Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-295)
27 APRIL 2004
Rt Hon Richard Caborn, and Mr Stephen Hodgson
Q280 Chris Bryant: But in competition
or out of competition for a footballer when they are playing football
every week at least once, what is the difference?
Mr Caborn: The difference is that
if you are taking recreational drugs when you are in competition
that can have an effect of making that particular sports person
not as responsible as they ought to be when they are in competition.
When they are training, out of competition, WADA have taken the
view that they do not need to test for recreational drugs.
Q281 Chris Bryant: I can see that if
you are narrowly looking at the issue of whether this is performance
enhancing, but we are also looking at the senior athletes in the
wider sense as role models in society in particular for young
people, and since they occupy at least 40% of all newspapers and
many people start reading the newspapers from the back, not from
the front, what footballers, what sports people do and say in
their private lives is clearly as fascinating to the media and
to Britain as what they do which directly affects their performance
on the pitch?
Mr Caborn: I think that is true,
but again, if one could put that into context, as I said in my
opening remarks, of all the tests that we have done in the last
year to 2003 over 6,000 of those it was 1.2 and—I am just
flicking through the figures here—in terms of the recreational
drugs that were found it was round about 12, I think it is, out
of the whole of that were the recreational drugs.
Q282 Chris Bryant: But that is when they
are not testing for them?
Mr Caborn: That was in competition;
but I am putting that into context of the back pages, which you
are saying, and we are in danger sometimes of making this . .
. . It is important, it is right that we eradicate cheating out
of sport, but, equally, the vast majority of our sportsmen and
women do it drug-free and, indeed, are a credit to sport and also
an inspiration to many in this nation. You are right, we have
to eradicate it, and it may well be if you were doing it for different
reasons and it would be for the social responsibility of those
athletes, not whether it is performance enhancing—that is
what we are trying to find out with the WADA code, then you would
be changing somewhat the reasons why you are doing that testing.
If it is that these people ought to be more socially responsible
and not take recreational drugs and indeed ought to have that
tested for those reasons out of competition, that is an argument,
but it is not one that is accepted today, but it is an argument
that you put, Mr Bryant, and one that could, I think, have some
substance.
Q283 Chris Bryant: But it might be that
the Football Association wanted to maintain its own separate regime
because it reckoned that the reputation of football would be harmed
dramatically if the real truth were known; in particular if they
tried to maintain a notice regime for out of competition testing
for so-called recreational drugs, or is that unfair?
Mr Caborn: I do not know whether
there is any substance to that statement, Mr Kaufman, really.
First of all, football has now signed up to WADA. They know the
implications of signing up to that. If one wanted to take it further,
as Mr Bryant is saying, that you are actually using out competition
testing to find out the use of recreational drugs on athletes,
that is a case. It is not one that has been accepted today, but
it is one that you may well have some . . . . My official is saying
that you can actually test for that, but not for those reasons.
Mr Bryant is making a very specific case here in that he is saying
that athletes who are privileged to be in the position that they
are are role models in society, therefore did not ought to take
recreational drugs and they ought to be tested for recreational
drugs for that reason, not for performance enhancing.
Q284 Chris Bryant: That is the question
I am asking really. That is the question I am asking?
Mr Caborn: How far do you take
the WADA Code to deal with role models in society or against routing
out performance enhancing I think is the question that you pose?
Q285 Chris Bryant: Yes, and I am posing
it to you.
Mr Caborn: Yes. It is interesting,
but one again has to be careful that you are dealing with a very
small percentage of our population which are those who have got
the privilege of being elite athletes, who have come under a new
regime since the late 1990s to be tested, rightly so, for performance
enhancing drugs. If you want to move that into a further area
of, say, they have further responsibilities, i.e. role models
in society and therefore ought to be tested for performance enhancing
drugs, what is the next move, Mr Bryant? Do you say that some
of them do not perform, forget performance enhancing drugs, on
the question of alcohol? Some of these young sports people get
huge amounts of money and can act in irresponsible ways besides
taking recreational drugs. At what point do you stop saying that
we use these mechanisms that we have specifically for performance
enhancing and start using them in other fields? I think you could
be moving into dangerous ground, although I accept that there
is some validity in your argument.
