WADA - Appeal 01 ADAP 2014

BEFROE THE ANTI DOPING APPEAL PANEL Conference Room, Block-A, Pragati Vihar Hostel ‘Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110 003, Appeal No-01.ADAP.2014

IN THE MATTER OF

‘World Anti Doping Agency APPELLANT

(WADA)

Vs Ms. Rishu Nagar RESPONDENT

Quorum: Mr. Justice ML. Varma, Chairman

Ms. Indu Puri, Member Dr. V.K Sharma, Member Present Ms. Rishu Nagar, athlete along with her uncle Mr. Leelu Nagar. Mrs. Bi Rajesh, Advocate on behalf of WADA. Dr. Saravana Perumal S.. Sr. Project Officer, NADA. ‘This is an appeal filed by World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Anti Doping Disciplinary Panel. in the impugned order the period of inelgiblty imposed on the athlete is one (1) year under Article 10.52. WADA has taken exception to the reduction in the period of disqualification/ineligibilityfrom two (2) years in Article 10.2 to one year. As per the impugned order the period of one (1) year has to run from 05.08.2013 on which date the athlete was provisionally suspended. One year expres on 04.06.2014. Therefore, the appeal was urgent listed for hearing today after notice to the athlete, whois present in person with her uncle Mr. Lee Nagar ‘We heard arguments on behalf of WADA. We also explained to the athiete the substance of the ‘arguments advanced on behalf of WADA for enhancement of the punishment from one year to two year. The athlete was unable to satisfy us why the period of ineligibity should not be increased from one year to two year, as prescribed in Article 10,2 in the NADA Code.

‘arguments advanced on behalf of WADA for enhancement of the punishment from one year to two year. The athlete was unable to satisfy us why the period of ineligibity should not be increased from one year to two year, as prescribed in Article 10,2 in the NADA Code. ‘We may now notice, some relevant facts. The test of the samples found thatthe urine contained Nandrolone classified under S1. 1(a) (Exogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroid). Nandrolone ee we(including its metabolite 19-NA) is a prohibited substance. This is an admitted position The ‘athlete has not explained how this prohibited substance entered her body. The test reportsof ‘both ‘A’ & 'B' samples show that this prohibited substance js 65 times more than the permissible limits, ‘The athlete's case before the Disciplinary Panel was that she used to suffer from Ligament pain for which she took medical treatment. Exhibitshows that one of the Doctors had prescribed Defcort-6. This is a steroid but not Nandrolone which is an anabolic steroid. Whereas steroidDefcort-6, can be taken oraly also apart from being injected in the system, Nandrolone, which is ‘anabolic steroid, cannot be taken orally and has to be injected into the body. The prescriptionin ‘Exhibit-6 had not prescribed Nandrolone, which has been found in the samples of the athlete for Which there is no explanation put forward by the athlete as noticed above It may be noticed here that Nandrolone is a non-specified substance On the basis of the admitted facts Article 10.5.2 cannot be applied to the case and the period of ineligibility of two years prescribed under Article 10.2 cannot be reduced. We are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the Anti Doping Disipinary Panel for reduction of the period of nel. which is more on compassionate grounds. The Disciplinary Panel has upheld the finding in the test reports of the samples, but the reasoning given for reduction of period of ineligibility is not in

reasoning given by the Anti Doping Disipinary Panel for reduction of the period of nel. which is more on compassionate grounds. The Disciplinary Panel has upheld the finding in the test reports of the samples, but the reasoning given for reduction of period of ineligibility is not in conformity with the provisions of NADA Code. The impugned order has recorded that this is a case ..... where the youth, inexperience and lack of knowledge of rules due to lack of education has been proved by the athlete’. For this reason the Disciplinary Panel has held that athlete is entitled to a reduction in the normal period of sanction, In arrivingat this conclusion what has been overiooked is that there ls no explanation whatsoever by or on behalf of ho athlete, as to how the prohibited substance entered her body, which is a prerequiste for ‘eduction inthe period of sancton/nelgbiltysequalfication For the foregoing reasons, this Panel is of the view that the reduction in the period of ineligibity awarded to the athlete by the Disciplinary Panel is unsustainable and contrary to the Articies of NADA Code. We are, therefore, constraint to enhance the period of inelgibity from one year to two years meaning thereby that the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by Disciplinary Panel would be operative for two (2) years instead of one (1) year ie. from 05.06.2013 to 04.05.2015. The appeal is accordinglyallowed to that extent Chairman Member, Medical Doctor Member, Sportsperson