Memorandum submitted by UK Sport
INTRODUCTION
— The Government is fully committed
to eradicating the use of drugs and doping methods in sport. Government
has mandated UK Sport to deliver a national anti-doping programme.
A full summary of the rationale for anti-doping can be found in
sections 1 and 2 of the submission.
— Every country which wishes to compete
in an Olympic Games must have in place a National Anti-Doping
Organisation, unless such a role is undertaken by the country's
National Olympic Committee. This is the role assigned to UK Sport.
As defined in the World Anti-Doping Code, this body has "the
primary authority and responsibility to adopt and implement anti-doping
rules, direct the collection of samples, the management of test
results, and the conduct of hearings, all at the national level".
— Each national governing body of sport
is responsible for overseeing the rules and regulations of in
its own sport. UK Sport's key role is to ensure that anti-doping
rules are implemented to agreed international standards across
all sports.
— UK Sport is well positioned to manage
the national anti-doping programme due to its funding relationship
with the national governing bodies of Olympic and Paralympic sport,
its commitment to the highest ethical standards in sport and its
public and transparent accountability. This enables UK Sport to
swiftly sanction any governing bodies which do not meet the agreed
anti-doping standards.
EXTENT OF
THE PROBLEM
— UK Sport conducts approximately 6,000
tests per year across more than 40 sports. Of these, an average
of 98.5% are negative which suggests that the vast majority of
high performance athletes are not attempting to cheat by using
prohibited substances.
— In appendix 1, a breakdown of the
testing programme for the last five years is provided. The number
of tests for each governing body is included, along with a breakdown
of the findings in each sport. These show that competitors in
football, athletics and cricket are tested most often, whilst
the highest number of reported findings are in weight/power-lifting,
athletics and rugby league.
— UK Sport uses a number of risk criteria
to determine the priority of a sport for testing and the size
of the testing programme. Full details can be found in paragraph
4.5.
— Internationally, the average for
positive tests is 2%. This suggests that drugs in high performance
sport is not the widespread problem that publicity surrounding
cases implies. However, there is no room for complacency. The
development and subsequent discovery of THG has shown that there
are always those who will try to beat the system and constant
vigilance is required.
— UK Sport produces a range of drug-free
sport materials, including posters, leaflets, factsheets, testing
guides, etc, which are distributed to all governing bodies and
high performance sport institutes. Over 900 posters have been
made available to football, rugby league and rugby union to display
in sporting clubs around the UK.
— In the UK, very little research has
been done into the extent of steroid use outside of elite sport
(in gyms, etc). In addition, to our knowledge, there is no research
into the impact on young people, particularly up and coming sports
performers, of high-profile drug cases. Such studies would produce
valuable data and we would welcome the allocation of funds into
these and related anti-doping issues.
THE INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSE
— The World Anti-Doping Code was recognised
by the UK Government through the Copenhagen Declaration signed
by the Sports Minister in March 2003. Since then UK Sport has
had the full support of the Government as it works in partnership
with the National Governing Bodies to implement the Code.
— In our opinion the World Anti-Doping
Code marks a major watershed in the global fight for drug-free
sport, particularly the move towards a harmonised approach to
anti-doping across all sports and countries. Once the Code is
fully implemented we should see more consistency in the way anti-doping
matters are managed, with increased clarity and uniformity on
the sanctions for a doping offence.
— To be included on the Prohibited
List, a drug must meet two out of three criteria: the potential
to enhance sport performance; the actual or potential health risk
to an athlete; and the violation of the "spirit of sport".
The "recreational" drugs included on the List meet at
least two of the three criteria, as outlined in paragraphs 3.5-3.13.
It is therefore appropriate that the response to a finding for
any substance on the List should be the same.
— The rule of "strict liability",
whereby an athlete is fully responsible for any substances found
in their system, is fundamental to the success of any anti-doping
programme. This has been called into question with the recent
nandrolone findings in tennis. However, the WADC incorporates
the concept of "exceptional circumstances" (Article
10.5) whereby if an athlete can establish that he/she bears no
fault or negligence for the presence of a prohibited substance,
then the normal sanction to be applied under the Code (a ban from
competing) may be eliminated or reduced.
— The issue of supplements continues
to provide a great challenge to sport, and, in spite of considerable
investment of time and money, we are unable to provide a solution
that could provide athletes with a 100% guarantee. The background
to this issue and a summary of the current situation can be found
in paragraphs 3.17-3.22.
SPORTS GOVERNING
BODIES
— Consistency in the approach to anti-doping
across different sports has been difficult to achieve. However,
the launch of the UK's Anti-Doping Policy in 2000, along with
the ongoing modernisation process currently taking place within
major National Governing Bodies, has helped improve this situation.
A full explanation of reasons for differences between sports is
provided in section 4 of the submission.
PMP REVIEW
— In January 2004, UK Sport commissioned
PMP consultants to conduct an independent review into options
for the future operation of the UK's anti-doping programme. The
aim was to provide recommendations on the optimum arrangements
for the governance, structure and operation of the national anti-doping
programme in the UK. It concluded there is no evidence of conflict
of interest or unethical behaviour at UK Sport.
— The report from PMP was presented
to UK Sport's Council in March 2004. Council unanimously welcomed
the findings and supported the recommendations subject to clarification
on certain issues, particularly with regards to suggested changes
to the management and reporting structure of the drug-free sport
team. Council requested further work to look at the possible options
with regards to implementing such changes.
— The report and Council's recommendations
were subsequently presented to the Sports Cabinet in April 2004,
which approved the recommendations of the PMP report but concurred
with UK Sport's Council that further work be done to flesh out
the recommendation concerning governance.
