HOW THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT IS STRATEGICALLY SILENT ON BRINGING BCCI UNDER RTI ACT, LETTING THE BOARD'S EMPLOYEES RUN THE DOMESTIC CRICKET

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlook magazine, issue August 13, 2018

FOR several years, the central government has been making an effort to bring the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, like all National Sports Federations (NSFs). But the Board has been steadfastly, even audaciously, stonewalling the government, thanks to the full backing of politicians who have been -- and still are -- part of it. Successive dispensations, too, have never really been serious about implementing it.

While defying government RTI orders with disdain, the main thrust of BCCI’s defiance—and on which it has been harping unashamedly—has been that it doesn’t take financial assistance from the government. That is only partly true, as it does take indirect, ‘substantial assistance’, as the Delhi High Court observed some years ago and something the Union sports ministry, too, keeps insisting. And, crucially, the men who are the foundational support to the superstructure of BCCI-run tournaments—match officials who run things on the ground—are employees of government institutions.

It’s a matter on which the BCCI conveniently, and consistently, keeps mum. This April, The Law Commission of India (LCI) in a report prepared on directions of the Supreme Court, recommended that the RTI Act be made applicable to the BCCI and all its state affiliates. In addition, the Supreme Court has concluded, in the famous ‘BCCI versus Netaji Cricket Club (Chennai)’ case of 2005—and even in the Zee Telefilms vs Union of India case—that the Board “exercises enormous public functions” and “state-like functions”. These include selection of national teams that are fielded in global tournaments, with players/officials wearing the Indian national logo using the word ‘India’, which is part of the Emblem Act. 

The main governmental assistance to the BCCI comes in the form of heavily subsidised land provided for constructing stadiums, income tax/customs exemption—between 1997 and 2007, the government gave an exemption of Rs 2,168 crore—and civic/security services etc.. “Whenever the BCCI faced difficulty in obtaining customs duty exemption it approached this ministry, seeking a certificate that announced it is a recognised NSF for cricket. The ministry has issued such certificates in favour of the BCCI,” the Union sports ministry in December 2011 said in its reply to the Central Information Commission (CIC), supporting an application that had sought that the BCCI be declared a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act.

However, strangely and surprisingly, while listing the assistance it provides to the BCCI, the government never highlighted the most important support it provides—match officials. They conduct various domestic tournaments and are thus the pillars, as well as the nuts and bolts, without which the entire BCCI edifice would collapse. Had the sports ministry in its various reports/replies to Parliament questions raised this point, the BCCI would have been defenceless. A case could thus have been built for it to come under the RTI ambit and share information, particularly financial, that it fiercely shields.

Two top sports ministry officials who handled the BCCI-RTI Act issue during sports minister Lalit Maken’s short tenure in 2011-2012 now candidly admit to have erred in overlooking this vital aspect. “Yes, we didn’t realise this at the time. If we had flagged this issue with the BCCI, it would have been better because the Board benefited from these umpires and scorers etc. who are actually government employees,” one official tells Outlook. The other concurred with his colleague’s views. 

So, who are these match officials and how are they so important for the BCCI? They are umpires, referees, scorers, and video analysts—and, in many instances, even coaches and players. A significant number of them are government employees who double up as cricket officials during the domestic cricket season in winter after taking legitimate/special leave from their offices. 

Veritably, the number of match officials —all freelancers, trained by the BCCI—is colossal. The BCCI uses close to 500 match officials—the world’s largest such contingent—comprising umpires, referees, scorers and video analysts. Of 97 umpires and 58 match referees, the people who conduct matches, a substantial number are government employees. Besides, there are many referees, scorers and video analysts who work in various government institutions, mainly banks. 

It’s surprising how long the roster is—the Reserve Bank of India, State Bank of India, Comptroller and Attorney General, Dena Bank, Canara Bank, Vijaya Bank, Oriental Bank Corporation, Punjab National Bank, Indian Railways, Services, Indian Oil, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Food Corporation of India, Income Tax Department, Accountant General, India Post, BSNL, and Life Insurance Corporation. 

Although the BCCI is the world’s richest cricket body, it cannot employ nearly 500 officials permanently, simply because they wouldn’t have anything to do in the off season. It makes business sense for the BCCI to hire them professionally, only during the domestic season. The question here is not whether government employees can conduct BCCI matches; they are free to pursue their passion. The issue is of dogged resistance by the Board to become accountable and transparent under the RTI Act. But, as the ministry officials admitted, the government has itself to blame for giving the BCCI a long rope. If it sincerely wanted to force the BCCI, it could have told it something like this: ‘Look, you are heavily dependent on us in many areas. If you don’t come under the RTI Act, we would not grant leave to our employees to work in your tournaments as match officials.’ 

