Wrestler Narsingh Yadav’s doping case has developed into a classic whodunit. The final word on whether he can still make it to the Rio Olympics or be replaced by Parveen Rana should be out shortly. But the past week has been suspense-laden, with dizzying twists and turns.
What has made the story melodramatic is the protracted battle Nursingh had had with fellow-wrestler Sushil Kumar over who should represent India at the Rio Olympics in the 74 kg category.
This not merely strained the relations between the two, but also caused great turmoil in the wrestling federation, vexed the national Olympic association and sports ministry and virtually divided the nation down the middle.
The matter ultimately went to court which decided that Narsingh, who had qualified by the processes as laid down by the IOA, could not be replaced by Sushil, who wanted to be selected by virtue of being a medal winner previously.
After this non-too-savoury rigmarole, disclosure by the National Anti Doping Agency last week that Narsing’s first sample had tested positive put his place trip to Rio in jeopardy and left the country bewildered.
Narsingh protested, claiming conspiratorial forces had spiked his food/water (or some other intake), making the situation even more bizarre. It didn’t help Narsingh’s case at all though that his second sample also tested positive.
Let’s put this in perspective. Doping is not new in sport: in India too, despite the sanctimonious pronouncements of the authorities and athletes, as several examples of the past testify.
It can’t be that Nada’s testing systems or timing of the tests is wrong. The ‘whereabouts’ clause allows anti-doping authorities to test athletes randomly, out of competition too.
In Narsingh’s case, that doping took place is clearly established. It is how this happened which is the crux.
There are five possibilities:
1) Narsingh took performance-enhancing drugs knowingly, independently, without the knowledge of coach; (2) He took them unwittingly, say taking some medicine or food of whose consequences he was unaware; (3) He was administered drugs by the coach without his knowledge; (4) He and the support staff were hand-in-glove in drug usage; (5) His food/water or whatever was spiked by some outsider.
There are many examples to fit the first four possibilities listed though the first mentioned is obviously rare. Doping requires expertise and close monitoring, especially for masking, which an athlete cannot manage on his own.
In any case, the first four offer no scope for redemption. The charter is clear that ignorance is no excuse. No athletes can today claim that he took the wrong medicine by mistake.
Only the fifth, that there was a conspiracy, could possibly earn Narsingh a reprieve. But proving this is extraordinarily difficult.
