Doping suspect hoopster showed traces of pork consumption, not steroid: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has observed that the authorities while dealing with cases of suspected doping have to observe punctilious exactitude in the observance of procedure and consideration of all material produced by the sports person suspected of doping in an enquiry or an appeal.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while quashing the doping ban on basketball player Shashank J Rai after noting that 19-NA traces corresponded with non-castrated male pig meat consumption rather than steroid use.

The petitioner, a senior national basketball player, is employed as a Deputy Range Forest Officer in the state government. In February 2022, while participating in a preparatory camp in Bengaluru, Rai’s urine sample was collected and was sent to a laboratory in Rome to conclude the origin of the 19-NA substance.

Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension after receiving the copy of the report and was also issued with the notice of charge for violation of Rule 2.1/2.2 of the National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021.

The petitioner contended that he is a native of Mangaluru and regularly consumes pork. He claimed to have consumed pork the previous night of the test and said the pig meat leads the presence of 19-NA substance in his body.

He further submitted that the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel passes an order affirming the suspension from sporting events without adequate opportunity to him.

The court noted that medical experts had confirmed through affidavits that 19-NA traces corresponded with non-castrated male pig meat consumption rather than steroid use.

The court further said the April 16, 2024 order of the Appellate Authority inadequately addressed these submissions.

“It further asserts that pork would naturally cause 19-NA to appear in urine. It is his assertion that Article 10.6 permits discretion to the authorities to consider no significant fault or negligence. This discretionary mandate of terming the act of the petitioner to be that of negligence is not even considered by the Disciplinary Panel or by the Appellate Authority,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The court further said the petitioner suffered ignominy of public censure and has seen his professional aspirations wither under the cloud of suspicion.

“The ignominy suffered by any sports person accused of doping is a unique and deeply personal form of disgrace that extends beyond mere professional consequences. It touches on their honour, legacy, and identity, often leaving indelible scars. It results in the athlete being frequently condemned on the presumption of guilt, which sometimes overrides due process. Once a sports person is found accused of doping, their past achievements become suspect, as if victory was not earned but engineered. It is, therefore, necessary for the authorities who deal with cases of suspected doping to observe punctilious exactitude in the observance of procedure and consideration of all material produced by the sports person suspected of doping in an enquiry or an appeal.”