FILE PHOTO: - SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKA

Neelam J. Singh.

NEW DELHI: Neelam J. Singh's counsel, Sushil Salwan, has alleged "manipulations" in the documentation provided by United Laboratories, Helsinki, which tested the athlete's urine samples at the last World championships.

Mr. Salwan has urged the Dawaram panel, hearing the Punjab discus thrower's doping case, to drop the charges against her and declare her suspension as invalid.

Among other points, he has contended that no confirmatory tests had been carried out on Neelam's `B' sample by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Helsinki.

"The fact that the discrepancies, manipulation and interpolation are evident in the documentation of `A' and `'B' samples and neither the tests nor the analytical findings being authentic and reliable, they cannot be considered against Neelam", Mr. Salwan has argued in the 26-page submission made to the AFI panel. The statement is signed by Neelam and is accompanied by a voluminous set of documents as annexure, mainly laboratory documentation received from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

The hearing panel is likely to take up the matter again during the Junior National championships in Chennai from November 25 to 29.

Under two heads

The discrepancies, listed under two heads, `procedural' and `technical', are many, 17 of them under the latter category.

One of the foremost points that Mr. Salwan has brought out pertains to the "audit trail" of the `B' sample. He has contended that by giving the same lab code (0511335) for both `A' and `B' samples, some confusion could have been caused leading to the "wrong sample" being tested while taking up the `B' sample test.

Another point, pertaining to procedural irregularities, is about the IAAF rushing through with the `B' sample testing even before the Anti Doping Administrator, Gabriel Dolle had received Neelam's consent.

The IAAF informed on August 10 that in case the consent for `B' sample testing was not given by the close of the business hours on August 11, it would be construed that the athlete had waived her right to have the `B' sample tested. "There is no rule stipulating this short time period," argues Mr. Salwan.

The lawyer has contended that Mr. Dolle conveyed by fax to the laboratory on August 10 to test the `B' sample on August 12 (as stated in the laboratory documentation package) while Neelam gave her consent only on the evening of August 11.

Either the AFI or the IAAF could be expected to furnish answers to the questions posed by Neelam when the hearing panel resumes its deliberations. If found guilty, she faces a two-year suspension.

Neelam's submission also poses a question about the inordinate delay in receiving the laboratory documentation package from the IAAF.

She had made her request on August 18 but the documents, in Finnish, were received on September 13.

Other major discrepancies

The following are some of the other major discrepancies listed by Neelam:

The `B' sample was removed from the locked freezer and transferred to a locked room for thawing on August 11, 2005 at 14:05, 20 hours and 25 minutes before it was handled again. "This is far too long a time period for thawing of a frozen specimen";

The worksheet J3218 for the tests to be carried out on the removed aliquot from the `B' sample was prepared at 8.45 a.m on Aug 12, 2005, one hour and 45 minutes before the aliquot was removed in the presence of representatives of the athlete and the IAAF;

The `B' sample aliquot chain of custody documentation shows a stamp of `AL 21.07.2005', a date 22 days prior to August 12, 2005 when the test was actually set up for the `B' sample aliquot. "This type of error in documentation is unacceptable and casts doubts about the sanctity of the repeat test carried out on the `B' sample. The wrong date has been scratched out and initialed...but it still does not establish the authenticity of the worksheet and therefore of the test and test results";

A page (page No 24) was replaced in the confirmation test data on `A' sample. "Why was page number 24 replaced? Where is the original page?";

There is great variation in the documentation of sample A and sample B;

The `positive' control for pemoline was run prior to the `negative' control, during both protocols for `A' and `B' samples;, as per documentation;

There is a long gap between preparing worklist on August 12 and actual drawing of aliquot. "The long gap (one hour and 45 minutes) appears suspicious";

Sample submission form has alteration, a scratched-out code number without corresponding initials or signatures;

There is no certification by the certifying authority, there is only his rubber stamp;

Corrections have not been initialed at certain places, they have not been counter-signed at certain others; there are initials of some people who were not part of the team that tested Neelam's sample.

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