Examination of Witness (Questions 40-59)
30 MARCH 2004
MS MICHELE
VERROKEN
Q40 Alan Keen: Looking at drug taking
overall, if you look at what it would cost government, for instance,
to monitor and stop the pros from benefiting and therefore damaging
themselves and as well as destroying their competitionyou
say that costs a lot of money, but if you take what drug-taking
costs us, forgetting about athletes, what drug-taking costs us
as a nation, because it is being taken for pleasure, so-called
pleasurethen the tiny part you are talking about on international
sport would be nothing in the overall cost; and there is tremendous
saving to be got from educating people in drugs. Would that be
the best way to go, to say we want one drug agency which primarily
is deterring children from getting into it and, just as a minor
part of that, they do the checking of the athletes?[1]
Ms Verroken: It is really more
in a network of agencies and really to try and encourage a situation
where people do not have to reinvent the wheel. Once we moved
individual sports from having to provide somebody to do the sample
collection, to carry out the initial testing, the standards went
up and the level of confidence of the athletes went up tremendously,
but it really is taking the next step and looking at the opportunity
to network the education, the information. In many respects it
does not always have to be government who pays for this. The very
fact that we raise money through the Lottery, part of that should
perhaps be reinvested back into the health and safety system of
sport and any sports sponsorship, the tax levy that there is ought
to be reinvested in the health and safety system. In the Tour
de France the concerns really were very much by the sponsors for
the potential damage that it might do, and yet some of the sponsors
were very much part of the campaign to keep the testing out of
the Tour de France. So I think there are opportunities there for
wider investment and wider networking of information.
Q41 Mr Flook: Amongst athletes or sportsmen
and women is it that they do not do this because it is not fair
or because of the chances of being caught? Where is the balance
line? Does that vary from different sports?
Ms Verroken: It varies from different
sports, I would say, and trying to set an optimum testing programme
for a sport in the public sector is very, very difficult, because
how much testing is enough? The athletes have to help us on how
much makes them feel it would be a deterrent, and the athletes
were always the best people to tell us who we should have been
testing and we tried to make them very much part of the selection
process.
Q42 Mr Flook: How do they do that? Is
it anonymous notes or telephone calls?
Ms Verroken: Yes, a number of
athletes would actually put forward names, but there are always
the athletes who, when the sampling officer would arrive at their
house, say, "Why are you here for me again. You need to be
at somebody else's house", and put forward a name at that
point; but we did have a number of athletes put forward names.
It is about how you create the confidence of that particular sort
of group, and it really has to be by creating what would be the
maximum deterrent. If we always say we are going to test two players
from each side in a football match, then the chances of being
tested are much reduced, but we have achieved a situation with
the Football Association where we had the opportunity to vary
that number. We implemented that in cricket, where sometimes we
would turn up and we would test 24 players, because obviously
we would want to make sure that we have the twelfth man, all 24
players, or sometimes we would turn up and we would test two from
each side. To keep that variation increases the deterrent. Once
you know that, for the majority of tests in competitions, it is
going to be first, second and third places, and you are only looking
to achieve a personal best (and that is what is going to qualify
you for your lottery award), that is what you.
Q43 Mr Flook: What is the cost per sample?
Ms Verroken: Unfortunately the
UK is probably the most expensive place in the world, because
the cost of analysis here is quite expensive. So it really is
more in the region of about £300.
Q44 Mr Flook: Per test?
Ms Verroken: Per test.
Q45 Mr Flook: Because?
Ms Verroken: That sample is analysed
through quite a rigorous process, it is not simply a cheap and
quick dipstick test unfortunately which is where employee screening
can sometimes have advantages because a lot of the time they are
looking for a simple presence. With sports drug testing we actually
have to identify the metabolites of the prohibited substance in
the athlete's urine to be absolutely sure it is there.
Q46 Mr Flook: I can see that there is
a very, very strong argument for an independent set up, and it
is very difficult to argue for sports self-regulation and self-rule
for the obvious reason that things get lost, but that is a huge
cost. You mentioned the American system which is funded by the
American Olympic Association and
Ms Verroken: And government.
Q47 Mr Flook: And government?
Ms Verroken: Yes.
Q48 Mr Flook: Currently the £300
per test here is funded by?
Ms Verroken: That is where I would
actually perhaps point out a slight discrepancy in the PMP report.
The drug-testing programme is not funded 100% by government. There
are a number of sports that do invest in their own testing programmes.
The Football Association, for example, was investing in a further
1,200 tests more than the 250 tests that UK Sport were providing.
So there is a significant investment going on by a number of sports.
Rugby union are investing in their testing programme, so is cricket.
The reason why they are investing is that the public purse could
not meet the number of tests that the sport felt should be undertaken
in order to create the maximum deterrent, whereas with a sport
like track and field athletics, that is 100% government funded.
So the majority of the Olympic sports find themselves government
funded.
Q49 Mr Flook: Finally, are you interested,
and if you are why, in testing for, say, cannabis or heroin or
cocaine abuse amongst sports people?
Ms Verroken: I would not put all
those drugs together. WeUK Sport, supported by responses
to the consultation on the Codedid put forward quite a
strong argument for cannabis not being included in the list of
prohibited substances but, being a monitoring substance, as it
is well-known that it is a gateway drug to other drugs. It also
is the drug that stays longest in the body and therefore could
have more effect on performance and cause the individual concerned
to think, "I need steroids now to be able to deliver my performance".
