NEW DELHI: The Neelam J. Singh dope case hearing will resume before the Dawaram Committee on Monday after a gap of 40 days.

The committee, headed by the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) vice-president, Walter Dawaram, last met here on September 27 and was to have resumed its proceedings on October 17.

But, on a request from Neelam, Mr. Dawaram agreed to a postponement.

Only three members of the four-member panel have met so far. The fourth member, former national sprint champion Adille Sumariwala, who is also an associate vice-president of the AFI, failed to make it on the last occasion. Apart from Mr. Dawaram, the other members present at the last hearing were Olympian Gurbachan Singh Randhawa and Dr. Girish Tyagi.

Neelam, who had turned in a positive for stimulant pemoline at the World championships in Helsinki last August, is under provisional suspension by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). The discus thrower is being represented by well-known lawyer Sushil Salwan who also happens to be an associate vice-president of the AFI. If found guilty, Neelam faces a two-year suspension under the IAAF anti-doping rules.

Not much headway

Nothing much has happened so far during the hearing process. The AFI, a rather `reluctant' prosecutor in the case, has not even appointed a lawyer and has, instead, entrusted the task of presenting the case to its Director, M.L. Dogra.

The federation has submitted the documents received from the IAAF to support its case for a positive dope test, but will need to place the relevant rules in perspective for the benefit of the panel members.

Neelam's hope

Neelam is pinning her hopes on the argument that she had not taken any banned substance and the stimulant, which she claimed she had not even heard of before, could have come into her body through the supplements or vitamins she had been taking.

What happens if she is able to prove, with scientific evidence, that the supplement or vitamin she had been taking, without the slightest of suspicion and without any banned substance being listed as an ingredient, did contain pemoline?

The IAAF anti-doping rule 32.2. a (i) says: "It is each athlete's personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his body tissues or fluids. Athletes are warned that they are responsible for any prohibited substance found to be present in their bodies. It is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on an athlete's part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2(a)."

Exceptional cases

What if Neelam seeks either elimination of the suspension period or a reduced suspension under the "exceptional circumstances" rule?

IAAF rule 38.12 (iii) says: "The following will not be regarded as cases which are exceptional: an allegation that the prohibited substance or prohibited method was given to an athlete by another person without his knowledge, an allegation that the prohibited substance was taken by mistake, an allegation that the prohibited substance was due to the taking of contaminated food supplements or an allegation that medication was prescribed by athlete support personnel in ignorance of the fact that it contained a prohibited substance."

In any case, the AFI panel will have to refer the matter to the IAAF Doping Review Board should there be an argument about "exceptional circumstances". Only the Board decides whether "exceptional circumstances" existed or not in the case of an international competition or international-level athlete.

There being some confusion about the application of "exceptional circumstances" rule, it is pertinent to note what the WADA Code states as a comment to the rule: "These articles apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred."

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