CHENNAI: The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) election is going through an interesting phase. After the announcement of the Returning Officer Sanjay K Srivastava, two main election rolls were drawn. One – Athletes Commission – is finalised, while the Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit is on verge of being finalized. The SOMs list was updated on the IOA website late on Tuesday and as highlighted by this daily there are names who were either suspended or penalized for testing positive for banned substance or violating World and National Anti-Doping Agency rules.
A closer scrutiny of the lists brings out quite a few interesting points and a few can be considered as discrepancies as well. There are players who are not from Olympic sport as mandated by the recent Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit Rules, ratified in September this year. According to the rules, eligible candidates for the SOM rolls should be from Olympic sports. The rule clearly says: the athlete “have represented India in an Olympic Sport for which the concerned National Sports Federation/national sports body is a member of IOA.” That means sport like wushu, kabaddi which are not Olympic sports should not be considered. It needs to be seen if the RO considers athletes who are part of the published roster if someone objects.
The Athletes Commission (AC) list too has names that seem questionable. There is one player who had served suspension for doping and one name is that of a federation official. A weightlifter who tested positive in 2019 before making a comeback too seems to be under the scanner. There are names in SOMs who have failed dope tests too. Perhaps it will be prudent for official to approach the NADA to clear names.
One name in handball federation is an office bearer and is 1975 born. And definitely not a current sportspersons as should be desirable in such commissions. According to Athletes Commission rules, active athletes should be part of the AC rolls top elect 10 members. As of now there are 34 names from 17 national sports federations in the AC list who can contest and vote. Interestingly, handball has a member who is also an office bearer (treasurer). He, however, is a part of the federation's athletes commission. Well, this too needs to be scrutinised perhaps? And what seems even more bizarre is that an athlete who was born in 1963 is part of the AC. He definitely is not an active sportspersons in the strictest terms.
The AC rules on constitution of electoral college says that “NSF Member affiliated to the IOA shall nominate the two (2) athletes’ representatives, who satisfy the eligibility criteria mentioned in Rule 9.2 which says Indian citizen, over 18 years, etc”. However, the next rule, 10.3. says, “The nomination under Rule 10.2 shall be made through the Athletes Commission of the NSF Member, from among athletes representing the sport, in respect of which such NSF Member is affiliated with the IOA.” Under the circumstances it needs to be seen if an office-bearer is eligible to contest or cast vote. Suppose the person gets elected and represents the the AC with voting rights, then what?
If the Athletes Commission has some names that can be scrutinised over their participation in sports over the last three Olympic or Asian Games cycles or age, there are active sportspersons like Bhavani Devi in SOMs. She is still representing India at Games, funded by Sports Authority of India (SAI) and is there in AC as well According to SOM rules, athlete should “be retired from active sport i.e, have not participated in any competitive sport event leading to selection to represent a district, State or India for at least one (1) year before the date of application...” The rules on Olympic sports are pretty clear, but under the head “SOM Roster Creation” there is one criteria: “If the SOM Roster is not complete after considering applicants satisfying Tier 1, applicants satisfying Tier 2 shall be considered, followed by Tier 3 and each subsequent tier in sequential order in which later Tiers speak about National sports awardees and Asian and Commonwealth Games medallists. However, the SOMs reserve candidates do have members who are part Olympic programme like hockey, athletics, tennis, shooting and even equestrian.
One can argue that this is a preliminary list but it would be interesting to know if it were selected on first come first serve basis or whether the names were scrutinised. If so then there should not be duplications in athletes commission and SOMs to say the least.
Though there was a concern over whether athletes whose federations are currently suspended by the sports ministry or the IOA should be allowed as SOMs. But penalizing an athlete who has contributed in India’s sporting success over current issues would not be correct because he or she is applying as an individual as an Outstanding Sportspersons of Merit. On the other hand there are NSFs who are not voting members in the IOA elections but are associate members like sailing and equestrian. The two are Olympic sports and part of the IOA (though one has an ad hoc committee). It needs to be seen what the final SOMs list would be.
Who will vote in SOMs? The entire list of 80 or 40 each for men and women separately. This also seems to be one sticky point as of now as there is no clarity in the rules section. Since the SOMs list were made 40 each, there is a possibility that the vote be cast by 40 members each otherwise the RO would have called for combined list like in the Athletes Commission. Whatever it is, hopefully things will be clearer soon. The RO with so much experience as election commissioner will definitely put the house in order. If there is question mark over list of AC and SOMs, then the entire IOA election process would be under the scanner like last time in 2022. Perhaps, something the sports ministry also would want to avoid that right now.