Supplementary memorandum submitted by
UK Sport
DRUGS AND ROLE MODELS IN SPORT
Please find UK Sport's responses to the supplementary
questions posed by the Committee set out below. In addition I
felt it would be appropriate to provide further information and
clarification on certain issues which were not raised during our
oral evidence:
— Independent Agency—It
is important to ensure what is meant by an "independent agency"
as we would argue that we are already independent, both of Government
and of governing bodies. In running the drug testing programme,
UK Sport is responsible for the collection of samples, arranging
the analysis of samples at a WADA accredited laboratory and reporting
all test results to the appropriate governing body. It is the
governing body's responsibility to communicate results to the
athletes. For a positive finding or a refusal to comply with a
request to provide a sample, a review panel set up by the governing
body must determine whether a doping offence has been committed.
The independent disciplinary hearing investigates the circumstances
and decides what, if any, sanctions are to be imposed. UK Sport
is not involved in this part of the process. UK Sport tests on
behalf of governing bodies who are responsible for the development,
selection and supervision of their athletes. We work with them
to ensure an appropriate level of testing is in place. This relationship
would be the same regardless of where the testing agency sits.
— Conflict of interest—The
PMP report concluded that any conflicts were a perceived problem,
with no actual evidence that such conflicts exist. At the heart
of UK Sport's remit is the desire to help athletes win medals
at World Championships and Olympic and Paralympic Games. We want
British competitors to win, but we want them to win fairly and
through our funding agreements with national governing bodies
we demand the highest standards in this area. The main perceived
area of conflict outlined in the PMP report is the issue of a
funding body also being responsible for anti-doping. From our
point of view, the fact that we fund and test athletes means we
can act quickly in the case of a finding to suspend funding. The
same is true if we feel a funded governing body is not dealing
appropriately with a reported case.
— Handling positive findings—The
WADA Code states that an independent body, some form of national
tribunal service, should be set up to deal with the cases of athletes
who provide a positive sample. UK Sport has commissioned SDRP
to look into the setting up of such a system. For the benefit
of public and athlete confidence in the handling of anti-doping
cases it would be better for all governing bodies to make use
of such a service. However, under the terms of the Code, such
a service is not enforceable and sports have the option of setting
up their own independent panels provided they meet the standards
set out in the Code. What this does not mean is that sports will
be able to deal with cases differently to those who use the independent
body. It is up to each individual sport to decide which approach
best suits their needs. It is also worth noting that not all sports
are supportive of such a service, for example the Football Association
has already announced its intention to use its own system for
handling cases.
— PMP report—Through an
open and transparent process UK Sport commissioned PMP to conduct
a thorough and independent review of the UK's anti-doping set
up and to recommend the most effective method of running the national
anti-doping programme. We did this because we appreciate the fact
that there are strong and differing views on the way things should
be done. We went into the review with an open mind, confident
in our work, but ready to embrace any changes and recommendations
made by PMP. In conducting the review, PMP consulted widely throughout
sport using a variety of methods. Online surveys were filled in
by 38 sports organisations and 47 competitors, with 39 face-to-face
meetings held with partner organisations and governing bodies.
In addition, comparisons were made with the anti-doping arrangements
of six other nations: Australia, Canada, France, Norway, Sweden
and the USA. We are naturally pleased that the conclusion was
to keep the function of national anti-doping organisation within
UK Sport and believe that the existing system, augmented by the
recommendations laid out in the report, will leave the UK with
a robust and comprehensive anti-doping programme which is fully
understood and respected by the sports community.
— Supplements—There clearly
is an issue as highlighted by the IOC study in 2003 which found
that 15% of the 634 supplements it tested contained banned substances,
including nandrolone. As per our oral evidence, the idea of a
kite-mark for "approved" supplements is an interesting
one but something we deem unworkable at the present time. There
are a number of issues. The supplements industry is not regulated
and, as such, the standards of production and labelling that a
pharmaceutical manufacturer must meet do not apply. This can lead
to the problem of contamination, whereby a prohibited substance
is found in a supplement without appearing on the label. As these
substances can be sourced from anywhere in the world such a kite-mark
would have to be agreed and implemented worldwide for it to have
any credibility. In addition, the financial implications of developing
such a kite-mark are immense and would have to be borne by the
supplement manufacturers. The elite sport market counts for a
small fraction of their overall turnover which makes it unlikely
they would be willing to make such a financial commitment.
I thank you for your interest in this important
aspect of sport policy and look forward to seeing your report
and recommendations.
