ANTI-DOPING LAW - A Basic Implementation of Wada Or Much More? (Indian Perspective)

 

“I didn’t build the culture, but did not stop the culture”

                                                                                                           -Lance Armstrong

 

Background

DOPING is an interesting word, just going by the literal dictionary meaning it could be the use of substances or techniques which are ILLEGAL and used for gaining unfair advantage over other athletes or competitors in the event.

But if we emphasis on the word ILLEAGAL here we come across a dilemma that illegal in one country may be necessity in the other or simply legal for use.

Every year WADA(world anti-doping agency) updates a common list of drugs and anabolic steroids which are banned and all the NADA(national anti-doping agency) bodies across the globe see through the compliance accordingly.

 

 WADA & NADA

WADA came into existence in the year 2004, by the IOC(International Olympic Committee) which ensured that170 countries signed the convention. Moreover this purpose was immediately implemented by the UNESCO.

In 2005 ‘International Convention against Doping in Sports’ UNESCO passed this resolution strictly binding the countries to the conduct including India.

India ratified the convention code in 2007 and established its National Anti-Doping Agency under the supervision and as the sub division of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

Although it has been critical to know that vies a vies implementation of the WADA regulations have posed all new problems when it comes to implementation in India, Single largest reason is the lack of awareness about the substances and techniques banned under WADA.

 

Ignorance and Lack of awareness in India posing problems for NADA

In 2001 after much outrage and anticipation from the sports fraternity Parliament Standing Committee under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports invites the views and submissions for the new “National Anti-Doping Bill, 2021”.

The bill to be passed here will be the statuary framework for the National Anti-Doping Agency, the National Dope Testing Laboratory and other dope testing centers of National Board of Anti-Doping for regulating anti-doping activities in sports in India with compliance to the International Convention against Doping in Sports by UNESCO.

It is very prevalent with the problems discussed that literal implementation of the international law regarding anti-doping need rectification region to region. The direct implementation in 2007 of the WADA regulations posed difficulties for the practical compliance and legal compliances.

Moreover sheer reason driving the athletes to take up sport was the easy way of getting the government job in the sports quota and with no motivation and lack of professionalism hindered the free doping environment in India.

 

Examples of Ignorance and lack of awareness

The illicit chemical entered the athlete's body through a cosmetic product containing germanium oil, according to National Anti-Doping Agency v Jyotsana Pansare. Similarly, in Manjeet Singh v NADA, the banned chemical was introduced into the athlete's system via prescription supplied by a sports medicine specialist. In a more recent occurrence, Ginseng was discovered in the urine samples of six Indian sportsmen who tested positive for doping. The investigation later revealed that it was given to them by their coach, who purchased it because the Sports Authority of India refused to provide supplements to the athletes despite the coach's repeated requests. The case was taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne, where the athletes were found guilty and barred from competing for four years. In that situation, one of the athletes was a tribal girl who could not communicate in Hindi or English and came from a lower socioeconomic class, thus it was unreasonable to ask her to investigate each and every ingredient before taking it. As a result, we can conclude that the rule of strict liability, along with the problem of a lack of understanding among Indian athletes, may result in a sporting disaster in India.

Despite the fact that the rule of strict liability instills in athletes a dread of doping, it has the potential to result in specific injustices. There have been instances where the illegal substance was administered by the coach rather than the athlete. As a result, the question arises as to whether the idea of strict liability should be applied solely to the athlete, given that we are well aware that in some circumstances, the relevant authorities do not take their duties seriously.

Another point of contention is NADA's pedagogy. Its educational programmes are traditional, as the primary language is English, which may be difficult for most of the athletes to grasp because they are from rural areas and attended State Board schools. As a result, numerous athletes have pleaded guilty to inadvertently committing the offence due to a lack of information.

 

Conclusion

NADA should also supply athletes with a complete list of banned substances in regional languages so that they can better comprehend the situation. Coaches who train athletes to perform at their maximum levels without the use of PEDs should be appointed rather than those who deceive them into taking PEDs.

 

Apart from that, the competent authorities should promote a transparent, fair, and trustworthy system, as well as give athletes with the appropriate assistance, because doping allegations can severely damage an athlete's reputation and livelihood.

  I believe that a balance must be maintained between the Code's objectives and the rights of athletes by imposing some requirements on the authorities, as well as imposing harsh penalties on the authorities in the event of non-compliance.

  

Written by

Akshay Singh Rawat

LinkedIn