Q286 Chris Bryant: I suppose there is
a similar argument, which is that anybody who is a role model
in society should therefore be subject to the same testing regime,
including politicians and senior captains of industry?
Mr Caborn: I do not think WADA
would want to come into the House of Commons—
Chairman: These people want to enhance
their performance because they are competing with other people
in a physical manner. Politicians, although they are competing
the whole time, do it in a far more nebulous way.
Q287 Chris Bryant: That is certainly
true when you are talking about the performance enhancing elements
of certain drugs, but if you are talking about so-called recreational
drugs which are not performance enhancing, as the Minister . .
. . We can debate this in the Committee! Can I ask a different
question, which is about coaches. One of the questions that was
raised last week was, of course, the individual athlete is the
person who knows what has gone into their body in so far as they
have been given all the information and so on, but the coaches
play a significant role and quite often will be involved in "the
web of deceit" is the phrase that was used earlier this morning.
Do you think that there is more that we could do to make sure
that we have some redress against coaches who enable athletes
to cheat?
Mr Caborn: There are sanctions
in the WADA code, and I think some of those have been taken in
the recent past against coaching and, indeed, administrators in
sport; and I do not disagree with what you are saying, Mr Bryant,
that probably we do need to revisit this and particularly with
the recent incidents we have seen in the US on designer drugs
coming in as well that are deliberately out there to help cheats
to cover up, and that is unacceptable; but I think there are some
basic principles that we would not want to move away from, and
that is on the strict liability. I think that once you move away
from that you are into all sort of grey areas and difficulties
on which, unfortunately, the courts would have an absolute field
day. So we are clear that we want to keep it on strict liability
that they are responsible. Talking about supplements, it is our
responsibility also to make sure on the question of education,
on the question of information, and in this particular area, if
we believe that people are deliberately encouraging athletes to
cheat, then again those sanctions, which are in the WADA Code
in the disciplinary areas, can be used; whether they ought to
be beefed up somewhat is now a question that ought to be going
in front of WADA again, particularly from what we have seen in
the US in the recent past.
Q288 Alan Keen: First of all, can I just
touch on the supplements, not in relation to improving performance,
but, I think your Department has a responsibility for part of
the healthy living encouragement of people. Most of the supplements,
as the Chairman said, are valueless because the same vitamins
can be received from a normal healthy diet. Do you agree that
you have got some responsibility? Encouraging people to take part
in sport is expensive? Should we not let them know that they do
not have to waste their money on useless tablets?
Mr Caborn: Yes, it would be helpful
in that field. Obviously the answer to that, Mr Keen, would be
yes, but again when we are talking about the WADA Code we have
to be clear what the WADA Code is doing. It is talking about the
performance of athletes; it is not talking about you and I playing
for the House of Commons football team or something like that.
We are not talking about that type of thing, but you are right,
there is an area that needs to be investigated, some of it has
been, I think, in Canada on supplements, but it is an area that
has not had a lot of research done into it to be quite honest.
I think labelling is important, and that is why we are keen to
continue the dialogue at the European level to make sure that
labelling does take place—the point that Mr Wyatt was making—and,
indeed, kite-marks is an interesting thought as well, but you
cannot do it in isolation, just the UK doing that. You either
do it at the European level or, indeed, at the international level,
and I think more work needs to be done on the whole question of
supplements anyway.
Q289 Alan Keen: Most, and I think rightly
so, sporting bodies are an arm's length from DCMS and I think
it would be ludicrous for you to try and run some of those sports,
but there are some issues where I would have thought that DCMS
had a direct responsibility to pull things together, and drugs
is one, is it not? Do you feel that you have a responsibility
also for sports people as role models? I am not talking about
sports people taking drugs, I am talking about behaviour. Do you
feel you have some responsibility?
