A Change Would Do Some Good

I have no interest whatsoever in having an innocent person convicted of doping.

– Dick Pound, quoted in The New York Daily News

If Dick Pound is sincere about this quote attributed to him in the December 17 edition of The New York Daily News, then (to paraphrase Sheryl Crow) a few changes would do some good.

Right now, a large number of people believe the anti-doping system needs improvement, or even wholesale fixing. Whether the current system is fair has been a matter of (at times heated) debate. But there’s no denying that a more transparent system would not only be perceived as more fair to all concerned, but it would be more fair, too. As Peloton Jim noted over at Endless Cycle,

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Indeed, it is. So here are a few things, in my opinion, that should be changed in order to improve the overall fairness of the system.

First, WADA should not be in the business of certifying the anti-doping labs’ analytical capabilities. There’s an institution that already certifies medical testing labs. It’s called the International Standards Organization. And they’re about as neutral a party as you can get when it comes to determining whether an organization seeking certification under one of their standards actually meets the ISO standard.

Being in the lab certification business is wrong for WADA on two counts. First, it’s a waste of valuable resources. WADA’s budget is not unlimited (although they certainly have more resources than any athlete who’s ever challenged an adverse analytical finding), so they need to make the most effective use of the funds they do have.

And second, it gives the appearance that the system is rigged in the favor of the anti-doping agencies, even if it’s not. The labs involved in the fight against doping need to be beyond reproach. Sadly, that is currently not the case.

Next, any documentation related to a lab’s certification should be available upon request. Not only should a lab be certified, they should be able to prove it if called upon to do so. And all of the documentation, including any violations found during an inspection, should be available.

WADA should be in the business of funding research to improve anti-doping testing. Starting with the tests currently used. But what they should not be in the business of is creating tests or certifying them. Tests to be used in anti-doping should meet the same kind of rigorous scientific scrutiny as any commercially produced medical test kits. And the company or agency that produces such tests should be able to provide the documentation that proves the test meets such standards.

WADA could, however, standardize the tests used. So if Test A is recognized in the broader scientific community as the most accurate method to determine the presence of a banned substance, that could become the standard detection method.

WADA should not be in the business of certifying arbitrators to be used at anti-doping hearings. That sets up a potential conflict of interest, as some of those arbitrators, wishing to get continued work from WADA, might find in WADA’s favor even if the facts of the case suggested otherwise.

WADA should revisit the rules for the arbitration hearings. Better yet, arbitration hearings should be run independently of WADA. WADA should only be a participant (presumably on the prosecution’s side).

WADA should take a good hard look at their policies, and where flexibility is appropriate (think athletes who’ve managed to test positive due to accidental exposure) the arbitration panels should have some leeway in relation to the punishment imposed.

Let’s face facts: WADA has an interest in ensuring that all athletes accused of doping are punished. Why? Because they need to show the people who fund them that the anti-doping program works. And the best statistic they can show is the number of athletes punished for doping violations. That just makes sense. If WADA had very few cases prosecuted during the year, the people funding them might wonder whether the money spent is worth it — or whether there even is a real problem.

So they do have an interest in punishing innocent athletes. I’m sure that they believe it doesn’t happen, but I’m also sure that it does. Most judicial systems occasionally convict innocent people. So it stands to reason that the anti-doping system does, too. We can only hope that the process will be fair enough to all sides that this happens only very, very rarely. But even one innocent athlete punished is one too many — especially if you’re the one.

You see, Mr. Pound, like Sheryl Crow, I really am from the Show-Me State. So if you want to convince me that you aren’t interested in punishing innocent athletes, don’t just mouth platitudes to suggest you’re a fair person. By your actions, prove it. Make the system more transparent. Remove the built-in conflicts of interest. And ensure that athletes’ rights are respected.

And when asked for comment about on-going cases, repeat after me, “My job is to ensure that the anti-doping system is run in a manner that is fair to both sides. For that reason, I cannot comment about an on-going case.”