THE PMP REPORT
1. The Sport Cabinet has endorsed the
PMP report on the continuing role of UK Sport as the UK's National
Anti-Doping Organisation. What further work is being undertaken
in the wake of the PMP report and what timetables are envisaged
for conclusion of any such work?
The PMP report recommended a number of changes
and improvements to existing structures and operations of the
Drug-free Sport Directorate within UK Sport. A key recommendation
was amendment to the current management and reporting structure
of the directorate. Both UK Sport's Council, and subsequently
the Sports Cabinet, requested further work to look at the possible
options with regards to implementing such changes. PMP is undertaking
a review of options against the accountability requirements of
UK Sport as a non-departmental public body accountable to government
and parliament. This review is expected to conclude by mid-July,
with this and other recommendations from the PMP report due to
be implemented by April 2005.
2. The PMP report said that there were
some areas of weakness in UK Sport's anti-doping operational arrangements
and highlighted in particular: communication practices, results
management and education programmes. What exactly were the problems
in these three areas?
Communications—a need to move away from
a culture of secrecy which had led to a sense of undue complexity
and lack of understanding. UK Sport is opening up the processes
and programmes of anti-doping to ensure a better understanding
of what we do, why we do it and how we do it. This entails more
interaction with NGB personnel and athletes by a wider cross section
of staff working in the Directorate.
Results management—concerns were expressed
about leaks from the Drug-Free Sport Directorate and reporting
of results and steps have been taken to address this situation.
In October 2002, UK Sport introduced the quarterly reporting of
results, which has previously been published on an annual basis.
This provides more regular feedback on the testing programme to
all concerned, and serves as an ongoing reminder of our work to
any athletes who may be tempted to cheat by misusing prohibited
substances. However, concerns remained as this method of reporting
led to situations in which details of cases were being released
before the governing body had completed its disciplinary procedures.
To solve this, and bring our reporting standards in line with
the Code, UK Sport has launched the Drugs Results Database (www.uksport.gov.uk/drd)
on which details of all positive findings are published 20 days
after the case has been dealt with through a fair and independent
hearings process.
Education—concerns were expressed at the
level of resource commitment and greater direct contact with athletes.
Both are being addressed (see answer to question 19 and 2.1 above).
(a) What were the other weaknesses identified
and what is UK Sport doing about them?
UK Sport is addressing all the issues raised
in the report, many of which will be resolved through application
of the WADC. Answers to the following questions address the issues
raised in the report.
(b) The report calls for more resources
into education for drug-free sport (and the importance of education
was stressed in much of our evidence). Can UK Sport find more
resources for this function from within its existing funding allocations?
From the start of this financial year (April
2004) UK Sport is increasing the budget for the drug-free sport
programme by £1.6 million to £3.68 million. Certainly
education is one of the key areas (along with testing) which will
benefit from these additional funds.
3. The PMP report says that there is
no tangible evidence of unethical behaviour at UK Sport and describes
the arrangements to ensure confidentiality as comprehensive and
ISO-compliant. However, it goes on to say that "further safeguards
are necessary to restore the confidence and trust of GBs and athletes".
(a) Why has UK Sport lost the confidence
and trust of GBs and athletes?
It is an exaggeration to say UK Sport has lost
the confidence of NGBs and athletes. The survey conducted by PMP
revealed that 79% of respondents believe UK Sport has been quite
or very successful in supporting progress towards drug-free sport.
Question 2 provides answers to the three areas seen to have been
most damaging to the relationship between UK Sport and its partners.
(b) What further safeguards—beyond
comprehensiveness and ISO-compliance—are envisaged?
These are being developed as part of the ongoing
work with PMP and will be tested with stakeholders prior to being
taken to Sports Cabinet.
COMPARATORS
4. Are you aware of any other professions
in the UK which have anti-drug policies and/or requirements above
and beyond generally applicable statutory provisions? If so, what
exchanges of best practice, or other co-operation, has taken place
with other professional bodies?
There is testing amongst some professions; eg
Armed Forces, Police etc, but the focus of this is largely different
to the testing undertaken by UK Sport. It is more to do with ensuring
individuals are able to perform their jobs and not putting others
at risk given the nature of their roles. The testing undertaken
does not conform to the strict international quality standards
undertaken by UK Sport and therefore contact has been limited.
Within sport itself, there is a strong history
of exchanges of best practice in anti-doping methods and procedures.