ROLE MODELS
— UK Sport recognises that the benefits
of sport go beyond personal enjoyment and fulfilment. As such,
sportspeople are influential role models for young people. UK
Sport works with the home country sports councils and the BOA/BPA
to harness the positive impact sporting heroes can have on young
people. Full details can be found in paragraphs 6.8-6.15.
— UK Sport is currently developing
"Start Clean", a programme aimed at helping 13-17 year-olds
to learn more about drug-free sport and allowing them to take
part in fair and healthy sporting activity. This is the first
UK Sport initiative to focus on the younger generation. Start
Clean will be officially launched in July and will include "roadshows'
at youth sporting events, the development of a range of cross-curricular
activities, resources for teachers and students, and the training
of "athlete ambassadors' to help deliver the programme in
schools.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 UK Sport is pleased to be invited to
submit evidence to the CMS Committee on Drugs and Role Models
in Sport. As the national government agency with the responsibility
for promoting drug free sport and high ethical standards in sport,
UK Sport plays a key role in this issue.
1.2 Drugs in sport represent a challenge
to the very principles sport stands for. In essence it is a form
of cheating that undermines a fundamental expectation that athletes
will compete in the spirit of fair play, in accordance with established
rules and to the extent possible on a "level playing field".
1.3 UK Sport values the contributions that
sport can make to society if developed and nurtured within a strong
ethical environment. UK Sport is committed to the following values
in all its policies and programmes as being critical to the quality
of success in performance sport:
The promotion of drug-free sport is an integral
part of UK Sport's vision of developing high performance sport
in the UK.
1.4 High profile cases continue to keep
the issue of drugs in sport in the media eye. Sport federations
and governments have responded to public concern about the damage
doping does to the reputation of sport through the implementation
of ever more sophisticated anti-doping testing programmes. The
reality however, is that the vast majority of high performance
athletes compete drug free as evidenced by the average global
positive test percentage of 2%. But this is still a level of cheating
that undermines sport and we must be constantly vigilant to ensure
that we protect the integrity of the sport and the health and
rights of all players.
The historical perspective
1.5 When the IOC Medical Commission was
created in 1967 to deal with doping in sport, it devised a prohibited
list to encompass three fundamental principles:
1. to protect the health of athletes;
2. to achieve equality for all competing
athletes;
3. to show respect for medical and sport
ethics and the very legitimate and "good" work being
done in these fields to help athletes reach their potential cleanly
and fairly.
1.6 Having established a prohibited list,
laboratory tests were required to determine the presence of these
substances in the athlete. Through the Medical Commission of the
IOC, testing methods were verified and a process established to
accredit laboratories with the necessary equipment and skills
to undertake sample analysis. Working with the international sport
federations and governments the IOC facilitated the establishment
of bodies with the powers and capacity to run anti-doping programmes.
In the UK this was the Sports Council which in 1997 transferred
the responsibility to the new UK Sports Council (UK Sport).
1.7 In 1989 the UK played a leading role
in establishing, through the Council of Europe, the European Anti-doping
Convention which came into effect in 1990. The UK was one of the
first signatories to this convention which now boasts 37 ratified
member states. The Convention lays down binding rules with a view
to harmonising anti-doping regulations, in particular:
— making it harder to obtain and use
banned substances such as anabolic steroids;
— assisting the funding of anti-doping
tests;
— establishing a link between the strict
application of anti-doping rules and awarding subsidies to sports
organisations or individual sportsmen and sportswomen;
— regular doping control procedures
during and outside competitions, including in other countries.
1.8 This convention has historically been
the basis for UK policy and programme implementation. UK Sport
carries responsibility for membership of the Monitoring Group
of the Convention and its specialist committees such as technical,
legal and education issues.
2. THE POLICY
UNDERPINNING DRUG-FREE
SPORT
2.1 UK Sport has an obligation and responsibility
to promote and support the elimination of doping in sport as a
Sports Council founded under the Royal Charter and as the recognised
National Anti-Doping Organisation for the UK. In addition it is
the responsibility of all Sports Councils in the UK to stand by
their statement in the 1987 Ministerial paper on drug misuse in
sport: "The Sports Councils condemn the misuse of drugs in
sport."
2.2 Through its Royal Charter, UK Sport
has been mandated by government to:
— Encourage the adoption of the highest
ethical standards amongst persons or teams from the United Kingdom
participating in physical recreation;
— Support or undertake the provision
of programmes or facilities for monitoring drug or substance misuse
among persons from the United Kingdom participating in sport and
physical recreation;
— Promote and support the sporting
interests of the United Kingdom by collaborating with overseas
and international bodies;
— Provide information and services
which conform to the specified requirements of our customers and
the international sporting community, and continuously improve
the standard.
2.3 Through this mandate UK Sport drove
the establishment of a National Anti-doping Policy requiring the
co-operation and buy in of all stakeholders (national governing
bodies, home country sports councils etc.) This policy was adopted
in 2000 and is currently being reviewed to reflect the World Anti-Doping
Code.
2.4 In comparing UK Sport as a NADO to other
examples, it is important to understand the differences in responsibility,
accountability and authority. UK Sport is not responsible for
the selection of athletes but works through NGBs who are responsible
for their development, selection and supervision. As mandated
by its charter and in accordance with its policies UK Sport insists
on the highest ethical standards using as appropriate its funding
relationship to ensure compliance and adherence to the standards
expected. It differs significantly from other bodies which have
seen the establishment of independent anti-doping agencies.
2.5 To achieve the highest levels of integrity
and valued sporting behaviour it is necessary for sports organisations
to work together, nationally and internationally. A commitment
to common goals and harmonisation is crucial to the development
of sport.
