IRB to give verdict in a month on alleged doping by Lankan players

By S.S.Selvanayagam

The International Rugby Board (IRB) is due to give its verdict in a month time on the doping inquiry against the Sri Lankan rugby players.

The players in dispute Saliya Kumara, Keith Gurusinghe and Eranga Swarnathillake content the allegation against them are contrary to the regulations relating to the game and in the matter of an alleged doping offence.

Attorney-at-Law Manoj Bandara with Mehran Careem instructed by Sudath Perera Associates appeared at the IRB for Saliya Kumara and Keith Gurusinghe. Farman Cassim with Navoda Pilimathalawa appeared for Eranga Swarnathilleka.

On April 23 of 2011, the players’ urine sample were taken by authorized doping control officers during the HSBC Asian 5 Nation.

 Lawyers appeared for Saliya Kumara stated he was informed by a letter dated 27th May 2011 that a prohibited substance “Meethylehexaneamine” had been found in his urine sample.

 They contended it is pertinent to mention that the player has in all honesty fully disclosed the particular medication/supplement “Hemo Rage” (which is believed to contain the prohibited substance) his declaration (doping control form) dated April 23, 2011 to the IRB during the course of the Asian 5 nations tournament.

 They state that in April 2011, the player for the first and only time, consumed the said product on the bona fide belief that it was solely a Creative product.

 They maintained the player never intended the prohibited substance to improve or enhance his sporting performance but mistakenly thought it to be the usual Creative product.

 They brought to the cognizance that the sports persons all over the world consume various creative nutrient products to sustain their performance.

 They maintained these products are taken to sustain the player natural performance but not with the intent of enhancing and/or boosting ones natural level of performance.

 Attorney-at-Law Manoj Bandara informed the IRB tribunal that when one is considering whether the said player had consumed the prohibited substance with the intent of enhancing sporting performance, one must consider the fact that the player concerned has been honest by declaring the product to the IRB doping officers, and if one had the intention of enhancing sporting performance by consuming a certain product, one would not declare that product; one would mask the use of the performance enhancing substance.

They argued as such the player concerned, had no intention of taking a prohibited substance to enhance sporting performance.

The players asserted the label of the product did not mention “Meethylehexaneamine”, instead it stated “dimethylamylamine” which is another name not known to any of the players.