Mr Caborn: Yes. We do have some
responsibility there. I think, as you know, Mr Keen, at the moment
on the whole question of sport development we are trying to drive
up participation in sport. There is no doubt it is all about policies
and the restructuring of sport and governing bodies, cultures,
what we are doing in schools, is to drive up participation in
sport. We acknowledge that if we do that we will only be reaching
somewhere round about 9% or 10% of the physical activity of the
nation, so another 90% are in other areas, and that is under active
discussion across government through the Activities Coordinating
Team (ACT) and where we have a whole series of strands of work
that we are doing in trying to look at how we can get the nation
more active, and in that area it may well be that we do look at
this area of food supplements because people can be misled by
some of the advertising that is taking place on some of the supplements,
what they can do for the body, what they are doing in terms of
the activity and the well-being of a person. I think it may be
that we have to look at this through the Activities Coordinating
Team which does coordinate across nine departments of state. Obviously
it is co-chaired with Melanie Johnson and myself, Department of
Health and DCMS.
Q290 Alan Keen: I have played football
and cricket with you and I know what a wonderful role model you
are!
Mr Caborn: I am doing the half-marathon
on Sunday and I am hoping all these journalists will be supporting
me!
Q291 Alan Keen: Both of us are able to
use, you know, off views in answer when the referee criticises
us for a late tackle! I am using this inquiry, I am extending
it slightly for role models to be not just talking about athletes
taking drugs, but role models, athletes and sports people as role
models for kids. We have seen some particularly bad behaviour
on the football field in the professional game over the last 12
months or so, and before that, of course. You could almost put
a new event in the Olympics, one for diving in the water, one
just diving. We have got some experts. Do you think you have got
a role in encouraging professional football to improve their act?
Mr Caborn: Very much so. You are
absolutely right, Mr Keen, when I go round the country and talk
to a lot of teachers, they say what happens on the football field
on a Saturday afternoon is replicated in the playground on Monday
morning, and some of it is not very desirable as far as sport
is concerned. I did, the season before last, write to the Chairmen
of all the professional football teams asking them to at least
raise this issue, and I was doing it from the background of what
teachers were telling me of how their pupils were reacting in
response to what they had seen in the professional game. I do
know the FA take this very seriously. As I say, I did write to
all the Chairmen of the professional footballs clubs asking to
raise it both with the manager and the players: because I do think
they are role models. There is no doubt about that. What we are
doing probably a little away from football, is looking at UK Sport
and Sport England working together on Sporting Champions, and
that is encouraging our athletes to take a very proactive role
in the community; and in 2003 they actually, through the Sporting
Champions, reached some 83,000 children. I can tell you also that
as we are looking at how we fund elite athletes post Athens and
Beijing, because that is the period that we are looking at at
the moment, that part of that agreement for world class performance
may be an agreement that these athletes who are receiving, in
some cases, quite substantial sums of money on world class performance
will be putting some of that back in by joining the Sporting Champions
Scheme in a much more organised and managed way. I think to some
extent a lot of our athletes would do that. I do not think they
have had the opportunity, because we have not had a system in
place, to do it in an effective way, but we are looking at whether
it can be part of the new financial agreement post Athens and
up to Beijing. As I say, the vast majority of our athletes are
delighted to go in and work with young people. They are a great
inspiration. If you ever get the opportunity to go and meet some
of our Olympic champions going round and speaking, they are absolutely
in awe of these people and they are quite significant ones.
Q292 Alan Keen: Have you had a response
back from the FA yet?
Mr Caborn: No. As I said to the
Chairman, I wrote specifically to the Chairmen and I got some
very good responses. I cannot remember which ones they were at
the moment, but if you want I will let you have that information.
Many of the Chairmen of the football clubs said that they would
want players to act more responsibly on the park and they did
take on board the point that they were obviously influential in
their communities and they were role models. Again, I think Mr
Keen, that the vast majority of players do take that responsibility
seriously. Unfortunately, sometimes when there is a misdemeanour
committed it gets blown out of all proportion on the back pages.