2.6 In recognition of the above the National
Anti-Doping Policy is based on the following general principles:
— The welfare of athletes and other
sports participants is the primary concern;
— Sporting conduct and the spirit of
sport are fundamental to the provision of sport;
— All sports participants whatever
their age, culture, disability, gender, language, racial origin,
socio-economic status, religious belief and/or sexual identity
have the right to participate and be protected from abuse in sport;
— Cheating and abuse in sport are unacceptable
and are to be condemned;
— Fairness in procedure and a commitment
to accountability is critical to the effective governance of sport;
— Anti-doping is an international issue
that requires a co-ordinated commitment by all sport organisations;
— All personal data will be processed
in accordance with the requirement of the Data Protection Act
1998;
— Reference to "athletes"
is inclusive of participants categorised as able bodied and with
a disability from all sports[1].
Policy aims and objectives
2.7 The aim of the Policy in accordance
with the general principles is:
"to protect the athletes' fundamental right
to participate in drug-free sport and thus promote health, fairness
and equality for athletes in the UK".
2.8 This aim is supported by the following
Policy objectives:
— To protect athletes and other participants
in sport in all doping matters;
— To promote drug-free sport in the
UK;
— To establish consistent standards
of anti-doping policy, testing and education;
— To encourage national and international
harmonisation.
2.9 The Policy sets out the statement of
UK Sport's commitment to anti-doping; the definition of roles
and responsibilities nationally and internationally; the establishment
of policy compliance requirements and penalties for non-compliance;
and the definition of policy parameters.
The UK Sport Testing Programme: What we do and
why
2.10 UK Sport is the UK National Anti-Doping
Organisation and as such:
— Conducts approximately 6,000 tests
in more than 40 sports of which 4,000 are public interest tests
funded by exchequer resources and targeted at high risk sports
and disciplines;
— Plans and delivers an effective testing
programme that acts to:
— detect those individuals who
may use banned substances;
— deter those individuals who may
be tempted to use banned substances;
— protect the integrity and reputation
of athletes who wish to compete in a drug-free environment.
— Plans and delivers an effective education
programme for governing bodies, individual athletes and potential
athletes providing:
— independent and up to date information
for athletes;
— an authoritative and cost effective
education programme.
— Represents Government in international
meetings regarding doping in sport issues, ensuring that the UK
contributes to and learns from worldwide developments towards
drug-free sport.
How we do this
2.11 UK Sport's Drug-Free Sport Directorate
comprises 13 staff to facilitate the appropriate scope and content
of an individual sport's anti-doping programme and to implement
the education, testing and results management systems. The samples
are collected by 91 subcontracted Doping Control Officers and
25 subcontracted Chaperones spread across the UK.
2.12 UK Sport's Anti-Doping Programme is
responsible for:
— Designing effective programmes of
education and information resources;
— Collection of urine and blood samples
using quality assured procedures (ISO 9001:2000);
— Arranging the analysis of samples
at a WADA/IOC accredited laboratory—currently King's College
under a tendered contract;
— Reporting test outcomes to the relevant
governing body;
— Monitoring the actions taken by governing
bodies in relation to reported outcomes.
2.13 UK Sport has the responsibility to
manage the receipt and processing of the drug testing programme
outcomes and analytical results. This includes developing successful
working relationships with Governing Bodies regarding the effective
management of disciplinary processes, working proactively with
them to ensure adequate anti-doping regulations and monitoring
disciplinary processes in accordance with the national policy.
During the last five year period negative results accounted for
98.5% (approx.), of the results processed by UK Sport.
2.14 As part of UK Sport's commitment to
transparency, we introduced the quarterly reporting of results
in October 2002. Following a review, we have established that
cases are being dealt with quicker.
2.15 Effective partnerships between UK Sport
and governing bodies are central to the success of the anti-doping
testing programme. Whilst UK Sport has no direct involvement at
hearings and appeals, we offer support to governing bodies in
their preparation of doping cases. We also adhere to our role
as a public body and will attempt to answer any questions an athlete
may have regarding their negative or positive test result (depending
on the legal position). However, we always encourage athletes
to work via their governing bodies wherever practicable.
2.16 Results over the last five years are
shown at appendix 1. This shows that a total of 29,114 tests were
taken during the five year period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.
These figures are for UK Governing Bodies only. In addition, UK
Sport initiates testing for the international federations.
3. THE EXTENT
OF THE
PROBLEM: OVERVIEW
3.1 Little empirical data exists on the
true extent of the problem and it is necessary to distinguish
between doping in competitive sport and doping in society where
sport may be an associated vehicle. With the latter, doping is
less associated with performance but more with social standing
and peer group positioning. A study by Bahrke, Yesalis and Brower
in the USA in 1998[2]
revealed adolescents use a wide variety of drugs and supplements,
including anabolic steroids, to improve their physical appearance
and at times sports performance. Prevalence rates for steroid
use generally range between 4% and 12% for male adolescents and
between 0.5% and 2% for female adolescents. Steroid users are
more likely to be male, participate in strength-related sports,
and use other drugs.
3.2 The publicity associated with potential
or actual occurrences of doping in elite sport can exaggerate
the extent of the problem. In fact, 98.5% of results of the UK
testing programme are negative which suggests that the vast majority
of athletes are not attempting to cheat by using prohibited substances.
The global average for positive tests is 2% indicating that the
UK is doing better than many nations.
3.3 This figure implies that the testing
programme is acting as an effective deterrent and also that the
education programme is effectively discouraging athletes from
using performance-enhancing drugs and teaching them about the
risks of taking supplements which could lead to them inadvertently
testing positive. However, there is no room for complacency. The
THG (Tetrahydrogestrinone) issue has shown that there are always
those who will try to beat the system and constant vigilance is
needed. Testing and education programmes need to be revised regularly
and updated to deal with potential new threats.
