Memorandum submitted by British Swimming
THE CASE FOR A UK INDEPENDENT AGENCY FOR
DOPING CONTROL
BACKGROUND
The United Kingdom has in many ways led the
World in doping control. There is no doubt we have as a nation
played a very important part in developing and implementing Policy
in this important area. The work done by the Doping in Sport Directorate
of UK Sport and prior its formation the Sports Council should
be acknowledged.
However whilst the existing model has supported
British Sport well for many years it is inevitable that from time
to time we should ask is the model right today and will it serve
us well in the future. We have seen many important changes in
this area in recent years and these have led me and others to
challenge the current structure.
The key issues that should be borne in mind are:
1. UK Sport is now itself a Lottery distributor
and a significant and important funder of athletes and Governing
Bodies. It also plays an important role in representing the UK
Government in the International Sports politics arena, particularly
important as we bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games.
2. WADA has now published and the British
Government and the IOC have accepted the new Anti Doping Code.
This code places new and more onerous responsibilities on both
the National Anti Doping Agency and the BOA
3. Athletes will when tested positive challenge
the results sanctions processes involved in court and throughout
the process. All too often Governing Bodies have found their own
rules and processes wanting and the financial burden on fighting
these cases difficult. We have seen in some cases this has brought
Governing Bodies to their knees.
4. Human rights and natural justice are
important principles to consider in dealing with these cases and
all too often the athlete feels that the issues are not being
dealt with fairly.
I would therefore ask some questions:
1. Is it right for the organisation that
funds elite sport to be involved in doping control?
2. Should the same organisation carry out
doping control and decide questions of funding?
3. Governing Bodies have to deal with doping
infractions and sanctions yet we have no recourse to UK Sport
if they have failed to meet their obligations. Can this be right?
4. We may find ourselves in difficulties
with our International Federation on doping cases and now with
WADA, what protection do we have from the cost of dealing with
this?
5. Inevitably when an athlete tests positive
the Media and Press want comments from UK Sport, is it right that
the doping directorate deal with this answering questions on a
speculative basis?
This paper submits that the time is now right
to review the UK structure for Doping Control as many leading
nations have done and seek a better, fairer and more transparent
structure. This should in no way be seen as criticism of UK Sport
and the way it has delivered its service. As was confirmed by
the Chief Executive of UK Sport an independent report prepared
for him by Dr Roger Jackson a world renowned expert on Sport Policy
recommended the establishment of a new independent doping control
agency separate from UK Sport. Clearly UK Sport itself saw the
need in 2001 when this report was commissioned to review the role
of its own doping control directorate.
SOME OPTIONS
Looking around the world there are inevitably
many models as in keeping with UK own sporting development. However
from the small amount of research possible what has emerged is
the following.
1. Many nations reviewing their structures.
2. More nations establishing independent
doping agencies.
3. The responsibility for dealing with cases
being either taken from Governing Bodies or if left with them
they deal with them against a national framework or code.
The following is a sample of some of the more
recent developments in National Anti doping policy developments.
— Australia—Australian
Sports Drug Agency established in 1990 as a commonwealth statutory
authority accounting directly to the Minister of Sport. The agency
undertakes all doping control procedures and education. Whilst
the Australian Sports Commission, the funders of sport, who also
report direct to the Minister of Sport monitors the way National
Sports Organisations deal with doping cases. Clear separation.
— Czech Republic—The National
doping agency was formed by Government decree in January 1995
and report directly to the Deputy Minister in the Dept of Youth
and Sport which is part of the Ministry of Education Youth and
Sport. This agency is again independent of the Sports Assoc and
Olympic Committee.
— Canada—Canadian Centre
for Ethics in Sport established after the Ben Johnson affair deals
with everything in this area doping control results management
and hearings. Considered by some to be the best model.
— Denmark—A pilot project
for four years from 2000 with a doping agency on a collaborative
basis between government and the sports association with the DIF
dealing with cases.
— Germany—A new agency
just formed National Anti Doping Agentur in July 2002 to provide
for independence.
— New Zealand—Changed
in 1988 with legislation in 1995 to establish the New Zealand
doping agency as a crown entity board appointed by the minister
and answerable to him.
— South Africa—Created
in 1997 the South African Institute for drug free sport is accountable
to the Minister of sport and recreation.
— USA—Olympic Paralympic
and Panam sports are obliged to use the USA independent doping
agency that also deals with all cases.
It can be seen there has been considerable change
in this area, the trend is increasingly towards independent statutory
agencies. The reasons for the change in Germany are interesting
and can be summarised as:
1. The existing structure was too complicated
and there was a need to bring the activity into a single agency.
2. A recognition that Doping in sport is
a complex issue involving medicine, pharmacology, toxicology,
social issues and human rights.
3. The issues arising from doping are too
complex for individual Governing Bodies of Sport and makes them
timid in this area. There is a need to be robust and consistent.
4. The consequences of the decisions in
this area are enormous for athletes' sponsors and clubs.
There is no doubt the UK now needs to consider
this issue.
PROPOSAL
1. To call upon the Government to engage
in a programme to establish a new independent statutory anti doping
agency and to strengthen the existing agencies for dealing with
doping cases in a robust and fair way.
| 
