Where are you today?

There is a lot of controversy about the whereabouts clause of the World Anti-Doping Agency's drug-testing programme. While some players and the BCCI have said that they don't want to sign up, others like sports minister M S Gill feel that BCCI should go ahead and sign it. At one level, the people who are opposing WADA's whereabouts clause seem to be right, and their concerns, which range from terrorism threats to perceived attacks on personal freedom, seem proper. But a deeper look makes us raise some questions. Yes, there are terrorism threats, but nobody is telling the players to announce on Twitter that 'I shall be here on this day three months hence, so terrorists can pick me up if they want to.' The plans of several heads of state are firmed up months in advance, but they are closely guarded secrets. Can't we work out a system whereby only key WADA officials know where a particular player is?

The privacy issue is downright silly. Sure, all of us demand this, but cricket being such an important game in India, it is hard for a cricketer to seek privacy in India. In fact, it is quite well known that many cricketers take holidays in non-cricketing countries so that they get their privacy. You just can't become a cricketer in India and ask for privacy, there is no way you will ever get it. Without the whereabouts clause, WADA is meaningless because you can always stay away from any performance-enhancing drug for a set period before the date of testing and thus improve your chances of getting a clean chit. The whereabouts clause is one way of ensuring that cricketers will never be sure if they are going to get a call for a test an hour after taking a banned substance.