3.4 More research is needed in order to
look at patterns of potential drug misuse in sport in order to
target tests more effectively and to determine an appropriate
level of testing for specific athlete pools. UK Sport is seeking
additional funding from Government for research and will collaborate
with WADA and other National Anti-Doping Organisations on projects
to maximize the benefits across the international sporting community.
Sport and "recreational" drugs
3.5 The WADA prohibited list follows the
principles established by the IOC Medical Commission in 1967 and
all substances are assessed on the basis of three criteria:
— The potential health risk for the
athlete or the risk to the safety of other athletes;
— The ability or potential to enhance
sporting performance;
— The potential for a substance to
fundamentally challenge the spirit of sport.
3.6 Those prohibited recreational substances
on the list meet at least two of the three criteria and therefore
constitute a doping violation if detected through an "in
competition" test. Many of these substances pose a danger
to the health of athletes and have the potential to bring a sport
into disrepute and/or influence the behaviour of young athletes.
3.7 The majority of substances that could
be considered "recreational" are not tested for out-of-competition.
More specifically, marijuana, stimulants such as cocaine, ecstasy
and amphetamines and narcotics, such as morphine, are not included
in the out-of-competition section of the prohibited list.
3.8 Certain "recreational" substances
may inhibit concentration and reaction speed; may increase aggression,
feelings of euphoria and invincibility and so on. These effects
could put the athlete and those around the athlete at risk. Additionally,
in some sports the use of certain "recreational" substances
could be performance enhancing, in particular, stimulants that
could act as a diuretic to mask other substances or help athletes
to meet a weight requirement.
3.9 The WADC Prohibited List has identified
specific substances that are particularly susceptible to unintentional
anti-doping rule violations because of their general availability
in medicinal products or those which are less likely to be abused
as doping agents.
3.10 The anti-doping rules are very clear
and have been developed through worldwide consultation with experts
in medicine, science and ethics. Athletes are fully aware of these
straightforward rules and if they are broken through negligence
or disregard, a full sanction should apply. The Prohibited List
has been developed in the best interests of the whole athlete
population. We must ensure that we protect the rights of those
athletes who work hard to play within the rules.
3.11 An anti-doping rule violation occurs
when a prohibited substance is found to be present in an athlete's
bodily specimen. The violation is not based on whether the substance
enhanced or had the potential to enhance performance, or whether
the substance was taken merely for the normal effects of a recreational
drug. This is the excuse and not the justification for breaking
the rules. Unless the athlete can demonstrate through the disciplinary
process that they were at no fault or negligent in taking the
substance, eg proving passive smoking of cannabis or a spiked
drink, a sanction would have to apply.
Athlete Liability and the WADC
3.12 Recent cases, for example amongst tennis
players, have tested the WADC regarding an athlete's liability
and responsibility for what goes into their bodies.
3.13 The WADC incorporates the concept of
"exceptional circumstances" (Article 10.5) whereby if
an athlete can establish that he/she bears no fault or negligence
for the presence of a prohibited substance, then the normal sanction
to be applied under the Code (a ban from competing) may be eliminated
or reduced. However, that athlete would still technically have
committed an anti-doping violation. For the sanction to be eliminated
altogether, the athlete would need to show how the substance entered
his/her body.
3.14 UK Sport's understanding is that the
ruling in the tennis cases was that players had unwittingly taken
contaminated supplements handed out by ATP (Association of Tennis
Professionals) staff and therefore they were not at fault. However,
the ATP found the players not guilty of an anti-doping violation,
which is not in accordance with the Code as explained above.
The potential for contaminated supplements: The
current situation
3.15 The risk of contamination in supplements
is a complex issue. The risks posed by supplements are included
as part of our ongoing education programme for athletes, athlete
support staff and Governing Bodies.
3.16 In partnership with the BOA, BPA, and
home country sports councils, UK Sport has developed a UK-wide
position statement on supplements in sport (see appendix 2). UK
Sport is exploring improved education programmes for athletes
about the realities of supplements, including permitted alternative
ways to achieve the same benefits through food.
3.17 Organisations including the Canadian
Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) and the Netherlands Centre for
Doping Affairs (NeCeDo) are currently working towards systems
that provide a short-term risk management solution for athletes.
These systems of testing supplements for specific prohibited substances
(not all substances) may help athletes to minimise the risk of
inadvertent doping through supplementation but this will not provide
them with a guarantee nor protect them under the rule of strict
liability.
3.18 The most reliable and effective way
of providing athletes with a full guarantee would be through industry
reform and the implementation of an accredited manufacturing standard.
It is unlikely that this will be achieved. Such a system would
be too costly for manufacturers, particularly when the professional
sporting market represents a small portion of their sales.
4. CONSISTENCY
ACROSS DIFFERENT
SPORTS
4.1 Consistency is always difficult to achieve
in a country where sports' governing bodies have evolved differently
over the years. However, the UK National Anti-Doping Policy has
helped to harmonise the approach of governing bodies to a considerable
extent and the modernization process currently taking place within
major UK governing bodies will help facilitate this process. Most
sports have welcomed the provision of a consistent policy and
procedures framework to support them in the fight against drugs
in sport and they recognize that UK Sport's aim is very much to
support and empower sports to govern themselves.
4.2 Whilst differences in resources have
led to some differences in what a governing body can achieve,
they do not appear to have been a restriction to a sport's willingness
and positive approach to drug-free sport. A major factor impacting
on a national governing body's ability to respond to the requirements
of drug-free sport is the restriction imposed by the actions of
their International Federation. A sport with a strong, organised
International Federation will always find it easier to implement
its own national processes.
4.3 It is a condition of all Sports Council
funding that Governing Bodies and athletes have to follow the
anti-doping policy and procedures set out by UK Sport. Failure
to do so carries the risk of funding being suspended, reduced
or withdrawn.
