A day after wrestler Narsingh Yadav was exonerated of doping charges by the National Anti-doping Agency (NADA), its parent world body WADA said that it will review the case.
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Communications Coordinator Maggie Durand said that it has requested the NADA to send the case file so that it can review it.
“We requested the case file following the decision and will review the case. We have no further comment for now,” Durand said in a written reply when asked whether WADA will appeal to the ad hoc division of the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Rio de Janeiro against the decision rendered by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the NADA.
WADA can appeal against a decision of Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel or Appeals Panel of any of its member countries to the CAS.
NADA Director General Navin Agarwal had also said that any party involved in Narsingh’s case (including WADA) can appeal to the CAS within 21 days against the decision of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.
If WADA appeals against the decision of the disciplinary panel at the ad hoc division of the CAS, specifically constituted to render decisions quickly during the Olympics,
Narsingh may have to wait some more days to know his fate regarding his participation in the Rio Games.
Eleven cases have already been filed before the ad hoc division of the CAS in Rio de Janeiro and decisions are being given in quick time.
On Monday, in a sensational turnaround, Narsingh was exonerated of doping charges by the NADA’s Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, which concluded that he was a victim of sabotage, boosting his chances of making it to the Olympics.
After more than a week of drama which began with Narsingh testing positive for a banned anabolic steroid methandienone in tests conducted on June 25, NADA DG Navin Agarwal put an end to the suspense on the wrestler’s fate by exonerating him.
“We kept in mind that in the past, till June 2, none of his samples were positive. It was inconceivable that one-time ingestion would be of benefit. Therefore the panel is of the view that the one-time ingestion was not intentional,” Agarwal said while reading out the verdict.