Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Front Page |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
New Delhi |
Other States |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Sports : General
NEW DELHI: The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has refused to withdraw its appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Lausanne, in the Sharadha Narayana doping case despite being advised to do so by the National Anti-Doping Appeal panel last week.
The WADA had gone into appeal, at the CAS as well as to the appeal panel in India, against the exoneration of Sharadha by a disciplinary panel last January. She was charged with a steroid ( stanozolol) violation in May last year, but the disciplinary panel was satisfied that she had taken the banned drug as per medical advice, and reprieved her.
While dealing with the WADA appeal, the appeal panel headed by retired High Court Judge C.K. Mahajan had stressed that it would not be possible for WADA to maintain two appeals simultaneously. In its interim order the panel advised the WADA to withdraw its appeal with the CAS.
The WADA pointed out in its reply that the CAS appeal had been stayed and the procedure being adopted in this case was no different from what it had been adopting in the case of other countries. It also informed that it would maintain its appeal with the CAS in this case also.
Justice Mahajan had indicated that he would be inclined to dismiss the WADA appeal should the latter insist on maintaining both the appeals.
Filing written submission
Meanwhile, a disciplinary panel headed by Dinesh Dayal directed the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) on Monday to file a written submission with regard to athlete Saroj Sihag's claim that she was not intimated about her ‘B' sample test after the NADA failed to get the test done on the date given to her.
Sihag, a shot putter and discus thrower, who is facing a steroid charge, stated that she was told that her ‘B' sample test was to be done on April 6. Later, on enquiry she was told that officials concerned would not be available on that date.
She was not told about her ‘B' sample test done subsequently, she argued. A testing authority is required to intimate the athlete about a ‘B' sample test, irrespective of whether the athlete had sought such a test or whether such a test was being done in the presence of an independent observer.
Another athlete, 400m runner Vinay Chaudhary, also facing a stanozolol abuse charge, brought a package of creatine on Monday and claimed that it was the only substance he had purchased, on the advice of the ‘Russian doctor', while being in the National camp.
Chaudhary's case dates back to September last year. He had claimed on earlier occasions that the supplements were being supplied by the “Russian doctor” and also “we get them from the federation”.
Hammer thrower Jitender Singh, who is facing a second doping charge, submitted that he had not taken any banned drugs.
He tested positive a second time in his career last October. In both cases he tested positive for steroids. He faces a suspension ranging from eight years to life.
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2011, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of