Vijender Singh made a mistake; so did the system

Boxer Vijender Singh’s fairytale story of ‘rages to riches’ in the sporting area took a serious beating on Sunday when the Punjab Police said that between November 2012 and February 2013 Vijender Singh and boxer friend Ram Singh took heroin 12 and five times respectively. Mobile phone records, which the police have access to, expose Vijender’s initial claim that he had no association with drug peddlers Anoop Singh Khalon and Rocky. Vijender’s refusal to give blood samples lends more suspicion to police claims. What adds gravity to the situation is that Vijender is a national sporting hero on whom the nation conferred the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna award in 2009 and the Padma Shri in 2010. That Vijender is a DSP with the Haryana Police also shows that instead of abiding and protecting the law, he might have broken it.
According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), heroin is a narcotic that is prohibited in the in-competition phase. According to WADA’s Word Anti-Doping Program an in-competition test ‘is a test where the athlete is selected for testing in connection with specific competition’. Irrespective of whether or not heroin is a banned drug under anti-doping guidelines, the abuse of this drug for recreational purposes often leads to addiction and in worse cases fatality.
While it is disappointing to see a ‘small town boy’ who shot to prominence through hard work get caught in the trappings of fame, thought should be extended to the institutional mechanisms that allow elephants slip through the net. The International Boxing Association’s ban on the Indian Boxing Federation has put the future of many boxers in jeopardy. This uncertainty can lead athletes to lose their focus. National Anti-Doping Agency director general Mukul Chatterjee has said that the last Vijender gave his blood sample for testing was in July 2012 — what was the agency doing since then to keep a tab on him? Had the agency been strict or if there was a system in place that took stringent action against erring athletes, perhaps better judgment would have prevailed upon Vijender. The 2008 Beijing Olympics bronze medalist has erred and failed to live up to the youth icon status he is, but if he is to walk the plank of public scrutiny and scorn, giving him company should be the limping sports bodies and anti-doping associations that have contributed to this fall from grace.
(An edited version of this appeared in the Hindustan Times on April 2)