How should NADO’s and academics work together?

INDR December 2015 Commentary by Michael Ask, CEO Anti Doping Denmark

INDR managers John Gleaves and Ask Vest Christiansen asked Michael Ask, CEO of Anti Doping Denmark to respond to the following questions:

• What should the relationship between academics and anti-doping organizations look like?

In general, I think that both parties should and could benefit from each other. The history of anti-doping is relatively short in comparison to other research areas. Hence, the general knowledge gathered from research projects and experience can still be developed quite extensively. Also, academia and anti-doping organizations have a mutual interest when it comes to utilizing the latest knowledge within the field of anti-doping. Anti-organizations should be open and transparent towards academia and share some of the challenges we have, especially regarding scientific-based knowledge about what works and what does not, in our efforts to have as clean and fair sport as possible.  At the same time, academia should listen to and respect the experience gathered through practical experience within anti-doping organizations. It seems to me that some researchers neglect to cooperate with anti-doping organizations before or during their work. This is surprising to me, because I am convinced that the quality of research projects would rise if they did so. I have seen some examples of research projects, where the conclusions are based on very little empirical data, and where anti-doping organizations haven’t been heard. In such cases there is a risk of ending up with very loosely based or even false conclusions.

• How should academics and anti-doping organizations work together?

It is my clear impression that most developed anti-doping organizations have an interest in developing their work. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that research within this field is being carried out, not only when it comes to natural sciences, but also within social sciences. We are more than wiling in Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD) to support well-argued research projects, as long as they are transparent and not prejudiced of course.

For the upcoming year, we have allocated 70.000 EURO for supporting research projects, and I will be more than happy to see members of the INDR network applying for parts of that fund.

Furthermore, I think both parties should improve the level of cooperation through various seminars, workshops etc. in order for both to broaden their horizons and learn from each other. Personally, I was pleased to be invited for the latest seminar in Aarhus, even if I was somewhat disappointed with some of the presentations. I thought they were biased, poorly corroborated, and even in one case almost aggressive in the way it was presented. My advice to you for future seminars would be: “Try not to invite ‘the crusaders’!” They are not able to reflect on arguments anyway, and they do not contribute to the scientific development of the anti-doping work, neither for academics nor for the anti-doping organizations.

• What limits exists for both groups

It is obvious that we have two different objectives. Anti-doping organizations are bound by legislation and regulations from governments and WADA, whereas academics traditionally, and rightly so, refer to the right to research freely and independently. For anti-doping organizations, it means that we sometimes have to enforce rules and regulations that might not necessarily agree with our personal views. However, I think that we could be more courageous in public and outline some of the unsuitability’s of the system. That is the only way we can influence the decision makers and make the system better.

Researchers can of course freely criticize all aspects of the doping system, but I think they often score some cheap points by just criticizing without pointing to solutions at the same time. The WADA Code and the anti-doping regulations are results of international compromises, and I find that researches have a tendency to forget the complexity of that fact.

• What commitments, if any, should anti-doping organizations have towards academic research?

I think we, as the anti-doping community, have an obligation to utilize the latest developments in academic research. We are constantly on the lookout for improving the efficiency in our work, but often we get disappointed when we learn that a research project set out from the beginning to prove the thesis that “the anti-doping work is unjust and worthless”. We would welcome if, instead, academics provided us with some alternative solutions to the problems they criticize. I also believe we should be better in pointing out where we see the need for more research projects in order to enlighten us and give us some more solid ground to work on.

• What commitments, if any, should academics have towards the effort of anti-doping organizations?

I think academics should acknowledge the work we do, and especially have in mind that most people working in this industry are committed to “clean sport” and protecting the clean athlete against the cheaters. We find it a noble course, which at least should be respected, even if one does not agree.

Having said that, I think it is an obligation for academics constantly to challenge the way we work and examine whether we work efficiently. Such challenges should be addressed with a focus on constructive dialogue and input for alternative ways to improve the system. The only way to achieve that is through serious research-based knowledge and objective analysis. Definitely, there are still many aspects of the anti-doping work to explore. One much discussed issue right now is why (in general) there are relatively few positive samples compared to only a few years ago. Is it because athletes do not dope anymore? Moreover, if yes, what is the decisive deterrent factor? Is it testing, preventive work, high morale or something else? On the other hand, if the decline in positive tests is not a result of cleaner sport, why don’t we catch the cheaters anymore?

Anyone who will assist in answering some of these questions is more than welcome.

• Is there an obligation for anti-doping organizations to consider and critically asses the results generated by researchers?

Yes – definitely – and vice versaJ

For more information on Anti Doping Denmark see: http://www.antidoping.dk/