Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR MATTHEW
READER, MR
JOHN SCOTT
AND MS
ALLISON HOLLOWAY
19 JULY 2006
Q20 Dr Harris: It is a bit awkward
because if something is deemed prohibited, and everything said
in your education programme is that this is terrible, you must
not do it, as soon as it is de-prohibited, like caffeine, it rather
undermines your credibility for other countries as well. Would
it not be better to always make the point that it is cheating
because it is prohibited not just because it is performance enhancing?
Mr Scott: You have to have criteria
under which you would deem it is prohibited.
Q21 Dr Harris: If you do not make
the point that what you are objecting to is the use of prohibited
substances not just substances, then you are rather undermined
when they legalise something that you have condemned previously
because you have condemned it in broad terms.
Mr Reader: Certainly I accept
your point. It is worth noting that the adoption of the code and
the establishment of WADA is a huge leap forward in terms of fighting
doping in sport. John will know better than I that 10 years ago
when all sports were doing what they wanted it made it so much
more difficult to have a harmonised set of rules and procedures
in place. I want to emphasise that the code is a huge step forward.
If your question is, is the prohibited list and the code a perfect
document in every shape and form, then the answer would be no.
Q22 Dr Harris: That was not my question.
What about hypoxic chambers? You do not know whether, from education
point of view, to say do not go there or to say let us go for
it and Britain should have its share.
Mr Scott: If that question is
specifically on hypoxic chambers, of course what it gets to is
in all these areas there is no absolute black and white; there
are shades of grey here. When you are looking at the kind of stresses,
strains and expectations placed on modern high performance athletes
they clearly need all the appropriate support they can get to
perform at those highest levels. This whole debate around hypoxic
chambers is one that is being undertaken, as we sit here, through
a consultation document WADA has put out. It is looking at it
through those three criteria, the ethical base, the medical base
and performance enhancing. We are still coming to our view but
have not yet achieved a view. We have to submit a view later this
year. So far I would say we have some concerns because at the
heart of their argument is an issue about passive engagement in
the exercise. If you start going down that route, that can open
up a number of other areas: for example, is the application of
physiotherapy a passive engagement; is the use of an ice bath
a passive application.
Q23 Chairman: Such as sleeping at
attitude.
Mr Scott: Absolutely. It is an
extremely difficult debate but it is appropriate that the debate
happen.
Q24 Dr Harris: You said you had concerns.
Are you saying you have concerns because they are thinking because
it is passive engagement it might be legal, or you are having
concerns that they might actually not legalise it formally? I
am not sure which way you are heading.
Mr Scott: At the moment we are
tending to say that we are not ready for this. Firstly, it is
extremely difficult to enforce this. How would you enforce it?
Secondly, there is this issue about is it genuinely fulfilling
the criteria that you are applying. That is why I got into the
passivity debate. Of course, there is this issue of the degree
of performance enhancement that it offers that is not available
to others through other routes, as you referenced living at attitude.
There are a number of areas that are mixed up in that debate.
Q25 Dr Harris: On this point, you
did not raise it there, and I am interested to know genuinely
because it is a fascinating issue, what UK Sport or DCMS's view
is. You did not say one of the criteria is, is there equity. Hypoxic
chambers are not going to be available to everyone, for emerging
countries and so forth. If you have an expensive enhancement therapy,
as far as your policy thinking is concerned, should that ever
be a factor? Should you permit things that are costly and first
world enhancement?
Mr Scott: You cannot possibly
apply an affordability factor. Equally, why is that the developed
world are able on send its athletes for three months at great
expense to train at altitude? That is not available to developing
countries. Are you going to stop those athletes travelling? How
would you do that?
Q26 Dr Turner: Are you comfortable
with a situation whereby you clearly have substances with demonstrable
performance enhancing properties which are not prohibited, and
techniques which likewise enhance performance which are not prohibited?
Does this worry you? Can you think of any examples you are looking
to eliminate?
Mr Scott: We are relatively comfortable
with the prohibited list as it is currently constructed. As I
say, it is reviewed annually, there is a constant willingness
to include new techniques or substances where they are shown to
meet one of the three criteria.[1]
We firmly believe that at the heart of any decision about what
is to be included on that list should be the performance enhancement
element. Certainly it is our belief that at the root of the World
Anti-Doping Code is the idea that taking illegal substances is
about cheating. It is about giving an unfair advantage through
scientific manipulation, it is not about achieving an advantage
through hard work and through the application of top class services.
