Besides the obvious report on the Sunita Rani case, Sushil Salwan, the one-man inquiry committee member made a few scathing remarks on the functioning of the entire system—right from the individuals to the federation and authorities. He particularly chose the federation and the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and slammed them for not being serious about checking doping. One of the significant points Salwan made in his recommendations is that ‘‘It is felt that SAI and the federations are not serious for controlling doping. The impression has to be dispelled by action and deeds and not words and paper work only.’’ Interestingly, Salwan told The Indian Express that though a number of people he met during his inquiry told him that they felt that doping was rampant in Indian sports, but none of them could pinpoint a specific case which could be included within the fold of the inquiry. Predictably, SAI’s doping laboratory which does not have international recognition also came under fierce criticism from Salwan. In his recommendations, he states that ‘‘After failing to get accreditation with the IOC, SAI’s collaboration with a German lab eventually fizzled out. Today, SAI has applied for an ISO 9002 certificate whereas the requirement of IOC is ISO 17025 certificate. Where are we and what are we planning?" Salwan then adds that "SAI must give itself a time frame for getting its lab accreditated, failing which it should permit any highly reputed pharmaceutical company, fulfilling the requirement of IOC, to conduct dope test in India." For those arguing that coaches and doctor are not responsible for the athletes’ conduct, Salwan has a counter to make. He says, ‘‘Coaches and team doctors should be made responsible. The athlete is always under the supervision of the coach.’’ His inquiry also questions the role of the present coaches. Salwan had met the chief coach of the Indian athletic squad besides Sunita’s personal coach and the foreign coaches. He says, ‘‘They (coaches) go by the thumb rule. Neither they are enterprising nor do they carry out research or prepare documentation on their athlete." He adds ‘‘our coaches should be research oriented’’ and also points out that ‘‘why are we still dependent on Russian coaches? Our coaches should be trained and educated to come up to international standard.’’ Some of the recommendations of the Salwan committee including the one on upgrading the SAI laboratory to international requirement have been raised earlier. But perhaps for the first time an inquiry committee set up by the federation itself is charging the body which appointed him of ‘‘only talking and not doing anything to check doping’’. While the report admits that at this stage there is a strong case for Sunita, it does not at any place gives a clean chit to the athlete. In fact, there is a fear lurking that Salwan’s report might be used by the authorities in the future to show that Indian sports is after all clean.
