Examination of Witnesses (Questions 251-259)
27 APRIL 2004
Rt Hon Richard Caborn, and Mr Stephen Hodgson
Chairman: Good morning, Minister. Thank
you very much. Thank you for arriving bright and early too, so
that we can get a good start. I will ask Michael Fabricant to
open the questions.
Q251 Michael Fabricant: Good morning.
Our last session may have been early, but it was full of interesting
information. Three elements came out of it which tied in as well
with evidence we had received over the previous couple of weeks.
One was that it was felt desirable if there was some sort of standardisation
on supplements. Mark Richardson talked about there being a kite-mark,
if you like, so that you knew if you took that supplement it would
be drug-free. The second point was the feeling that there should
be an independent tribunal which could deal with drugs cases rather
than having an organisation that does the testing, advises the
defendant but also does the prosecution, which is the sort of
arrangement we have at present. The third point that was made
was that where sports are receiving public money, and most of
them are receiving public money, somebody, and I suggest it might
be the Government, should bang heads together to see that there
is a consistent scheme whereby all sports in the United Kingdom
are tested regularly without advanced warning and at the same
time ensuring that there is going to be a belief that in sport
in the UK it is drug-free. May I ask the Minister: how do you
feel about the idea of banging those heads together?
Mr Caborn: I am all for banging
heads together, Mr Fabricant, as you well know. I think we have
been doing that in sport over this recent past in a number of
areas and the least of those. Mr Chairman, Mr Kaufman, can I just
lay out broadly where the Government is coming from. I think it
would be useful. I think this thing has to be put into some context
of where we have come from, where we are and, indeed, where we
are going to, and, I must admit, I have found it incredibly intriguing
since I have been in this job in the last couple of years or so.
If one looks back to when the whole system of anti-doping began
I think you go back to the mid-1920s when the IAAF (the International
Amateur Athletics Federation) started to look at this very seriously
and was the first international sports federation to ban the use
of doping. Then, up to the 1970s, a number of international sports
federations engaged in that and it became a little clearer. I
think the problem was at that time that the anti-doping affairs
were broadly restricted to the Council of Europe, and I think
it was then into the 1980s when we saw further developments, but,
again, it was quite fragmented. We got the IOC, we got a number
of sports federations and, indeed, individual governments coming
together, but unfortunately, because there was no resulting clear
definition, policy and sanctions there that we saw the courts
had a pretty big aid there, in fact they have taken some of those
institutions apart, and it goes to the politics of the global
international polity at that stage who were playing a significant
role in sport. I think managing the politics of the Cold War has
probably been slightly more important than managing the politics
of sport and I think, as we knew at that time, sport was being
used in the political arenas in a way that it had not before.
I think then really credit due to the IOC that in 1999 they then
had I think the first major conference on doping in sport, and
that was followed very quickly in November 1999 by the setting
up of WADA in Lausanne. I think from then on we have been able
to start discussing this issue in a very transparent and, I hope,
serious way. If I could, Mr Kaufman, put on record my support
and indeed congratulations to Jack Rogge and Dick Pound for the
efforts they have made in this area through the IOC and through
WADA and also the role that the UK Government has played: because
I was present at the Moscow conference in December 2002 and it
was at that that, I believe, we were at the forefront of broking
a large part and a significant start in setting up the common
principles of inter-governmental co-operation on anti-doping and
this was followed in the Copenhagen declaration of March 2003
when we got governments to agree to these basic principles. So
we linked in the political clout, I think, to this part of sport.
I think the other area that has been of some concern internationally,
because some governments incorporate anti-doping issues into domestic
legislation: we have taken a different approach to that, indeed,
may I say, with many other governments as well, because we view
anti-doping not as a criminal matter but as a contractual one
for sport itself. Indeed, in order to send a very strong signal
to sport, I made it clear at Copenhagen, Mr Chairman, that we
said receipt of public funding by national governing bodies was
conditional on their acceptance of the Code. So I think part of
the question that you were asking, Mr Fabricant, about how you
can use public funding to lever, we use that quite successfully;
but we are now moving on again in the continuing refinement of
this because my officials are working closely with other governments
under the auspices of UNESCO to draft a legally binding agreement
to be fully implemented, we hope, by the Turin Winter Olympics.