If the system can do that, absolutely fair and good. It is about
using something that goes beyond, it moves into that ethical debate
about what is right and what is wrong. That is always one of the
factors that has to be debated when you are looking at the inclusion
of anything on the prohibited list.
Q27 Dr Turner: Can we assume that there
are candidate substances and techniques under consideration for
the prohibited list at all times and currently?
Mr Scott: Yes, absolutely.
Q28 Dr Harris: What about safe performance
enhancements where there are no obvious side effects and it is
clearly for the benefit of the athlete, like laser eye surgery,
which clearly enhances the ability of those sportsmen for whom
that is important. Do you think that is an area where the line
might need to be drawn, and whereabouts would you be inclined
to draw it in respect of those issues, or drugs which aid healing,
expensive drugs, new therapies, clearly for the benefit of the
athlete but clearly enhance their ability to recover from exertion
or injury?
Mr Scott: This is where the discrepancies
are very apparent around the world. If someone has an exceptionally
good health medical system that is available to that athlete in
that country to heal themselves more quickly, that is absolutely
fair and right. It would be wonderful if everyone could have access
to that but we do not live in an equitable world. Your question
about laser eye technology, clearly it is something that currently
is not banned. There is, as I just explained to Dr Turner, a proper
process by which these things are constantly reviewed. I am not
a scientist. I am not a medical doctor, so I am not competent
to comment about the performance enhancing elements. We rely very
much on the quality, and it is an extremely high quality, group
of people who rely on a number of sources to make those decisions.
Q29 Dr Harris: Before UK Sport or
DCMS comes to their view, do you think we will be asked—and
by "we" I mean either the public or Parliament—or
is this just going to be you guys making a decision and giving
a response to these issues that you are asked by WADA, hypoxic
chambers, laser eye surgery? Is their consultation with parliament
or the public?
Mr Scott: There is consultation
with all our stakeholders. To undertake a public consultation
would be extremely difficult. What we undertake is a consultation
process with all the bodies on whom this has a direct impact.
We consult with national governing bodies, with the sports medicine
fraternity, the British Olympic Committee, the British Paralympic
Committee, with DCMS. We have ethicists that input to this. We
have a number of sources from whom we obtain a view.
Q30 Dr Harris: The public may have
a view and you could ask them. There are opinion poll companies
that do that very well. Is that something you would consider?
Mr Scott: I think we would. Of
course, as you are already beginning to discover in the kind of
debate you are having here, it is extremely difficult to get to
the fine detail of what will force you to say yes or no. That
needs a huge amount of the background, knowledge and understanding.
Q31 Adam Afriyie: What are you doing
to identify new potentially illegal performance enhancing drugs?
What work are you undertaking?
Mr Scott: UK Sport are not directly
doing any work ourselves. We have a very small research budget
and our research priority has been on social research. We felt,
because of the need to improve the testing model that exists today,
we need to get a better understanding of the mind set of the athletes
and we are investing quite heavily in that kind of research.
Mr Reader: I think my first answer
to that is WADA is uniquely placed to co-ordinate. All of the
issues we have been talking about have application across the
world. They are not unique to the UK. WADA has a fairly considerable
research budget and commissions research around the world. I am
very pleased that UK research institutions such as Southampton
Medical School, the Horse Racing Forensic laboratory, Nottingham
Trent University, UCL, as well as our WADA accredited labs and
Kings as well, have all been involved in, and are contributing
to, the body of research evidence that quite rightly is co-ordinated
through WADA. Obviously it is important that is then fed back
around the world and informs people about WADA's decision.
Q32 Adam Afriyie: In general terms
DCMS, and therefore UK Sport, await reports from WADA and other
institutions and act on that information rather than conducting
active investigations themselves?
Mr Reader: I do not think that
is quite right. UK Sport are clearly the Government's expert advisers
in this field and they work very closely with the WADA accredited
laboratories. They have very close relationships with various
research institutions around the country. The eyes and ears of
the specialist people working on these sort of issues on a day-to-day
basis, that network exists. If there are particular issues which
government can help or contribute to, we would be willing to.
Q33 Adam Afriyie: I did not mean
it as a slight. I was saying that UK Sport will initiate and investigate
to find out what other new things are going on but not that you
would conduct the research yourselves directly.
