Correct Option (A)
As the chairperson, the most appropriate initial action is to request clarification from the screening committee. This approach is systematic and responsible, aiming to identify the root cause of the discrepancy. A marginal age difference of five days suggests a potential procedural oversight, an administrative error in documentation, or an unintended mistake rather than deliberate deception. By seeking clarification, the chairperson initiates a fact-finding process that upholds institutional accountability and ensures fairness to the athlete, avoiding premature punitive measures.
Incorrect Options:
Option (D) suggests asking the members of the sports committee for their views. While a consultative approach promotes transparency and collective responsibility, it is a broader deliberation that should ideally follow an initial fact-finding investigation. Directly approaching the screening committee (Option A) is a more efficient first step to ascertain the specific procedural lapse before involving the wider committee.
Option (B) proposes asking the athlete to return the medal. This action is premature and potentially harsh, especially given the minor age discrepancy. Imposing a penalty without a thorough investigation into how the athlete was cleared to participate fails to address the systemic issue and may be unjust to the athlete, who might not be solely responsible for the error.
Option (C) suggests asking the athlete to get an affidavit from the court declaring his/her age. This is an inefficient and largely irrelevant step. The athlete's age has already been established, and a court affidavit would not resolve the core issue of how an ineligible participant was cleared by the screening process. It places an undue bureaucratic burden on the athlete without addressing the administrative oversight.