Despite clean chit, questions abound on panel’s procedure

NEW DELHI: While NADA’s anti-doping and disciplinary panel exonerated Narsingh Yadav of the charges of violating its anti-doping rules, questions remained on how it came to the conclusion.

An autonomous body, the panel comprises a legal expert, medical expert and sportsperson.

On July 28, the NADA counsel had told reporters that Narsingh and his lawyers had no evidence to support their sabotage theory nor they could claim benefit of the ‘no fault, no negligence’ clause as it was the duty of the athlete to exercise caution. Yet on Monday, he was exonerated.

Eyebrows were raised on the secret deposition held on July 28. It was on Friday that the helper and cooks from the Sports Authority of India’s (SAI) training centre in Sonepat were asked to depose from the panel. In their statements, Rahul, Vijay and Pankaj had allegedly supported Narsingh’s claim that someone tried to contaminate his food on June 5.

Strangely, the NADA counsel was not aware of the deposition and did not get to cross-examine the witnesses. “The NADA counsel should have been there,” said Jayaram, NADA’s first senior project officer and founder of the agency.

“It is the duty of NADA to inform the counsel, he should have been here. I’m told he wasn’t there even today (Monday),” he added.

The three witnesses were also allegedly escorted to the NADA office by Narsingh’s supporters. They were told to travel to the NADA office in the company of a SAI escort. Instead, the trio was seen entering the premises with Narsingh’s supporters.

In a signed letter to SAI officials, Vijay alleged that he agreed to identify the suspect, a 17-year-old juvenile from Chhatrasal Stadium, because he was afraid.

However, Narsingh’s counsel, Vidushpat Singhania, said they had successfully proved sabotage.

“We were able to show that prior to June 2 his drink couldn’t have been spiked as that day his sample was taken and it was reported clean. From June 2-6, he had police officials and his confidant Chandan Yadav with him, so therefore sabotage couldn’t have happened. One attempt was made but it was caught and we had a number of witnesses who deposed before the panel, and it was satisfied with their statements.

“Between June 6 and 22, he (Narsingh) was in Bulgaria in a controlled environment where a lot of people were there. It could not have happened there. Therefore, the only dates left were June 23 and 24, the practice time. Furthermore, we had also furnished a document that proved that the juvenile was present on those two days in practice.” he said.