Mr Scott: No, and what we have
learned, and Matthew made the point, is this needs an international
solution. You have to have that global co-operation. What we do
is we are in inconstant dialogue with the laboratory, and we are
receiving all kinds of things from the laboratory about stuff
that might need a bit of further investigation. We are sharing
that with our international counterparts, primarily through the
Association of National Anti-Doping Organisations where I sit
on the executive, and through the International Anti-Doping Arrangement,
which is the 10 leading NADOs. That debate, that discussion, helps
inform the nature of the research submissions that then come forward
to WADA.
Q34 Adam Afriyie: We have the 2012
Olympics coming towards us at a rate of knots. Are there any particular
human enhancement technologies that you are concerned about in
the run-up to the Olympics? Are there new ones coming onto the
horizon or that would seem to be particularly attractive to the
2012 Olympics?
Mr Scott: I am not sure there
are new ones. What is concerning is the growth in blood doping,
which has been around for a number of years. As you know from
the scandal in Spain, that is very much back on the agenda. Clearly
the area that a lot of people debate, and you yourselves have
looked at this, is the whole possibility of gene doping, genetic
manipulation. At the moment the advice we receive from our experts
is that it is probably premature, but this is a field that can
make sudden leaps forward, and it is the speed with which that
leap forward could move through into the sports system that we
need to be very conscious of. The reality is that a lot of the
people who will be competing in 2012 in the Games are already
in the system. That is the nature of high performance sport. It
is only six years away and the likelihood of you being able to
compete at the level required to represent your country at the
Olympics you are probably quite well up the ladder. There is an
opportunity certainly to see what is happening to those individuals
through the current day doping programmes we all operate through
the world.
Q35 Adam Afriyie: My final question
is to Allison. You are on the education side. To step back to
what Dr Harris was pressing at earlier, when it comes to education,
if you are saying that it is morally wrong to use performance
enhancing substances that is a very different proposition to saying
it is morally wrong to break the code of conduct or the rules
we have laid down. I would argue there is a very big difference
between those concepts, and in the education you are providing
or supplying that really ought to be made clear. Is that something
that you do make clear?
Ms Holloway: With the launch of
the 100% Me programme last year, the underlying principles of
that programme were about personal choice. Obviously the philosophy
behind the 100% Me programme is it was not just an education programme,
it was there as a symbol to represent dedication and commitment
and hard work on the part of an individual. Many athletes who
were involved in the consultation and design of the programme
really wanted us to establish a programme with which they could
associate themselves to be able to say that they are drug free.
One of the important aspects of the programme, and of the name
of the programme, is that an athlete gets to make their own personal
choice about the decisions they make in sport. It is important
to us that athletes committed to completing cleanly have all the
information and education at their disposal so they can make their
choices. What you are talking about there is a moral choice, and
particularly for current elite level athletes it is very difficult
to shape the morals and the values of adults where those values
have already been established. Therefore, we really do need to
allow the athlete to make their own personal choice about what
is right and wrong for them.
Q36 Adam Afriyie: If I were to read
the 100% Me programme, would I find anywhere a statement that
says that it is morally wrong to break the rules and the code
of conduct because of the fairness issue but makes very clear
that it is not necessarily morally wrong to use something which
enhances your performance? Those are two distinct issues and I
am wondering if that is clear.
Ms Holloway: We do promote fairness
in sport through the education programme. Obviously we have a
responsibility to promote the rules of the game as well. Therefore,
it is essential that our lead athletes understand where they may
be overstepping the mark. We do promote a level playing field
and ethical principles. Going back to the idea of the programme,
it is about the individual making that personal choice. If it
is not on the list, what is right for them? What makes them feel
that they are 100% Me?
Q37 Dr Iddon: I would like to turn
now to the actual testing programme. First of all, can I establish
which samples your doping control officers take from the athlete?
Is it just blood, just urine or a mixture?
Mr Scott: It can be either. It
is primarily urine but it can entail blood as well.
Q38 Dr Iddon: Urine it is well known
can be adulterated or substituted. What effort do you make to
ensure that the sample is uncontaminated and intact at the time
of testing?
Mr Scott: That is the whole process
of the international standard for doping control which lays down
the process by which the urine is collected. Obviously that is
absolutely central to the integrity of the process, that urine
cannot be contaminated in any way. We have an absolutely robust
system for both the collection of the sample, the transfer of
the sample to the tamper proof bottles, and the transmission of
the sample to the laboratory for testing.
Q39 Dr Iddon: Are there any other
limiting factors that you can tell us about that limit the testing
technologies?
Mr Scott: In what context?
1 Note by the witness: I intended to say two
of the three criteria. Back
| 
