Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport
DRUGS IN SPORT
INTRODUCTION
1. What is the fundamental rationale
for the Government having a drug-free sports policy and for committing
public funds to an agency to undertake the collection and testing
of urine samples from sportsmen and women?
The use of performance enhancing substances
and methods in sport is cheating, unfair and contrary to the spirit
of fair competition. As a result, the Government is fully committed
to eradicating the use of drugs and doping methods in sport. In
addition, drug misuse can be harmful to the competitor's health
or to other competitors in the sport. The use of drugs severely
damages the integrity, image and value of sport, whether or not
the motivation to use drugs is to improve performance.
Sport is international and the problem of doping
is a global one—it is not an issue that can be tackled by
an individual government or sport acting in isolation. In order
effectively to tackle doping, a body is needed that has a UK remit
and which has the authority to engage effectively with the wide
range of sports and international organisations that are concerned
with anti-doping. UK Sport is such a body and the Government,
therefore, believes that the most cost effective way to deliver
a national anti-doping programme is by funding UK Sport to administer
it.
2. Why can this issue, and these activities,
not be left to the governing bodies of sport whose collective
rules and games are at stake? Would public resources be better
directed at drug-free surgeons, police officers and/or airline
pilots?
The Government agrees that the best way for
drugs to be eradicated from sport is for the problem to be owned
by sport itself. However, as explained above, sport is international
in character and doping cannot be effectively addressed at a national
level only. In addition, some sports have a greater capacity than
others to deal with the problem of doping. If sport were left
to tackle this problem on its own, differences in approach would
develop between the response of different sports, resulting in
some athletes being treated unfairly compared to their colleagues
in other sports.
A single body is needed that can both engage
effectively with the international agenda on anti-doping and which,
at national level, can assist sport to tackle doping by undertaking
a comprehensive programme of testing on behalf of all sports and
by producing clearly stated policies and guidance for sport on
results management, appeal systems and sanctions. This approach
promotes consistency and fairness across all sports.
3. What consideration has been given
to concentrating public resources on a system of accreditation
and mechanisms for drug-testing and leaving (or allowing) sports
governing bodies to secure the best value for money that they
can in the (developing) market?
Drugs testing is a process that involves distinct
stages and functions and each of these must adhere with comprehensive
international standards. It is important, therefore, that a comprehensive
system is in place to manage the testing process and to ensure
adherence with appropriate standards.
In addition, all laboratories undertaking anti-doping
tests must receive WADA accreditation. WADA's policy is to accredit
only one laboratory in each country unless a strong case can be
made for a second laboratory. There is limited scope, therefore,
for developing a free market approach to the provision of anti-doping
tests as the costs of sending samples overseas often mitigate
against using a laboratory located in another country. Nonetheless,
the Government recognises the value of competition in the supply
of services and is supportive of the principle of WADA accreditation
for a second UK laboratory.
EXTENT OF
THE PROBLEM
4. What does the available evidence
indicate about the extent of the use of performance-enhancing
drugs in sport; in the UK; internationally?
Over the five year period from 1999-2000 to
2003-04, an average of 98.5% of the samples tested as part of
the UK's anti-doping programmes were negative (a total of 431
adverse findings from 29,114 tests conducted). This shows that
the vast majority of athletes are not attempting to cheat by using
performance enhancing substances and compares favourably with
negative results from other parts of the world, which average
at 98%.
The UK's above average negative sample result
shows that the UK's testing programme is proving an effective
deterrent. However, there is no room for complacency. Last year
showed that we need to remain vigilant, as new performance substances
are specifically developed to avoid detection, as was seen with
tetrahydrogestrinone, better known as THG. UK Sport has completed
its retrospective testing programme for THG which showed that
none of the 1,000 stored samples analysed showed traces of the
drug.
