ICC news July 15, 2010

ICC set to implement WADA-compliant code

12

The ICC is finally ready to implement its anti-doping code, which includes a "modified" whereabouts clause, following negotiations during a year-long stand-off with the BCCI, which had stood by its players' objections to the clause. Having addressed "a couple of concerns" that were raised by some of the members, the ICC board finally approved the WADA-compliant code at the annual conference in Singapore earlier this month. The ICC believes this regime to be consistent with principles of the WADA code.

Players who would be tested will fall under two main pools based on certain criteria: the International Registered Testing Pool (IRTP) and the National Player Pool (NPP). Players who are known offenders or who may be of higher risk will be in the IRTP. Players in the NPP, which comprises 88 internationals (11 from each of the top-eight ODI teams according to the ICC rankings), will need to submit "cricket whereabouts information" rather than that of their personal whereabouts.

"The rules are final. The anti-doping code is in place," Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, told Cricinfo in London. "Where we go next is to educate the players and Member Boards because they have the responsibility in terms of filing."

The ICC became a signatory to the WADA code in November 2006 in order to enhance cricket's credibility as a global sport and to satisfy mandatory requirements for participating in events like the Olympics. However, its members' adoption of the code hit a roadblock when the BCCI objected to the whereabouts clause.

The clause required the 11 players nominated to the international testing pool to reveal to an ICC-nominated officer before every quarter details of their whereabouts for an hour every day for three months to facilitate out-of-competition testing. Top Indian players, including Sachin Tendulkar, raised fears concerning their personal security and refused to sign the code, a move strongly supported by the BCCI. The Indian board then raised its objection to the clause, citing it went against the country's constitution.

During the last year, the whereabouts rules were revised but two more issues needed further clarification and the changes were eventually finalised in Singapore. "Some of the countries were concerned about local involvement by other agencies and did not want to duplicate things," Lorgat said. "The second issue was the exact definition of injured players."

The Professional Cricketers' Association has said it approves of the "sensible" new code. "The PCA supports the new proposals which we think are adequate and sensible and which suit the needs of cricket," chief executive Angus Porter told the Guardian.

The majority of the players will be in the NPP, where they would be tested exclusively when they are in a team environment - like when on tour, or at a national training camp. "Cricket whereabouts is something where the player can be tested at any given point when he is training, playing, travelling with the team," Lorgat said. "Instead of the player doing it individually, the team management will do the filing [of whereabouts information] for the player."

When asked if this code was a compromise by the ICC, Lorgat said it was a modification. "I don't believe it is a compromise. It is a solution to resolve the constitutional issue that India faced, and perhaps they did have genuine security concerns about their top players. It is a modification of the original clause to satisfy the concerns on one front but still consistent with the principles to do out-of-competition testing."

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on July 16, 2010, 15:39 GMT

    Real question is if WADA feels if these modified-conditions are fully WADA-compliant. Otherwise we will see the rules being flouted.

    Personally, I am disappointed at our Indian prima-donnas not agreeing to what the other countries had already agreed to and supporting the full WADA and make the sport more clean and set an example to youngsters against drugs.

  • raja.assasin on July 16, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    @maddy20: Forget it buddy....The bcci will convince Sri-lanka to play in a 5 match ODI series during the Olympics and will decline to send a team. BCCI is the "Bane of cricket control in India".Not sending a team to the asiads was a stupid move.Instead we will see India vs SL vs New Zealand ODI series. I wish the BCCI is "banned" and some-one else takes over.

  • Puthran on July 16, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    The ICC has made a complete mockery of the whereabouts requirements. It will have just 2 or 3 players in its international registered testing pool. It was just ego that prevented the Indian players from agreeing; a false sense of importance. Maybe Federer and Nadal and Usain Bolt do agree to this, but we are different. That seemed to be the attitude. Now BCCI is being praised for this fraud arrangement. It should never be whether something was too much or not. If cricket wanted to be part of the world sport at large then it had to fall in line. Let cricket go out and have its own rules. No one will care. If there can be no differentiation in world sport between Bolt and Federer then there should be none for the larger-than-life Indian cricketing Gods. WADA will be accepting another mockery, like it did in the case of football, if it okays this at its next compliance exercise.

  • naveensworld on July 16, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    hurrahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  • Scgboy on July 16, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    For once I agree with the BCCI, and I am no Indian.tenchin raises some legitimate concerns , though I guess they have found a loop hole of sorts.

  • on July 16, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    these indians get in the way of every good change to cricket . They are against UDRS also that s because they know if they are forced to play fair they are not as good as they seem . next time try to stop bowlers bowling bouncers at your players .

  • Naren on July 16, 2010, 2:07 GMT

    Lol.. it is a big joke that Lorgat says "It is a constitutional issue that india faced" as though other countries don't mind people's privacy. I am sick and tired of BCCI getting involved in everything and twisting and turning the arms of others. To be frank I would like to see countries like Australia, England and New Zealand to opt out of playing against India. Then we can see how much revenue BCCI will generate.

  • D.V.C. on July 16, 2010, 2:05 GMT

    I think that's pretty good actually. The ICC look to have got something spot on for a change.

  • dyogesh on July 16, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    Agree with Homer totally ! BCCI has finally been instrumental in getting a good decision for the entire cricket community and hopefully someone praises it. But it is difficult as people are not used to and do not like to appreciate BCCI !

  • on July 15, 2010, 23:09 GMT

    I din't understand why the players got upset about the whereabouts clause. Most of them twitter their locations every 5 minutes anyhow.

  • on July 16, 2010, 15:39 GMT

    Real question is if WADA feels if these modified-conditions are fully WADA-compliant. Otherwise we will see the rules being flouted.