Indeed, government employees take leave to officiate in matches. Of course, some banks are aware of what their employees do, but still sportingly oblige their employees, and indirectly, the BCCI. “I worked for 28 years with Syndicate Bank in Bangalore, before retiring in 2008. My bank was very cooperative in granting leave within the rules so that I could officiate in matches. I would attach the BCCI letter of assignment while applying for leave,” Shavir Tarapore, a former ICC International Panel umpire and ex-Karnataka cricketer, tells Outlook. 

It is said that due to his insistence on BCCI coming under the RTI Act, the Congress-led UPA government removed Maken in October 2012, after barely 20 months in office. It must be remembered that at the time, influential Congress party ministers Jyotiraditya Scindia and Rajeev Shukla, along with the BJP’s Arun Jaitley called the shots in the BCCI. They also headed three of the Board’s state affiliates. Over the years, whenever it has come to shielding the BCCI from becoming accountable, politicians have joined hands to scotch all such attempts. 

Also, a few RTI activists have over the years tried, though unsuccessfully, to eke out information, particularly about finances, from the BCCI. Besides, some people allege that the BCCI even “bought out” some RTI activists who wanted it to be declared a ‘public authority’. Such talk gained ground when they often failed to appear before the CIC when summoned. 

As the blockbuster 2018-19 domestic cricket season, comprising a whopping 2,017 matches, is set to start on August 13, there are apprehensions about the BCCI managing to deploy umpires, referees, scorers and video analysts smoothly. Be that as it may, the Board would, for the umpteenth time, bank heavily on banks and other government institutions for the indispensable match officials. Freely partaking of the government’s beneficence, the BCCI quails only when the issue of its coming under the RTI umbrella arises.

BLONGERS MUST WALK

This infraction resulted in exemplary punishment. The ICC must now crush the recrudescent scandals that deface cricket.

By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, Outlook magazine, April 9, 2018

The entire saga of tampering of the cricket ball by Australian player Cameron Bancroft in Cape Town, the subsequent discovery—and admission by the culprits—of a conspiracy led by captain Steve Smith, Cricket Austra­lia’s enquiry and the punishment ­meted out, has dealt a grievous blow to the so-called ‘gentleman’s game’. Is cric­ket today the most corruption-­ridden and the  most cheating-prone of all major international sports? As scandal after scandal unfolds, the fan is left wondering about the vaunted sense of ‘fair play’, ‘sporting spirit’ and gentlemanly propriety. The very concept of sport as a means of entertainment has been overtaken by a grim ‘win-at-all-costs’ syndrome and the greed for money.

Although there have been innumerable cases of cheating in sport for centuries around the globe, any misdemeanour on or off the cricket field parti­cularly hogs global headlines, as it has historically been hailed as the game that the good guys play. So, Bancroft rubbing an illegal foreign obj­ect on the ball, to get the adv­antage of reverse swing for his bowling side during the third Test against South Africa, was a monumental disgrace, even if he did it on instructions from the team’s ‘leadership group’.

So blatant was the cheating that Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull termed it a “terrible disgrace”. He called upon Cricket Australia (CA) to act “decisively and emphatically” and punish the guilty. CA promptly laun­ched an inquiry, following which it banned captain Steve Smith and vice-­captain David Warner for a year each and Bancroft for nine months from all international and domestic cricket. Later, coach Darren Lehmann stated that he would quit after the fourth Test against South Africa sla­ted to start on March 30. Warner will never be considered for leadership roles. BCCI has banned Smith and Warner from captaining and representing Raj­asthan Royals and SunRisers Hyderabad respectively. Additionally, ICC has fined Smith and Bancroft, though that was like just a slap on the wrist.

Over the years and decades, there have been many instances of cheating in cricket. At times, they give the impression that the game has perpetually been a cosy club of conmen. In the last ten years particularly, there has been a spate of cases involving ball tampering, spot/match-fixing, pitch-­fixing, batsmen getting out deliberat­ely, players passing information to bookies and poor on-field behaviour. A few of those caught in corruption have been penalised with bans, but some cricketers seem incorrigible and continue to indulge in illegal practices, wilfully flouting rules.