The differences in the testing programmes between
sports
4.4 UK Sport uses a number of risk criteria
to determine the priority of a sport for testing and the size
of the testing programme. The criteria include;
— International status of the UK in
the sport in Olympic and/or World/Commonwealth competitions;
— Potential for drug misuse (using
prohibited drug classes);
— Financial rewards available to participants
in the sport, including funding from the Sports Councils;
— Previous history of doping offences;
— Public impact of a doping offence/positive
impact of clean sport.
4.5 The criteria are kept under review and
adapted where necessary. The sports are prioritised according
to these risks and the number of tests to be allocated is decided.
The total number of athletes eligible for testing is difficult
to quantify and varies from year to year. Each testing programme
is devised according to the spread of testing deemed appropriate
in the sport (according to the sport's makeup and risk priority).
4.6 The programme includes three types of
testing: In Competition Testing; Squad Testing; and Out of Competition—Individuals
Testing. The type of testing carried out depends on the nature
of the sport. Currently the split of testing based on actual 2003-04
figures is:
— Out of Competition squads—24.1%.
— Out of Competition—individuals
18.3%.
However, the emphasis will shift much more towards
no notice out of competition testing of individuals as a result
of the WADC and the planned split for 2005-09 onwards is:
— Out of competition squads 25%.
— Out of competition—individuals
40%
4.7 Tests abroad on UK athletes may also
be arranged through testing agreements established with other
national anti-doping agencies.
4.8 Athletes can be selected for testing
in the following ways:
— randomly through a numbered selection
draw;
— randomly through their event placing,
weight category or lane draw;
— target tested due to previous doping
suspension, tip off/information received, anomalies in previous
samples collected (eg T/E ratio), lead up to a major games/event;
— as a result of breaking a national,
area or world record.
4.9 If sports are not allocated public interest
tests or wish to increase their testing programme they can contract
tests from UK Sport. Those currently doing this include: Snooker,
Football, Motor Sports, Professional Boxing, Karate and Cricket.
Why some sports are treated differently in regards
to testing procedures
4.10 Drug testing at all events in the UK
adheres to the same stringent, quality assured testing procedures
certified by ISO 9001:2000 regardless of the sport concerned.
UK Sport Doping Control Officers (DCOs) are all trained to follow
the World Anti-Doping Code International Standards for Testing
and are issued with a DCO handbook.
4.11 Whilst actual testing procedures from
the point of athlete notification will always follow the same
international standard, other processes may vary according to
the:
4. Requirements of sport regulations.
Nature of the sport
4.12 It is clear that setting up testing
will vary considerably from sport to sport due to their diverse
nature. Arrangements have to be adapted accordingly and the following
factors may have an impact:
— Events taking place over a considerable
geographical distance or that have athletes starting and finishing
the events at different locations eg Rowing, Canoeing, Orienteering,
Cross-country running;
— The doping control station may be
located some distance away from the competing area due to the
nature of the sport eg competing in a forest for cross-country
running;
— DCOs may also need assistance from
NGB/event staff in identifying which athletes are required for
testing eg Judo players all wear the same kit to compete in and
are not identified with numbers, and cricket players may need
to be identified as they leave the field. If athletes are selected
by placing, they can only be notified once final scores have been
calculated which may be some time after the end of the event eg
modern pentathlon.
Facilities
4.13 Facilities will always play a part
in how testing procedures take place at an event as they differ
at each venue. Different facilities encountered by DCOs include:
— Purpose built venues with Doping
Control facilities allowing DCOs and athletes to work in an ideal
environment;
— Older venues with difficult facilities[R3];
— Venues with no facilities requiring
a Mobile Sampling Unit (which can cause a problem to small NGBs
due to the cost);
— In many cases practical changes may
have to be made, although actual testing procedures will always
stay the same.
The event
4.14 Arrangements for major events will
be different from lower level events. Examples of differences
in events include:
— A world athletics event may require
accreditation for DCOs who will be restricted in the areas they
can occupy to notify or chaperone athletes;
— In some sports testing must take
place after the medal ceremonies;
— Squad testing of a national team
may require a DCO to pass through security checks before gaining
access to a squad and even then, athletes may be spread out over
a number of venues and may have to attend media commitments at
agreed times if the test is close to a major match.
Requirements of sport regulations
4.15 Until the WADC standardises anti-doping
procedures, testing will continue to be affected by the individual
requirements of certain sports. Different sports regulations may
however still include different selection procedures including:
— In-competition, two players from
each team must be selected at random prior to the match by a closed
card-draw system witnessed by team representatives (Rugby);
— The draw takes place between the
second and third periods (Ice Hockey);
— International federation approved
doctors must witness sample collection (Cycling);
— International federations specifying
stringent criteria as to which athletes should be selected for
testing at an event (Sailing and Judo);
— A certain percentage of entrants
to a competition must be selected for testing (Gymnastics);
— Exclusion of athletes under a certain
age from testing (eg U16s in-competition testing for Gymnastics).
5. THE WORLD
ANTI-DOPING
CODE (WADC): UK SPORT
PROGRESS TOWARDS
COMPLIANCE
5.1 The aims of the WADC are to:
— Protect the athlete's fundamental
right to participate in drug-free sport and thus promote health,
fairness and equality for athletes worldwide;
— To ensure harmonised, co-ordinated
and effective anti-doping programmes at the international and
national level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention
of doping.
5.2 The UK government signed up to the WADC
in March 2003 with a deadline of being compliant with the Code
by the first day of the Athens Olympics. However, WADA has now
acknowledged that this timetable is optimistic. It has stated
that provided signatories can demonstrate that they are actively
working towards full compliance, then there is flexibility in
terms of the deadlines. Some parts of the Code are mandatory but
others are not to allow more flexibility in implementation. However,
the principles must be adhered to.
