NEW DELHI: At first glance it looks as though the drugs tribunal of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has done a fine job in handing out verdicts against cricketers Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif in such a professional manner and in such quick time.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has commended the PCB. It's Chairman, Percy Sonn, according to an ICC release, has stated: "It is a good judgement, well written, very professionally done. From an ICC perspective it is very satisfactory."

A surprise

For those who expected the PCB to take a lenient view and apply yet-unspecified domestic anti-doping rules, the two-year ban on Akhtar has come as a surprise. Yet, the question that comes up is whether the milder punishment meted out to Asif is within the letter and spirit of the ICC and WADA rules.

Both the cricketers were charged following positive results for steroid nandrolone in tests conducted by the PCB in September. As per rules, nandrolone level above 2ng/ml is considered `positive.'

Says the PCB drugs tribunal in its verdict: "It is clear that the level of 13.07 ng/ml of 19-Norandrosterone in Mohammad Asif's sample had an exogenous (external) origin and was not produced by his body endogenously. He has not been able to satisfactorily explain this adverse result. In fact he has not offered any explanation. He says he cannot explain how or why. He has not said that his Promax supplement may have been contaminated and/ or offered the said supplement for analysis. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for the adverse test result we are not convinced that Asif's case is one of no fault or negligence.

"However, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances we are of the view that it is one of no significant fault or negligence and that there are exceptional circumstances noted by us herein above that justify a more lenient view than that taken by us in Shoaib Akhtar's case. Accordingly we have decided to impose a one-year ban on Mohammad Asif with effect from 15-10-2006."

Relevant ICC rule

Now, let us juxtapose the above with the relevant ICC rule. Article 9.5.2 states: "If a cricketer establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping code violation under clause 3.1 (presence of prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers) or use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method under clause 3.2 he bears no significant fault or negligence, then the period of ineligibility may be reduced, but subject to clause 9.5.3 the reduced period of ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the minimum period of ineligibility otherwise applicable."

The crucial wording here is "If a cricketer establishes." The hearing panel has to allow the player to establish that he bears no significant fault or negligence. In the present case the PCB tribunal has on its own concluded that Asif should be given the benefit of this provision under the "exceptional circumstances rule" and apparently found those circumstances despite the player not offering any explanation (unlike Akhtar through his doctor) for the adverse test result for 19-norandrosterone, a meatabolite of nandrolone.

Another point in Mr. Sonn's statement is significant, given the lack of a uniform anti-doping policy among ICC members. He says: "I would now urge all ICC Full Members not already engaged in their own testing regimes to adopt such a process as soon as possible so (that) cricket can show just how committed it is to being known as a drug-free sport."

Unlike other international federations that have accepted the WADA Code, there is no provision in the ICC rules that stipulates that its member units and players under them will follow the ICC anti-doping rules in general or are bound by those rules. There is no out-of-competition testing as known to the rest of the sporting world in ICC rules. Yet, the ICC expects all its full members to pursue own testing programme.

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