Obviously it is still a prohibited substance in society. It does
not provide a very good role model. Unfortunately, we could not
persuade the World Anti-Doping Agency that cannabis should be
taken off the prohibited list and kept simply as a monitoring
substance. We have that situation presently with alcohol in football.
It is monitored and if the individual player seems continually
to have a substantial level of alcohol, of course, the club doctor
can intervene, with more concern for the player's health than
looking at this as a disciplinary matter, although it might ultimately
become a disciplinary matter if they are not going to look at
the encouragement to get some advice, assessment and rehabilitation
if necessary.
Q50 Mr Flook: One final question. If
Rio Ferdinand, who came up in conversation earlier, makes an assumption
that he did not want to be tested, was that, do you think, because
of abuse of Class A drugs or because he was on some sort of steroid?
Ms Verroken: It is always difficult
to understand motivation for anybody, and the Rio Ferdinand case
is very interesting in that we have not had a case like it in
other sports. I would raise that with you as something you should
be asking, why it has not happened in other sports, or is it that
the other sports are not defining a doping offence in that same
way? Why did Rio not turn up for his test? Did he simply forget?
Was he taking a substance that he did not particularly want to
declare because he was concerned that it might become evident
that he was under treatment for a medical condition that he would
prefer to keep confidential? Or was he taking cocaine, in which
case cocaine would be out of the body in 48 hours and that is
why he came back after 48 hours? There are all sorts of answers
to that question, and I really do not have them.
Q51 Mr Flook: Let me put it another way
round. Do footballers take performance enhancing drugs in the
way that Ben Johnson did to run 100 metres?
Ms Verroken: We have not seen
the evidence that steroids have been used in football in the way
that they were or have been used and are being used in sports
like track and field athletics or weight-lifting, perhaps sports
you would associate more with strength and stamina than football.
Perhaps there is an arrogance amongst footballers that they rely
on their skill, their ability rather than needing performance-enhancing
drugs. I do not know, but certainly that is now not the case,
as we have seen other support programmes coming in. Arsene Wenger
was one of the very first to bring in nutrition programmes for
footballers.
Q52 Ms Shipley: Can I take you back to
when you were talking about local authorities and trying to create
drug-free sports facilities and get them to declare that they
are drug-free. It is a bit of a shock that they are not, but,
having listened to you for the last hour, I can see the complexity
of it. I would like you to talk through what could be done at
local level, because I have listed what is in my constituency
and I have got a running club, a tennis club, a rugby club, a
golf club, a football club, a cricket club, a local sports and
swimming centre, four private health clubs and a riding stables
just 100 yards away. So there is the full range. How would a local
authority go about suggesting to all of these people that they
should be drugs free in the range of drugs? We are not talking
cannabis and cocaine here in the way you are talking about it.
How do local authorities set about it?
Ms Verroken: I think you can embrace
the full range of drugs because obviously somebody who smokes
cannabis
Q53 Ms Shipley: The straightforward illegal
ones?
Ms Verroken: Yes.
Q54 Ms Shipley: But that is not what
we are really talking about here. It is all the enhancing ones
which are legal, but not if you are competing, and so on and so
forth?
Ms Verroken: It is really needing
to have a multi-pronged attack on this one, not only to make it
clear that the supply, the consumption, of drugs on the premises
would not be acceptable and, if found, would be a reason for terminating
somebody's membership, it is also looking very carefully at the
employees of those establishmentsbecause sometimes they
can actually be the suppliers of the substancesbut also
being able to promote the right information, the right kind of
information, to support people to achieve good performances without
the use of drugs.
Q55 Ms Shipley: But on the first two
criteria, say an employee supplying drugsand I do not want
to talk about the illegal ones because clearly they are illegal
and they should not be there anyway and it is a straightforward
policing jobthose things where they are supplements, they
are enhancements, they are not strictly illegal but you and I
would think that they are incredibly bad practice and should not
be there and we do not want to see them there, how can the local
authorities possibly have any impact on that?
Ms Verroken: Obviously sometimes
the local authorities accept the franchises that will come in
and sell those supplements on the premises.
Q56 Ms Shipley: Do they?
Ms Verroken: So why not use the
sports centres as the base for a qualified sports nutritionist
who can actually look at the wider nutritional needs of individuals
so that they actually look at a balanced diet. Most of the sports
nutritionists I have spoken to have said that athletes would not
need supplements if they had the right diets.
Q57 Ms Shipley: That works well for,
off my long list, one, the local sports centres and swimming pools,
but all the others I listed that does not work for, so what could
be done for all of those that are in effect private?
Ms Verroken: That is the difficultly.
I am always quite amazed by the Environmental Health Act that
requires massage parlours to be regulated but not private gymnasiums
where you ought to be concerned about health and safety, whether
or not they have actually checked the equipment is properly connected
to the wall or floor or whatever and also that the individuals
there are trained and promoting the right kind of message for
individuals. It is a bit like saying that your best bar lady is
the one who persuades you to get drunk. That is why we have to
make sure we have got the right
Q58 Ms Shipley: Of my long and varied
listgolf clubs, riding clubsyou are suggesting that
maybe it should be under licence?
Ms Verroken: Whether it is by
licensing or whether it is by self-regulation. There was a scheme
of self-regulation that we did start in Darlington amongst the
private gyms and they were promoting themselves as open to integrity
checks by others on the standards that they had set for themselves.
Q59 Ms Shipley: Did that work for as
long as the particular person was managing it for that particular
time and was interested and then it did not work again?
Ms Verroken: Yes.
1 Note by witness: In relation to education,
I do agree that we need one agency for anti-doping that works
through other potentially influencing bodies/agencies, e.g.
the education system. Back
|