Mukul Mudgal, a retired Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who probed the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal, is categorical in his assessment. “For a long time, cricket has not been a ‘gentleman’s game’. For that mat­­ter, no competitive sport can be a gentleman’s game. Yes, the standard of fair play differ from game to game, but that tag is a thing of the past. There are very high stakes involved now,” Mudgal tells Outlook.

All major sports in the world have had their low points. Athletes have been ­ind­­ulging in malpractices for ages in different sports events, including the Olympic Games. In the US, Major League Baseball (MLB) was rocked in 2013 when many players were caught using human growth hormone from the Biogenesis of America clinic. MLB got cracking and pun­ished 14 players—the most number of suspensions it has ever handed at one go.

Basketball, another extremely popular sport in America, also has had its share of scandals. In March last year, New York Knicks’ Joakim Noah was suspended for 20 games after he tested positive for ligandrol, a banned substance. In 2016, O.J. Mayo of Milwaukee Bucks was banned for violating the NBA’s anti-doping programme. These are not isolated cases; NBA’s history, dating back to the early 1950s, is replete with bans and suspensions of players for various transgressions.

But the biggest corruption case in sports in recent history was the FIFA bribery and money laundering scandal in 2015. It is believed that at least $150 million changed hands between FIFA officials and outsiders. The bribery att­empt also hit the bidding process of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, besides FIFA’s media and marketing rights. Seve­ral top officials were arrested by the US police and investigation authorities, while some others chose to surrender. Among those impacted was Sepp Blatter, who was removed as FIFA president after a 17-year-long stint.

Since the scandal, a drastic cleansing drive was initiated at FIFA. Amongst the measures taken was the appointment of Mudgal as chairman of the FIFA Governance Committee. “FIFA has taken several steps to improve its functioning and make it transparent. I can give one example. The 2026 World Cups bids are now being assessed and all the criteria are on the FIFA website. There are two sets of bids: one is a joint bid by Canada, Mexico and the US, while the other bidder is Morocco. The way they are going to be judged is in the open and there’s a committee that will assess them,” he says.

However, no single governing body has been able to rein in corruption and illegal activities in cricket. In the Indian sub-continent and Australia (and less so in England), cricket is the biggest money-spinner, and the scale of malpractice in the sport is also massive. The list of offences is endless even if one looks at the game’s recent history. In 2010, some Pakistani players accepted money to bowl no balls in a Test in England; in 2012, an Indian TV channel all­egedly induced some second string Ind­ian players with monetary offers to play below par; in 2013, the IPL betting-fixing scandal exploded in the open. In between, there have been several cases of ball tampering. Amongst those charged were Sachin Tendulkar (vs South Afr­ica, 2001), Rahul Dravid (vs Zimbabwe, 2004), Shahid Afridi (vs Australia, 2010), and Faf du Plessis (vs Australia, 2016), to name a few big names.

Many experts, including Mudgal, feel that the ever-growing stakes in cricket are responsible for the breaches that tarnish the reputation of the glorious game with unfailing regularity. Former India all-rou­n­der Madan Lal can’t understand the gr­eed of current cricketers. “Com­­m­­erc­ia­lisation is only one of the reasons for the mess. If you deeply think about the issue, corruption should ideally be less bec­ause players are now getting more money, which should satisfy them; so, teams should be clean,” says Madan Lal, a member of the 1983 World Cup-winning team.

Former India hockey captain and Dhyan Chand’s son Ashok Kumar points to Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket (WSC), launched in 1977-78 in Australia, as the turning point of commercialisation. Denied TV rights for Australian cricket, the media moghul hired the world’s top players and threw money at them to play for him. Since then the lot of cricketers has only grown healthier in terms of improved remuneration. The hike in their payment structure coincided with a rapid rise in sponsorship money. Ashok Kumar says that players were ‘managed’ as far back as 1970s in the Calcutta Hockey League, in which he represented Mohun Bagan, but that seems like innocent days compared to match-fixing in cricket today. “I played the league in 1969 and received Rs 3,000 for the season. I came to know there that players were ‘managed’, but I am not sure if they were ‘managed’ with offers of money or by some other kind of inducements. Secretaries of the clubs would do that, and inform us that so and so have been ‘managed’. But, overall, hockey has been clean—rather, I would say, too clean,” Ashok Kumar tells Outlook.

