Monika Devi pleads for reduced sanction in order to prepare for CWG

Nearly 17 months after she was exonerated by a hearing panel set up by the Indian Weightlifting Federation, Monika Devi appeared before the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary panel on Tuesday and pleaded a reduced sanction so as to enable her to prepare for and compete in the Commonwealth Games in October.

In a doping case that triggered a drama that unfolded on National television just before she was to take off for Beijing for the 2008 Olympics, Monika Devi was first charged with a doping violation, then reprieved and still found herself out of the Olympics since it was too late to consider her entry.

The Manipuri lifter accused the Sports Authority of India (SAI) of having sabotaged her tests, was initially supported by the Indian federation, and then found herself cornered when her ‘B’ sample tests at the WADA-accredited laboratory in Tokyo came back ‘positive’.
Procedural formalities

Those tests were conducted in January last year but NADA managed to get a fresh case going only on Tuesday partly because of procedural formalities including a couple of court cases, partly due to the lack of response from the lifter and also because of it own tardy approach.

At the hearing on Tuesday, Monika’s counsel, Ramesh Kumar, pleaded that the panel consider the nearly 18-month de facto suspension that she had undergone so far as adequate punishment for her and allow her to come back immediately so that she could start attending camps in preparation for the Commonwealth Games.

Ramesh Kumar argued that since WADA rules prescribed only a two-year suspension for a first-time offence and since Monika had not been able to compete since being charged with a doping infraction the panel could treat her deemed suspension as the actual suspension period and reduce her total sanction.

He pointed out her achievements at the international level and contended that she was a medal prospect at the New Delhi Commonwealth Games.

Panel Chairman Sudhir Nandrajog pointed out that the panel would be bound by the rules in determining any plea for reduced sanction. He also cautioned Monika and her lawyer that they study the rules in detail and then only make a written submission about the lifter’s guilt, if that was the plea she was taking, since going back after that would be impossible.
Relevant point

The most relevant point in the case would be the date of commencement of suspension. Monika’s original ‘positive’ dates back to June 6, 2008.

It is a moot point whether at any stage after that she was kept under provisional suspension. By August 9 that year she was exonerated.

There never was any official suspension after that, though she remained out of the list of probables for major competitions.

Had she co-operated with the authorities prior to the Olympics and had the Indian federation not accused SAI and the Delhi laboratory of prejudice and sabotage, the case could have ended then and there with a two-year suspension.

That did not happen and Monika plunged herself into legal battles even as her supporters forced the Union Government to initiate a CBI enquiry into the whole episode.

Of additional interest in the Monika case would be the suspension period that the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) would accept. Since March, 2008 it had been imposing a four-year suspension on first-time offenders.

Monika’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ samples were tested in the Tokyo laboratory and both, in one particular batch of four separate sets of samples, returned ‘positive’ for testosterone metabolites and precursors, androsterone, etiocholanolone and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).

NADA has taken the stand that it would strictly go by its own rules that prescribe a two-year suspension.

Incidentally, NADA put forward very little arguments on Tuesday against any possible reduction of suspension. It also did not argue for any particular date being considered for the imposition of any suspension.

The case was adjourned to allow Monika more time to study the implications of an ‘admission’ of guilt.