Sachin Tendulkar is arguably the most popular cricketer in the world. He also is the most threatened. He enjoys ‘Z-class’ security, provided by the Indian government to leading politicians, a chosen few business leaders and a very few select others, who are considered extremely valuable for the nation and are also on the target list of terrorist groups. M.S. Dhoni is another cricketer accorded such a status. But that should not flatter Dhoni… the fact that this security cover was given since he was threatened by terrorists should not make him a happy man. It is evident that terrorist organizations would like to plan an attack on both Sachin & Dhoni (both national heroes and India’s pride), and deal a severe blow to India. Providing them Z-cover security is just one way of ensuring enough protection is available to the two to negate any nefarious plans that the terrorists may hatch. This also means that it is absolutely critical to ensure that their whereabouts are not easily known, and most definitely not much in advance, making them vulnerable to terrorists who can have the luxury of time & knowledge to plan & carry out an ambitious attack. And should such big national heroes with a fan-following that is unparalleled be subjected to such ‘audits’? Is this not atrocious?
I am referring to the new clause by WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) that requires all sportsmen globally to declare their whereabouts at least 3 months in advance to the anti-doping authority. The ‘whereabouts’ clause makes it necessary for the players to give details about their availability for one hour every day between 6 am and 11 pm for random ‘out-of-competition’ testing by WADA officials. This is to check & ensure that sportspersons are not planning & doping during non-competition days to gain an edge during competitions, without the fear of detection.
What the clause proposes as penalties is that if the sportsmen are not found at the place on the first occasion and the test can’t be carried out, a warning is served. A second occasion means that they can be severely reprimanded. And, according to WADA rules, any sportsperson who misses 3 tests in 18 months faces a two-year sanction. Now, isn’t that harsh? How could anybody – you, me, anybody – know exactly where they will be over the next 90 days during a particular hour, each day of the 90 days? And then ensure that nothing, absolutely nothing, comes in the way of their being present at that location at that precise hour. Everyone has several family, social and work commitments that can create emergencies warranting the change. Don’t we all take vacations on a spur, without any planning and suddenly embark on a journey to a location which was not even in our remotest thoughts 24 hours ago? Cricketers are no different, and have various personal & commercials commitments off the field that can’t be finely planned or revealed 90 days in advance, and should be allowed their privacy. The clause is too invasive & restrictive, to say the least. Surely, our cricketers, our national heroes must be spared of the abuse through such draconian laws!
Now, I am not a supporter of drugs – in sports or otherwise – and I would definitely want that they be banned from international competitions, and those breaking the rules be severely punished. Three sportsmen who I really admired were Ben Johnson of Canada, the sprinter who broke Carl Lewis’ record & monopoly in the 100-200-400 meter events and created a new world record in 1988; Florence Griffith Joyner, the US sprinter and new world record holder for 100m & 200m in the 1988 Olympics; and Marion Jones, another American sprinter who won five medals (an astonishing feat which had never been achieved by a female athlete before) at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
Before Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis was the king of track and his supremacy was unchallenged. Johnson arrived on the scene, and quickly started pipping Lewis at various track & field meets, finally beating him in the 1988 Olympics 100m dash, creating a new world record of 9.79 seconds. However, Ben’s sample tested positive for banned substances and he was stripped of his gold medal 2 days after creating history, his record was rescinded, he was banned from international competition, and Lewis proclaimed the winner. A shameful end to the career of a hero, who set many a pulse racing.
Florence Griffith Joyner was a triple gold medalist at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, where she set the 100 & 200 meter world records and also helped the US team win the 4x100m relay. Lovingly known the world over as Flo-Jo, she captivated the world with her phenomenal speed and flamboyant style. However, her near-masculine physique & vast improvement over a very short time fuelled rumours about performance-enhancing drugs. These became even more vociferous after the 1988 Games, and she announced her retirement immediately thereafter. Doubters said that she announced her retirement to beat the drug testers, specially after the Ben Johnson episode during the same Olympics. Again, a shockingly early end to what seemed a very promising career.
Marion Jones passed 160 doping tests before finally admitting in a U.S. court in 2007 that she had taken the banned substance Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) before the 2000 Olympics. The admission, after years of denial, came as part of a plea bargain agreement with prosecutors, who charged her with lying about her steroid use. She was then stripped of her 5 Sydney Olympics medals, all her competitive results since September 2000 were annulled, and she was banned from the sport for two years. She retired from athletics immediately thereafter. On January 11, 2008, Jones was also sentenced to 6 months in jail. A huge disgrace for a person who was a national treasure till then.
Cricket has its own shameful stories, and Pakistan’s Shoaib Akhtar & Mohammed Asif have been accused of taking drugs and PCB awarded punishment to both and kept them out of the sport. A cricketer of the stature of Shane Warne, who was a world record holder, a global idol & a role-model for millions of budding cricketers, was dropped from the Australian cricket team and sent back from the 2003 ICC World Cup because of a banned drug being found in his sample, despite his unsurpassable importance to the Australian campaign in winning the champion’s crown.
Nobody can deny that doping is present at various levels in sports, and specially at the top it becomes a huge problem that needs to be tackled with a firm hand. Not just because it means that sportsmen playing by the book are robbed of their rightful status by cheats, but also because these cheats become heroes & role models for youngsters the world over, who follow & copy them. The fact that world record holders have tested positive and finally admitted to their guilt is something of great concern.
All these examples, where leading, reputed sportspersons were found guilty & punished severely, have proven to be huge deterrents for other sportsmen harbouring hopes of going scot free. Clearly, there is a need to regulate, check & punish the guilty ones, and create an example for others, so that nobody ever tries to cheat. So, this hue & cry that the Indian cricketers are raising about privacy concerns is so very narrow-minded that it is hard to digest.
World over, many champions, bigger names than the biggest cricketers, have gone ahead and agreed to co-operate. Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams and Andy Murray have marked their protest, yet signed on the clause. Champions like Roger Federer & Lance Armstrong have welcomed it, knowing that it is not a witch-hunt and it will help weed out such practices & make sports clean. Ricky Ponting & Andrew Flintoff are also signatories. Don’t they all have security concerns, or do they not lead a life that is not 100% regimented and 100% pre-determined? So, what is so special about our cricketers and BCCI? FIFA, which has more muscle than any other sports body in the world, has also refused to sign the clause in its entirety. They have also expressed concerns of their players, but unlike the BCCI, they have not rejected it altogether. Instead, they have proposed to WADA that only players they deem high-risk should be part of the ‘whereabouts’ clause. Obviously, they understand & agree with the greater objective & its merit, and treat the proposal as a necessary evil on the path to glory.
The public at large wants to see their heroes perform wonders every time they step on the field. But more importantly, they want clean sports and clean heroes. If our cricketers think they are holier than thou and above reproach, incidents that I pointed out earlier are testimonies that this may not be absolutely true, and in any case needs to be thoroughly guarded against. If Indians are not ready to adapt themselves to global norms, they cannot hope to be seen as a part of the global sports world. Being a top athlete has its joys, but it also has certain responsibilities, which by their very nature of being responsibilities are not all that easy to live up to. Our cricketers and our board will have to learn to abide with them and live as one with the world. Their current stance has put the Indian cricketers’, the BCCI’s & the ICC’s reputation, and even cricket’s future, at stake. Howsoever much may I admire them, I cannot help but find fault with Indian cricketers’ stance on this issue. With their current decision, they will only end up alienating themselves, and doing great injustice to those who like to play the game fairly. Hope some good sense will prevail over the men in blue, and they will finally emerge from this crisis as real heroes.
© Shailesh Nigam, Varun Khanna (for respective articles)
