The Hindu : Sport / Weightlifting : IOA slaps life ban on three lifters, coach

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Sep 30, 2004

Sport

Sport - Weightlifting

IOA slaps life ban on three lifters, coach

By Our Sports Reporter

NEW DELHI, SEPT. 29. Shamed at the Olympics, weightlifters Pratima Kumari and Sanamacha Chanu were on Wednesday served life bans `for bringing disrepute to the country at the Athens Games'. Their coach, Pal Singh Sandhu has also been banned for life.

The Indian Olympic Association (IOA), after going through the 50-page report submitted by the two-man enquiry commission, headed by Mr. K.P. Singh Deo, set up in the wake of Pratima and Sanamacha testing positive for banned substances during the Athens Olympics, has also slapped a life ban on Sunaina. The latter tested positive for a steroid at the Asian championship in Almaty in April.

The IOA has also blacklisted coach Leonid Taranenko, the former world champion from Belarus, who was the foreign coach in charge of the Indian lifters during their preparations for the Olympics. The IOA has requested the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) to ensure that severe action was taken against Taranenko.

The IOA was forced to announce the punitive actions, and its decision-making process was made simpler by the IWF, which on Monday banned the Indian federation from taking part in any international competitions for a period of one year.

Though the IOA President, Suresh Kalmadi, would not agree that the IWF decision played any part in the decision to ban the three lifters and the coach for life, he said that it was one of the many deterrent actions that IOA had taken to root out the problem of doping in Indian sports.

With Pratima's `B' sample also confirming the presence of testosterone, the IWF had moved to bar the Indian federation from taking part in any international competition for a period of one year. It had also been given the choice of paying $50,000 as fine, in which case only the erring lifters would have faced the ban.

Tough measures

As all the three positive cases of Pratima, Sanamacha and Sunaina were confirmed at the WADA-accredited laboratory in Athens, the IOA has decided against making any appeal for these lifters. "What happened in Athens was a shame. It brought national disgrace and that's why we have taken such tough measures,'' Mr. Kalmadi said.

Going a step further, Mr. Kalmadi said that in future if any Indian sportsperson was caught for doping in international competitions he or she would be banned for life. "If any athlete from any sport participating under the banner of the IOA is caught for taking banned substances, he or she will be banned for life straightaway,'' Mr. Kalmadi said.

The same could not be applied for the sportspersons caught at the domestic competitions, as the IOA would get drawn into legal battles since the SAI laboratory here was yet to get accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Mr. Kalmadi said.

The President of Indian Weightlifting Federation, H. J. Dora, who was also present at the media briefing here, said that though it had the option of either serving a one-year ban or paying $50,000 fine, "we have taken a conscious decision to keep out of international competitions for one year. We want to clean up the system before re-entering the international arena.''

Later, talking to The Hindu, Mr. Dora explained that the IOA decision was based on the decision of the federation's meeting in Mumbai on September 12.

Mr. Dora clarified that the decision on the three lifters was not one on the retrospective clause but an independent decision based on the position arising out of the Olympics doping scandal. "We wanted to wait till the Singh Deo committee gave its report,'' he said.

No powers for IOA

Going by the rules, the IOA does not have any powers to ban any competitor from any sport unless the competition happens to be the National Games. Banning is the duty of the National or international federation concerned. The IOA, at best can ban a competitor from being a member of an Indian contingent for the Olympics or Asian Games. That itself is a moot point, for, the IOA rules at present might not be having any provisions for such a ban. The British Olympic Association is one such NOC that has such a provision to ban an athlete from its Olympics squad.

It is strange that the IOA has announced the ban on the lifters, though it does not come into the picture as far as weightlifting competitions go at the national or international level. Stranger still is the fact that the disciplinary process against Pratima is still continuing at the international level since she had been asked to respond to the IWF query as to whether she needs a hearing panel to be set up or not. The IOA has, in the meantime, closed its case.

More curiously, the international federation has intimated a one-year ban on the Indian federation even as it is in the grip of disposing of the third case, that of Pratima.

By all doping rules, the mere fact that a competitor has tested positive is not confirmation about his or her guilt, whether `A' and `B' samples have come positive or not. A verdict of `guilty' is handed out only after a hearing. If the athlete waives his or her right to have such a hearing, then the international federation goes ahead and gives its decision. Chanu had tested positive for a diuretic at the Olympics and her case was heard by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Athens.

In Pratima's case, there is the basic question of the procedure regarding testosterone testing having been completed. A ratio exceeding 6:1 (Pratima's was 12:1) is acted upon only after ascertaining the athlete's past record about normal testosterone levels. If such a record is not available then an athlete has to be put through three unannounced tests over three months.

There is no word yet from the Indian federation whether the IWF had resorted to an isotope ratio measurement analysis (IRMA) on Pratima's sample in order to find out whether the testosterone was administered from outside or was created within the body. There is no rule within the WADA Code that states that the IRMA would be the determining process in such cases. And the IWF follows the WADA Code verbatim as far as prohibited substances go.

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

Sport