So I think that we now see a continuing development in that, but
there are two areas that I think we are very clear on, that is
the division of responsibility. The only way that we believe you
can eradicate athletes from the use of drugs is to make them totally
and utterly responsible for whatever substances go into their
body and for sport to manage that problem, and, indeed, that should
be done inside sports. It is the misconduct of sport. Can I just,
as it were, complete this picture? I think we have been quite
successful in the UK. In 2002-03 UK Sport undertook something
in excess of 6,000 tests in more than 40 sports, and that came
out at 1.21% of those findings, but that was below the 2% global
average, and I think that that is credit due to the way that governing
bodies have carried this out and, indeed, UK Sport. I just say
finally to place this whole in context, while rooting out cheats,
and that we are going to do in sport, the vast majority of our
sportsmen and women are a credit to the sport and, indeed, in
many, many cases an inspiration to the nation. On the question
of food supplements, we recognise this is a complex area and indeed
possesses significant hazards, but, as I have said, I think that
we need now to look at this area of supplements. We have got the
clear position of WADA, but it is an area (supplements) on which
we need to have further developments. We are, as I said, from
1999 moving this agenda quite quickly, and I know there is a lot
more work to be done and I think this area of supplements is one
that WADA and, indeed, the national governments and governing
bodies need to spend a little more time on. So it is a problem
and I think it is something that we need to look at further.
Q252 Michael Fabricant: You said, or
certainly the Department said in an internal memo to the Select
Committee, that there are no mechanisms in place at the moment
for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to liaise with
the Department of Health regarding supplements. You said this
is an area which needs to be got a grip of. Is this something
that you will be moving on now rapidly?[1]
Mr Caborn: I would hope so. As
I have said, I think that throughout the discussions we have had
with WADA it is an area, and indeed I have been discussing this
with a number of organisations—UK Sport, John Scott and
also with the English Institute for Sport—because I think
it is important that, whilst we have come off the basic principle,
it is the responsibility of the athlete for whatever substance
they put into their bodies. Equally so, we have a responsibility
to make sure that the education programme, the labelling, and,
indeed, we gave as much information as is possible to that athlete
to make a sound judgment, and that is a responsibility of all
of us in authority whether it be sport or in government or in
health, and that is what we will endeavour to do.
Q253 Michael Fabricant: So, in effect,
you would be producing an approved list by insisting that, just
like with pharmaceuticals, the ingredients are clearly labelled?
Mr Caborn: Absolutely. I think
labelling is crucially important in this area, and, as WADA has
got, as you well know, a list of banned substances, then I think
in terms of supplements we need to look further at this area as
well.
Q254 Michael Fabricant: The second point
that was raised was the question of consistency in testing across
different sports. With some sports in the United Kingdom there
is no notice given, someone has to immediately give a sample;
in other sports people are given notice that they are going to
be tested. Do you agree with the view of UK Athletics, and it
is also my view too, that there should be consistency between
all sports in the manner in which the testing is given?
Mr Caborn: The testing distribution
plan on anti-doping—I will read out to you what we are saying
on this and then I will give you my interpretation on it: "The
testing issue and plan for anti-doping organisations shall in
co-ordination with other anti-doping organisations" . . .
Q255 Michael Fabricant: I cannot hear
a word of this, to be honest with you. Could you either speak
up or wait until the bell goes? (Short pause)
Mr Caborn: Article 5.1 on testing
is very clearly laid down in the WADA Code, and I think, as it
were, paraphrasing the whole lot, the plan is to implement an
effective number of in-competition and out of competition testing,
but my view is that the deterrent factor upon this is the fact
that in the back of the mind of the athlete is that at any time
they may well be tested for drugs, and I think that is a very
important part of the structure that we have in place. That is
the deterrent factor. It has to be transparent, it has to be fair
and it has to be consistent, but we will continue to work through
that. I think there are some sports that have had difficulty in
the recent past. They are reviewing some of those procedures,
and that I welcome, and I hope that they are all trying to achieve
the common aim, and that is a fair implementation of the WADA
Code right across sport. So consistency is important; indeed WADA
ask for that consistency and we are working towards that.
