Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
20 APRIL 2004
Mr Charles Woodhouse, Mr Peter Leaver QC, and Ms
Alison Faiers
Q140 Derek Wyatt: Could an English cricketer
who might be selected for Zimbabwe come to you to say, "This
is against my moral or whatever reasons, I do not wish to go",
even though he was contracted and obligated to go? Would he use
you as a source to say, "How do I get out of this"?
Mr Woodhouse: That would be for
agreement between the bodies. We have no standing, no status,
in any dispute unless by consent of both the governing body and
the individual. If both parties said to us, "Yes, we want
an independent, effective, value for money resolution speedily",
they might indeed come to us because we are trusted and we have
panels which are independent and experts—people like Peter
Leaver—which would resolve it and it is a more effective
way than going to the courts.
Mr Leaver: If he were contracted,
he would presumably have a contract with the England and Wales
Cricket Board, and it would depend on what were the provisions
of that contract in relation to dispute resolution as to whether
or not he could go to the SDRP.
Q141 Derek Wyatt: Why has not the ECB
used you over Zimbabwe? It is a whole mess, is it not? It is complete
madness that is going on at the moment. Why has not the ECB used
you, especially with the ICC debate?
Mr Woodhouse: They could have
used us if they had so chosen. Indeed we might be able to demonstrate
not only effectiveness but cost effectiveness and speed. This
is an evolving service which has now been established and trusted
in sport.
Mr Siddall: I think that is fair
to say—I hope this answers your question—that on an
increasing basis a very large number of sports are now coming
to the SDRP when in one form or another they wish to take advantage
of the SDRP service. That is an evolving process, we did not start
from the position where all governing bodies chose to use us in
every form, but increasingly our reputation has been established
over the four years we have been running and we are now becoming
well recognised as the body to whom organisations should turn,
dealing with the very sort of dispute you have in mind.
Q142 Chris Bryant: You talk about being
an evolving service and there has been some suggestion that you
should take on a much bigger role in terms of doping. Do you want
to say anything about that?
Mr Woodhouse: As the independent
tribunal service, because that clearly has to be very separate
from results management and whatever, we are well-placed to provide
that truly independent service with the right panels of independent
chairpersons or whatever, legally qualified, and also persons
expert in sports so they understand both sides of it. So, yes,
that service already exists but it is likely to be a service which
would be of advantage to sport and wanted by sport.
Q143 Chris Bryant: Do you think there
is a danger in the present situation where those who are most
interested in there not being very many negative adjudications
or findings there have been prohibitive substances in athletes
or sportsmen and women, namely the organisations that run sport,
are still the people who hold the baby as it were in terms of
determining the process? Do you think there is a contradiction
in terms in that?
Mr Siddall: I am certainly not
aware of any evidence of sports adopting that attitude in order
to defend their position; quite the contrary. For the large part
I think organisations of sports governing bodies are very much
committed to playing their part. I think the position is changing,
and certainly as has been mentioned today with the introduction
of the World Anti-Doping Code there is in effect no choice for
the governing bodies, by virtue of the WADA Code being adopted
worldwide by the international federations or the sports governing
bodies in turn in conjunction with the national anti-doping organisation,
to adopt an effective framework which meets that requirement.
The way I would choose to look at it is more a case of the governing
bodies seeking guidance and assistance in the task of putting
that framework in place. I certainly do not see evidence of them
deliberately in a sense looking to avoid responsibility. They
may have different views as to how that responsibility should
be played.
Q144 Chris Bryant: But there is a conflict
of interest, is there not? Whether there is proof that has led
to a problem or not is always going to be difficult because you
are proving a negative, but there is inherently at least philosophically
a conflict of interest.
Mr Siddall: I am sorry in what
context?
Q145 Chris Bryant: In both being interested,
having a commercial and financial interest in your sport having
an image as a clean sport, and in trying to police a system which
might throw up more and more people if you did it effectively,
tightly and robustly who are dodging the system.
Ms Faiers: I think the function
of a governing body though ultimately is to regulate and control
the sport and be responsible for the sport, so whilst you could
see competing interests in a wide range of what a governing body
undertakes, fundamentally they are responsible for controlling
that sport and governing the sport in the UK, so therefore there
could be perceived a conflict of interest but realistically that
is their function and therefore they have to weigh up the balances.
