Narsingh Yadav ban: Why anti-doping agency WADA took a tough stand

Yadav may have been innocent as NADA claims but his participation would have been against the principles of fair play and doping-free sport

Narsingh Yadav was ousted from the Rio Olympics and slapped with a four-year ban for flunking a dope test after the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) overturned the clean chit given to him by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had filed an urgent application before the CAS ad hoc Division to challenge the NADA's exoneration of Narsingh following two positive anti-doping tests with methandienone on June 25 and July 5, 2016.

In July, Narsingh, who bagged the Olympics quota with a bronze medal finish in last year's World Championships, tested positive for a banned anabolic steroid on both his A and B samples. 

The 74kg category grappler claimed that he had been the target of a conspiracy. He alleged that his food and drinks had been spiked and filed an FIR at the Sonepat Police Station against two fellow wrestlers.

NADA had cleared Narsingh of doping charges on August 1, paving the way for him to compete in the Rio Olympics.

How CAS and WADA view the case

It should come as no surprise that WADA and CAS took a dim view of the situation, with the latter refusing to accept "the argument of the athlete (Narsingh) that he was the victim of sabotage".

Setting aside NADA's decision, the CAS said in its release that "there was no evidence that he (Narsingh) bore no fault, nor that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional".

While clearing Narsingh of doping charges, the NADA panel had said that he was a victim of sabotage done by a competitor and there was no fault and negligence on his part and that it was impossible for an athlete to keep a watch on drinks during practise. However, stating that Narsingh was not responsible for the prohibited substances found in his samples, which was the basis of NADA's all-clear to him, was unlikely to have found any merit with WADA.

Why WADA challenged the all-clear to Narsingh

WADA, in its code, clearly spells out that it is the athlete's individual duty to ensure that he or she is found to be free of any prohibited substance when tested. The code says: "It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found to be present in their samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1."

Article 2.1 of WADA's code deals with the presence of prohibited substances in an athlete's sample.

Further, the code says that specific proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 can be established if an athlete's B sample is analysed and the analysis of the B sample confirms the presence of the prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found in the athlete’s A sample.

In its verdict, nowhere did NADA dispute that Narsingh's samples indeed did contain prohibited substances; thus, WADA would have had no compunctions in challenging NADA's all-clear to Narsingh.

While WADA states that natural justice and the individual rights of an athlete form the basis of its code and decisions, it also holds that its primary responsibility is to "protect the athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for athletes worldwide".

At the end of the day, Narsingh tested positive for prohibited substances and that would have been WADA's real concern.

Trouble at home

Reacting to the ban imposed on Narsingh, Indian Olympic Association Secretary General Rajeev Mehta told PTI that the wrestler was beaten by his compatriots who did not want to let him compete at the Olympics and not by his opponents.

"The picture is clear and neither I nor anyone has to say who's done the foul play. If you go back, you can easily connect the dots and would clearly know who could be the suspect," said Mehta, adding, "Days after he won the battle at the Delhi High Court, a phone call came from his SAI (Sports Authority of India) centre in Sonipat about some doping activities, the raid happened and his sample was found positive. It cannot be sheer coincidence."

While Mehta did not take any names, with two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar having been involved in a bitter court room tussle against Narsingh for the Olympic spot, the whole affair is likely to leave a deep and unpleasant mark on Indian wrestling.