    Personally, I am disappointed at our Indian prima-donnas not agreeing to what the other countries had already agreed to and supporting the full WADA and make the sport more clean and set an example to youngsters against drugs.

  • raja.assasin on July 16, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    @maddy20: Forget it buddy....The bcci will convince Sri-lanka to play in a 5 match ODI series during the Olympics and will decline to send a team. BCCI is the "Bane of cricket control in India".Not sending a team to the asiads was a stupid move.Instead we will see India vs SL vs New Zealand ODI series. I wish the BCCI is "banned" and some-one else takes over.

  • Puthran on July 16, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    The ICC has made a complete mockery of the whereabouts requirements. It will have just 2 or 3 players in its international registered testing pool. It was just ego that prevented the Indian players from agreeing; a false sense of importance. Maybe Federer and Nadal and Usain Bolt do agree to this, but we are different. That seemed to be the attitude. Now BCCI is being praised for this fraud arrangement. It should never be whether something was too much or not. If cricket wanted to be part of the world sport at large then it had to fall in line. Let cricket go out and have its own rules. No one will care. If there can be no differentiation in world sport between Bolt and Federer then there should be none for the larger-than-life Indian cricketing Gods. WADA will be accepting another mockery, like it did in the case of football, if it okays this at its next compliance exercise.

  • naveensworld on July 16, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    hurrahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  • Scgboy on July 16, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    For once I agree with the BCCI, and I am no Indian.tenchin raises some legitimate concerns , though I guess they have found a loop hole of sorts.

  • on July 16, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    these indians get in the way of every good change to cricket . They are against UDRS also that s because they know if they are forced to play fair they are not as good as they seem . next time try to stop bowlers bowling bouncers at your players .

  • Naren on July 16, 2010, 2:07 GMT

    Lol.. it is a big joke that Lorgat says "It is a constitutional issue that india faced" as though other countries don't mind people's privacy. I am sick and tired of BCCI getting involved in everything and twisting and turning the arms of others. To be frank I would like to see countries like Australia, England and New Zealand to opt out of playing against India. Then we can see how much revenue BCCI will generate.

  • D.V.C. on July 16, 2010, 2:05 GMT

    I think that's pretty good actually. The ICC look to have got something spot on for a change.

  • dyogesh on July 16, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    Agree with Homer totally ! BCCI has finally been instrumental in getting a good decision for the entire cricket community and hopefully someone praises it. But it is difficult as people are not used to and do not like to appreciate BCCI !

  • on July 15, 2010, 23:09 GMT

    I din't understand why the players got upset about the whereabouts clause. Most of them twitter their locations every 5 minutes anyhow.

  • Homer2007 on July 15, 2010, 18:59 GMT

    So, the BCCI gets reviled for standing by its players in defying both WADA and the ICC over the "whereabouts clause" and now there will be no bouquets for pushing and getting a more pragmatic solution to the issue.Such is life!

  • maddy20 on July 15, 2010, 18:45 GMT

    That looks acceptable! The personal whereabouts clause was a bit too much! Anyways now that its done we can hope to see India play Pakistan in the Olympics!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • maddy20 on July 15, 2010, 18:45 GMT

    That looks acceptable! The personal whereabouts clause was a bit too much! Anyways now that its done we can hope to see India play Pakistan in the Olympics!

  • Homer2007 on July 15, 2010, 18:59 GMT

    So, the BCCI gets reviled for standing by its players in defying both WADA and the ICC over the "whereabouts clause" and now there will be no bouquets for pushing and getting a more pragmatic solution to the issue.Such is life!

  • on July 15, 2010, 23:09 GMT

    I din't understand why the players got upset about the whereabouts clause. Most of them twitter their locations every 5 minutes anyhow.

  • dyogesh on July 16, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    Agree with Homer totally ! BCCI has finally been instrumental in getting a good decision for the entire cricket community and hopefully someone praises it. But it is difficult as people are not used to and do not like to appreciate BCCI !

  • D.V.C. on July 16, 2010, 2:05 GMT

    I think that's pretty good actually. The ICC look to have got something spot on for a change.

  • Naren on July 16, 2010, 2:07 GMT

    Lol.. it is a big joke that Lorgat says "It is a constitutional issue that india faced" as though other countries don't mind people's privacy. I am sick and tired of BCCI getting involved in everything and twisting and turning the arms of others. To be frank I would like to see countries like Australia, England and New Zealand to opt out of playing against India. Then we can see how much revenue BCCI will generate.

  • on July 16, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    these indians get in the way of every good change to cricket . They are against UDRS also that s because they know if they are forced to play fair they are not as good as they seem . next time try to stop bowlers bowling bouncers at your players .

  • Scgboy on July 16, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    For once I agree with the BCCI, and I am no Indian.tenchin raises some legitimate concerns , though I guess they have found a loop hole of sorts.

  • naveensworld on July 16, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    hurrahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  • Puthran on July 16, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    The ICC has made a complete mockery of the whereabouts requirements. It will have just 2 or 3 players in its international registered testing pool. It was just ego that prevented the Indian players from agreeing; a false sense of importance. Maybe Federer and Nadal and Usain Bolt do agree to this, but we are different. That seemed to be the attitude. Now BCCI is being praised for this fraud arrangement. It should never be whether something was too much or not. If cricket wanted to be part of the world sport at large then it had to fall in line. Let cricket go out and have its own rules. No one will care. If there can be no differentiation in world sport between Bolt and Federer then there should be none for the larger-than-life Indian cricketing Gods. WADA will be accepting another mockery, like it did in the case of football, if it okays this at its next compliance exercise.