Date:26/04/2003 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2003/04/26/stories/2003042606011900.htm

Sport - Sports : General

Udaya Laxmi's nandrolone trail goes back to Ludhiana

By K.P. Mohan

NEW DELHI APRIL 25. P. Udaya Laxmi, at the centre of a bitter row with Andhra Pradesh officials, following her dope positive report at the Hyderabad National Games, had a similar positive, for the same steroid, at the Punjab National Games also.

In an apparent cover-up, involving more than 17 dope violations from the Punjab National Games--the numbers are not clear as yet--the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) has so far not even admitted what its anti-doping measures had unearthed in Punjab 16 months ago. But now, even as it wrestles with the procedures connected with the 22 positive cases at Hyderabad, the IOA has to give a final answer about the fate of the dopers caught in Punjab.

In all probability, the Punjab list will be buried under the bundle of files within the IOA offices and the offices of the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Union Sports Ministry for all times to come. Already there are murmurs about procedures having not been followed, not to speak of the delay in getting the reports by the respective federations, all convenient excuses for a smart cover-up.

The fact will, however, remain that the IOA was aware of the report about four months from the end of the 2001 Games, almost the same gap as in the present case with the Hyderabad National Games.

What then prevented the IOA from acting against the dope-takers after it had carried out the tests at taxpayers' expense? The tests were conducted and funded by the SAI unlike the Hyderabad Games where the organising committee had earmarked an amount for the purpose right from the start.

Or, what could have prevented the federations (barring one or two) from proceeding against the dope-offenders, just as they are doing now?

We might not get all the answers in the weeks and months ahead. What we do know, however, is that Udaya Laxmi, the 400m hurdles winner then and last December in Hyderabad, had tested positive for nandrolone as well as the stimulant mephentermine for her urine sample collected at Ludhiana as well. For someone who has been quite vocal the past few days in accusing Andhra officials of having driven her and others to this abhorrent practice at their backyard to boost the home team's medals tally, this is a dubious record.

Had the Amateur Athletic Federation of India (AAFI) acted against her as well as the other four athletes, she would have been facing a life-ban, instead of the two-year suspension that she could be given for her Hyderabad violation. The AAFI, while handing out two-year bans on Punjab sprinter Jagdish Basak and Andhra hurdler Alapati Kalyani, had provisionally suspended Udaya Laxmi and Maharashtra sprinter Kavita Pandya for their steroid infractions in the present batch of cases.

The other athletes who turned in positives at Ludhiana were, National 100m record holder and 100m winner in the Games, Anil Kumar of the Services (stimulant mephentermine), Harminder Singh (Punjab, javelin gold, steroid metandienone), Om Narain (Haryana, javelin, 5th place, mephentermine) and Mandeep Kaur (Punjab, 200m, 4th place, nandrolone).

Wrestler Satish Kumar of Bengal and woman footballers Kulwinder Kaur and Paramjeet Kaur of Punjab and handball player Lachman Singh, also of Punjab, were found to have nandrolone in their urine samples. Two taekwondo competitors, one from Manipur and the other from Madhya Pradesh, had also turned up steroids while a kabaddi player from Services also tested positive for nandrolone.

Since only the `A' samples had been tested and the time-lag between November, 2001 and now might make further procedures, including `B' sample testing, beyond the purview of laid-down regulations, should one take the Punjab positives into account at all?

The Olympic Movement Anti Doping Code (OMADC) has this to say: Chapter VI: Testing procedures: Article 3:

``A result is positive when the `A' sample is positive and any such result may be acted upon for purposes of any competition or out of competition test. A participant may, however, request that the `B' sample be analysed.''

For the Government to at least take note of the positives, obtained at its own lab, for the purpose of national camps, clearance for international competitions, State awards etc just the `A' sample positives should hopefully form sufficient grounds to act, assuming that nothing more might be done about the cases that were never taken up.

The weightlifting federation did punish five culprits, Prashant Pallath, Zakir Mohammed, Rajshekhar Vallabhaneni, Sukhvir Bal and Seema Thapar, with the last-named forced to serve a life-ban since her's happened to be a second offence. The rest were suspended for one year each, though all were steroid offences.

Should the federations take note of these violations while handing out punishments for the Hyderabad offence, as in the case of Udaya Laxmi? Without giving the athlete the chance to seek a `B' sample test prior to a hearing process, it might not be possible. The time lag might make it difficult to complete the procedures now. Yet, this is a topic that could be taken up with the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). If the idea is not to cover up, that is.

The IOA has its task cut out. Quite often the top brass keeps harping about the `stringent action' that awaits the dopers. In practice it has always been a case of `all's well that ends well' with the IOA. The Sunita Rani case at the Busan Asian Games and the subsequent restoration of medals, amidst bands and dancers, was a revelation for those waiting to see a change of heart within the sports administrative set-up. It had the chance to at least make an attempt to cleanse the system in the post-Busan phase. It did not grab it. Now India's reputation in the world fora is at stake. It is time Kalmadi and Co woke up.