Based on statistics gathered by the International
Olympic Committee, the number of tests analysed worldwide at accredited
laboratories has increased significantly in the past decade. The
number of samples analysed increased from 71,341 in 1990 to 125,701
in 2001, representing a 76% increase. The number of adverse findings
has also increased from 1.1% in 1990 to 2% over the last few years.
(a)
Please provide historical annual data on the number
of positive test results (distinguishing between performance-enhancing
substances or methods and recreational drug use) across the relevant
individual sports giving an indication of (i) the total number
of tests carried out, and (ii) the total number of athletes/sportsmen
and women eligible for testing involved.
A chart is attached showing the total number
of tests per sport for the last five years and from these the
number of positive findings per sport broken down between performance
enhancing and recreational.
(b)
Are different sports defined in terms of risk
of usage of banned substances or methods, please give details?
UK Sport use several criteria to determine the
priority of a sport for testing and the magnitude of the testing
programme. The criteria include (a) the status of the UK
in the sport relating to international events such as the Olympic
and Commonwealth Games; (b) the potential for drug misuse;
(c) financial rewards available to sportspeople such as
prize money and funding from Home Countries Sport Councils; (d)
previous history of doping offences and (e) the impact
of a doping offence on public confidence. As with all aspects
of the UK's drug-free sport programme, the criteria are kept under
review and revised where necessary.
5. Have we got away from the state-sponsored
sport doping activity that has been suspected in the past?
State-sponsored doping has never been an issue
in the UK. The introduction of the WADA Code will set a global
standard that will help to harmonise the different approaches
taken by countries and sports in delivering a uniform approach
to all anti-doping programmes.
(a)
Are there any initiatives in train to overturn
records set by athletes for whom there is now evidence of participation
in such systemic practices?
It has not been necessary to instigate any initiatives
to abolish results or sporting records for UK athletes for the
above reason. The WADA Code does not include articles that specifically
deal with State sponsored doping because of the lack of supporting
data to validate any suspected activity. A few international sports
have considered the possibility of outlining a disqualification
procedure to cater for this type of activity were it to arise,
but to date no practice has been adopted.
6. What research has the Government
(DCMS, DoH or Home Office) commissioned into the use of performance-enhancing
substances outside elite sport?
The Government has not commissioned any specific
research in this area.
(a)
Has any research been undertaken by anyone into
the extent of, for example, steroid use in gyms and clubs at a
grass root level?
The Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport has undertaken
a survey that looked at the nature and extent of substance misuse
among high school students. This research identified a linkage
between school children taking steroids (primarily to improve
their physique) and taking performance enhancing substances late
in life if the same individual went onto to become an elite athlete.
In 1998, Bahrke, Yesalis and Brower in the US
published their research into anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse
and performance enhancing drugs among adolescents. This research
showed that American adolescents use a variety of drugs and supplements
including anabolic steroids to improve their sports performance
and physical appearance. Rates for steroid use ranged between
4% and 12% for male adolescents and between 0.5% and 2% for female
adolescents.
One of the benefits of the WADA Code is that
research undertaken by other organisations and governments will
be more readily available to all national anti-doping organisations.
WADA is in the process of collecting data on several sociological
research projects which will benefit the content of programmes
designed to educate the wider public about the risks associated
with the taking of performance enhancing substances.
(b)
Has any research been undertaken into links between
the supply of performance-enhancing substances and the supply
of other illegal drugs?
HM Customs and Excise figures show that in 2001
approximately 100,000 steroid tablets were seized, significantly
increasing to 800,000 tablets in 2002 and decreasing to 300,000
tablets in 2003.
Customs' information for 2002-03 shows that,
as far as steroid seizures are concerned, there were no other
drugs involved. In 2003-04, there were a few cases of multi-commodity
seizures where steroids were seized with other Class C drugs.
However, as these were postal seizures and the quantities were
relatively small it was not possible to determine whether these
drugs were for personal use or supply (it is necessary to determine
that the possession of steroids is for supply in order to establish
that a criminal offence has been committed).