As Jon says, there is no evidence which suggests that anybody
has ever considered the option of covering up, shall we say, problems
in their sport, because ultimately the fundamental reason for
their existence is not just to promote the positive benefits of
their sport, it is to control their sport in every way that is
required.
Q146 Chris Bryant: In some of the sports
which are big businesses, surely the commercial interests are
very, very significant?
Ms Faiers: They are very significant
but they are no less significant to the governing body as a whole
than any of their other interests.
Q147 Chris Bryant: I would suggest to
you they might be more significant than many other interests.
Mr Siddall: There is surely a
distinction to be drawn between the overriding responsibilities
that the sports bodies will have to their sport and balancing
that against the recognition of what they must put in place in
one form or another is a resolute, independent, effective, fair
framework to consider matters. What I was indicating, and I do
not profess to know all the situations there are, I am not aware
of instances where governing bodies have been going out of their
way to make sure cases would never come anywhere near the system.
What we are concerned with is ensuring and helping the governing
bodies and the national anti-doping organisation putting in place
a framework which everybody will have confidence in, so when cases
arrive they are dealt with on a speedy, independent, effective
and fair basis. It seems to us that that is an area in which the
athletes who are coming before a process, the athletes who are
not coming before a process but want their sport to be clean and
want to feel it is dealt with in the right way, and the governing
bodies who are in the middle of the equation in any event, all
have an expressed interest in making sure that framework is available.
That is what we believe is developing, to the extent it has not
done already, and that is where we believe SDRP can provide a
very valuable service.
Q148 Chris Bryant: In athletics you run
your 100 metres, you win or you do not win, and a random sample
of athletes are immediately taken away to have their samples taken.
In football it seems that sometimes you will be told, "You
have to come in for a testing in 24 or 48 hours' time." I
may be wrong because I see there is a gentleman who is shaking
his head in the background. From what we have heard in the last
evidence which was given to us, that is a considerable period
of time to, as it were, clean yourself out.
Mr Leaver: I have never heard
of a system of testing like that. You either have on-the-spot
testing after the event or random testing which involves the testers
turning up on the day and carrying out the test on the day. What
you do not do is say, "I am going to turn up in 24 hours."
Q149 Chris Bryant: How then can a footballer
not turn up for a test?
Mr Leaver: He cannot, is the short
answer.
Q150 Chris Bryant: They have clearly.
Unless the newspapers have told complete and utter lies, there
have clearly been cases where footballers have failed to turn
up for a test they were supposed to turn up for, and they therefore
clearly knew beforehand.
Mr Woodhouse: That is an offence.
Can I go back? You talked earlier with Professor Cowan about the
UK position, and I think we pioneered this no-notice, random,
out of competition testing. I was actually involved with the BAAB,
the predecessor governing body of British athletics, and this
country was probably the first in the early 1980s to have random,
no-notice, out of competition testing. Any athlete eligible for
international competition was on a register and he or she consented
to this random system. It is long established in this country
and it is the only effective method—random, no-notice testing.
Q151 Chris Bryant: I would have thought
that was the case, that is why I do not understand the system
whereby a footballer can be told, "You have to turn up at
such-and-such a time, at such-and-such a place for a test"
because that is clearly advanced noticed.
Ms Faiers: It is an interpretation
of a situation basically. A footballer would be notified at the
start of the training session he is to be tested at the end of
the training session. If he failed to be tested at the end of
the training session, that is the situation where he has failed
to turn up for the test. In the same way, in athletics, you could
be notified randomly at a competition that you are going to be
tested. You may not be tested there and then because you may be
going off to compete, for example, throwing the javelin, so you
wait until you have completed your sporting discipline before
you are actually tested.
Q152 Chris Bryant: So that is what happened
in the Rio Ferdinand case? He was there at the beginning of the
training session and was told at the beginning of the training
session he had to be there at the end?
Ms Faiers: I was not there but
that is how the situation normally arises.