Indeed, the International Standard for Doping Control v2 1998
(precursor to the WADA International Standard for Testing) was
devised from the alliance of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway,
Sweden and the UK doping control agencies, and their attempts
to devise a common international standard:
"The IADA mission is to ensure the development
and harmonisation of the domestic doping control programmes of
the five signatories and through this concrete example of good
practice, positively influence the broader international sports
community."
HARMONISATION
5. Does it really matter whether athletics,
swimming, archery and football follow the same procedures for
drugs-testing and subsequent disciplinary hearings and sanctions?
(After all, participants in one sport will not competing against
participants in any other?) Surely, the vital element of any system
is a consistent approach within each sport—especially across
different countries—with consistency across different sports
a neat, but secondary, achievement?
As Sue Campbell explained in her oral evidence,
it will never be possible to have absolute consistency across
sports. However, what we need to ensure is that there is a consistent
set of standards and procedures setting out a clear framework
within which individual sports can operate. The World Anti-Doping
Code is a significant step towards this. Athletes have historically
expressed concern at the ability of a banned athlete to compete
in another sport. This will no longer be possible under article
10.9 of the WADC.
DOPING CONTROL:
COLLECTION AND
TESTING
6. What view does UK Sport take of the
arrangements in place for anti-doping collection and testing by
the Lawn Tennis Association and horse-racing? Do they use IOC-accredited
systems and laboratories?
UK Sport undertakes the testing for the Lawn
Tennis Association as part of our anti-doping programme. Tests
are mainly conducted in-competition, although the option exists
to test out-of-competition at squad training sessions if required.
At a world level, the international federations and professional
bodies governing tennis—the ATP, the ITF and the WTA—use
the services of an ISO 9001:2000 accredited testing collection
body (International Drug Testing Management—IDTM).
Jockey Club horse samples are analysed by the
Horse Forensic Laboratory, Newmarket (HFL) which has the appropriate
ISO accreditation (ISO 17025), while human samples have been collected
and analysed by MedScreen, a commercial testing organisation,
since May 2003.
As the National Anti Doping Agency we have a
role to promote best practice amongst all sports in the UK. We
would therefore expect a governing body to use an IOC/WADA accredited
body for both collection and analysis. This is not currently the
case with regards to the human samples collected on behalf of
the Jockey Club. Under the WADC this is a requirement for all
sports that sign up to the code (this is compulsory for Olympic
sports if they wish to remain on the Olympic programme but is
not obligatory for other sports).
7. The Drug Control Centre told us that
ideally it needs 10,000 tests per year to be viable. Is this a
target or yardstick for UK Sport activity in the future?
The number of tests undertaken annually required
to act as an effective deterrent is not known. UK Sport has proposed
to WADA that research using historic data from across the world
using predictive and statistical modelling analysis could provide
a more empirical base for the number of tests required in any
particular athlete pool. This proposal has been fed into their
research programme considerations. In the meantime UK Sport has
assessed that an increase to 10,000 per annum would be helpful
in extending our programme and this is the figure included in
our 2005-09 business plan. However, this is subject to the additional
funding required being available. We are currently reviewing the
plan at the request of Sports Cabinet and will be required to
make savings of around £4 million a year in order to cover
the shortfall in Lottery funding. It is therefore not certain
that expansion of the programme to this level will remain affordable
in the light of the overall resources available to UK Sport.
8. UK Athletics lists only five sports
that operate a true no-notice, out-of-competition testing programme:
athletics; weightlifting; power lifting; swimming; and the Scottish
Rugby Union national team). Does UK Sport share this view?
These are currently the only sports which provide
us with whereabouts details of individual competitors who are
eligible for testing, enabling us to test "anywhere, anytime".
However, in addition to these sports, no notice out-of-competition
testing is undertaken in the vast majority of sports for which
we test. For example the FA, runs a comprehensive out-of-competition
testing programme during and outside the football season whereby
testers arrive unannounced at training grounds. Rugby union and
rugby league run similar programmes. All sports which have signed
the WADC are required to be subject to no notice-out-of competition
testing and UK Sport is working with sports to implement this.
9. The FA stated that they buy an accredited
and effective doping control service (sample collection and testing)
from UK Sport. In your opinion, did this service fail in any significant
respect in the Rio Ferdinand case?
