them being declared as guilty. For that, we have to get the necessary communication from the respective Federations,'' Chowdhary explained.
The RSCB secretary, however, admitted that some action may be possible but it is too early to spell out the details on those lines. "Discussions will be held at the highest level along with the senior officials of Railway Board and the concerned zonal representatives before deciding on future course of action,'' Chowdhary explained. But, he does feel sad at the sorry developments. An impression is also given that the RSCB is very keen to find out who is actually responsible for these offences - is it the athlete alone or the coaches or any officials. "A clear picture is important before taking any action,'' it is said.
Meanwhile, the cyclist, Nijappa Yenteth, a ticket collector in the Kachiguda Railway Station in the City, continues to insist in a chat with The Hindu that it was he who gave the urine samples for the doping tests on December 18 and 20 and not anyone else as claimed by the Cycling Federation of India. And, there is logic too. Any athlete before going for the doping test has to produce the Games identity card for the officials to let him proceed. Then, the second important point is the same team of officials including Lt.Col.M.Bassi and Sports Authority of India coach Usha Nair were there on the medical team which conducted the doping tests on the two days. And, Yenteth is not a new entrant to the sport and there is no way at least the SAI coach could not have recognised him.
Interestingly, even if one presumes that someone else was sent to give the urine sample, doesn't it mean that the officials were sleeping at times when little more seriousness and professionalism was needed. Clearly, the officials too are at fault here. If Yenteth is true, then the issue of tampering his sample or as he alleges that some vested interests in the CFI were against him cannot be dismissed. And if Yenteth was at fault, how can the officials be let away while, the cyclist is meted out stringent punishment. How did they allow someone else to undergo doping tests? Some questions remain unanswered.
The beleagured Yenteth also points out that during the Indian Olympic Medical Commission hearing in Delhi last week, only passing reference was made to the serious charge of the CFI that the cyclist in question had duped the officials by sending someone else in his place. "They merely asked what I had to say on the issue and there was no serious grilling,'' he recalls. "They just asked me whether I was not aware that D-cold syrup (which he sincerely disclosed in the doping form during the first test on December 18 itself). When I pleaded my innocence (he only goes through the Hindi language press and doesn't understand English or Telugu), they asked me to sign twice on a paper as there was also a dispute that they didn't tally during the two doping tests,'' Yenteth explained.
The point is here the medical officials were aware that the cyclist had taken the D-cold syrup which contained the banned substance immediately after he won the bronze in the individual 30 km time trial on December 18. Then, why did they allow Yenteth to take part in the 120 km mass trial event in which he picked a gold on December 20, knowing fully well that he had already consumed a banned substance - intentionally or by ignorance? Is it not a simple case of letting him into a trap to settle scores later, is the question.
The mere fact that none of the Cycling Federation of India officials was there in Delhi to accompany him or even guide during the Medical Commission is a reflection that the CFI gave the impression that Yenteth should "pay the price for the offence''. Quite funnily, it is not clear whether he was banned based on the CFI charge that Yenteth duped them by sending someone else for the urine sample for the second test or for the original offence of taking D-cold syrup. With the IOA leaving it to the respective federations to take necessary action, all that Yenteth can do is to hope against hope to get a reprieve from his Federation.
And, the UCI rules clearly say that a cyclist can be let off with a warning for a first-time offence of this nature and also a medal can be withdrawn only relating to the dope test and not for subsequent competitions when he tested negative. But, Yenteth seems to be gearing up for a legal battle, though unsure where it will lead him, if at all a decision is made to withdraw all the medals he won in the National Games. Even if the Federation is guilty of the offence, then why should the officials manning the doping test centres be let free for letting that crime occur?
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
|
