Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
DR RICHARD
BUDGETT AND
DR ARNE
LJUNGQVIST
29 NOVEMBER 2006
Q260 Dr Turner: Would you like to
see us put a law into the English statute book to provide the
same provisions?
Dr Budgett: Yes.
Dr Ljungqvist: That is my view.
Dr Budgett: We will have to see
what the ramifications of that would be, but I am sure it will
be very helpful. It will send a very strong message. I was thinking
about testing—we are talking about testing at the moment—and
the out-of-competition testing is obviously the way ahead. It
is far more effective and has a far greater deterrent effect.
There are two messages we are putting over. One is a lot of tests,
and because you have finite resources there is a danger they are
going to be less effective. I know that a number of tests which
are labelled as out-of-competition, which is what we want, in
effect are on a whole group of athletes when they are easy to
get hold of, so we have to be quite careful when we are building
up towards the 2012 Olympics that we are doing the testing as
effectively as possible and not get too worried about the total
numbers. One really well-targeted surprise test is going to be
far more valuable than testing a squad of 15, where they turn
up for their camp.
Q261 Dr Turner: Professor Ljungqvist
would it be possible to provide us with a translation of the Swedish
Act?
Dr Ljungqvist: Yes.
Q262 Dr Turner: What procedures do
you have for taking forward the lessons you learn from any given
major sporting event to the next one? Presumably you have a structure
for taking forward any responses to problems that arise.
Dr Budgett: Certainly, from the
point of view of the List Committee, the stakeholders are more
and more active in putting forward their recommendations and experiences
and statistics and results and concerns. This large amount of
information is considered very carefully by the committee and
that feeds in appropriately to any changes in the list. I am sure
the same will happen for the code as well—and is happening
for the code.
Q263 Dr Turner: Will you be recommending
a significant increase in the amount of testing of the 2012 Olympics?
Dr Ljungqvist: We will be discussing
that. It is a negotiation matter, of course, with the organising
committee. We are steadily increasing the number of tests for
the Olympic Games from each one to the other and certainly they
will be increased again, but it is not a matter so much of the
increase of the testing, it is more the strategy to make use of
the testing mechanism in the optimal way. Therefore, as from the
Athens games, we introduced an Olympic period during which out-of-competition
testing could take place. It started by the official opening of
the village until the end of the games. It included more than
a month rather than the few weeks of the games. That is an example
of an improvement of testing methodology.
Q264 Dr Turner: Are there any specific
concerns with the British Olympic Association in preparation?
Dr Budgett: Yes. We go to a lot
of trouble with UK Sport to test all our athletes at least once
and some of them we test more than once in the six months leading
up to the Olympic Games. That sends a very strong deterrent message,
we feel. The other thing to say about the games is that obviously
there are a number of tests—I think it is around 2,500—which
you have to do because they are of the medal winners, fourth,
fifth place and one other, and it depends on the rules. You have
the fundamental ones you are going to do in competition. All the
other ones you do are going to be out-of-competition and will
be far more effective. Every single hundred you do is going to
be a hundred more.
Q265 Dr Turner: With events like
the Athletics Grand Prix Circuit, where you have international
athletes moving around between games, do you test there?
Dr Budgett: Do you mean our British
athletes?
Q266 Dr Turner: Yes.
Dr Budgett: Yes, they will be
picked up wherever UK Sport can pick them up. Of course there
is the whereabouts system, which I suppose we might talk about
later. That has become more effective.
Q267 Chairman: Professor Ljungqvist,
before we leave this, your answers have been very interesting
but my ears pricked up particularly when you talked about manipulation
and that you felt WADA were ahead of the game on that. Would it
be possible to send us some evidence to back up that statement?
That is a very powerful statement you have made and it is something
we have never heard anywhere else. The perception is that you
cannot detect gene doping and you are saying something quite different.
We would be very grateful for that.
Dr Ljungqvist: I will make sure,
yes.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Q268 Mr Flello: Good morning, gentlemen.
Dr Budgett, according to John Scott, the Director of UK Sport
drug-free sport programme, "UK Sport is one of the world's
leading National Anti-Doping organisations". Would you agree
with that?
Dr Budgett: Yes. I think that
is a fair statement. It does not mean to say it is perfect but
it is definitely one of the world's leading anti-doping organisations.
