The Intensified Fight Against Doping

By Ask Vest Christiansen and John Gleaves

The fact that doping and anti-doping is still highly relevant and continues to call for further research, is obvious with the coming into effect of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) just two months ago. In the preparation phase for the new Code stakeholders met in Johannesburg, South Africa, and after the conference it was unsurprisingly announced that:

“The Johannesburg World Conference on Doping in Sport reaffirms that the ultimate objective of the fight against doping in sport is the protection of all clean athletes and that all concerned parties should commit all required resources and resolve to achieve that objective by intensifying the fight.”[1]

One of the significant changes that illustrate this intensification of the fight is the elevation of the ban from all Olympic sport from two to four years for a standard anti-doping rule violation. However, key figures in anti-doping has already called into question whether such an elevation of the ban is the right tool for achieving the aim (the protection of clean athletes), or if it is simply an act of keeping the sports political flag flying. Former chair of Anti-Doping Denmark and recently elected judge at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Professor Jens Evald, has thus been pretty bold about the intent of the elevation of the sanction from two to four years when stressing that: “The doubling of the sanction period is a question of sports politics. All studies show that a tightening of sanctions does not have the expected impact in relation to preventing people to commit rule violations” (Askvig, 2015).

Even WADA itself seem to be aware of the ineffectiveness of further tests and sanctions. A working group led by former WADA president Dick Pound stated in a report directed to the WADA executive committee that:

“Pre-WADA, approximately 150,000 tests were administered annually, compared with the current total of approximately 250,000. On the other hand, despite the significant increase in testing and the ability to detect more sophisticated substances, there has been no apparent statistical improvement in the number of positive results” (quoted from Pitsch, 2014; 145).

If Evald, a longtime protagonist of the anti-doping system, is right, the new longer sanction will lead to no “statistical improvement” either. So why then introduce it? Evald provides this suggestion: “It can be seen as an expression of impotence, caused by the fact that it is difficult to find other levers to pull.” With this, it is easy to lose one’s faith with WADA, since they seem just to be doubling down on their bet while acknowledging the odds are not in their favor. However, in line with what (INHDR) researchers have emphasized for more than decade, Evald adds: “If one wishes to diminish the number of anti-doping rule violations, you have to interact with the environment and not only the individual and seek to hit the support-personnel. Luckily there is a lot of focus on this in the new WADC” (Askvig, 2015).

This could be the one straw to clutch at with the 2015 Code. For all its emphasis on punishments, the Code also talks about education and role models. However, the way the WADC predominantly addresses issues of interaction with the environment should cause some raised eyebrows. Indeed, it seems to follow the well-established path of imposing tougher sanctions and further limiting freedom rights. Thus, the Code now provides for a specific violation for ‘prohibited association’. This means that an athlete may be sanctioned for ‘association’ with any Athlete Support Personnel who is serving a period of ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) or has been convicted or found to have engaged in conduct which would constitute an ADRV; or is serving as a front or intermediary for such an individual (WADA, 2015; § 2.10). It is hard to argue that this isn’t a significant imposition of an athlete’s freedom. Obvious more than just a handshake is required to count as an association, but with the small worlds elite athletes inhabit—from their shared teams, national allegiances, common coaching staff, and sponsors, it is easy to see how such a “harmless” provision can spiral into something far more imposing. And the Code goes even further by stating that: “Athlete Support Personnel shall not Use or Possess any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method without valid justification” (WADA, 2015; § 21.2.6). Is this provision really necessary? Given cannabis still exists on the banned substance list though it’s recreational use is legal in places such as Colorado, USA, should a cross-country ski coach have to explain to her athlete why her recreational use is justified? And is it the best mean to reach the aim of changing doping cultures? As Swizz based attorneys Antonio Rogozzi and Brianna Quinn says in their evaluation of the 2015 WADC:

“[I]t is questionable whether regulating the use of ‘recreational drugs’ by ASPs [Athlete Support Personnel] and requiring them to justify (i.e. disclose and explain) their use of medication which might be related to an embarrassing medical condition is truly necessary to achieve the aim of intensifying the fight against doping in sport” (Rigozzi and Quinn, 2013).

Alas, with the new Code the unintended consequences of the fight against doping present themselves once again. And if this way of interacting with the environment is to ask “all concerned parties” to commit “all required resources”, we may be right to ask if what is really being “required” actually protects the clean athletes it supposedly supports.

References

Askvig, B. 2015. Contador ville få fire års karantæne (Contador would get a four year suspension). Ekstra Bladet, 15 January.

Christiansen, A. V. & Gleaves, J. 2014. What do the humanities (really) know about doping? Questions, answers and cross-disciplinary strategies. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 216-225.

Fincoeur, B., Frenger, M. & Pitsch, W. 2014. Does one play with the athletes’ health in the name of ethics? Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 182-193.

Frenger, M., Emrich, E. & Pitsch, W. 2014. How to produce the belief in clean sports which sells. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 210-215.

Gleaves, J. & Christiansen, A. V. 2014. Prologue. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 135-136.

Hoberman, J. M. 2014. How much do we (really) know about anti-doping education? Performance Enhancement & Health.

Petróczi, A. 2014a. The doping mindset—Part I: Implications of the Functional Use Theory on mental representations of doping. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 153-163.

Petróczi, A. 2014b. The doping mindset – Part II: Potentials and pitfalls in capturing athletes’ doping attitudes with response-time methodology. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 164-181.

Pitsch, W. 2014. Tacit premises and assumptions in anti-doping research. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 144-152.

Rigozzi, A. & Quinn, B. 2013. Doping: Key Changes to the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. World Sports Law Report, December 2013.

Ritchie, I. 2014. The construction of a policy: The World Anti-Doping Code's ‘spirit of sport’ clause. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 194-200.

Seear, K. 2014. What do we really know about doping ‘effects’? An argument for doping effects as co-constituted ‘phenomena’. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 201-209.

WADA 2015. World Anti Doping Code 2015. In: WADA (ed.). Montreal, Canada World Anti-Doping Agency.