WADA - WADA v. Ms. Rishu Nagar

BEFROE THE ANTI DOPING APPEAL PANEL

Conference Room, Block-A. Pr■gati Vihar Hostel Lodhl Road, New O.lhl -110 003 APl)eal No-01.ADAP 2014

IN THE MATTER OF

Wo<1d Arel Doping Agency fiADA)

APPELLANT

Vs Ms Rishu Nagar RESPONDENT Quorum· Present 02,06,2014 Mr JuslJCe M.L Varma, Chauman Ms lndu Purl, Member Or V.K Stlarma. Member Ms Rlahu Nsgar, alhlete slong wlth her ur,cle Mr, Leelu Nagar Mrs. BiJl Rajesh, Advocate on behalf ol WAOA. Dr. Saravana Perumsl S .. Sr Project Offioer NADA. ORDER Tola la an appeal filed by WOt1d AnU Ooplng AQenc:,r fiADA) agamt the arder dated 25 10.2013 passed by lhe Ant, Doping Dlsciplonary Panel. In the ,mpugned o,der the J)enood of onelog,bUfiy lmpoted on t.he alhlete II one (1) year und,er Artlole 10 5 2 WADA has tafien e•ceptiOf'I to tl>e reclualon in tl>e perlad of dJsqualifica!lon/lfibility from two (2) years In Anide 10 2 to one year A• per ths 1mpugMd Otder the pencd of one (1) year has to ruri trom 05.06.2013 on which date !he athlete was provlslonally suspended. One year expores on 04 06.2014 Thetelore. u,e appeal was urgently hsted for heanng today affer nobce to the athtete. who is present 11 person with her uncle Mr. Lfiu Nagar.

04 06.2014 Thetelore. u,e appeal was urgently hsted for heanng today affer nobce to the athtete. who is present 11 person with her uncle Mr. Lfiu Nagar. We heard arguments on behaff of WAOA. We also expla1ned to the athlete lhe substanoe or the atQuments advan<:4d on lbehalf of WAOA lor Mhanoement of the pun11hment from ona year to two year The athlete was unable to satos/y us v.'hy the perlad of inelig,t,,l,ty should no, be 1naeas.ed rrom one year to two year. as p.-escribed in Article 10 2 in the NADA Code We may now noüce, sorne retevant facts The test of the samptes found thal the unne conlamed Nandrolona Claasífied under s, 1(1) (Exogenou, Anabollc Androgenlc Stetold) . NandrOlone(lndudtng its metabol1te 19-NA) iS a prohibited substanoe Thls I& an admittlld posltion The athlete hes not elll)lalned how lhls p<Otobiled substanc:e entwed her bo<ly The tfi refi or bolh A' & e· samples shoW that lhls prohbiled sub$tanc:e Is 65 times m0<e than the permtSStble llmia. The athlete's caS& before lhe Disáptlna,y Panel was that she used to suffer lrom Ugament pain ror whidl .,., 1004< medieal trealmenl Exhlblt-6 shows thal - or lhe DO<=lor'I hod p<elcntMld

Defcort-6. Tus is a steroicl but not Nandrolona which is an anaboUe $.lerod Wheteas sterold­ Defoort-6, can be taken o,ally also apart lrom belng lnjected In lhe 1ystem Nandrolone, whiCh is anabollc steroid c:annot be taken orally and has to be ,njecied 1nlo lhe body The presc,1p110n In Elilllblt-6 111d not p¡escnt,ed N•ndrOlone whlch hat bftn lound 1n the saml)IM ar the 1thi1tt far whiCh lhere ,s no explanaoon put foiwaJd by lhe alhlete as n,oiiced above 11 may be nollced here that Nandrolone 1$ a non-spec,fl&d substance 0n lhe besls of lhe admitted lacls Artlcie 1 O 5.2 cannol be applied to the case and lhe period of inelig!1Jility of two yea,s pr..albed under Albcle 10 2 cannot be reduce<! We aro unablo lo ag,ee w11h tne reasoning g,ven by the Anti Oopir,g Disaplinary Panel lot reduotlon of lhe period of ,nelig•btltty. whiCh ia more on compasslona lo grounds The D!.clpl,nary Panel has upheld tho fondlng In the test reports ol the samples, but lhe reasoning given lor reduction ol penad al inellg1billty ,s - in oonlormrty W>th the pro\/ls,on1 ol NADA Coda Tho lmpugne<f arder hu rocorded lh.ll 1h11 is a

case '. wheré lhé fith. lntfiperi&nee and lack ol knowledge ol rUes due 10 13Clc or educallon has been p,ovocl by the elhteuo· For thls re31on 11,e Dlsc;¡,ltnery Panel has held that at.hlete is entitled to a reduction 11 the normaJ perfod of sanc:tton. In amving at th1S conch>sl-on whal has been overlooked Is lhal thero Is no explanation whalsoewr by o, on beh&lf or the athlete, as lo how !he proh1brted substance enlered her body, wtvch is a p,erequisrte for re<M:tlon ,n lhe penad ol aanctlonlinel¡g•bll1ty/dllqua11fiea1ion Far !he forego,ng reasons 1h1s Panel is ol the view lhat lhe reduct,on ,n lhe period of ineligJbil1ty awarded lo lhe atnlele by the Olleipllnary Panel Is unsuslalnable and con1,ary to tl>e Artides ol NADA Codo We are. !hereloro, constlll!lll lo enhance the 1>enod or ,nehglbif,ty frorn one year lo two years meanlng lhereby thal !he order datad 25.1 O 2013 pós!ed by O,fionary Panel li/lkJld be os,eralive lor two (2) years ln,tead ol one (1) year lo. lrom 05.06 2013 to 04 06 2015 The appeal Is accord ,ngly a llowed to lh&I eJC1en1. (Dr.V)¿, Member, Medical Doctor fifi Member. Sportsperson