Hurdler Jithin suspended for four years

Vinayak Padmadeo

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, February 22 

Hurdler Jithin Paul has been handed a four-year suspension by the anti-doping disciplinary panel (ADDP) of the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).

Mnaapohat injections were seized from Jithin’s room during a surprise check conducted on the hostel premises of a few of the athletes and as well as the coaches at the Sports Authority of India (SAI) premises in Patiala in April last year.

Tests conducted on the injections revealed the presence of meldonium, a banned substance, and Jithin was put on provisional suspension on May 22, 2017. The three-member ADDP panel headed by Kuldip Singh gave the decision on February 21, which makes Jithin ineligible to compete till May 22, 2021.

The panel took notice of the fact that the drug was a non-specified substance, and therefore, the onus was on the athlete to establish that its possession “was not intentional or possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) granted in accordance with article 4.4 or other acceptable justification”.

“In the present case, the athlete has been found in possession of prohibited substance in his room at the National Institute of Sports, Patiala, Punjab, during the search conducted by the NADA on April 17, 2017, and the athlete had no reasonable justification for the possession of prohibited substance in his room,” the report said.

“Therefore, keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances, the athlete has failed to discharge the said onus cast on him. Consequently, the athlete failed to establish any grounds for elimination or reduction of period of ineligibility. Thus the athlete is liable for sanction under Article 10.2.1. Hence, under Article 10.2.1 of the anti-doping rules of NADA-2015, athlete has to suffer an ineligibility of four (4) years,” the report added.

The 400m hurdler, however, is expected to file an appeal with the NADA’s anti-doping appeal panel. He has 21 days to file an appeal before the panel. “Panel has not considered vital aspects of this case in their order. Casual clarifications of the NADA on crucial issues have been accepted and statements in defence of the athlete by international-level athletes and coaches made on affidavits have been ignored without any reasoning. We will definitely appeal against this order. Innocent athlete must not suffer,” said Jithin’s counsel Parth Goswami.

His roommate Kunhu Mohammad, his coach Kunhi Mohammad and Jeevan KS, who was part of the training camp, have all claimed that no vial of injection Mnaapohat was found during the surprise check.

Varying numbers

Jithin, through his counsel Parth Goswami and Hemant Phalpher, had also raised a few objections about procedural lapses. The NADA in three different documents has a different number of meldonium seizures. In its report dated April 18, 2017, the agency mentioned 20 injections were seized, but in its notice sent to Jithin dated May 22, 2017, the number quoted is 10.  In the first report dated April 17, 2017, the original number has been cut and 10 scribbled over it.

The athlete further pointed out that there were cuttings on the envelopes that suggested foul play.

He also contended that no seizure memo was prepared at the room, nor any document was handed over to the athlete as a token of acknowledgement of items recovered. 

He further said no independent witness was present as part of the search party and as such “no principle of natural justice was followed”. 

‘Clerical error’

The NADA, however, contended the plea saying: “…NADA states that number of injection Mnaapohat were found in the room of athlete were only 10 not 20 or 30. The numerical writing/over writing on the envelope was a clerical error and the same was corrected in front of the athlete.” 

What Anti-doping Disciplinary Panel Report Says 

In the present case, the athlete has been found in possession of prohibited substance in his room at the National Institute of Sports, Patiala, Punjab, during the search conducted by the NADA on April 17, 2017, and the athlete had no reasonable justification for the possession of prohibited substance in his room. Therefore, keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances, the athlete has failed to discharge the said onus cast on him. Consequently, the athlete failed to establish any grounds for elimination or reduction of period of ineligibility. Thus the athlete is liable for sanction under Article 10.2.1. Hence, under Article 10.2.1 of the anti-doping rules of NADA-2015, athlete has to suffer an ineligibility of four (4) years.