Former India football captain Subimal ‘Chuni’ Goswami, who also captained Bengal in the Ranji Trophy, also squarely blames excess money in cric­ket for the malpractices. “Cricket is no more an amateur game, and players are now professionals. Everyone is trying to impress all in order to earn more money because the sport is now fetching unimaginable amounts of money, especially T20 cricket. So, I am not surprised at what is happening in cricket,” says Calcutta-based Goswami.

Many people feel imposing monetary fines on players would not serve the purpose, simply because it doesn’t pinch them. Slapping bans is a better way to teach them a lesson, as that would damage their reputation. For INS­tance, Warner lost a personal sponsor even before CA pronounced the one-year ban on him. Home appliance giant LG confirmed that it would discontinue its long-term sponsorship of Warner in the light of the ball-tampering scandal.

Disturbingly, the Cape Town controversy has raised the question if cricket is fast becoming one of the most notorious sports, thanks to the convulsions that keep rocking it regularly. Mudgal takes a pragmatic view. “We have to have rules about sledging etc. in the code of the conduct. But to make cricketers choirboys is also stupid. The bid to turn them into paragons of virtues is not going to happen. Cricket is a very professional game, highly competitive,” he says.

Mudgal says the measures suggested in his committee’s report on the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal and those sugges­ted by the Lodha Committee could be a first step to check malpractices. But more than anything else, a vigilant and stern ICC is of paramount importance. After the kid-glove treatment it meted out to the culprits in the Australian squad in the present ball tampering con­trove­rsy—when that country’s cricket board has han­ded out exemplary punishment—it does seem the ICC is of a mind to take stern action. The governing body has fin­ally said it would rev­iew ball-tampering and code of conduct rules.

(This story first appeared in Outlook issue of April 

BETTING AND FIXING ATTEMPTS WILL GO ON, SAYS NEERAJ KUMAR, ANTI-CORRUPTION UNIT CHIEF, BCCI

(INTERVIEW)

 By Qaiser Mohammad Ali, Outlook magazine

Neeraj Kumar, now 64, was the Delhi Police Commissioner when his subordinates broke the 2013 IPL betting-fixing scandal by arresting several cricketers like Sree Santh, and now heads the BCCI’s Anti-Corruption Unit. Kumar spoke to Qaiser Mohammad Ali on the challenges of tackling bookies and the menace of betting and match-fixing. Excerpts:

Do you see a spurt in bookies’ activities?

One can never know because we get information about their moves and their approaches once in a while, but that is no measure of what they are doing behind the scenes. It’s not that if they are more active we’ll get to know or if they are less active we’ll get to know. They are always active because the stakes are so high, so people have to be active, though they’ve become more cautious and adopt newer techniques. Just to give a perspective, on betting website Betfair alone, $45 million are bet on one IPL match. And there are several such websites. And this is open betting; you can imagine what goes on in the dark sector. Most of the Indian bookies -- and those who bet ‘petis’ and ‘khokhas’ etc – don’t do it by any means by which they could be tracked. They are always active and we should go with the presumption that they are at it all the time.

So, the ACUs of all the countries and the ICC have to be one step ahead of them?

Obviously, that’s the logical conclusion. In every which way we have to be more active, whether it’s technical assets or human assets or your own resources – manpower and technical – more hands-on, more pro-active and so on.

Since Sobers Joban is a former domestic Indian cricketer, can the BCCI ACU take action against him [after a sting done by British tabloid, The Sun]?

For what? First of all, you have to understand that the BCCI ACU has no police powers. We cannot summon, interrogate or arrest anybody. Secondly, suppose a police station wants to take action, but the laws are as good as non-existent. You’ve seen the fate of cases in the past. In the absence of proper legislation to deal with betting etc – unlike in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa – we cannot make any kind of illegal activity in any sport illegal and enforcement agencies are totally powerless. There is a Bill pending in Parliament, though. The only thing that the BCCI ACU can do is to gather intelligence and to have photographs [of bookies/punters] and tell players, who are being educated by the ACU all the time, that so and so is a shady man and please beware of him. And, as I have said in my letter that has gone public, that the BCCI ACU knew about Sobers Joban and Prinyank Saxena and the fact that we have all the details of them, it should be a matter of great satisfaction, if not pride, for the BCCI.

Did you take into confidence the CBI’s Sports Integrity Unit in this or other cases?

