The podium that India doesn’t need to be on

Sprawling stadiums and state-of-the-art training facilities aren’t the only things that go into the making of a sporting nation with grand ambitions. Behind the impressive facade of modern infrastructure, the house needs to be squeaky clean. The alarmingly long list of those who have been caught doping can’t be brushed under the carpet. India was made to realise this by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), an independent anti-doping watchdog founded by World Athletics, when it flagged its inadequate anti-doping programme. It was also a wake-up call for the government and sports officials tasked with preparing a pitch for the country to host the 2036 Olympics. The International Olympic Committee members, and rivals who are in the race to host the Games, won’t be blind to India being one of the top two nations globally for doping offences in athletics from 2022 to 2025.

Downgrading the Athletics Federation of India, the AIU had said that the Indian athletes were at “extremely high” risk of doping. This translates to India’s track-and-field participants in international events being made to undergo mandatory and extensive testing. This was a setback to a nation that had carved a new image for itself when Neeraj Chopra won the javelin gold at the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. Pulling down the new emerging athletic nation are the doping test results at India’s junior and senior national and state-level competitions. There has been rampant use of performance-enhancing drugs among those aspiring to get government jobs or hoping for monetary incentives for state- and district-level winners.

Whenever India has found itself cornered because of a high-profile doping scandal or a rap by international anti-doping bodies for not doing enough, it has come up with familiar but ineffective solutions. There is talk about educating the athletes, conducting talk sessions and making them aware of the health risks. While those seminars and workshops should continue, more needs to be done. A part of what is spent on big sporting infrastructure projects needs to be channelled to anti-doping programmes. Unless a holistic plan to curb doping from the grassroots to the top level is carefully formulated and rigorously implemented, including targeted out-of-competition testing, the stain of doping won’t go away. This is a dubious podium, and India doesn’t need to be on it.

Overall Analysis

The editorial delivers a strong critique of India’s doping problem in athletics, arguing that sporting excellence cannot be built solely on infrastructure while ethical standards remain compromised. It uses the metaphor of a “podium” ironically — not as a symbol of achievement, but of shame — to highlight India’s high global ranking in doping violations.

The opening paragraph establishes a contrast between visible progress and hidden flaws. Phrases like “sprawling stadiums” and “state-of-the-art facilities” create an image of advancement, but this is immediately undercut by the assertion that the system must be “squeaky clean.” The language is metaphorical and cautionary, suggesting that surface-level success cannot hide systemic issues. The mention of Athletics Integrity Unit adds authority, while the reference to Olympic ambitions introduces a sense of urgency and national stakes.

The second paragraph deepens the criticism by highlighting the consequences of India’s doping record. The downgrade of the Athletics Federation of India is presented as both a reputational and operational setback. The editorial contrasts this negative development with the pride associated with Neeraj Chopra’s Olympic success, emphasizing how individual achievements risk being overshadowed by systemic failures. The language becomes sharper with phrases like “rampant use”, indicating widespread malpractice. It also identifies socio-economic drivers — government jobs and financial incentives — showing that doping is not just a sporting issue but a structural one.

The final paragraph shifts to a solution-oriented critique but remains skeptical. It dismisses repetitive measures like awareness campaigns as insufficient, using the phrase “familiar but ineffective solutions.” The editorial calls for a “holistic plan”, emphasizing the need for deeper reforms, including better funding allocation and rigorous testing systems. The phrase “stain of doping” is a powerful metaphor, implying long-term damage to national credibility. The concluding line is impactful and ironic, reinforcing that this is one ranking India should avoid.

Overall, the language is persuasive and critical, combining moral reasoning with practical concerns. It balances national pride with accountability, urging reform through both emotional appeal and logical argument.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Facade – an outward appearance that hides the true reality.
2. Rampant – spreading unchecked; widespread and uncontrolled.
3. Incentives – rewards or benefits that motivate action.
4. Holistic – considering the whole system rather than just parts.
5. Dubious – doubtful or morally questionable.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that India’s ambitions of becoming a global sporting power are undermined by widespread doping issues. It calls for systemic, grassroots-level reforms rather than superficial awareness efforts, warning that without decisive action, India’s credibility in international sports will suffer.

Tone: Critical, cautionary, and reform-oriented, with a strong sense of urgency.