New Delhi: Supreme Court resident advocate Saurabh Mishra, who specializes in sports law and represents Indian athletes in doping-related matters at NADA and CAS, has given a detailed explanation of the charges leveled against Vinesh Phogat by the federation.
“Several layered legal issues arise from this notice which deserve careful examination,” Mishra told TOI.Regarding the whereabouts charge: “The ITA itself recorded that Ms. Phogat’s conduct did not go beyond negligence. Under Article 2.4 of the WADA Code, failure to establish whereabouts requires proof of fault, and the degree of fault directly determines the penalty. A finding of mere negligence, rather than gross fault or willful conduct, significantly limits the range of sanctions available to the tribunal.
This ITA finding is not only mitigating, it is definitionally important.
He watches
It’s official! Ahmedabad will host the 2030 edition of the Commonwealth Games
Regarding the Article 5.7 charge relating to retirement and return to competition: “This is a strictly personal and non-delegable obligation. However, the crucial legal question is whether Ms Phogat would have formally retired within the meaning of Article 5.7 in the first place. If formal notification of retirement had not been provided to the UWW and WADA, the six-month return notice requirement may not have been triggered at all – even though the corresponding venue obligations under the Registered Test Pool (RTP) would have continued uninterrupted regardless.”
“On the dual weight class charge arising from the March 2024 selection trials: “This charge raises an important due process question – namely whether an athlete alone can be held liable for a procedural violation permitted and facilitated by the responsible officials and the ad hoc committee itself on that day. The principle of shared institutional error is a recognized principle in sports disciplinary jurisprudence.
“Regarding the charge of disqualification in Paris 2024: The section dedicated to CAS has already issued a reasoned final award in CAS OG 24/17. “The extent to which a national federation can impose additional disciplinary sanctions for conduct that has already been finally adjudicated by the highest sporting court is a legally contested question and involves similar principles of double jeopardy in sports law.”“Above all, Ms. Phogat’s right to a fair trial before the WII Disciplinary Committee, with full disclosure of all materials relied upon and representation of her choice, is non-negotiable under the principles of natural justice and the Constitution of the WII itself.”