The Department of Health's report of 2003, entitled
"Dangerousness of Drugs", which was prepared by the
National Addiction Centre, suggests that, despite inconclusive
evidence being available, there is a link between the consumption
of anabolic-androgenic steroids with that of stimulants.
We are not aware of any definitive estimates
that have been produced about the impact that performance enhancing
substances have on public health. However, evidence for the range
of harmful effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids and some of
the prohibited stimulants have been reviewed and the implications
are summarised in the "Dangerousness of Drugs". The
health risks include mental illness, respiratory, heart and kidney
disease, and, with prolonged use, combining with other substances
and/or overdosing, leading in some cases to death.
Several papers have been published mainly in
medical journals about the known and likely health risks that
elite and recreational athletes subject themselves to in taking
prohibited substances, such as anabolic steroids and creatine.
For example, Gruber's research paper in 2000 titled "Psychiatric
and medical effects of anabolic-androgenic steroid use in women";
Ciapponi and Fahey's update on "Health risks of anabolic
steroids" in 2003; and the "Health risks of selected
performance enhancing drugs" by Chyka, published in 2003.
7. WHAT
INITIATIVES HAVE
BEEN UNDERTAKEN
WITH THE
AIM OF
PROMOTING DRUG-FREE
(EG. STEROID-FREE)
ZONES IN
PUBLIC AND
PRIVATELY FUNDED
SPORTS FACILITIES
IN THE
COMMUNITY?
As part of the 2004 European Year of Education
Through Sport, UK Sport will launch a European Commission funded
project called "Start Clean". This project aims to build
awareness and appreciation of the importance of drug-free sport
in 13 to 17 year olds across the UK by the use of a range of cross-curricular
activities.
Activities will help to improve self-confidence,
respect for health, commitment to personal achievement and analytical
and problem solving skills. The Start Clean programme will take
place in the classroom and in a sporting context.
8. ARE
THERE ANY
CO-OPERATIVE
MECHANISMS BETWEEN
DCMS AND DOH
(IN PARTICULAR
THE MHRA) FOR
REGULATING OR
ASSESSING THE
LIKELIHOOD OF
PHARMACEUTICALS
AND/OR
MEDICAL DEVICE
DEVELOPMENT BEING
USED OR
ABUSED FOR
THE PURPOSES
OF ATHLETIC
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT?
There are no mechanisms in place at present
between DCMS and the Department of Health on this matter.
9. HAS
ANY RESEARCH
BEEN UNDERTAKEN
INTO THE
IMPACT ON
YOUNG PEOPLE,
PARTICULARLY UP
AND COMING
SPORTS PERFORMERS,
OF HIGH-PROFILE
DRUG USE
CASES?
Ethically fair sport is not only about the battle
against drugs misuse. UK Sport's Sporting Conduct initiative
aims to help individual sports find practical and effective means
of improving standards of conduct both on and off the field of
play. UK Sport has carried out a series of spectator surveys on
fair play issues at high profile events including football, cricket,
golf, rugby union, rugby league and tennis which will form the
basis of developing their Sporting Conduct initiative.
In July 2002, the Canadian Center for Ethics
in Sport (CCES) published a public survey which showed that Canadians
across the country agreed that sport is among the most positive
forces in the lives of Canada's youth, more so than influences
such as school, friends, peers, religion and the music/entertainment
industry. Only the family was found to be more influential in
shaping the development of youngsters. Interestingly, the Canadian
public was more apt to express concern about performance enhancing
drugs than about other ethical issues in sport such as harassment,
intolerance and racism.
THE INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSE
10. IS
THE WADA APPROACH
APPROPRIATE AND
PROPORTIONAL? DOES
THE PUSH
TOWARDS HARMONISATION,
AND A
SINGLE PRESCRIBED
LIST HAVE
THE SUPPORT
OF THE
GOVERNMENT?