Key Compliance Issues: National Policy
5.3 A National Anti-Doping Policy must be
in place which UK sports organisations (the home country sports
councils, British Olympic Association, British Paralympic Association,
UK governing bodies) and athletes have formally accepted. UK Sport
has had a National Anti-Doping Policy in place since March 2000.
All the above bodies and athletes have signed up to this.
5.4 Formal acceptance of the policy is a
condition of Sports Council funding for National Governing Bodies
(NGBs) and athletes, and a requirement for those sports that do
not receive funding but wish to take part in the UK Anti-Doping
Programme. The current policy meets international standards on
which parts of the WADC are based, so the UK is therefore at a
more advanced stage of compliance than many countries. However,
the policy is being updated to reflect the changes required by
the Code.
5.5 The original timetable set by UK Sport
for this has shifted from April to June 2004. There are two key
reasons for this:
— The delay in International Federations
publishing their amended rules and regulations to comply with
the WADC and the need for the revision of the UK National Policy
to be dovetailed with this to minimise any conflicts between the
two (otherwise UK NGBs could find themselves signing up to conflicting
requirements);
— Resolution to a number of complex
legal and other issues around the interpretation of the WADC,
and the need for appropriate consultation with key stakeholders
before the National Policy can be finalised.
Key Compliance Issues: Definition of International
and National Level Athlete Pools
5.6 International Federations have a critical
impact on the timetable for UK Sport's compliance with the WADC
due to their responsibility for the definition of the international
level athlete pools. This determines which athletes competing
on an international basis it will have jurisdiction over in terms
of monitoring:
— Whereabouts information;
— Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE);
— Results management (hearings and
appeals)
5.7 The definition is critical because there
will be an overlap between the international athlete pool and
the national level athlete pools for which NADOs such as UK Sport
are responsible for defining. UK Sport therefore needs to define
the UK national level athlete pool that should, as a minimum,
include "athletes who are part of national teams in Olympic,
Paralympic and recognised national federations" (according
to WADA's definition).
5.8 Minimising the burden on athletes is
vital, particularly in the lead up to the Olympic/Paralympic Games.
UK Sport has already begun work with UK Governing Bodies to develop
systems whereby international pool athletes do not have to duplicate
their whereabouts information and TUE forms. Work will also continue
with international federations to ensure the most appropriate
arrangements are put in place for our athletes.
5.9 The definition involves a number of
challenges, not least that the UK is in a unique position because
of the relationship between its four constituent countries and
the fact that the term "national" could refer to either
GB teams or teams from either England, Scotland, Wales or Northern
Ireland. On this basis we have decided to consider national level
athletes to be those who represent GB or the UK in sports where
athletes compete as GB athletes (those funded at the UK level)
and those who represent their home country in sports where athletes
compete for England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland (those
funded by the HCSCs).
5.10 UK Sport has drafted the national level
athlete pool selection criteria. The result is a tiered athlete
pool system with different requirements in terms of providing
"Whereabouts Information" for each tier. We are currently
in the process of agreeing which athletes form the pool for each
individual sport.
Key Compliance Issues: Collecting Whereabouts
Information
5.11 Any athlete identified as part of the
athlete pool will be subject to testing in and out of competition
(either in squads or individually). However, it is recognised
that the success of any programme is heavily dependent on no notice
out of competition testing and the WADC therefore places much
more emphasis on this. Under the WADC athletes who are part of
the registered testing pool are required to provide up to date
"whereabouts information".
5.12 In order to meet this requirement,
UK Sport has developed an on-line system where athletes can input
and update their details on a regular basis. A number of other
countries have expressed interest in adopting the UK system.
5.13 A number of athletes and Governing
Bodies have been consulted and their feedback used to revise the
system. The system is being piloted with a small number of sports
before going live.
5.14 Specific issues are being reviewed
relating to a number of Paralympic Sports. Once resolved, we will
endeavour to induct as many of these sports as possible, prior
to Athens.
Key Compliance Issues: Therapeutic Use Exemptions
5.15 Under the WADC, UK Sport is required
to devise a system for managing TUEs for athletes in the national
pool, which complies with the international standard set by WADA.
This is complicated by the fact that International Federations
will be responsible for dealing with TUEs for International Level
athletes and so there is an overlap because UK International Level
athletes will also be part of the national pool.
5.16 In order to keep the system as simple
as possible and easy for athletes and NGBs to understand, UK Sport
has decided to opt for a one-stop shop approach for dealing with
both athlete "Whereabouts Information" and "Therapeutic
Use Exemptions". We will undertake to collect this information
for all UK athletes in the registered national pool (where required)
and will share the details on athletes in the International Pool
with the relevant International Federation.
5.17 The TUE system has been developed following
extensive consultation with sports, governing body medical officers
and medical experts. Athletes will be able to access application
forms on-line as well as guidance on how to apply which is included
as part of the on-line education programme. A committee of suitably
qualified medical experts has been established to review applications
before any certificates are granted. TUEs will be reviewed for
each sport as they register on-line through the process described
above.
Key Compliance Issues: International Standards
5.18 In addition to the Code itself, which
sets out the high level objectives and principles, there are four
International Standards which contain much of the technical detail
necessary for practical implementation for key areas of the Code.
All four standards were published on 1 January 2004 by WADA and
compliance with these is mandatory. The four standards are:
— Testing (standards for sample collection
procedures);
— Laboratories (all laboratories which
analyse samples have to be WADA accredited);
— Prohibited List (this will be published
annually by WADA and updated as necessary);
— Therapeutic Use Exemptions (system
of approval for athletes using substances/methods on the Prohibited
List for documented medical conditions).