When a governing body contracts doping control
services from UK Sport, they contract the WADA/ISO standard testing
procedures which are adhered to by UK Sport Doping Control Officer
for every test they conduct. However, the success of any test
is always dependent on the establishing of certain necessary conditions
to allow testing to take place. In all sports, the governing body
has a significant responsibility for this which includes, for
example, ensuring that affiliates such as member clubs are aware
of these conditions. Many choose to make this clear through the
production of governing body anti-doping procedures which deal
with the arrangements for testing rather than the doping control
process itself.
Thus, the ability to follow standard procedures
at any test will always be heavily dependent on the full co-operation
of the governing body, athletes, clubs and staff in the whole
process. Lessons have been learned with the FA and we have since
worked with them on the review of its procedures and these are
due to be amended for the 2004-05 season to ensure such circumstances
cannot be repeated.
DOPING CONTROL:
CASE MANAGEMENT
AFTER AN
ADVERSE FINDING
10. From our evidence so far, a key
gap in the anti-doping regime in the UK seems to be the lack of
an independent national sports tribunal service providing consistent,
fair and rigorous case management. Does UK Sport share this view?
UK Sport can see the benefits of this approach,
particularly with a view to increasing public and athlete confidence
in the system. However, under the terms of the WADC the use of
such a service is not enforceable on sports which have the option
of setting up their own independent panels, provided they meet
the standards set out in the Code. It is also worth noting that
not all sports are supportive of such a service.
11. Do you accept that new arrangements
for the management of anti-doping hearings are necessary to allow
smaller sports governing bodies to avoid the difficulties of acting
as both supporter and prosecutor of its athletes; and for them
to avoid potentially significant liabilities?
As noted above, it is for each individual sport
to decide which approach best suits their needs. This has been
addressed in our written evidence and is also covered under question
12 below.
(a) Is this in line with the recommendations
of the PMP report?
Yes.
(b) Is UK Sport minded to fund such
a service (the Minister for Sport left this ball in your court
in evidence on 27 April)?
Please refer to the answer provided to Question
12, below.
(c) Does the Sports Dispute Resolution
Panel provide a model for such a service?
As noted in our previous evidence, the SDRP
currently offers an independent tribunal service of which a number
of sports have made use. In the current review of options for
the setting up of such a service as required under the Code, the
SDRP is seen as one possible method of delivery.
(d) Would this meet the requirements
of the WADA Code?
Such a service would have to meet the standards
set out in the Code, regardless of which organisation delivers
it.
(e) Do current, more ad hoc,
arrangements meet the requirements of the WADA Code?
Most of the current ad hoc arrangements
in place would meet the basic principles set out in the WADC and
would therefore be acceptable. Such arrangements would be reviewed
on an ongoing basis to ensure continued compliance once the Code
is in place.
12. Who, ultimately, should pay for any independent
tribunal service for drug-related sports disputes: the Government
(via UK Sport); or sports governing bodies themselves (via fees
or a subscription regime)?
UK Sport has commissioned a costed options appraisal
for a National Tribunal Service which will be completed towards
the end of May 2004. To a certain extent the answer depends on
which option is preferred and the costs attached. However, it
is likely that the bulk of the core funding would need to come
from Government, either directly to the Tribunal body or via UK
Sport. UK Sport has included a provisional sum of £250,000
per annum in its 2005-09 Business Plan for this purpose.
The hearings and appeals process is not a mandatory
part of the WADC. Therefore, provided the system used by individual
sports adheres to the principles enshrined in the Code (for example,
timely, fair, impartial, independent, etc) there is no requirement
for them to use the National Tribunal Service. It is probable
that some sports which opt to use this service will be both willing
and able to contribute towards it, whereas others (the smaller
sports) would struggle to find the resources. One possible solution
would be to have a sliding scale of contributions towards the
costs of cases based on a sport's ability to pay (a system currently
operated by the SDRP).
It is equally probable that some sports, eg
football, would prefer to use their own system—the Football
Association has publicly stated its intention to do so. Provided
this meets the WADC principles, and the relevant national standards,
this would be acceptable. The WADC is aiming to harmonise standards
in the way hearings and appeals are conducted, rather than dictating
a single solution. It does not mean that such sports will be able
to deal with cases differently to those which use the Tribunal
Service.
13. Sports governing bodies who argue for
a new and independent system for hearing cases want to concentrate
on "supporting" their athletes in trouble. However,
who could make the case against the sportsperson concerned in
such a hearing if not the governing body whose rules have been
broken?
This is being addressed through the SDRP study.
(a) Given the strict liability rule,
does there in fact need to be a "prosecutor" or is it
a question of an independent panel merely assessing the sportsperson's
plea of mitigation following an adverse finding?
