By John Gleaves and Ask Vest Christiansen
The changing seasons ushered in new aspects of anti-doping. In November, Rita Jeptoo, a marathon runner from Kenya, returned an out-of-competition control sample that tested positive for EPO. Jeptoo’s positive would be business as usual if not for the unusual circumstances surrounding her case. Not only was Jeptoo using a former doctor as her manager (a suspect relationship) but her positive test reminded the sporting world that athletes from countries like Kenya have posed challenges to WADA’s global anti-doping efforts. Not only is Kenya large with many remote outposts but it also lags in financial resources and anti-doping infrastructure. This has led to fears that Kenyan runners could take advantage of their country’s basically non-existent anti-doping system The fact that Jeptoo’s positive resulted not from a test performed by the Kenyan Anti-Doping Agency but by the International Association of Athletics Federations with financial support from the World Marathon Majors only furled suspicions that the two-tiered anti-doping enforcement resulted in an unleveled playing field (Pilon and Longman 2014).
If Jeptoo perhaps exploited her country’s loose anti-doping detection, the handling of Chinese swimmer Sun Yang’s positive test for the stimulant trimetazidine drew criticisms when the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency (Chinada) announced Yang’s suspension in November. Having started his three month ban in May, Yang had returned to competition in time to compete in the Asian Games in late September. When Chinada announced his suspension after his three-gold medal performance at the Asian games, not only did the timing raise eyebrows but so did the short length of his three month ban. WADA has announced that it will review Chinada’s decision and may appeal Yang’s case to the Court of Arbitration of sport (Reuters 2014). Still, Yang’s case illustrates the conflict of interest that exists between national anti-doping agencies and their task to police their own athletes.
On the other hand, Germany’s recent draft of a law to criminalize doping in sport with up to three years in jail indicates a different trend in anti-doping that adds to the unlevel playing field. In this trend, some countries’ anti-doping desires lead to policies and laws that hold athletes to a far higher standard than that set by the WADA Code. The desire to ensure all athletes follow the rules of sport and compete on a level playing field is noble; however, WADA balked at the idea of jailing athletes with WADA’s president, Craig Reedie, saying “An athlete should be sanctioned under the sports rules which have been developed over many years and he should not be sanctioned under criminal law” (Associated Press 2014).
Despite Reedie’s call for reason, Van de Ven and Mulrooney’s commentary in this newsletter show clearly that the criminalization of anti-doping (led in large part by WADA) has only increased in recent years with no sign of abating. Moreover, Kondo’s commentary on Japan’s anti-doping efforts indicates the effects of a long-term investment in anti-doping infrastructure on a nation’s athletes while Pardo sheds light on the unintended repercussions that certain country’s retesting of past samples has for its athletes. Taken together, it seems reasonable to ask whether the various efforts intended to improve anti-doping enforcement have unintentionally created a patchwork of inconsistent policies that have resulted in an unlevel playing field.
It is this question—what are the unintended effects of anti-doping?—that have become the theme for the 2015 INHDR conference that will be held in Aarhus, Denmark, August 27-28, 2015. Having heard from many INHDR members, we are pleased that this conference theme resonates with so many scholars from various fields. Moreover, our confirmed keynote speakers will ensure that this conference explores aspects of the anti-doping efforts that have yet to be scrutinized. Please look forward to a forthcoming “Call for Papers” and consult the conference announcement on the INHDR website.
Associated Press (2014). WADA Against Jail Term for Athletes,” ESPN Online, http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/11886798/wada-jail-terms-athletes
Pilon, Mary and Longman, Jere (2014). “Rita Jeptoo, Kenyan Marathon Champion, Fails Preliminary Doping Test,” New York Times, < http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/sports/marathon-champion-rita-jeptoo-fails-doping-test.html>
Reuters (2014). “WADA to Review Sun Yang Drug Ban,” The Guardian, < http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/27/wada-to-review-sun-yang-drug-ban>