By John Gleaves & Ask Vest Christiansen
The INDR has been and remains a network of researchers focused on the complex doping phenomenon. Yet, much of what we research is shaped by anti-doping administrators. For this newsletter, we invited Michael Ask, CEO of Anti Doping Denmark, to engage in a dialogue with Co-Directors Ask Vest Christiansen and John Gleaves about how each of us envisions the ideal relationship between academic research and anti-doping organizations. This newsletter is part of an ongoing effort to encourage diverse perspectives and to provoke critical thinking about doping. We hope the resulting commentaries spark further conversation by our members and anti-doping administrators.
Also, we must express our gratitude to Michael Ask for his willingness and efforts to engage this process. Without a genuine partner from anti-doping administration, this dialogue would not have been possible. We appreciate his willingness to engage our questions and provide his perspective on the complicated issue. A key point in Ask’s reply is that he considers it necessary that anti-doping organisations are “open and transparent towards academia”, and by this he isn’t just referring to the natural sciences but also social science research. Ask thus encourage INDR members to apply for some of the approximately 70.000 € the organisation offers for research projects in 2016. He is, however, also critical towards parts of academia, in that he doesn’t always feel scholars are genuinely interested in retrieving sufficient information and knowledge from anti-doping organisations, whereby their conclusions risk being “very loosely based or even false”. Also, he encourages researchers to also propose alternative solutions when criticising the system. Ask concludes his commentary with a puzzling question on the current status of adverse findings and invite scholars to contribute with explanations.
Obviously, in their response Gleaves and Christiansen see the issue from the point of the researcher rather than the NADO. They touch on many of the same issues and see some of the same barriers, but reach slightly different conclusions. Taken together the two commentaries clearly demonstrate that both sides do not see all matters the same way. But there are also important points of agreement, including calls for high-quality research and mutual openness that encourage more dialogue. This is a good stepping stone for more communication and interaction in the months and years to come. Please feel free to share your responses to either or both lines of commentaries with the INDR so that we can continue the conversation with future commentaries.
Besides the two commentaries on increased dialogue between NADOs and academics from CEO Michael Ask and John Gleaves & Ask Vest Christiansen, respectively, this Newsletter also contains new footage from the INDR conference in August 2015. Take a look at our website, www.doping.au.dk, and you will find short conference testimonials from Professor Letizia Paoli, Professor Ivan Waddington, Professor Torbjörn Tännsjö, Dr. Werner Pitsch and Professor Verner Møller. Watch and share with your network – they give a good impression of some of the issues we work with. We thank all five for their participation and insightful comments.