The Government has given its full support to
the development of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) since its
inception by the International Olympic Committee in November 1999.
WADA represents a truly global partnership between national governments
and the sporting movement. Drug misuse in sport is an international
problem and, as such, WADA is uniquely placed to co-ordinate and
provides a lead in the international fight against drugs in sport.
The WADA Code is designed to harmonise the principles
behind testing processes, hearings, sanctions and list of prohibited
substances and methods across all sports and countries. We strongly
believe that all athletes, particularly those competing at an
international level, will benefit from uniform processes, irrespective
of which country they are training or competing in.
This is why, in March 2003, the UK along with
51 other governments, signed the Copenhagen Declaration (as of
March 2004, 103 countries have signed the Declaration). This is
a political document through which governments signal their intention
formally to recognise and implement the Code.
This is also why the UK Government is now playing
an active part in the development of the new Global Convention
on Anti-Doping being developed under the auspices of UNESCO. This
new Convention will provide a legal instrument to recognise the
role of WADA and the WADA Code and set out the role of governments
on issues such as research, education and capacity building in
anti-doping organisations. Once it is agreed, the UNESCO Convention
will replace the Copenhagen Declaration.
11. DOES
THE WADA CODE,
AND THE
WADA LIST, REPRESENT
AN APPROPRIATE
RESPONSE TO
THE ISSUES
WITHIN ALL
SPORTS?
For the first time, the WADA Code requires adherence
to an agreed set of international standards on issues such as
sample collection, doping control, banned substances and the granting
of therapeutic use exemptions. These standards outline a set of
uniform mechanisms to harmonise drug testing methods and practices
across all sports and all countries. As a result, athletes, no
matter what sport and where they compete, can be assured that
the same standards and procedures will apply. We believe that
this is an essential step in the fight against doping.
As a result, the UK's national anti-doping organisation,
UK Sport, is working with sport's national governing bodies, athletes
and other sporting organisations to rollout a revised UK anti-doping
programme which will be fully compliant with the WADA Code in
accordance with the timetable laid out by WADA.
Sports organisations have also been asked separately
to accept the WADA Code. To date, the vast majority of sports
international federations, the major Games organisations (such
as the International Olympic Committee and the Commonwealth Games
Federation), the national anti-doping organisations and the Olympic
committees have accepted the Code. The sporting community's acceptance
of the Code gives a clear indication both of their commitment
to the universal fight against doping and their view on the appropriateness
of the Code.
12. THE
WADA LIST OF
BANNED SUBSTANCES
INCLUDES A
NUMBER OF
MAINLY RECREATIONAL
DRUGS. IS
THIS APPROPRIATE
IF THE
AIM OF
THE INITIATIVE
IS TO
COMBAT CHEATING
IN SPORT?
The Government believes that recreational drugs
should be included in the list of prohibited substances. Some
recreational drugs are prohibited because it is unlawful under
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for the public, including athletes,
to possess or supply them.
Before a substance is classified by WADA as
a prohibited substance and is included on WADA's List of prohibited
substances, it is assessed against three key criteria. The prohibited
recreational drugs on the List meet at least two of the three
criteria in that they pose a danger to the health of athletes
and have the potential to bring the sport into disrepute and/or
influence the behaviour of young people.
(a)
How do you respond to the argument that the use
of recreational (ie performance-inhibiting) drugs is detected
in some sportsmen and women as a by-product of out-of-competition
testing and is somewhat inequitable as the general population
is not subject to such tests?
The majority of substances that are usually considered
to be social are not tested for during out-of-competition testing
programmes, as these substances are not considered prohibited
in sport in an out-of-competition context. Specifically, marijuana,
cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines and narcotics such as morphine
do not feature on the out-of-competition List of prohibited substances.
