The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) to urgently collect the necessary samples to ensure that Jaipur-based motorcyclist Vijay Singh, 35, can confirm that his DNA matches that of the sample which tested positive for Stanozolol and led to the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) imposing a four-year sanction.
Justice Pratibha M. Singh has directed NADA to collect Vijay Singh’s sample on March 25 and transported for testing in the designated lab, as communicated by the World Anti-Doping Agency, on or before April 10. The Court noted that the fee for the DNA analysis had already been paid by the athlete, who has also engaged a courier service for the purpose.
It is the first time that an Indian athlete, seeking to establish his innocence, has sought DNA analysis. Back in 2013, the Court of Arbitration for Sport had ruled that DNA testing, complex and expensive, cannot be ordered whenever an athlete requests, but if an athlete first presents some reasonable basis for questioning the lab results to justify any DNA testing.
Curiously, the NADA counsel did not appear before the High Court when it heard Vijay Singh’s writ petition. But in the interest of not delaying the DNA analysis further, the Court heeded the athlete’s counsel Rajiv Dutta’s prayer and ordered NADA to initiate the process of sample collection and transport to the laboratory in London so that the athlete’s doubts could be addressed.
Mr. Dutta told the Court that after the petition was filed, NADA had emailed Vijay Singh, stating that necessary arrangements had been made with regard to collecting his samples and transportation them to London for analysis by the WADA-accredited laboratory there.
More than a year ago, the National Anti-Doping Appeals Panel (ADAP), chaired by Nalin Kohli, had conceded Vijay Singh’s request, through his counsel Vidushpat Singhania, for a DNA analysis of the sample that tested positive for Stanozolol and for it to compared with his own DNA. However, thanks to the Covid-19 outbreak and procedural delays, that analysis has not been done yet. Vijay Singh’s plea is against the delays in the procedure to dispense justice.
Vijay Singh’s sample was collected on November 18, 2018 and he was provisionally suspended on January 25, 2019., chaired by Sunny Choudhary, held him guilty of doping and after a hearing on December 13, 2019, ordered a four-year sanction. Inevitably, the athlete who competes in the Superbikes (600cc class) in the JK Tyre FMSCI National Racing Championships, preferred to lodge an appeal.
Vijay Singh has now petitioned the Court that while the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel had granted his prayer for a DNA test (entirely at his own cost) on March 13, 2020, it took NADA six weeks to write to WADA seeking clarification. WADA had written back within a day to state that while there is no rule which accords an athlete the right to have the DNA analysis, an athlete or a panel can request DNA analysis. However, NADA waited until July 6 to intimate him.
He also felt aggrieved that despite his paying up the cost of the DNA testing in a WADA-accredited laboratory in London, NADA had not taken the steps to have his samples collected. He has also pleaded that despite repeatedly requesting NADA to provide him a Non-Infectious Certificate and four copies of sample collection invoices to submit to the one courier company willing to transport biological samples to London, NADA had not helped him.
When appearing before the ADDP, Vijay Singh alleged that the Doping Control Room had several persons present at the time of sample collection and that the possibility of his sample being exchanged with that of another athlete was high He pointed out that his plea to cross-examine the Dope Control Officer and for video footage of the Dope Control Room had not been entertained by the ADDP.
More than 1100 athletes have been sanctioned by various ADDPs since 2009. It is the first time a motorsports athlete’s sample tested positive. Vijay Singh has been described as being more an amateur rider rather than a professional. Keen to prove him innocence, he had offered to undergo a Polygraph test before the ADDP hearing.