We are not in touch with them, nor they are with us. I accidentally came to know about this unit’s existence just a couple of months ago because it is investigating the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association matter [financial irregularities].

Do you think this CBI unit can help in curbing the fixing menace?

That can happen only if you have a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the BCCI and the CBI. It has to be through the ministry that controls the CBI. If I have to deal with any police force on a regular basis, and if it’s binding on that force to assist the BCCI ACU, it has to be through the MoU that spells out the rules of business. This is a matter for consideration.

Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals return to the IPL in 2018 after serving their two-year bans. Do you feel that it will pose a bigger challenge to the BCCI ACU?

Although their return will have no direct bearing on the level of corruption that might happen, betting would take place whether it is team ‘X’ or ‘Y’. Betting and fixing attempts will go on the same scale. If something happens like it happened in 2013, whether it is caught by the police force or the ICC, of course it will immediately be a reflection on the BCCI itself.

Have you given any blueprint for monitoring the IPL?

We have a blueprint that we follow every IPL. But I have sent several proposals for augmentation for IPL and for other resources. Even when the ACU was formed in 2012 the minimum total sanctioned strength was six people, including its chief. We are short by three on that proposal and more than five years have gone by, leave alone making additional changes. And the number of matches has gone up several times.

The BCCI wants to retire all its employees at 60. Do you think that’s a fair call vis-à-vis ACU personnel?

I joined at the age of 61-plus. I can’t make a comment on that because that would be a policy decision of the Board. But the point is that when you are looking for a Director to head the ACU and if you are looking for an IPS officer, surely nobody will quit the police service to join BCCI, if he’s worth his salt as a cop. It will always be someone 60-plus, once he has retired from the service.

Are you willing to stay as BCCI ACU chief? 

Why wouldn’t I? The insights and the understanding of the goings-on have come only with passage of time. And I would like to continue to put that to good use in the interest of cricket and to keep it clean.

(This interview first appeared in Outlook)

Pushed by WADA, the national anti-doping agency seeks cricketers’ samples. But BCCI hides behind the ICC Code

By QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI, Outlook magazine

The scourge on doping has once again cast its murky shadow on world sport in the recent past. In the aftermath of the massive doping scandals in Russia and Kenya, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is tightening its rules for doping violations by athletes, even as the International Olympic Council (IOC) has barred Russia from the Winter Olympic Games, to be held in Pyeongchang, South Korea, this February.

Charges against Russia are particularly grave. It is alleged that the state ‘sponsored’ a doping programme that ran from 2011 to 2015, and that hundreds of its athletes took advantage of the ‘official patronage’. Since 2002, the IOC has stripped over 50 Russians of their Olympic medals for doping violations.

Now, the proposed changes in the WADA rules, which the world body has not disclosed, may affect cricket as well, particularly the way the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) gets dope tests done on its players. On being asked by WADA, the Union sports ministry has told the BCCI to let the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) personnel collect cricketers’ samples for testing. BCCI has been using a Sweden-based agency, International Doping Tests & Man­age­ment (ITDM), for collecting samples.

The BCCI has refused to change its process, saying that it doesn’t fall under NADA’s jurisdiction, as it is not a National Sports Federation (NSF), and that it is “only required to operate within the anti-doping rules and regulations set by the International Cricket Council (ICC)”, which is a signatory to the WADA Code. All national cricket Boards implement the ICC Code, which is based on the WADA Code.

The sports ministry has now sent the BCCI reply to WADA, and has asked for guidance. “WADA wrote to the Indian sports minister, asking him to bring the Indian cricketers under NADA and do the testing etc. We asked the BCCI to cooperate with us and said that we would make a joint programme for testing cricketers, in-competition and out-of-competition,” says Rahul Bhat­nagar, Union sports secretary and NADA vice-chairman.

The ministry has told the BCCI that if it doesn’t cooperate “NADA may run the risk of becoming non-compliant with the WADA Code”, while its cooperation would help it become fully compliant. “The BCCI, as usual, never replied to our letters [for some time]. We then said we would forcefully take the samples and that we would see when they try to stop us. We have now asked WADA to let us know the correct position and accordingly we will take action,” says Bhatnagar.

WADA says that under the terms of the World Anti-Doping Code, NADA India has the testing authority over athletes who are nationals, residents, lice­nce-holders or members of sport organisations in India or are present in India. “The BCCI has prevented NADA India from conducting testing on athletes from the sport of cricket, and WADA is in the process of addressing this issue with the relevant anti-doping organisations within its Compliance Monitoring Pro­g­ram,” a WADA spokesperson tells Outlook.