Mr Leaver: I suspect it was not
at the beginning of the training session. What normally happens
on these occasions is that the testers turn up, they draw the
names of those who are going to be tested at random, and the particular
people who are going to be tested are told when they have finished
their morning training, or whatever it is, they are going to be
tested, and they should then go immediately to give their sample.
Q153 Chris Bryant: Professor Cowan's
point was that you should be accompanied from the moment you—
Mr Leaver: Absolutely. I will
give you a concrete example of that. Just yesterday in fact I
signed out an award from the Court of Arbitration for Sport about
a discus thrower who had been selected for random testing. The
testers turned up at a gymnasium and they were meant to be testing
three or four of the athletes. One of them said, "I just
have another 20 minutes to go, will it be all right if I finish
my training?" The tester said, "Yes, but we are going
to have to stay with you until such time as you provide your test."
That is the way it operates properly.
Q154 Chris Bryant: Can I ask a very different
question which is about the medicinal drugs issue which I raised
earlier with Professor Cowan? You said earlier, Mr Leaver, that
it is only the athletes who know what goes into their bodies,
but obviously that implies a supposition about what "knowing"
means; you might unwittingly take something presuming it to be
a medicinal drug which did not have any prohibitive substances
in it. It also presumes you should be the only person, whereas
there might be other people involved such as coaches and trainers
and the professional body with which you are working such as a
club.
Mr Leaver: You will be the person
who knows what goes into your body. That is one of the reasons
why on the form, when you provide a sample, you are supposed to
say what it is you have taken or had administered. Whether it
is Night Nurse or cough mixture or whatever, you are meant to
put that on the form.
Q155 Chris Bryant: Right. The point at
which you become a professional, a high performance athlete who
is going to be subject to doping regulations and so on, as opposed
to the moment when you were just an amateur person who was running
in the London Marathon every year, is a continuum, there may not
be a sudden moment at which you realise you have gone from A to
B. Do you think there is room for further help in the marketing
of medicinal products?
Mr Leaver: I think there is enormous
room for education, yes. Some international federations are very
good at educating athletes, some are absolutely dreadful, they
do not even begin to scratch the surface. A lot of education is
needed in all sorts of areas of life, but this is certainly one
of them where education is I think a high priority.
Q156 Chris Bryant: Do you think the pharmaceutical
industry could do more?
Ms Faiers: Professor Cowan made
the point that the BNF now provide guidelines for doctors. I think
there is a second publication which is also accessed by the medical
profession which, under the requirements of the Medicines Act,
et cetera, requires certain things to be established. There is
certainly a provision under certain parts of the legislation to
increase that to say they would have to state whether this would
be wide of compliance, for example, and I do not think that is
beyond the realms of consideration. It is good to know the BNF
already do that with their listings.
Q157 Chris Bryant: What about the idea
of some kind of stamp which says, "This has no WADA-prohibited
substances in it"?
Mr Leaver: Terribly easy to put
on, are they not? One of the problems is a lot of the athletes
buy things on the internet nowadays from places outside this country.
Q158 Chris Bryant: Do you think the law
should be changed on that?
Mr Leaver: I think it creates
problems certainly. There are many athletes who have done that
who have found they are taking substances which are prohibited,
they usually come out with the defence in those circumstances
that it is contaminated, but they are the ones who have gone out
to buy it in the first place.
Mr Woodhouse: What WADA are working
on, which is very helpful I think, is to adopt an international
standard for the process of granting therapeutic use exemptions.
In other words, athletes who use medically-prescribed prohibited
substances may be subject to sanctioning unless they have previously
obtained a therapeutic use exemption. This is sensible, constructive
stuff in the WADA Code. When that happens and it is harmonised,
we will be in a safer position than the accidental use perhaps
of something medically-prescribed which is on the list. I quite
like that and I look forward to WADA developing that work.
Q159 Chris Bryant: Taurine? It is just
a factual question, I guess, I do not know what the situation
is as far as taurine is concerned. France and certain states in
the United States of America have taken a different attitude from
Britain as to whether you should be allowed to buy it at all.
Mr Woodhouse: I am not an expert,
I do not know.
Mr Leaver: I am sorry?
| 
