In a stunning reversal of fortunes, Narsingh was ousted from the Olympics and slapped with a four-year ban for flunking a dope test after the ad hoc division of the CAS overturned the clean chit given to him by the National Anti-Doping Agency.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had appealed against the NADA all-clear given to Narsingh at CAS, three days ahead of his scheduled opening bout at the Olympics.
WFI President Brij Bhushan Sharan said that the CAS panel was adamant to know the reason why any culprit was not punished till now if there was a conspiracy or sabotage in the case.
"From whatever I could understand, they (CAS panel) were asking why the guilty have not been punished till now under Indian judicial sysyem. It's not just arrest of somebody but they want to know about any punishment (handed to a guilty person). Perhaps, if the guilty was in jail today the decision may have gone in our favour," he said.
Also Read
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had appealed against the NADA all-clear to Narsingh at CAS, three days ahead of his scheduled opening bout at the Olympics.
"We demand a CBI inquiry into the entire episode. There is a nexus in the country, there is a certain group working, a group which has worked with some players earlier also. I am 100 per cent sure somebody has plotted the incident against Narsingh and the Indian government should order a CBI inquiry so that nothing of this kind ever happened in future to any other player," he said.
"The guilty should be revealed and their names brought out to break the nexus," he added.
"The chef-de-mission (Rakesh Gupta) has told us that he (Narsingh) can stay till tomorrow. By tomorrow he will have to leave the Games Village."
Asked about the future course of action, the WFI chief said, "Whether there will be appeal or not, we will decide after consulting our lawyer after reaching India."
He said that the WFI could not even discuss the case with its lawyer due to paucity of time.
"No lawyer from NADA could come from India. An authority from NADA was told to be present and somebody came but he did not come prepared. He could not do much, he should have come prepared. Had somebody from NADA come prepared, NADA's view could have been heard. WADA's lawyer came prepared and he was able to convince the CAS.