This is being addressed through the SDRP study.
However, under the WADC, the "Anti-Doping Organisation"
(which can be a National Anti-doping Organisation like UK Sport,
an International Federation or a National Governing Body) has
the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation
(breach of the rules) has occurred to the comfortable satisfaction
of the hearing body. The standard of proof in all cases is greater
than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond
a reasonable doubt. It is the role of an independent panel to
hear the case and provide a timely, written and reasoned decision.
(b) Does the WADA Code require the
NADO to assess the proceedings, findings and sanctions in anti-doping
cases and challenge them if necessary?
The Code requires the NADO to establish a process
for the pre-hearing administration of potential anti-doping rule
violations. This could include carrying out the initial review
regarding adverse analytical findings prior to notification to
the athlete. The NADO will also conduct any follow up investigations
as may be required by the prohibited list.
UK Sport does monitor the progress and outcome
of UK cases and puts pressure on governing bodies to manage these
appropriately where necessary. This is not an express requirement
of the WADC, but is part of our monitoring of the UK National
Anti-Doping Policy.
(c) Has UK Sport ever challenged a
sports governing body's handling of an anti-doping case and/or
employed the sanction of reduced funding?
The results management of cases by governing
bodies is closely monitored by UK Sport and any significant deviation
from the governing body rules or UK National Policy is identified
to them. Cases remain open and are reported as such until UK Sport
is satisfied that the action taken by the governing body is in
line with the rules applicable. The sanction of withdrawal of
funding to a Governing Body has only been possible since the launch
of the UK Sport Statement of Anti-Doping Policy in January 2002.
To this date there have been no circumstances that have required
UK Sport to apply this sanction. During this period, UK Sport
has withdrawn funding of individual athletes found guilty of an
anti-doping violation.
14. Would UK Sport ever accept the role as
"prosecutor" in anti-doping cases? Would there be any
conflicts of interest in adopting that role on behalf of sports
governing bodies?
The term "prosecute" is not used in
anti-doping hearings and appeals. Cases are "brought"
or "presented" and in theory UK Sport could undertake
this responsibility. To date this has not been the case but it
is being looked at as part of the SDRP study.
15. What are the implications of implementation
of the WADA Code for the UK's existing anti-doping regime? What
further progress must be accomplished before the Athens Olympic
Games?
Please refer to Section 5 (The World Anti-Doping
Code: UK Sport Progress Towards Compliance) of our original submission
for a detailed answer.
OTHER ISSUES
16. What will a UNESCO Convention add to
the battle against doping in sport?
The UNESCO Convention will:
— ensure the implementation of the
WADC at Government level (by the Winter Olympics in Turin 2006),
ensuring that all state parties recognise and respect the WADC
as being the fundamental basis of the world-wide fight against
anti-doping in sport;
— encourage and co-ordinate international
co-operation towards the elimination of doping in sport by enhancing
co-operation on anti-doping efforts among state parties, the sporting
movement and WADA, promoting the sharing of information, best
practice etc.
Essentially it is the key tool for ensuring
Government buy-in to the Code across all countries.
17. Is there any potential for complications
to arise in the inter-relationship of sports dispute resolution
and the courts? Is there any potential for a decision of a sports
tribunal in an individual case to be challenged through the courts?
A complication could only arise if the independent
panel handling a case was to promote itself as a civil or criminal
court as opposed to a dispute resolution body for sport. However,
no such problems are anticipated because as part of each governing
body's compliance to the WADC and UK National Policy, UK Sport
would need to ensure that they state clearly in their rules what
the roles and responsibilities of such a panel would be.
When going down the dispute resolution route,
both the athlete and the governing body accept this as the process
and that the final arbiter on appeal is CAS (Court of Arbitration
for Sport). However, it is always possible that an athlete could
decide to challenge through the Civil Courts in the same way as
any individual has the right to do. Such instances are, however,
rare.
18. The importance of preventative action
has been stressed in evidence to us many times. This seems to
involve a dual approach: (a) more efforts in educating sportspeople
and coaches (in the risks of unregulated supplements and other
inadvertent pathways into the body as well as the dangers of taking
banned substances on purpose); and (b) some means of tackling
the producers and traffickers in these substances—after
all someone is presumably developing drugs such as ThG, deliberately,
and not in a garden shed. Is this an accurate understanding?
Yes, this is an accurate understanding. Achievement
of this level of preventative action requires a commitment from
all organisations working in sport, including UK Sport, Government,
sports governing bodies, etc.
