Cracks In The Foundation

The foundations of the anti-doping movement seems to be cracking under the weight of the heavy-handed policies and enforcement tactics employed by the World Anti-Doping Agency and its minions. At least, that’s the feeling I get after reading Michael Hiltzik’s latest article in the Los Angeles Times, along with a separate article in The Australian.

Hiltzik’s lead sets the stage for what’s to come:

International sports officials, in apparent rebellion against an antidrug enforcement system increasingly regarded as harsh and inflexible, are calling for major rule revisions, according to documents released Monday by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

What’s amazing about this is not that international sports officials are rebelling, it’s that WADA, themselves, released these documents. What’s going on? WADA is looking at making some major revisions to the World Anti-Doping Code, and since they’ve been taking a lot of flak lately, they’re trying to show how they can be responsive to the concerns raised by many officials from around the world.

Hiltzik observes:

The previously undisclosed comments provide a rare picture of widespread dissent in the sports antidoping world. WADA officials have portrayed a united front in both its goals for drug-free competition and its enforcement methods.

So is this release of information part of WADA’s PR “charm” offensive, to make themselves look better in the eyes of the public? Perhaps. By showing that WADA is responding to internal (and external) dissension, they are attempting to show some flexibility.

Strict liability seems to be an area of major concern among sports officials around the world, as Hiltzik illustrates:

The most extensive body of comments from international sports officials concerned WADA’s principle of “strict liability,” under which the presence of even a trace amount of a banned substance in an athlete’s blood or urine sample is grounds for a sanction, generally a two-year suspension for a first offense.

Although the code allows limited relief against the harshest sanctions when an athlete is shown to bear little or no fault or negligence, the standards for such relief are almost impossible to meet, sports officials say.

“It does not seem fair that athletes who ‘innocently’ transgress the rules, strict liability notwithstanding, receive the same penalty as those who have purposely set out to cheat,” argued David Gerrard, the chairman of the New Zealand antidoping agency, in his submission.

Also of concern are some of the test procedures and their reliability:

The WADA documents reveal increased concerns about the reliability of the agency’s drug tests, with the testosterone test drawing the heaviest fire. Under WADA rules, a finding of testosterone doping is initially based on a measurement of the ratio between testosterone and a related hormone, epitestosterone, in an athlete’s urine; if it exceeds a given T/E ratio, a complex test using carbon isotopes must be conducted to confirm the finding.

WADA lowered the screening ratio in 2005, a step that vastly increased the number of preliminary findings. But few of those additional cases were confirmed by the isotope test. With the lower threshold, the test “has become a waste of resources in terms of time, money and effort with no apparent benefit,” the International Cycling Union said.

But all is not coming up roses, as far as changes to the World Anti-Doping Code goes. The Australian article discusses proposed changes to the strict liability rule, including greater flexibility in sanctions and greater flexibility in the case where an athlete is exposed to banned substances accidentally. As The Australian’s Nicole Jeffery notes:

The most dramatic change is WADA’s acceptance that its rule of strict liability (athletes are responsible for what goes into their bodies without excuse) occasionally punishes those who do not intend to cheat.

The first draft includes a recommendation that an athlete should be able to avoid or reduce sanctions if “in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sports performance”. In explaining the amendment, WADA says it was the consensus of its stakeholders – worldwide governments, sports federations and anti-doping agencies – that “the code sanctions should be made more flexible where the athlete or other person can clearly demonstrate that he or she did not intend to enhance sport performance. (The changes) provide this additional flexibility for violations involving most prohibited substances”.

The draft gives examples of circumstances where the athlete would be given the benefit of the doubt. These include: that the nature of the substance or timing of its ingestion would not have been beneficial to the athlete; the athlete openly using the substance; and medical records substantiating non-sports use.

But while greater flexibility is being bandied about regarding strict liability, there are some other changes afoot. Notably, that the standard to prove one’s innocence in cases of alleged steroid use, blood doping or hormone “augmentation” (to use Condi Rice’s euphemism) will be higher and will require “more rigorous proof.”

Other changes include longer minimum bans for missing tests, and a four-year ban for first offenses for the most serious anti-doping cases. So, while on the one hand some new flexibility may be introduced into the system at WADA’s meeting in November, some tougher sanctions may also be part of the deal.

Taken together, it appears that WADA is trying to appear to be moderating its processes in response to internal and external pressure. By late afternoon, Michael Henson, Floyd Landis’ spokesman, had released this response to the LA Times article:

“It is a positive change in WADA’s approach to release to the public these criticisms and calls for rule revisions from organizations ranging from the United States Olympic Committee to a wide range of national sports federations. It is also gratifying to me to know that the heaviest criticism was focused on the exact same test that has unfairly cast doubts on my performance in Stage 17 of the Tour de France. First my samples were mishandled and then tested as contaminated. Then, against WADA’s own rules they were subject to illegal testing using protocols that are widely acknowledged as scientifically flawed.”

“I have always raced clean, and my defense team and I are convinced that if a fair process is employed to adjudicate these unsubstantiated allegations, I will be back racing my bike as soon as the proceedings are over – and I am very much looking forward to that day,” Floyd concluded.

It certainly is a positive change in WADA’s behavior. But the question is whether these changes will be watered-down into mere window-dressing, or whether these changes will be fundamental revisions to the system. The only way to make sure that fundamental reforms happen is to keep up the pressure.

Otherwise, it may become a perfect illustration of the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for.”