The Indian cricket board (BCCI) on Tuesday issued a press release announcing a five-month suspension for Yusuf Pathan, for inadvertently taking a banned substance and also took the opportunity to insist that the action was part of their zero tolerance approach towards doping in cricket.
There is no reason to question Pathan’s explanation that the banned substance, Terbutaline, was consumed inadvertently, as he took a wrong medicine instead of the one prescribed to him for treating upper respiratory tract infection.
But what does need questioning is whether the way BCCI handled the situation really is in sync with their “zero tolerance approach.”
Question marks over BCCI
First, the bare facts. According to statement issued by the BCCI, Pathan’s urine sample, which was found to be positive, was collected during the domestic T20 tournament on March 16, 2017 in New Delhi. He was ultimately charged under BCCI’s Anti-Doping Rules Article 2.1 on October 27, 2017 after he had already played two first class matches for Baroda this season.
The player is said to have accepted the violation immediately and also the provisional suspension as Terbutaline is a specified substance under World Anti-Doping Agency rules and hence does not carry mandatory immediate suspension.
All is fine till here and even the five-month suspension arrived at after due process can be justified as the investigative agency could not prove that the player had taken the substance to enhance his performance.
But the real problem comes when BCCI points out to its Anti-Doping Rules 10.10.1, 10.10.3 and 10.10.2 that allow back-dating the players ban to even the day of collection of sample if the delay in result management can’t be attributed to the player, subject to him/her spending one-half of the suspension after accepting the imposition of sanction.
This explains why the suspension period starts from August 15, 2017. But what about the decision that his performance records for the two Ranji Trophy games he played in October 2017 will not be disqualified under Article 10.8?
The said Article 10.8 clearly states that:
In addition to the automatic Disqualification, pursuant to Article 9, of the Cricketer’s individual results obtained by the Cricketer’s individual performance in the Match which produced the Adverse Analytical Finding, all other individual results of the Cricketer obtained from the date that the Sample in question was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through to the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall (unless the Anti-Doping Tribunal determines that fairness requires otherwise) be Disqualified with the following consequences:
(a) forfeiture of any individual medals or other prizes awarded;
(b) forfeiture of any official ranking points. The lack of any evidence that the Cricketer’s performance was enhanced during subsequent Matches shall not of itself be sufficient to trigger the Anti-Doping Tribunal’s discretion under Article 10.8.
The only logic behind such a decision by the tribunal is based on the terms “fairness requires otherwise” and it would be interesting to know what fairness point was taken into consideration when it is pretty evident that he was ineligible to play those matches and his participation was more than unfair, so to speak, on the opposition teams.
IPL effect?
Also there is no explanation in the detailed order as to what prompted to keep the suspension at five months – the ban expires at midnight on January 14, 2018 – and one would only infer that the choice ensures that the 35-year-old remains eligible for the Indian Premier League auction scheduled to be held on January 27-28 in Bengaluru.
The decision also shows BCCI in a bad light simply in the back drop of Wada’s letter in October last year to International Cricket Council and the Sports Ministry to direct the board to allow its cricketers to be tested by NADA and follow the rules set by the National Anti-Doping Agency.
BCCI has responded by saying that they are not a National Sports Federation and are governed by the ICC rules and hence the diktat does not apply to them.
The Field had already explained how BCCI’s stand was not valid in that scenario.
Incidentally, the action initiated by BCCI on Pathan also came after Wada shot off the letter and it is still not clear when the board was informed about his positive dope test.
What is more interesting is that Wada’s 2016 Anti-Doping Testing figures show that one Indian cricketer had tested positive among 153 samples collected.
A senior BCCI official had told PTI when the details came out that, “We haven’t received any report from the Wada as of now so we are not in a position to reveal the name of the cricketer.” It is worth noting that there has been no clarity still on that case or the board may have exonerated the said player already.
With regards to Pathan’s case, Wada still has the right to challenge the verdict and has said that the case was still ongoing.
It would be interesting to see whether Wada ultimately gets involved like in the case of Narsingh Yadav, who was cleared by the Nada disciplinary panel but the world body moved CAS and forced him to leave the Rio Olympic village and suspended him for four years.
Or, whether BCCI once again has the last laugh.
