Anti-doping: Bias glaring in world bodies’ stance
EXPERTSPEAK I’m not really happy with the situation and with how it was done, I think for someone like Asafa (Powell) to get a ban of 18 months for that (stimulant oxilofrine) and then Tyson Gay to get just one year because of cooperating, I think it is sending a bad message into the sport that you can do it (dope) but if you cooperate with us, we’ll reduce the sentence.” — (Usain Bolt). This has brought to light the different standards adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) when imposing bans on athletes. Both are quick to appeal decisions of national anti-doping tribunals to the Court of Arbitration for Sports whenever punishments are reduced by the National AntiDoping Agency, particularly in third world countries.
CLEAR VIOLATION However, US sprint star Tyson Gay had tested positive for an anabolic steroid. WADA and IAAF experts consider anabolic steroids an outdated and well known mode of doping and there can be no rational for inadvertently ingesting it. However, the USADA, with the backing of WADA and IAAF, has reduced the ban of Gay on the pretext that substantial assistance has been provided by him.
The nature of substantial assistance provided by Gay and how it was important information result- ing in prosecution of another person is not clear from the USADA order available on the website.
This contrasts starkly with the one-year punishment by the Indian anti-doping panel to six women athletes that was enhanced to two years by the CAS on an appeal by IAAF, for having ingested a similar substance. The irony of the situation is that these athletes had testified before a government fact-finding panel and provided substantial information on the illegal shops that provided supplements that could be contaminated and which existed outside some Sports Authority of India complexes. They also provided information about their coach, who had prescribed the contaminated pills to them in their training regime. These facts were before the IAAF and the CAS. Despite this, IAAF appealed.
STRANGE SILENCE In fact, even WADA, which appeals most decisions when a national anti-doping tribunal reduces punishments of athletes in third world countries, has not filed an appeal against the USADA decision even when the athlete concerned is an Olympic silver medallist.
This disparity in decisions seems to have been influenced by the fact that WADA and IOC are private bodies and 60% of IOC’s revenue comes from the US. As per WADA’s contribution list of 2014, direct contribution from the US was $1,934,612 (`11.8 crore) compared to India’s $97,108 (`60 lakh). This coupled with the circumstance that 50% of WADA revenue comes from the Olympic Movement and US is the biggest financial contributor to the Olympic movement, leads inevitably to the conclusion that WADA is substantially funded by the US. This may have led to Gay getting undue concessions.
This is contrary to the rule of exceptions which states: ‘All decisions taken under these antidoping rules regarding special circumstances must be harmonised so that the same legal conditions can be guaranteed for all athletes, regardless of their nationality, domicile, level or experience’. UNFAIR ADVANTAGE Contrary to the above rule, the so called justice of WADA and the IAAF is dependent on the nationality of the athlete and suggests that sporting justice can be influenced by the funding provided.
It is also not clear how the officebearers of WADA are elected and its membership is structured. A private entity such as the WADA has international funding and UN endorsement and exercises wide powers which can cut short the career of any athlete.
In fact, WADA does not give voting rights to all countries which it governs. The strength of its Foundation Board is restricted to 40 from amongst whom the Executive Board is also elected. Thus, all ratifying countries must demand equal voting rights and if this is not done then the UN must withdraw its endorsement.