Welcome to this, the first new newsletter of INHDR.
As mentioned in Verner Møller's commentary, the editors of this newsletter have from today been granted the honour of taking over the management of the International Network of Humanistic Doping Research (INHDR). Given what the network has accomplished over the last ten years we are both humbled at the task, but also eager to continue the network in the spirit in which it was founded and as the scholarly body it has become.
Although there will be some changes, we consider it important to stress that what has brought us all to this organization will remain the same. We will carry on with the same goal: to share and encourage research on doping practices in their broadest cultural, social and political dimensions. Hence, despite the change in management, the network you once joined will remain the network that you are currently a member of.
One change, however, is the format of communication, evidenced by the current newsletter you are reading. While all previous content will continue to be available on our website www.doping.au.dk, we seek to expand the website’s resources to further support doping research. Whether this is an expression of, as Verner Møller states, us being "more familiar with the new media", we are not sure. It is clear that, although we live in an era of unprecedented technological innovation, there is also more junk, noise, and useless information transmitted via new modes of communication. However, there are possibilities both with new media and the old, trusted scholarly methods that can enhance the network’s future aims. To achieve this, the ambition is to have newsletters out to network members every three months. Each newsletter will have an editorial (written by the editors), addressing news, events, housekeeping, and the like. We also openly invite all members to submit commentaries on whatever doping subject you feel are pressing as they emerge. This will take the place of the previously assigned monthly editorials. The goal here is for us, as members of the organisation, to inform each other as well as create critical and thoughtful content on current doping issues. Given the high quality of the editorials published on the INHDR website over the last three years, we encourage you all to continue writing such pieces and submitting them as commentaries for the newsletter and the website.
Besides the commentary from Verner Møller, we are proud at this time to have a call to WADA written by Professor Ivan Waddington, and co-signed by a host of international scholars. In a central paragraph, the text reads: "It is clear that WADA’s third criterion for inclusion – that the use of drugs is against the vague concept of the 'spirit of sport' – performs a "catchall function"; it provides an argument for the banning of recreational drugs whose use cannot be banned on sporting grounds, that is on grounds of performance-enhancement. It is important that we, and WADA, are clear about the implications of this rule: since WADA may suspend an athlete for the use of recreational drugs which are not performance-enhancing WADA is, in effect, using anti-doping regulations in order to police personal lifestyles and social activities which are unrelated to sporting activities." And the text concludes: "We therefore call on WADA to remove non-performance enhancing recreational drugs, such as marijuana, from its Prohibited List of Substances and to stop testing for such drugs at sporting competitions." This call will be forwarded to WADA. Time will show whether it will have an impact on the organisation or not. But at least we want to make sure that WADA cannot say they never saw or heard of it.
We believe that composing position papers where INHDR members join forces is a good idea and is in line with what we think the INHDR could and should be in the future: An important voice that can impact the international agenda on doping and anti-doping.
We find it important to emphasise, however, that the position paper is not endorsed (or signed) by the INHDR per se. The signatories have put their names on the list as individuals, and may have different views on the issue and thus different reasons for signing it. Likewise, INHDR members may find equally good reason to disagree with the position paper and choose not to sign it. In either instances, there is absolutely no obligations to sign this (or future) calls as a member of the INHDR. One of the most prominent strengths of the network is, as we have always stated, that we "do not consist of a uniform group of scholars who all share the same views on the dangers and challenges of doping," and that, "the current members represent different, sometimes even irreconcilable, attitudes and viewpoint." Indeed, the open climate where opposite research backgrounds and different points of views can meet and discuss various issues on doping and anti-doping has proven one of our greatest strengths. Thus, being a member of INHDR does not imply that one subscribes to a certain point of view nor will this ever be asked. We are not a church and there are no strings attached to INHDR members.
It is interesting to note that not only commentators and scholars have started to question the content of the WADA List, as members of the INHDR do so today by signing the call, but that also athletes' unions – in disagreement with WADA’s Athlete Committee – believe that WADA should reconsider whether drugs like marijuana belong on the list. Thus both the EU Athletes and the Danish Elite Athletes' Association (and probably others) have called for WADA to remove such drugs from the list. It shall be interesting to see for how long WADA can ignore such calls.
Danish Elite Athletes' Comments on the Code
In connection with the call to WADA, INHDR member Jason Mazanov of Australia has suggested that "perhaps we could have contact points in different countries if any media is interested in finding out more." This we consider to be an excellent idea. We will on the INHDR website provide a list with a person or persons in each country where the INHDR is represented, for the local media to contact if they want to have additional information on issues addressed by the INHDR. If you wish to be included in this list and you are not already, please contact John Gleaves at jgleaves@fullerton.edu. Also, please feel free to forward this information to your local media partners once it becomes available.
As noted above, our future plans include changes to the newsletter. Newsletters will include short, focussed commentaries on the various aspects of doping and anti-doping as they arise in the world of sport. And there are still plenty of issues to address. Just recently we have seen how the UCI wanted to muzzle experts of the biological passport panel; how the UCI (them again) wish to further punish riders who receive a doping ban by adding, in addition to enormous financial fines to riders, a rule preventing them from collecting points for their teams to use after they have served their time, and thereby effectively increasing the ban from 2 to 4 years; how the British Olympic Association (BOA) established itself on the moral high ground by aiming at disallowing former doped athletes to ever participate in the Olympics, despite having served their ban. Indeed, there are many more examples and issues worth a comment from INHDR members. Feel free to draft commentaries or expositions (500-2000 words) that you think should be included and we will put them on the website as well as include them in the quarterly newsletter.
One other potential change may be our biannual conferences. The network has hosted four conferences – three in Aarhus (2011, 2009, and 2007) and one in Odense (2002). They have all been successful, well-attended, and resulted in high quality publications (papers from the 2011 conference will later be published in a special issue of the International journal of sport policy and politics, edited by Barrie Houlihan). Over the next couple of months, we will put our thinking cap on and consider whether the format of having biannual conferences is the most fruitful use of the members’ time or if other modes of meeting, such as workshops, or policy groups may be more productive. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this potential change with either Ask Vest Christiansen or John Gleaves to better inform us of the member’s needs. Also, should you know of colleagues, co-workers or graduate students whom could be interested in joining the network forward our website and have them send us an email.
Due to thorough work by Lise Joern, whom we thank for her effort, the INHDR knowledge base is up and running. This should make following and searching the work of the network's members much easier. Visit the INHDR knowledge base and explore the possibilities. We will do our best to continually update and improve the knowledge base, but tell us if you find something is missing.
We will also explore ways to make better use of our presence on the internet. Our hope is that the INHDR website can become a place for students, scholars, the media, as well as the curious public to make sense of doping issues as they arise by establishing a collection of credible news sources, scholarly articles, blogs, or any other relevant media from around the world that has been vetted by our members for credibility and reliability.
Once again we welcome you back to INHDR. While with the new leadership there will be some changes, things will remain mostly the same and we welcome your input on things we can do to improve the network and its function.