NEW DELHI: Did the Davaram panel exonerate discus thrower Neelam Jaswant Singh initially and then change its decision?

With the focus in the Neelam appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) having shifted to the stand taken by the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) that there never was a decision to exonerate the athlete, it is pertinent to note what exactly the panel stated in its order dated March 13, 2006.

This is what it wrote: "The Tribunal met once again in New Delhi on March 13, 2006. After careful, detailed discussions and analysis of evidence, the Tribunal took note of the discrepancies and shortcomings in the processes, analysis and the laboratory report as pointed out in the case of Ms Neelam Jaswant Singh. Since the Tribunal cannot say with conviction that this report is accurate, it therefore cannot accept the findings of the laboratory in toto. The Tribunal is also of the opinion that discrepancies and shortcomings in the process would not be upheld in a court of law. The Tribunal, accordingly, gives the benefit of doubt to the athlete Ms Neelam Jaswant Singh, and asks to recall the order of suspension against Ms Neelam Jaswant Singh."

Reversal

In the four-member panel, headed by W.I. Davaram, the National Selection Committee Chairman and Olympian, Gurbachan Singh Randhawa, gave a dissenting note.

Following a communication from the IAAF and at the request of the AFI, the panel reviewed its decision and on April 24, 2006, gave a verdict of "guilty" against Neelam.

A hearing panel's decision is deemed final unless challenged before another panel, in this instance CAS. A National federation can only forward that decision to the IAAF and does not have the authority to accept or reject or modify such an award.

Relevant rule

Says IAAF anti-doping rule (38.10): "If the relevant tribunal of the member considers that an anti-doping rule violation has not been committed, this decision shall be notified to the IAAF Anti-Doping Administrator in writing within 5 working days of the decision being made (together with a copy of the written reasons for such decision). The case shall then be reviewed by the Doping Review Board which shall decide whether or not it should be referred to arbitration before CAS pursuant to Rule 60.23 below. If the Doping Review Board does so decide, it may at the same time re-impose, where appropriate, the athlete's provisional suspension pending resolution of the appeal by CAS."

The Davaram panel also wrote: "The report of the Tribunal is being submitted to the Secretary, AFI with advice that a copy of the report is forwarded to IAAF, within 5 days, as contemplated (sic) under rules." There was no mention that the report merely contained certain observations of the panel or that it was recommendatory in nature or that fresh clarifications were being sought from the IAAF or any other agency.

Neelam's argument

Neelam's counsel, Sushil Salwan, has argued before CAS that the Davaram panel did not have the authority to review its own decision as requested by the AFI, following a communication from the IAAF. Neelam's appeal, against a two-year suspension imposed on her by the AFI, is being heard by a single arbiter in Lausanne. The case is expected to go beyond February 19 by which date Mr. Salwan is scheduled to make fresh written submissions.

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