However, we do believe it is important to test
for these drugs in competition. Use of recreational substances
can inhibit concentration and speed of reaction whilst increasing
aggression, feelings of euphoria and invincibility. These effects
can put the safety of the sportsperson, other competitors and
those around him or her at risk. In addition, some recreational
substances can have a performance enhancing effect and they can
be used to mask the presence of other performance enhancing substances
in the body.
(b)
Should the response, treatment, and particularly
the penalties attached to recreational drug-use be different to
the response to a positive test for a performance-enhancing substance?
The taking of any prohibited substance whether
performance enhancing or social is a violation of the rules laid
down by sport and, as a result, the Government believes that samples
that show adverse findings for prohibited social drugs should
carry the same sanction as performance enhancing substances. Except
in cases where an athlete has been granted a therapeutic use exemption
(that is, permission to use for therapeutic purposes, substances
or methods whose use is otherwise prohibited).
Sporting heroes wield significant influence on
defining what is acceptable behaviour. If sportspeople received
a lesser sanction for recreational drugs, we would be sending
a message that taking illegal drugs is more acceptable than taking
performance enhancing ones. We believe it is important to send
a consistent message about the use of drugs, which is that we
want UK competitors to perform well in their sport without resorting
to any drugs whether they give a competitive edge or not.
13. HAVE
RECENT CASES,
PARTICULARLY AMONG
TENNIS PLAYERS,
THROWN UP
SERIOUS CHALLENGES
TO THE
"STRICT LIABILITY"
APPROACH (UNDER
WHICH ATHLETES
ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR WHAT
GOES INTO
THEIR BODIES)
ON WHICH
THE WADA CODE
IS FIRMLY
BASED?
We support the view that an effective anti-doping
programme needs to be based on the strict liability principle.
The WADA Code allows that if an athlete can establish that he
or she bears no fault or negligence for the presence of a prohibited
substance, then the normal sanction to be applied under the Code
may be reduced or eliminated. However, because of the strict liability
principle, the athlete would still technically have committed
an anti-doping violation.
The recent high profile doping cases involving
tennis players have, therefore, given rise to some concern about
how the "strict liability" principle is being applied.
Our understanding is that the Association of Tennis Professionals's
(ATP) ruling is that the players had unwittingly taken contaminated
supplements handed out by ATP staff and, therefore, the players
were not at fault. However, ATP found the players not guilty of
an anti-doping violation, which does not appear to be in accordance
with the Code. The Government, therefore, supports WADA's decision
to review the facts surrounding the cases involving Greg Rusedski
and that of seven other tennis players who were exonerated. The
ATP is also expanding its efforts to determine the cause of low-level
nandrolone presence in test results. We look forward to the findings
of both organisations.
14. DO
THE ISSUES
RAISED BY
THE POTENTIAL
FOR CONTAMINATED
SUPPLEMENTS REPRESENT
A SIGNIFICANT
NEW CHALLENGE
FOR THE
WADA APPROACH? HAS
THERE BEEN
ANY CONSIDERATION
FOR AN
ACCREDITED LIST
OF SUPPLEMENT
SUPPLIERS (EITHER
BY WADA AND/OR
UK SPORT FOR
THE UK)?
The potential for sport preparations and nutritional
supplements containing prohibited ingredients or being contaminated
during the manufacturing process is a matter for concern. The
strict liability approach to drugs in sport means that an athlete
may unknowingly commit a doping offence by taking sport preparations
and nutritional supplements.
This is because, at present, no guarantee can
be given that any particular supplement including vitamins and
minerals, ergogenic aids and herbal remedies is free from prohibited
substances, as these products are not licensed and, therefore,
not subject to the same strict manufacturing and labelling requirements
as licensed medicines.
UK Sport recognises the complexity of this issue
and advice for athletes, athlete support staff and governing bodies
is included as part of their ongoing education programme. WADA
and UK Sport have strongly advised athletes and sports bodies
to be extremely cautious about the use of any supplement and suggest
that athletes focus on eating a balanced diet, taking adequate
rest and proper training.