Alan Keen: Sometimes it does, sometimes
we just see it with our own eyes on the telly. Anyway, the FA
are coming next week and we will ask them then.
Q293 Charles Hendry: Minister, listening
to some of your replies I get a sense that you are not really
in the driving seat in this and that you are being reactive rather
than proactive. You talk in terms of banning steroids and saying
that it is something you need to discuss with the Home Office
as if it is an issue that you have not thought of before. In terms
of your attitude to supplements you talk about the need to wait
and see what the UK Sport report says before you decide what action
you are going to take. Do you see your role to be a leadership
role on this and to be proactive or do you see it as appropriate
and sufficient just to react to what others are doing?
Mr Caborn: I can assure you that
we have been taking a very, very proactive role, and indeed we
were congratulated by the Chairman of WADA, Dick Pound, in Copenhagen
on the way UK Sport, my officials and indeed the ministerial team
have helped WADA to achieve what it did by getting political agreement
to the WADA Code in a way that many did not expect would happen.
We worked very hard in Moscow and we worked very hard in Copenhagen
and indeed in other international fora around the world because
we believe that what WADA is doing is absolutely right, so I can
assure you that we are 100% behind WADA and, as I have said, we
have been acknowledged for that. If you are now talking about
how do we take it further, and remember we have come a very long
way in a relatively short period of time, we are talking a few
years and this has been a problem that we have had for decades
which has not been able to be resolved, probably because of some
of the political structures we have had internationally, we are
working in that area and we are very, very clear that there is
further work to be done in terms of supplements. However, we are
talking specifically—and this is what I understand Chairman,
this inquiry is about—the operation of WADA, and that is
what I have been instructed all your questions were around and
that is what we have tried to make sure we have answered and answered
fully. There are some problems, there is no doubt about that,
in sport and beyond that need to be addressed, but that is not
necessarily a role just for the DCMS, it is a role for wider government
and, as I said, we are taking that up through labelling, through
the FSA, through the Department of Health and also working continuously
through UK Sport to make sure we refine and, I hope, inform the
decisions of WADA and other international fora in the future.
Q294 Charles Hendry: That is a very helpful
clarification but when we were in Greece recently we were told
by one of the people who had been involved in putting forward
the Athens Olympic bid that they felt that what the IOC would
be looking for from whichever country they gave the 2012 Games
to was for that country to have shown a very strong lead on anti-drugs
measures and they though it was an absolutely fundamental and
crucial issue. Do you feel that you have done enough in this country
to satisfy the IOC?
Mr Caborn: Of course. I do not
think there is any doubt about that. The system we had in for
the Commonwealth Games in Manchester was again well-acknowledged
by all the sporting bodies, including the Commonwealth and the
IOC, and when we ran Birmingham and the IAAF Indoor Championships,
again it was commended for the way we had acted as the agent for
the IAAF in detecting drugs, so I think that we have probably
got as good a system and perhaps second to none anywhere in the
world, and I have absolute confidence in the system and structures
that we have put in place.
Q295 Charles Hendry: Some of our witnesses
last week in terms of the best anti-doping systems in the world
mentioned the States, Canada and Australia. Are there things which
we can learn from those in terms of structure and in terms of
the approaches which they are taking?
Mr Caborn: You can. As I say,
one of the issues is about do you put the whole question of anti-doping
into criminal law or do you keep it, as we have done, in this
country and indeed many other countries? It is really how you
can marry these together and that is what the discussions at UNESCO
are about at the moment. Yes, we can learn and I think that we
have. I think they have also learned quite a lot from us as well.
So it is how we can get into the sporting fraternity a consistent
approach to this. All of us have got the end objective and that
is to drive cheating out of sport. So it is in the interests of
all of us to work together and I think the forum that the IOC
has created through WADA gives us that international forum. What
we have been able to bring to the party in recent years is to
give that political clout behind it, even though there are slightly
different systems operating in each of the countries and how they
apply it under their various mechanisms of law.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Charles,
and thank you very much, Minister and Mr Hodgson, we are very
grateful to you.
|