Key Compliance Issues: Reporting of Results
5.19 It is a requirement under the WADC
for UK Sport to put in place a process for the pre-hearing administration
of potential anti-doping rule violations. This will include:
— A Review by UK Sport to determine
if:
(a) an applicable "Therapeutic Use
Exemption" has been granted, or
(b) there is any apparent departure from
the International Standards for Testing or laboratory analysis
that undermines the validity of the Adverse Analytical Finding.
— Results process will be mapped out
in the revised National Policy. We are also adhering to the 30
days allowed for B sample analysis as part of the International
Standards for Laboratories.
— Public Disclosure—It is a requirement
of the NADO to report the result of an athlete whose sample has
resulted in an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Athlete or other
person who may have violated an anti-doping rule to WADA. Positive
results will be publicly disclosed on the UK Sport website no
later than 20 days after the end of a disciplinary hearing.
The Results Process is non-mandatory and therefore
UK Sport has more time to meet the requirements in this area.
Other Non-Mandatory Issues: Hearings and Appeals
5.20 The WADC requires there to be provision
for an independent and impartial appeals process. UK Sport has
commissioned SDRP to undertake an options appraisal to identify
and cost potential options for this National Tribunal service.
Sports will be able to opt to use this service but it is likely
that some sports will choose to operate their own appeals system.
This is acceptable provided that the process satisfies the principles
set out in the Code, including being fair, impartial and independent.
Paralympic Issues
5.21 The position with Paralympic sports
is potentially both more complex and less well advanced. In the
UK, Paralympic athletes can be divided into two categories:
1. Those whose membership (and therefore
jurisdiction) is with the "main" able-bodied British
national governing body (ie swimming, athletics, tennis). Here
the NGB will need to ensure that its anti-doping regulations comply
with both the able bodied and the Paralympic international federation
regulations.
2. Those where there is a separate Paralympic
national governing body. This might be because there is no able-bodied
sport equivalent (Goalball, Boccia), or the two are independent
(ie basketball, shooting). As a whole these sports tend to have
weaker and less well advanced national and international structures,
policies and systems, including those for anti-doping.
5.22 At an international level the International
Paralympic Committee (IPC) is also the International Federation
for 13 sports. The IPC has already published its revised anti-doping
code. While the IPC consulted WADA regarding the new code's development,
WADA will not state whether the IPC Code is fully compliant until
June 2004.
5.23 The IPC Code now suggests a very much
more proactive role for National Paralympic Committees in the
management of anti-doping programmes than currently undertaken
by the BPA. UK Sport is working pro-actively and openly with the
IPC and the BPA to ensure agreement regarding this role and how,
potentially, it can be factored into a wider Modernisation Review
of the needs of Paralympic sports being funded by UK Sport.
5.24 UK Sport has discussed with WADA and
the IPC the option of tying in British Paralympic NGB's WADC compliance
with the planned wider modernisation project. WADA and the IPC
have confirmed that they would be supportive of this approach
(recently endorsed by UK Sport's Council) even if it meant that
not all British Paralympic NGBs, or potentially the BPA, were
fully compliant by the start of the Games.
6. UK SPORT—EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
PROGRAMMES
6.1 UK Sport has a responsibility to plan,
implement and monitor education and information programmes for
drug-free sport. Together with the Home Country Sports Councils,
UK Sport helps to coordinate and assess the design and implementation
of education programmes for governing bodies of sport across the
UK, and provides expertise and information resources to ensure
that the drug-free sport messages are consistent.
6.2 Currently, UK Sport is regarded by WADA
as a world leader in education and information provision for drug-free
sport. The services and resources available to athletes mean that
there should be no excuse for "not knowing" or for not
having access to advice about substances and testing. We operate
the most comprehensive and effective online drug information service
in the world and we work closely with partner organisations in
the UK and abroad to improve our education programme for the benefit
of athletes and support personnel.
6.3 In 2002, UK Sport led the development
of an Education Framework for Drug-Free Sport. In partnership
with the Home Country Sports Councils, National Sports Institutes,
the BOA, the BPA and Commonwealth Games Associations. This is
designed to ensure that the drug-free messages delivered in the
UK are done so fairly and consistently.
UK Sport's Vision for Drug-Free Sport Education
6.4 UK Sport aims to influence the values,
attitudes and behaviour of athletes and athlete support personnel
in the UK by coordinating and supporting the development of education
and information programmes for drug-free sport throughout the
UK. [R4]
Strategic Aims
6.5 The Education Framework is intended
to provide organisations in the UK with a planned approach to
education in which athletes, coaches, medical professionals, athlete
support personnel, parents, and the wider community can develop
a greater knowledge and understanding of the importance of drug-free
sport.
6.6 The Education Framework for Drug-Free
Sport has three key aims:
— To establish a set of education standards
for the UK to ensure consistency of message and high quality education
and information programmes.
— To clearly define the roles and responsibilities
of key partners and participants and establish lead ownership
of the delivery of drug-free education.
— To create a comprehensive plan to
monitor, evaluate and continuously improve education and information
systems across the UK.
6.7 Full details of the education programme
are attached at appendix 3. (not printed)
Start Clean—first UK Sport initiative to
focus on younger generation
6.8 Start Clean 2004 forms part of the European
Year of Education through Sport (www.eyes-2004.info), an EC initiative
designed to create a new partnership between the world of education
and the world of sport. Start Clean 2004 aims to help the UK's
potential athletes enjoy taking part in fair and healthy sporting
activity.
6.9 A range of cross-curricular activities
will be designed to teach 13 to 17 year olds about drug-free sport.
Activities will help to improve their self-confidence, respect
for health and well-being, commitment to personal achievement
and problem-solving, and analytical and communication skills.
