What NADA Should Have Done Differently: Lessons from the Narsingh Yadav Case

The 2016 Rio Olympics should have been Narsingh Yadav's moment. He had fought a legal battle against Sushil Kumar for the right to represent India in the 74kg freestyle wrestling category. He had won that battle. And then, just days before his events were to begin, he was found guilty of doping — a result he strenuously maintained was the result of deliberate sabotage.

India, for what it is worth, was already ranking third in the world for doping violations in 2013 and 2014 according to WADA's Anti-Doping Rule Violations Report. The Narsingh case was not a standalone incident but part of a pattern — and NADA's handling of it revealed institutional failings that deserve careful scrutiny.

The Facts

Between June 2 and July 25, 2016, Narsingh underwent three doping tests. The first two came back negative. The third, conducted at a national camp in Sonepat, returned a positive result for Methandienone, an anabolic steroid. Almost immediately, Narsingh alleged sabotage — claiming that a rival's associate had contaminated his food or drink at the camp.

The speed at which NADA's Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel heard the case was, in one sense, commendable: a two-hour hearing produced a decision that exonerated Narsingh, finding his sabotage claim credible on the balance of probabilities. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed to CAS. The CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio — operating under strict 24-hour decision timelines — overturned NADA's decision and imposed a four-year ban.

Where NADA Fell Short

The CAS award identified several failures in NADA's approach. First, the question of burden of proof. The WADA Code places the initial burden of establishing an anti-doping rule violation (the presence of a prohibited substance) on the anti-doping organisation. Once established, the burden shifts to the athlete to establish that the violation was not intentional — or to claim reduced sanction on other grounds. NADA's panel appeared to treat the sabotage claim as if the burden remained on NADA throughout, which misapplied the Code.

Second, the standard of proof for a sabotage defence is high. An athlete claiming sabotage must establish that a third party administered the prohibited substance without the athlete's knowledge or consent, and must take all reasonable precautions to prevent such tampering. The evidentiary basis for Narsingh's sabotage claim — while emotionally compelling — did not meet the rigorous standard CAS applies. Anecdotal testimony and circumstantial suspicion are not sufficient under the Code.

The Broader Problems in India's Anti-Doping Framework

The Narsingh case exposed three systemic issues. First, awareness: young athletes and coaches at national camps often have limited understanding of the anti-doping rules, including the strict liability principle — the fact that an athlete is responsible for any prohibited substance found in their sample, regardless of how it got there. Second, security protocols at national camps are inadequate, making contamination — whether accidental or deliberate — a genuine risk that the system has not been designed to mitigate. Third, the legal representation available to athletes facing doping charges at the initial NADA stage is generally poor, leading to inadequate preparation of defences that might otherwise succeed.

What a Better System Would Look Like

A well-functioning anti-doping framework would have, at minimum, three features that India's lacked in 2016. Regular education sessions — not one-off seminars — for athletes at national camps explaining the WADA Code, what strict liability means, and what to do if tampering is suspected. Chain-of-custody protocols for food and nutrition at national camps, modelled on the protocols used for doping samples themselves. And pre-hearing legal assistance for athletes facing anti-doping charges, so that the evidentiary bar is understood and met before a panel convenes.

Narsingh Yadav paid the price for a system that was not equipped to protect him. Whether his claim of sabotage was true — and I remain genuinely uncertain — the failure to build a system capable of fairly evaluating such a claim is a failure of institution, not of the athlete alone.