However, WADA’s position is a bit str­a­nge, as the BCCI has been ICC Code-com­­pliant since 2011, so it’s impossible that the world anti-doping body wasn’t aware of it. Now, WADA, quite significa­ntly, says BCCI has “prevented” NADA from testing, adding to the puzzle. On the other hand, ICC looks like adopting a wait-and-watch policy in this tussle between the sports ministry and the BCCI. “We [have] maintained that this is a domestic matter of the BCCI and, as such, the ICC will be unable to comment on this,” it says.

Team India cricketers were tested for the first time at the 2003 World Cup. Later, the BCCI established an anti-­doping department, with Oly­m­­pian Dr Vece Paes heading it, and adopted the ICC Code in 2011. Now, the BCCI has its own anti-doping education programme and players are tested during the dom­estic tournaments and IPL. Only two Indians—Delhi pacer Pradeep Sangwan and Baroda batsman Yusuf Pat­­han—are among a global list of 22 cricketers who have tested positive so far.

There are two agencies that are hired by the ICC and BCCI—ITDM and Australia-based Sports Drug Testing International (SDTI)—for their education and sampling programmes, and both entities are recognised by WADA. So, that is not an issue.

Then why, wonders Doctor Ashok Ahuja, who has been part of BCCI’s anti-doping programme and is associated with ITDM, is the ministry insisting that BCCI involve NADA. “It is not that the BCCI alone gets the sampling done from these agencies (ITDM and SDTI), or it is not that these agencies are running for BCCI alone. A whole lot of international sports federations also carry out their programmes through these agencies. So, what are NADA’s objections to BCCI roping in these agencies?” he asks.

In the absence of a detailed explanation from WADA—it says it’s “addressing the issue in collaboration with the relevant parties”—a few reasons for the imb­roglio are being cited by experts. One is that the government wants to ‘control’ the BCCI, which in turn says that it is independent, as it doesn’t take any financial assistance from the government, unlike other federations.

The other reason could be that WADA is keen to tighten its rules after the Russian doping scandal. “After the doping scandal in Russia, Kenya and some other countries that led to 500-600 athletes being banned from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, WADA was at its wit’s end as to how to handle this situation. In Russia and Kenya, officials were also involved in the scandal. So, to ensure that officials are not involved in what is called ‘state-sponsored doping’, WADA may be insisting that the national anti-­doping agencies should handle the testing programme,” says a BCCI source.

P.S.M. Chandran, who works as a doping control officer for the BCCI and is also NADA’s independent observer and a resource person for its anti-doping education programme, says the BCCI is fol­l­­owing the correct procedure. He ref­rains from commenting on whether government wants to control cricket, but he points out the deficiencies in NADA. “There are shortcomings in it, no doubt about that. It is ill-equipped, its office works in a temporary way—it is trying to get office space for years and is currently sharing a crammed place with other government departments in Pragati Vihar Hostel in Delhi—it is under-­staffed and doesn’t have many doctors. Everything is not perfect with NADA,” Dr Chandran tells Outlook.

Comparing the standards of NADA and ITDM, a source pointed out another shortcoming in the government owned agency. While NADA pays around Rs 1,000 to a sample collecting official for a day’s work, ITDM pays Rs 6,000. Also, all ITDM officials are medical graduates, while that’s not the case with NADA.

Whatever may be the final result of this curious tussle with WADA at its centre, the BCCI says it is already working with the government in a way, since it uses its National Doping Testing Laboratory (NDTL) for testing players’ samples, coll­ected by IDTM. “IDTM sends the colle­c­ted samples for testing to a WADA-­­­­accredited laboratory, viz. NDTL. Since the CEO of NDTL is the Union secretary (sports), Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, the dope test-ing for the BCCI is conducted under the aegis of the Department of Sports,” says BCCI CEO Rahul Johri in a letter sent to Rahul Bhatnagar. Johri also points out that since 2013 the BCCI has “consistently reported the highest number of sample testing in the world amongst all cricket Boards”.

Nevertheless, the prickly issue has to be resolved soon, before the IPL begins in April. Right now, neither the BCCI or the sports ministry is ready to budge an inch. The tug of war as to who will conduct doping tests on cricketers is at its tautest.

(This story first appeared in Outlook)