Ban on Jani shocks sporting world

The news which shocked the local sporting world last week was the banning of star Sri Lankan woman sprinter Jani Chathurangi Silva for testing positive for performance enhancing drugs during the last South Asian Games in Colombo in August, 2006.

Even then, a ban looked imminent from the day the world governing body for track and field - the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) took over the arbitration process. The IAAF was compelled to refer the arbitration process to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Lausanne as they were thoroughly unhappy with the manner in which the local committees handled the process.

The CAS upheld an appeal by the IAAF which challenged the exoneration of the former South Asian Games gold medallist by the Lankan authorities. Silva's local dope test drama had a complicated disciplinary procedure after she tested positive for a prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone.

When the Lankan lass's urine sample was tested positive, the IAAF refereed the process to the Medical Commission (MC) of the South Asian Games as the alleged violation has taken place during the eight-nation Games in Colombo two years ago. But when the MC, headed by Consultant Neurologist Dr. Geethanjana Mendis, quite rightly found the woman sprinter guilty, some officials did not agree and complained to the IAAF.

Then the IAAF referred to the Athletic Association of Sri Lanka, which appointed a committee headed by former AASL President Sunil Jayaweera. Their findings were entirely different to that of the MC. Then the high drama went to the Disciplinary Committee (DC), chaired by Parliamentarian Wijayadasa Rajapakshe PC. It was he who finally exonerated the South Asian Games gold medalist in January last year, much to the surprise of the IAAF and knowledgeable people here.

Reasoning out the DC decision to free Silva, Rajapakshe, a Member of the Parliament and a President's Counsel, said they have found that the medical investigation has not been conducted properly. The DC said the 'chain of custody' of the urine sample of Silva had not taken place properly and as a result, they would exonerate the sprinter - a controversial decision which was subsequently challenged by the IAAF.

But the athlete concerned had previously allegedly admitted taking performance enhancing drugs to the AASL. When Jani Chathurangi Silva was called before the AASL Executive Committee, she verbally admitted taking steroids before five AASL Vice Presidents. But, due to ill advice of a few athletic pundits, she went back on her word and challenged the positive dope case.

But quite unusually, Silva did not request for a 'B' urine sample testing. Normally, if an athlete feels that he or she is innocent despite a positive 'A' sample testing, they could request for a 'B' sample testing.

There have been enough examples of athletes getting cleared after a negative 'B' sample testing. If Silva even had a simple doubt, why didn't she request for a 'B' sample testing? Instead, she merely pleaded not guilty at subsequent date.

The IAAF not only banned Silva for a period of two years but also fined Sri Lanka's national body - the AASL, to the tune of Swiss Francs 5,000 for the mishap. The IAAF was not at all happy in the manner the local arbitration process. Even if Silva was served with a provisional suspension of one year then, she would have been cleared by now with the IAAF consent.

Instead, the Disciplinary Committee of Rajapakshe gave a controversial decision which not only cost the athlete's career for two more years from April 14, 2008 but Sri Lanka was disgraced with a heavy fine. In addition, all medals won by the athlete since August, 2006 would be withdrawn.

But the biggest joke came when the Sports Ministry wrote to the world athletic governing body to grant a reprieve to Silva. Sports Minister, in another controversial move, asked the lawyers to compile the facts related to Silva's ban for him to make a 'request' to the IAAF.

Minister Lokuge said he believed there had been technical flaws in the investigation against the Lankan athlete. "I was told that the urine samples were not in a dry ice container when they were sent to Malaysia," Lokuge was quoted as assaying. Minister Lokuge has said he would also be requesting the IAAF to back-date her ban from September 14, 2006.

The IAAF will not take sensitive decisions without through investigation and sufficient evidence. At the same time, such bodies would not entertain requests from politicians without documentary evidence and would not consider such cases on sympathetic grounds. If an athlete had committed a doping offence, he or she should face a suspension in fairness to other competitors as well as to make the great world of sports free from drug cheats.

Under the circumstance, Minister Lokuge's entry to this drama is not a wise move. He should have thought twice before coming to the rescue of Silva. We appreciate politicians helping athletes, especially the Spots Minister coming to the rescue of an athlete when that person is in trouble. But certainly not in a raw case like this.

Minister Lokuge would have even consulted the AASL before making such a decision. The AASL is aware of the whole process and our athletic officials are in a position to advise the Minister. A top AASL official said the Minister did not consult them on this issue.

The Lankan woman sprinter won a gold medal and a silver medal at last month's South Asian championships in Kochi. She came second in women's 100m and also anchored the Lankan 4 x 100m relay team to secure the gold. She would now be stripped off her medals as she runs from grace to disgrace.

It will be interesting to see what reasons the Sports Ministry would give to the IAAF in seeking a pardon or a relaxed punishment. It looks funny at this stage without concrete evidence to challenge the CAS and the IAAF. After being fined by the IAAF, Sri Lanka and the AASL should not drag themselves into troubled waters once more.