In terms of legislation, the European Directive
2002/46/EC on food supplements was adopted in May 2002. The Food
Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 which implements the European
Directive in England will come into force on 1 August 2005. Similar
Regulations have been made in respect of the devolved administrations.
The Directive is a positive measure and goes some way to rationalise
the inconsistencies with the labelling of sport supplements. However,
it is not exhaustive as it can only be enforced for sport supplements
imported within the European Union and does not address the issue
of possible contamination during manufacturing or packing.
DCMS has also recently begun working with the
Food Standards Agency and UK Sport to see how we can arrive at
a better solution to this problem. In the absence of an internationally
approved quality assurance standard for the manufacture of sport
supplements and their labelling, however, it is difficult to see
how an accredited list approach can be made to work. In the meantime,
UK Sport is looking at ways it can increase the scope of its athlete
education programme about the realities of supplements.
In addition, WADA is hosting an experts symposium
on sport supplements on 30-31 May with the aim of developing a
better understanding of the difficulties that result due to the
absence of universal controls over labelling and manufacturing.
SPORT'S
GOVERNING BODIES
15. There is a great variation in the character,
approach and resources of sports governing bodies. How consistent
has the response of these bodies to the Government's stance on
drug-free sport?
The Government is delighted with the commitment
of sport's governing bodies to drug-free sport, particularly,
in embracing the WADA Code. We recognise that for some of the
governing bodies who have limited capacity, it is difficult for
them to deliver their own drug-testing programme due to limited
resources and expertise. However, that does not deter from their
willingness to embrace drug-free sport.
In recognition of the differences in capacity
across the various governing bodies of sport, the Government funds,
through UK Sport, a £3 million per annum programme to help
governing bodies modernise their structures and practices. The
purpose of this programme is to help equip NGBs to deal with all
aspects of proper governance for their sport and this can include
increasing their capacity to deal with issues such as their obligations
on anti-doping.
The Government is also mindful that a national
governing body's ability to respond effectively to drug-free sport
can be restricted by the actions of their international federation.
A sport with a strong, organised international federation will
always find it easier to implement their own national processes
when receiving clear and full support and guidance from their
international federation.
Through UK Sport acting as the UK's national
anti-doping organisation we can be assured that all athletes across
all sports have every opportunity to train and compete in an environment
in which performance enhancing substances, social drugs and doping
methods are not tolerated. We appreciate that some bodies have
particular difficulties or issues, which in the majority of cases,
UK Sport has been able to accommodate. The focus should be on
a uniform outcome where athletes are treated fairly and consistently
in accordance with the articles of the WADA Code.
16. THE
GOVERNMENT, AND
THE NATIONAL
LOTTERY, CHANNELS
A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF
THE PUBLIC'S
MONEY TO
SPORT IN
A NUMBER
OF WAYS,
EG INDIVIDUAL
ELITE ATHLETES,
FACILITIES, SUPPORT
FOR GOVERNING
BODIES AND
GRASSROOTS PARTICIPATION.
IS THE
PROVISION OF
THIS FUNDING
CONTINGENT ON
SATISFACTORY DRUG-FREE
PERFORMANCE, POLICIES
AND MECHANISMS
ON A
CONSISTENT AND
COMPREHENSIVE BASIS?
It is a condition of all sport councils' funding
that governing bodies and athletes are required to follow the
national anti-doping policy and procedures set out by UK Sport.
Failure to do so carries the risk of funding being suspended,
reduced or withdrawn.
PMP REVIEW
17. The PMP review of UK Sport has been published.
What is the Government's response to the PMP's recommendations?
The Government welcomes the PMP report as an
independent review of the UK's national anti-doping organisation,
UK Sport. The Sports Cabinet (which is a biannual meeting of the
five Ministers responsible for sport in the United Kingdom) approved
the recommendations of the PMP report at its meeting on 20 April
but concurred with the recommendation of UK Sport's Council that
further work should be done to flesh out the recommendation concerning
changes to the governance arrangements for the Drug Free Sport
Directorate.
