Delhi's 22-year-old all-rounder Pradeep Sangwan believes that the 18-month ban imposed upon him by the Board of Control for Cricket in India-appointed tribunal for a doping offence is "too harsh".
He said: “It (the ban-period) is too harsh. I didn’t expect it to be more than 6 to 12 months. Even international players like Shane Warne (one year) and Jesse Ryder (six months) did not have to suffer so long.u00a0
Pradeep Sangwan
ADVERTISEMENT
“I am waiting for my lawyer Viduspat Singhania to return from Australia. In consultation with the DDCA officials, we shall discuss whether there is a ground to appeal for the reduction of this punishment.”
The three member-panel comprising two lawyers, Tim Kerr QC, chairman, and Marie Demetriou QC, and a sports medicine expert from Spain, Dr JoseAntonio Pascual heard the case earlier this month and in its 23-page report, a copy of which is in possession of MiD DAY, has narrated how the substance entered his body.
“I admitted that the consumption of drugs was unintentional and it was definitely not to enhance my performance on the field. Even after the drug consumption, I was bowling at the same speed,” Sangwan added.
Sangwan allegedly consumed fat-burner tablets (prohibitory drug) with the intention of losing weight on advice from his gym instructor, who declined to testify.
The left-handed pacer claimed he succeeded in reducing weight considerably, from 92-93 kgs after taking about 20-25 tablets, but the side-effects were not known to him.
Meanwhile, former India opener and DDCA’s vice president, Chetan Chauhan has recorded his statement to the tribunal as follows : “The gym instructor in charge gave him some kind of drug.
He was not aware about drugs and banned items. He wanted to lose some weight on the abdomen side and that is what he told me. He took those tablets or herbal medicines for it.”
Meanwhile, the tribunal has accepted that Sangwan is not a dope-cheat. “We do not think the player is a dope cheat. He has been tested about 10 to 15 times, always with negative result until this case.
He had little motive to cheat in order to enhance his performance at a time when he was not bowling. On the other hand, he had a clear motive to attempt weight loss or avoidance of weight gain.”
In accordance with provisions of Article 13 of the rules, this decision of an 18-month ban may be appealed before an Appeal Panel by the player.u00a0
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