Q256 Michael Fabricant: I accept your
view that this should not be enshrined in legislation—if
that is your view, I would not argue with it—but it does
seem to me you are taking a rather hands-up approach. You are
saying what you would wish to see happen. I am not convinced that
you are actively ensuring that it will happen when you say that
you want to see a consistent approach across all different sports
in the United Kingdom. Could you not be a little bit more proactive?
Mr Caborn: I suppose you could
be more proactive, but what were the results? I think in our memorandum
we sent you over the last five years—one of your questions
was: what is the position over the last five years, and we have
set those out—and, as I said in my opening remarks, I think
in terms of the UK we have come third or fourth in terms of the
number of tests carried out, slightly just over 6,000. The rate
of positive findings on that is below the international level.
I would think that we are fairly consistent across the board and
the system is working reasonably well.
Q257 Michael Fabricant: That is not the
evidence we are getting, you see. I am not saying that we are
ridden with drugs. Far from it. What I am saying is that we are
inconsistent in the way the regime of drug-testing goes on. It
is different in some UK sports from other UK sports, and that
is where I am suggesting to you you could be more pro-active to
make sure there is fairness. After all, it is unfair to a sportsman,
surely, that he should be more rigorously tested in one sport
rather than another?
Mr Caborn: Yes. First of all,
the WADA Code lays down very clearly how the consistency should
be developed across sports, and to some extent we are, I think,
one would say, in the reasonably early days of the implementation.
I think over the last five years the figures you have got since
1999 are fairly consistent and I do not see any major blips in
that. That is not to say that we do not keep constant vigil over
that, but I think the results that are coming out are showing
that it is working, that there is a consistency across that. If
we could obviously eradicate drugs altogether, whether they be
the performance enhancing drugs or the recreational drugs, and
remember we are counting both in the figures, then obviously that
is our achievement, but at the moment we are coming well below
the international average in terms of positive findings in the
UK, so I think the system is broadly working.
Q258 Michael Fabricant: Let us move away
from that, because I do not think we are going to agree on that
necessarily; but do you see a role for government, perhaps, or
at least a role in your department for seeing consistency in the
way that hearings are performed? For example, we heard from Mark
Richardson before you came how UK Athletics were the people who
detected the drug, how they gave him advice and help, which was
very welcome, but at the same time they were the prosecutors too;
and we have heard last week from the Sports Disputes Resolution
Panel and they might be the embryo, if you like, of a separate
third-party who could conduct these hearings. Would you like to
be a little bit proactive in that direction and ensure that maybe
there could be a panel, maybe the SDRP but may be another panel,
which could act as an independent tribunal for all sports in the
UK?
Mr Caborn: That is under active
discussion at the moment. I think, first of all, the principle
is that WADA is saying there has to be an independent impartial
appeals process.
Q259 Michael Fabricant: For all sports?
Mr Caborn: Yes, and UK Sport at
the moment have commissioned a piece of work on that. I think
that UK Sport is coming to see you at one your hearings and you
may want to pursue that further, but they are now looking at how
they can evolve that independent and impartial appeals process.
As I say, they have commissioned a piece of work through SDRP
and we will wait for that, but I think it is an area, Mr Fabricant,
you are right, that further work needs to be done on to make sure
it is transparent and consistent and that there is the independence
in that, and that is what is being looked at.
1 Footnote by witness: DCMS and the Food Standards
Agency are working together on the issue of supplements. Mr Fabricant
here paraphrases the Department's evidence relating to whether
DCMS, the Department of Health and the MHRA have joint mechanisms
on the specific issue of the potential abuse of new pharmaceuticals
and medical devices for the purposes of enhancing sporting performance. Back
|
