(Sports News) Dutee Chand, a double Asian Games silver medalist, is set to contest the four-year ban that has been imposed by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), targeting the acclaimed Indian athlete due to her failure in two out-of-competition doping tests involving a prohibited substance.

Dutee Chand, holder of the national record in the 100m event faced the imposition of the ban on Thursday. This decision follows the discovery of “other anabolic agents/SARMS” in two samples collected from her in December of the preceding year. These substances are specifically listed as non-specified substances in “WADA’s 2023 prohibited list”.

The respective samples were taken on December 5 and December 26. Remarkably, both samples yielded nearly identical positive results for these substances.

SARMS, known as selective androgen receptor modulators, are non-steroidal substances frequently employed to treat conditions like osteoporosis, anaemia, and wound healing in patients.

Effective from January 3 of the current year, Chand’s ban will nullify all her competitive achievements commencing from the date of the initial sample collection, which transpired on December 5, 2023.

Dutee Chand’s legal representative, Parth Goswami, conveyed to PTI on Friday that the sprinter has maintained a record of being a “clean athlete” throughout her professional journey, and her situation involves an instance of “unintentional consumption.” Notably, Dutee Chand had clinched silver medals in the 100m and 200m events at the 2018 Jakarta Asian Games, while also holding the national record for the 100m with a time of 11.17 seconds set in 2021.

Goswami explained, “We strongly believe that this is a case of unintentional ingestion of a prohibited substance. We have managed to identify the source of the substance within the body, which presents substantial evidence of absence of intention. The substance was never used to gain any competitive advantage.” He further added, “We are currently in the process of initiating an appeal. We are optimistic about presenting a persuasive case to the appeal panel.”

“Dutee holds a significant place in India and has maintained an untarnished record as an athlete. She has built a remarkable career spanning over a decade. She has successfully undergone numerous doping tests on the international and national levels, consistently maintaining her clean status throughout her extensive career,” Goswami reiterated.

During the proceedings before NADA’s Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP), Dutee Chand and her legal representative contended that her situation revolved around “unintentional consumption.” The ADDP order noted, “The athlete and her counsel, without challenging the conclusions of the NDTL (National Dope Testing Laboratory) report, acknowledged that the ingestion of the said substance was unintentional. They stated that the consumption had been advised by the physiotherapist whom the athlete was consulting on a regular basis.”

“The athlete and her legal representatives asserted that the mentioned physiotherapist had been associated with the athlete through the Pullela Gopichand Academy, where she was training under specific permission.” It was put forth by Dutee’s counsel that the sprinter experienced “severe groin pain” due to being “hyperandrogenic,” which led to the recommendation of the treatment. The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) indicated that the athlete had entrusted her friend with the task of procuring the medication, and this friend also served as a witness in the case.

“The aforementioned witness had initially submitted an affidavit prior to his testimony, in which he stated that he personally visited the store to acquire the mentioned hormonal imbalance supplement. However, during the cross-examination, the witness contradicted himself by denying having personally purchased the supplement, instead indicating that he had re-delegated the task to his manager,” the ADDP highlighted.

“The information acknowledged in the affidavit presented to the ADDP and the subsequent questioning of the witness during cross-examination underscore significant inconsistencies in the details provided to the panel by the witnesses. As a result, these discrepancies raise valid doubts about the credibility and trustworthiness of the statements furnished by the witness,” as stated in the ADDP order.

Also Read: Kishore Jena obtains a Hungarian visa and will be participating in the World Championships