Thursday, Nov 07, 2002
Thursday, Nov 07, 2002 |
| Sport | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Sport
-
Athletics
By Our Special Correspondent
The AAFI, bound by the rules of the IAAF, should by now have suspended Sunita for her positive test for nandrolone returned at the Busan Asian Games, but apparently has been biding its time. The AAFI has been waiting for the Salwan Commission report, which should be available to it on Thursday. The IAAF rules on the matter of a doping offence are very clear. Rule 59 states: (1) Where a doping offence has taken place, disciplinary proceedings will take place in three stages: (i) suspension, (ii) hearing, (iii) ineligibility. (2) The athlete shall be suspended from the time the IAAF, or, as appropriate, an Area or a Member, reports that there is evidence that a doping offence has taken place. Where doping control is the responsibility of the IAAF under Rule 58.1, the relevant suspension shall be imposed by the IAAF. Where doping control is the responsibility of an Area or a Member, the National Federation of the athlete shall impose the relevant suspension. If, in the opinion of the IAAF, a National Federation has failed properly to impose a suspension, the IAAF may itself impose that suspension. In this case, there could have been some confusion regarding which authority had to initiate the proceedings since the Asian Games came directly under the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) and not under the Area member, the Asian Athletics Association (AAA), but since the games athletics programme was under the overall supervision of the AAA, the responsibility had to be that of the National Federation. The IAAF letter now only confirms the procedure. The AAFI, obviously hoping for a `favourable' verdict from the Salwan Commission, should be initiating the proceedings, starting with the suspension, as soon as it receives the commission report or the report is considered by its top brass. In case the Salwan Commission report goes against Sunita, there will be very little for the AAFI or the athlete to argue in the days ahead. As for a `hearing' prescribed under the rules, we had asked the IAAF to clarify its position since a `hearing' was held in Busan, whereby the Chef de Mission of the Indian contingent, the athlete and the team doctor were asked to explain their position regarding the positive tests, both after the 1500 metres and the 5000 metres. We had enquired whether there could now be another hearing. This is what the IAAF had to say in an e-mail message: "...the OCA has responsibility only for matters relating directly to this specific competition. The Indian Federation must now intervene to ensure that IAAF rules are followed in this alleged doping case. Therefore, the first step is that the athlete has a hearing with his federation''. What happens to the medals, if at the end of the hearing and after the rest of the IAAF procedures are followed, Sunita is found `not guilty'? We had asked the IAAF this question, too. The answer: "If at the end of the IAAF procedure the athlete is found to be innocent of all charges, then the athlete will be free to compete and not sanctioned. However, it will be the athlete's own duty to petition the OCA and demand the return of medals that were withdrawn.'' The same question was put to the OCA Secretary-General, Randhir Singh, on the day (Oct 21) he announced the withdrawal of Sunita's gold and bronze medals. His answer: "I will then take it up with the OCA Executive Council.'' Randhir wondered at that time whether there had been any such instance in the past of an Asian Games medal being withdrawn and given to another athlete to be eventually returned to the original athlete. There could be no confirmation. The rest of the IAAF procedures will depend on what will turn up at the hearing. If the hearing panel absolves Sunita and the IAAF Medical Commission feels that there are sufficient grounds to support such a decision, whether on the facts of the case or on technical grounds, she will be reprieved. If on the other hand the IAAF Medical Commission cannot be in agreement with the hearing panel, as is the case in a majority of such instances, the Sunita case will go for arbitration where the athlete, the National federation and the IAAF will have the right to present their case, present expert witnesses and documents and argue through lawyers just as in a court. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be final. If the hearing finds her guilty or she waives her right for a hearing, Sunita will be punished. The usual sanction for a steroid offence is a suspension for a minimum of two years. Throughout the hearing period the athlete will remain suspended and the eventual suspension will be effective from the date on which he or she was suspended. However, all results from the date on which the positive sample was provided will be annulled. In the event of arbitration, the IAAF Council will have the right to suspend the athlete pending a final decision from the arbitration panel. Sunita's best hope during a national-level hearing is bound to be the big difference in concentration levels of nandrolone found in her `A' and `B' samples after the 1500 metres event. The 21 nanograms per millilitre of urine in her `A' sample followed by the 6ng/ml of urine for the `B' sample is being considered sufficient ground for an argument. Even the 10ng/ml of urine and 7ng/ml of urine found in her `A' and `B' samples after the 5000 metres race are well above the normal limits of variations, the argument goes. No one has, however, come up with a firm scientific support to base such an argument. The permitted level for nandrolone in the case of a non-pregnant woman is 5ng/ml of urine. It is possible that the whole testing at Seoul might be questioned on the basis of the differentials. But that will be up to Sunita's lawyers before the hearing panel or those of the athlete and the AAFI if and when the matter comes up before an arbitration panel. At the moment, the wait is for the AAFI to begin the proceedings as laid down by the IAAF.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
