The Hindu : Sport : AFI asked to review decision in Neelam J. Singh doping case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Apr 22, 2006

Sport

Sport

AFI asked to review decision in Neelam J. Singh doping case

Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI: In a strong rebuff to the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has asked it to review the decision in the Neelam J. Singh doping case or else face the consequences of an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In a recent communication to the AFI, the IAAF has pointed out that it would be left with no option but to appeal to CAS, and the Indian federation would be liable to pay the expenses for such a procedure should CAS give a verdict in favour of the IAAF. The CAS decision will be binding on all parties.

Neelam J. Singh, former National record-holder in discus throw, had tested positive for the stimulant pemoline at the World championships in Helsinki last August. She was put under provisional suspension by the IAAF, but an AFI disciplinary panel, headed by Mr. W. I. Dawaram, gave the athlete the "benefit of doubt" last month after a protracted hearing process.

The four-member Davaram panel, through a majority decision, apparently concluded that there was substance in the arguments put forward by Neelam's counsel, Sushil Salwan, and decided to reprieve the Punjab athlete. Neelam has so far served seven months of a possible two-year suspension.

Benefit of doubt

Interestingly, the panel did not rule in clear terms whether Neelam was guilty or not. Asked whether the `benefit of doubt' given to the athlete could only mean a verdict a "not guilty", Mr. Davaram admitted on Thursday that it would.

In a curious stance it adopted while being the `prosecuting authority' in the case, the AFI failed to rebut the arguments posed by Mr. Salwan, was disinclined to seek clarifications from the IAAF about the so-called procedural and technical lapses in laboratory documentation but eventually wrote a covering letter, while forwarding the decision of the disciplinary panel, to state that there were several technical issues that needed clarifications.

The IAAF is learnt to have rebutted the so-called discrepancies raised by the defence counsel, perhaps in the hope that even at this late stage there could be a reversal of the decision to exonerate the athlete. The AFI is planning to convene another meeting of the panel soon even as the IAAF is putting pressure on it to arrive at an early decision.

The situation would not have come to this pass had the AFI sought clarifications from the IAAF on the points raised by Mr. Salwan during the course of the hearing, especially on the WADA international standards for laboratories.

Loopholes

Mr. Salwan raised a series of arguments based on the Helsinki laboratory documentation and contended that no confirmatory tests were done on Neelam's `B' sample, there were loopholes in the custodial procedures of the sample, there were discrepancies in signatures of laboratory personnel and there were alterations of dates.

No one apparently explained to the panel a crucial provision in IAAF (and WADA) rules that states: "A departure from the International Standard for testing (or other applicable provision in the procedural guidelines) shall not invalidate a finding that a prohibited substance was present in a sample or that a prohibited method was used, or that any other anti-doping rule violation under these anti-doping rules was committed, unless the departure was such as to undermine the validity of the finding in question. If the athlete establishes that a departure from the International Standard for testing (or other applicable provision in the procedural guidelines) has occurred, then the IAAF, the member or other prosecuting authority shall have the burden of establishing that such departure did not undermine the validity of the finding that a prohibited substance was present in a sample... "

Unusual

The IAAF's suggestion to a national federation to review its doping panel's decision is unusual, but more than that its stipulation that the expenses for the appeal to CAS will have to be borne by the national body has come as a shock to the AFI. Normally, CAS has the powers to award costs. Invariably, they are shared.

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