The review has clearly shown that UK Sport is
best placed to achieve transparency, accountability and value
for money in delivering the UK's anti-doping policy. Appraisal
of UK Sport's current performance was shown to be generally good,
as demonstrated by the results of the online survey in which 75%
of the respondents felt that UK Sport had been successful or very
successful in taking forward the fight against doping in sport.
The independent review also found that there is no tangible evidence
of unethical behaviour at UK Sport in the Performance Team or
Drug-Free Sport Directorate. Any perceived conflict of interest
has been laid to rest by the review finding that comprehensive
procedures and checks that meet ISO standards are in place to
ensure confidentiality and best practice.
ROLE MODELS
1. The Government clearly recognises that
sportsmen and women are significant role models for young people
(eg DCMS press release, 30 May 2002). What initiatives are in
place (or under consideration), with the direct or indirect support
of Government (or sports lottery distributors), to capitalise
on this factor to encourage people:
(c)
To reach goals, and overcome hurdles, which are
not necessarily sport-related.
The Government firmly believes that the value
of sport goes way beyond personal enjoyment and fulfilment. It
is a powerful tool that can help the Government to achieve a number
of ambitious goals, including getting the nation more physically
active to improve health and helping to generate national pride
and identity. Sport gives young people confidence and purpose
to divert them from drugs and crime by teaching them self discipline
and teamwork.
Sport is based upon many skills that can be
applied to everyday life, such as, dedication, persistence, determination,
teamwork, time management and meeting a challenge in the face
of adversity. We fully recognise that most youngsters will not
progress to become the next national or international champion.
However, the life skills acquired through participation in sport
will help them to undertake tertiary education, take up employment
and pursue a successful career.
Sportspeople are influential role models for
young people. Their behaviour has a significant impact on young
people as they aspire to emulate their sporting heroes. To this
end, Sport England, launched in 2002 the Sporting Champions
initiative which uses sporting heroes and emerging talent to inspire
and motivate young people to become and remain involved in sport
as a lifelong activity.
The scheme is aimed at primary and secondary
school children and involves a programme of visits to schools
and youth organisations throughout England. The sporting heroes
represent Britain's emerging sporting talent through to world
and Olympic champions who speak to groups of youngsters, at for
example, school assemblies, about their experiences of training
and competition. The sporting heroes provide coaching demonstrations,
interactive classroom based discussion, presenting awards, signing
autographs and showing youngsters their medals and cups.
Youngsters are encouraged to keep abreast of
the latest news and programmes by visiting the Sporting Champions
website (www.sportingchampions.org.uk) which includes advice from
sporting heroes on how to get involved in sport, tips and advice.
Following the success of Sporting Champions in England, sportscotland
adopted the programme with minor adjustments and this was launched
at the end of 2003.
2. WHAT
LEVEL OF
PUBLIC RESOURCES
ARE COMMITTED
TO SUCH
INITIATIVES?
Sport England, allocated £300,000 of exchequer
funding to the Sporting Champions programme in 2003-04.
The first year of operation (2002-03) resulted
in 365 visits and, in the second year up to February, there have
been 339 visits of which 101 involved visits to primary schools,
95 visits to secondary schools and 30 schools where both age groups
were represented. So far, Sport England has recruited 398 English
sporting champions (plus 48 champions recruited through the Scottish
scheme) across 69 sports (15 sports represented on the Scottish
scheme).
The programme during year 1 reached 82,977 children
of which 41,358 were boys and 41,619 were girls. Year 2 shows
an increase of around 10% on the previous year increasing the
number of children that have benefited from the programme to 91,840,
of which 45,255 were boys and 46,585 were girls.
April 2004
| 
