NADA’s anti-doping and disciplinary panel on Monday gave a clean chit to wrestler Narsingh Pacham Yadav saying he was a victim of sabotage.
Here’s a list of the factors that worked in the wrestler’s favour in the verdict -
•As per the panel’s report, the concentration of detected prohibitive substance (methandienone) found in the urine sample collected on 25th June was substantially reduced when the sample was collected again on July 5. Also, only the long time metabolite of methandienone was detected in the later sample, suggesting he wasn’t a regular user of the drug.
•Further, the panel felt that Narsingh’s violation was a one-time ingestion, which would have not given him any significant gain or an unfair advantage.
•The fact that Narsingh has no previous doping violation was also a major factor.
•The panel agreed to Narsingh’s claim of sabotage as it felt that the wrestler and his confidants took utmost caution in ensuring that no prohibitive drug enters his body. “It is not disputed that he has consumed food from the Sports Authority of India (SAI) mess, NRC Sonepat; that he consumed food nutritional supplements which was provided by WFI and JSW foundation; that the athlete regularly consulted Dr Joginder, who used to visit NRC; that he locked the room in which the supplements, drinks were kept; that any change in the food if required by the athlete was done by the athlete’s close confidant Chandan Yadav only; that mixture of drinks including that of supplements was either undertaken by the athlete directly or through his close confidant Sandip Yadav and that he used to keep his amino drink besides him on the mat,” the summary read.
•The panel also junked the NADA counsel’s argument that he left the drink unattended at the site of practice and also did not opt to change his training centre. “It is the opinion of the panel that while practicing on the mat it is impossible to keep a watch on the drinks and that this cannot be held as failure on the part of the athlete in taking utmost caution. The panel further observes that it should be left to the athlete to chose the place of practice where best facilities are available to him. For this reason, non-shifting the venue of practice cannot be held as failure on part of the athlete in taking due care.”
•Most importantly, NADA’s decision to treat positive results from samples collected on June 25 and July 5 as a single offence gave him relief. “…the panel is treating it as a single violation because the report of sample taken on 25 June was not notified to him till the sample was taken on July 5.”.