Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 15 July 2004