BCCI denies sitting on doping results

The news of young Indian opening batsman Prithvi Shaw failing an in-competition dope test has reopened the scrutiny over the anti-doping policy and procedures of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). For long, the BCCI has resisted any move to bring it under the aegis of the National Anti-Doping Agency Code which is accepted by all other national sports federations. The BCCI maintains that it adheres to the ICC and WADA Code. The board, however, does not reveal its independent disciplinary mechanisms or the manner in which it hands out the punishments to its players. On June 26, the Union sports ministry wrote to BCCI CEO Rahul Johri citing a conflict, saying of the 215 samples sent by the board for testing at NDTL in 2018, five had tested positive. However, there is no information on how the athletes who tested positive have been dealt with.

Johri, who is away in the United States, reportedly met senior officials in the ministry on the matter in New Delhi in July, but was told clearly that the board would not get any special concession nor would the NADA get into a special agreement with it. 

Doctor Abhijit Salvi, the BCCI's anti-doping manager, defended the board's anti-doping programme, terming it thorough and transparent. Speaking to THE WEEK, Dr Salvi denied the charges made by the sports ministry casting aspersions on the robustness of the board's anti-doping programme and authority to conduct dope tests on players. Clearing some air over the questions raised by the ministry and in the aftermath of the details made available by the board on anti-doping rule violations by Prithvi Shaw, Akshay Dullarwar and Divya Gajraj, Salvi shed some light on the BCCI's anti-doping procedures and programme. Excerpts:-

The Union sports ministry in its letter has questioned the robustness of the BCCI's anti-doping programme. Your response to the criticism.

The BCCI has been doing a thorough and transparent job with regard to its anti-doping programme. I am not aware of this letter in the first place; it would have been sent to the CEO. I have been travelling and conducting anti-doping education programme. 

Was there a delay in result being furnished in Shaw's case? If yes, why?

Absolutely. We received the report on May 2, and as per the procedure we had to ask the lab for a complete documentation package which we received on May 17 and the due process took place only after that. Normally, result management does take a couple of months—it took us two months to process through an independent review board.

Did the NDTL do re-tests so that there was a delay? Were you aware of the reasons for delay?

I am sure they do re-tests once a positive test is confirmed. That's in the complete documentation package. I sent them a couple of mails in the months of March and April, and asked them for a few reports that we had not received. And they responded saying the delay was due to technical reasons. I mean there must be some technical reasons. It's a WADA certified lab, so obviously they know their job.

The samples were collected by the NADA or the IDTM?

No, not the NADA. The BCCI's sample collection agency is the IDTM and they send it to the NDTL for testing. 

Can you shed more light on the composition of the independent review panel? There are no details of it on the board website and there is criticism that you cannot sit on the judgment on your own players.

The BCCI appoints the independent review board through the IDTM. These are all international experts. The IDTM works with many international sports organisations. So the panel comprises a doctor, a lawyer and a scientist who all are appointed by the IDTM, and the BCCI approves their appointment. We don't contact them directly, we go only through the IDTM. We also have an external legal consultant for these matters. 

How has your experience working with the NDTL been? Is there any issue or concern that you have?

I think the NDTL is doing a fair job. All these years, the NDTL has been testing the samples, barring one or two cases. In the case of the IPL, we want the report in 48 hours and it submits the report in 48 hours. In domestic cricket, they submit it in 10 working days. We have had no issues with them at all. 

People have perceived that the reports were sent early and that we sat on them. All copies of the reports are simultaneously sent to the ICC and the WADA. If the BCCI was sitting on these reports for three months, the WADA would be asking us “what are you guys doing”. The NDTL automatically sends it to them. All these data are also fed on the ADAMS which is WADA's website. 

Can you shed light on the number of tests done? What are the approximate figures on in-competition and out-of-competition testing? 

Earlier we did mostly in-competition, but lately we have been shifting focus more on out-of-competition. Around 70 per cent are in-competition and 30 per cent out-of-competition. Going forward, each year we are increasing the out-of-competition testing percentage. Every sport is different—In Olympics, every day is in-competition, but in World Cup only the match day is in-competition and non- match day is out-of-competition. 

In Shaw case, there are no details of how and from where the banned substance came, and there is no evidence such as a chemist receipt. The BCCI is being criticised for not giving proper details. 

He has admitted (to the doping violation) and told us how Terbutaline entered his body and why he took it. If you see other two players, they gave an entire documentation—prescription, chemist receipt etc. But in this case, so much time had elapsed and he mentioned that his father had told him to pick this cough syrup from a chemist, so there was no prescription. The panel believed him.