New Delhi: Supreme Court-based lawyer Saurabh Mishra, who specializes in sports law and represents Indian athletes in drug-related matters at NADA and CAS, has offered a point-by-point explanation of the allegations leveled by the federation against Vinesh Phoghat. “This notification raises several layered legal issues that deserve careful scrutiny,” Mishra told TOI.On the whereabouts charge: “The ITA itself noted that Ms. Phogat’s actions did not exceed negligence. Under Article 2.4 of the WADA Code, a failure to reside requires a finding of culpability, and the degree of culpability directly determines the sanction. A finding of mere negligence, as opposed to a finding of gross culpability or intentional conduct, substantially limits the range of sanctions available. mitigating – is definitely significant.”
Watch
It’s official! Ahmedabad will host the Commonwealth Games in 2030On the clause 5.7 retirement and return to competition fee: “This is a strict, non-delegable personal obligation. However, the fundamental legal question is whether Ms Phogat ever formally retired within the meaning of clause 5.7. If no formal notice of retirement had been given to the UWW and WADA, the six-month return notice requirement may not have been triggered at all (if RTP’s registration obligations had continued) in compliance with the Pool’s applicable registration obligations notwithstanding.”On the dual weight class charge stemming from the March 2024 trials: “This charge raises a significant due process issue – namely, whether an athlete can be held solely liable for a procedural irregularity that was permitted and aided by the officials on that day and by the ad-hoc committee itself. The doctrine of complicity in institutional misconduct is a recognized principle of sports disciplinary jurisdiction.”On the Paris 2024 Disqualification Charge: The CAS Ad Hoc Division has already issued a final reasoned decision in CAS OG 24/17. The extent to which a national federation can impose additional disciplinary consequences for conduct that has already been adjudicated upon by the sport’s highest tribunal is a legally contested issue involving principles analogous to double jeopardy in sports law.“In particular, Ms. Phogat’s right to a fair hearing before the WFI Disciplinary Committee, with full disclosure of all materials relied upon and representation of her choosing, is non-negotiable under the principles of natural justice or the WFI Constitution itself.”