19. Does UK Sport—in concert with sports
governing bodies—do enough on the education front? How much
do you plan to spend on this next year?
The UK is considered to have one of the most
comprehensive and effective education and drug information programmes
in the world. Nevertheless, feedback from athletes and sports
has confirmed our view that greater emphasis should be placed
on education (prevention aspect, risks of inadvertent doping through
supplement use, etc) and that more resources should be dedicated
to this.
With the help of the additional Government funds
outlined in the answer to Question 2b, UK Sport has doubled the
budget allocated for education in 2004-05. Plans have been drawn
up to deliver more structured and formalised programmes across
the UK, working with a range of partners, including sports organisations,
and educational institutions. For the first time, the education
programmes will cover young people through UK Sport's "Start
Clean" initiative and, in partnership with governing bodies,
home country sports councils and sports institutes, drug-free
sport Ambassadors will be trained and accredited to help deliver
a national outreach programme to athletes.
DATA
20. UK Sport provided a breakdown of tests
and results for anti-doping across various sports. The Committee
would be greatly assisted if this table could be augmented by
indications of:
(a) the
total number of sportspeople eligible for testing in each case;
As has been previously explained, it is not
possible to give an accurate figure for the total number of athletes
eligible for testing. This is because of the difficulties of quantifying
the potential numbers involved in team sports. To provide such
figures would require too much guesswork for them to be at all
meaningful.
(b) an estimate of the total number
of events or competitions in a typical year in each category;
and
(c) the
number of tests provided by UK Sport and the number of tests purchased
by the sport governing body in each case.
No data collection system currently exists for
the specifics of these questions. Providing such information would
entail a considerable amount of time and human resource beyond
current UK Sport capacity.
21. The Committee would appreciate clarification
over whether these figures include tests undertaken in competition
abroad. If not, the Committee would appreciate data relating to
such tests, in particular figures for adverse findings.
The figures only include tests conducted by
UK Sport in the UK on UK and overseas competitors. Tests conducted
on UK athletes in other countries will be included in the results
reports published by those countries. Again, no data collection
system currently exists for such results.
ROLE MODELS
22. Is it fair to say that the responsibility
and resources for Sporting Champions—and other efforts to
build on athletes' profiles for wider policy goals—lies
with Sport England and the other home countries?
The written submission from Sport England rightly
explains that the Sporting Champions Scheme is funded by Sport
England and Sport Scotland. However, UK Sport's submission (paragraph
6.15) points out that links between the Sporting Champions Programmes
throughout the home countries are being explored and one of UK
Sport's aims is to make drug-free sport a fundamental part of
this programme. One particular focus is, as part of the "Start
Clean" programme, training interested athletes to deliver
workshops to young people (13-17 year olds) to build understanding
and awareness of drug-free sport.
23. What has UK Sport's work into sporting
conduct revealed?
(a) Has there been a real quantifiable
deterioration in standards?
There is a perception amongst spectators that
across major spectator sports, players' conduct has declined over
the last 10 years (49% of sample). This is supported by some interesting
evidence from the survey into Cricket which showed that experienced
players (those that had been in the game more than 10 years) felt
that standards of conduct had declined during their careers. However,
the research has also shown that players, coaches, officials and
spectators do generally acknowledge there is a right way to play
sport and a wrong way, and the debate has moved on to identifying
what is and is not acceptable in terms of sporting conduct.
(b) To what extent does sporting conduct
reflect society and to what extent does it influence society?
This is a very difficult question to answer
and there is no statistical evidence to provide a definitive response.
There is no question that sportsmen and women, along with coaches,
officials, etc, can be important role models, particularly for
the young, and this is supported by evidence from the spectator
survey where some sports scored very highly in perceptions of
whether their players were positive role models.
24. Evidence from the British Athletes Commission
suggested that there were improvements that could be made in the
organisation of, and related training for, initiatives by which
athletes are called upon to speak in schools. What plans does
UK Sport have to improve and support the contribution that athletes
can make in schools?
As outlined above in the answer to Question
22, UK Sport intends to train interested athletes to deliver workshops
to young people (13-17 year olds) to build understanding and awareness
of drug-free sport.
As Sue Campbell explained to the Committee in
her oral evidence, such work would not be made a mandatory condition
of athlete grants because not all athletes are suited to this
type of activity. However, we will encourage and support athletes
who are willing to do this by giving them appropriate training
and assistance.
| 