Q269 Mr Flello: How effective do
you think it is?
Dr Budgett: It is improving. It
is getting better. I am concerned that it is part of UK Sport,
which hands the grants out to the sports and the individuals,
so there is a potential conflict of interest there, but, as regards
the organisation of the tests, I think the training of our independent
sampling officers is second to none. All of those whom I have
met have been absolutely excellent, very professional, with just
the right attitude. Athletes are in a difficult situation. It
comes as a surprise, so you have to be quite sensitive as well
as firm, and their procedures are very good as well. If you go
abroad, you get sampling officers, some of whom are excellent,
some of whom are not.
Q270 Mr Flello: What further could
be done to improve the performance?—of the programme rather
than the athletes!
Dr Budgett: Of course the other
very important thing UK Sport do is education, with 100% ME
and the other leaflets. For improvement, I think it would be helpful
if it were made independent, and also—which is a very hard
ask—to try to get away from the feeling, as I was implying
earlier, that we have to have huge numbers of tests so that our
annual report looks good, but rather to go for the quality of
tests, which is a difficult thing to measure and justify. As a
small example, I was with the rowers last Wednesday—it was
a trial, so it was out-of-competition—and they picked up
about 15 rowers. That is 15 ticked-up as out-of-competition. I
would much rather they had targeted four or five of those at a
totally random time, when they were not coming for a trial, so
they did not really know they were going to be tested. I feel
that would be even more effective.
Q271 Mr Flello: Professor Ljungqvist,
would you agree with that?
Dr Ljungqvist: Yes.
Q272 Mr Flello: You mentioned your
concerns over the potential conflicts and I understand the Australians
have a distinct body, the Australian Anti-Doping Authority, to
investigate and prosecute. Do you think that is appropriate for
sporting bodies or do you think it is okay for sporting bodies
here to prosecute in the case of positive findings?
Dr Budgett: I think it is very
hard for sporting bodies, because there is a conflict there as
well. Some of our governing bodies, as you know, are very small.
I am also involved with the bob-sleigh team. I have been their
team doctor for many years and, unfortunately, we have had a number
of positive cases in bob-sleigh. It is very hard. At one stage
you are the advocate, helping the athlete, and then suddenly you
are sitting in judgment over the athlete. I think that is an invidious
position.
Q273 Mr Flello: Professor Ljungqvist,
do you think it is appropriate for sporting bodies to prosecute
in cases of positive dope tests?
Dr Ljungqvist: I think the situation
varies from country to country and possibly from sport to sport.
One has to have a credible mechanism in place. The most important
aspect is that there should be a supreme appeal body to which
anybody can appeal and which is totally independent. We do have,
as you know, in international sport, the Court of Arbitration
for Sport. In my country we have a superior body, an arbitration
panel, which is totally disassociated from sport as well, which
takes any final decision. The first decision may be taken at the
sports level. I see the conflict of interest, but it is also a
matter of practicality as to what can be done.
Q274 Mr Flello: Bruce Hamilton from
UK Athletics told us that he would like to see a separation of
the investigation and the prosecution functions. Is that something
with which you would agree?
Dr Ljungqvist: It is a matter
of how much one should develop a particular mechanism, the costly
mechanisms, for dealing with these matters. Again, the most important
part of the whole affair is that there is a superior appeal body
there that can take the final decision, to whom anyone can appeal
any earlier decision.
Q275 Chairman: That does not get
us away from this conflict of interest that Robert is talking
about.
Dr Ljungqvist: No.
Q276 Chairman: That protects the
athlete who is wrongly "accused" and therefore can make
an appeal but it does not give the supporting authorities the
chance to get in and question some of those decisions. You have
mentioned USADA and ASADA are both being incredibly effective
in taking that beyond the individual sports.
Dr Ljungqvist: Yes.
Q277 Chairman: And yet you are not
supporting that view. For the record, we would like to know why
you are not supporting it.
Dr Ljungqvist: No, I support it
but I can see that there are difficulties in many countries to
put such a mechanism in place.
Q278 Chairman: But the ideal would
be—
Dr Ljungqvist: The ideal would
be. But take USADA, for example, they are both investigating and
prosecuting.
Q279 Chairman: Yes, but they are
independent of sports.
Dr Ljungqvist: Yes.
| 