The Start Clean programme will take place in the classroom and
in a sporting context, and resources for teachers and students
will include online, CD-ROM and published material, as well as
face-to-face interaction with Champions of drug-free sport.
6.10 Start Clean will promote partnerships
between sporting organisations and educational institutions by
increasing the opportunities for bodies to work together. UK Sport
and the British Sports Trust are working in partnership with the
University of Hull and Humberside Community Health NHS Trust to
trial Start Clean in schools and sporting clubs throughout Yorkshire
and Humberside. In 2005, the project will be developed throughout
the UK with the help of the Sports Councils of England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
National Outreach Programme—Outreach UK
6.11 As part of the overall Start Clean
programme, Outreach UK aims to build awareness and understanding
of drug-free sport amongst 13-17 year olds across the UK. It will
be launched in partnership with the World Anti-Doping Agency at
a major junior sporting event and will be a world first to be
delivered on a national scale. The programme will mirror the valuable
work of WADA in raising awareness and understanding of anti-doping
issues amongst the athlete population.
6.12 Outreach UK will see world class athletes
and support personnel helping to promote drug-free sport to young
athletes. By joining in, young athletes will have the chance to
play an anti-doping quiz (sponsored by WADA), win prizes and sign
a banner as a pledge to drug-free sport.
Athletes as Ambassadors for Drug-Free Sport
6.13 Another element of Start Clean is the
Athletes as Ambassadors programme which will involve training
world class athletes to deliver introductory workshops to young
people between 13-17 years on the subject of sport.
6.14 A more extensive Ambassador programme
is the vision for the future where we encourage sportsmen and
women to promote drug-free sport as part of their overall commitment
to being tested in and out of competition regularly.
6.15 Links between Sporting Champions programmes
throughout the home countries are being explored and it is an
overall goal of UK Sport to make drug-free sport a fundamental
part of what Sporting Champions represent and promote.
7. SPORTING CONDUCT
INITIATIVE
7.1 UK Sport's "Sporting Conduct Initiative"
is part of the organisation's drive to promote ethically fair
and drug-free sport. The original aims were to:
— Help sports devise practical and
achievable strategies for tackling fair play issues
— Showcase the many effective measures
they are already taking in this respect;
— Do the above not to or for sports
the sports in question, but to support them in ways which will
be of maximum benefit and relevance to the sports themselves.
7.2 Increasingly, we are interested in exploring
not only the behaviour that players present on the field of play,
but about the values that underlie that behaviour. By the same
token, we are not concerned only with the things that players
shouldn't do, but rather to go beyond this and look at the way
that players ought to be.
7.3 What this all requires, we believe,
is to have discussions with sports—with players, coaches,
referees etc—on their own terms.
7.4 There is no fixed template for our study
because every sport is different; because different sports have
different issues; because the opportunities for getting started
on the Sporting Conduct debate vary from sport to sport; and because
the projects naturally tend to spin off in different directions
accordingly.
Progress to Date
7.5 In 2001/2 UK Sport carried out a series
of spectator surveys on fair play issues at high profile events
in football, cricket, golf, rugby union, rugby league and tennis.
This was supplemented by a similar survey of a representative
sample of the UK public
7.6 The second phase of the Initiative begun
last year involves in-depth discussions with players, coaches
and officials about the values and norms of their sports.
7.7 Cricket
Following a survey of county cricketers, discussions
with a group of first-class umpires and discussions with the ECB
Discipline Standing Committee, UK Sport and the University of
Gloucestershire have held discussions about current conduct issues
in domestic cricket and strategies for tackling them.
Meanwhile, the Professional Cricketers Association
has undertaken to negotiate access for the UK Sport/University
of Gloucestershire team at four county cricket clubs where we
aim to run a series of focus groups with players to examine the
fair play culture of professional cricket.
7.8 Tennis
During 2003, we held a series of focus groups
for tennis coaches operating at different levels of the game across
the UK. A presentation was made to the Annual Conference of the
British Tennis Coaches Association at Bisham Abbey in February
2004.
The coaches raised a number of recurring themes.
In particular they suggested that it may be timely for the tennis
governing bodies to review their "corporate values' and develop
a fair play policy that is consistent with those values. We are
currently exploring how to progress the project by opening up
a dialogue with tennis umpires.
7.9 Football
In conjunction with the FA, we are supporting
a University of Gloucestershire PhD student in tracking the development
of young footballers (16-19) attached to the academies of three
professional football league clubs. A key focus is understanding
how young players on the verge of the professional game acquire
their footballing values—and how those values may be challenged
or reinforced as their careers develop.
7.10 Golf
The latest project involves golf, where we have
gained access to the Lottery-funded elite amateur golfers of the
English Golf Union and the English Ladies Golf Association. Again,
the intention is to meet with the golfers in question, and to
monitor and evaluate their experiences and perceptions as (mostly
young) players on the verge of the professional game.
7.11 International perspectives
Finally, Prof. Wray Vamplew from Stirling University
has been commissioned to carry out a review of initiatives that
are taking place outside the United Kingdom. The idea is that,
amongst other things, this should help inform our thoughts about
the development of a wider "Sporting Conduct" agenda—including
the possible development and delivery of a school-based fair play
programme.
Prof. Vamplew will be considering the extent to which
countries make the link between fair play and anti-doping initiatives,
not least in terms of organisational responsibilities. He will
also, as far as possible, provide a comparative analysis of the
aims, objectives and effectiveness of different initiatives, and
the values that underpin them.
1 As defined under the Council of Europe's "European
Sports Charter" definition of sport (Compass, 1999). Back
2
Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America (Philadelphia);
Oct 1998: 7 (4). p. 821-838. Back
| 
