Review of UKSports Anti-Doping Policy

“The two major justifications for the ban on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport relate to the protection of the health of athletes, and the maintenance of fair competition”

(Black, 1996; as cited by Waddington, 2000)

The main objective of the U.K. Statement of the Anti-doping Policy stems from this. The aim is to ensure that the various governing bodies of sport in the United Kingdom have consistent and regular sets of policies and regulations in order to “protect the rights of athletes to compete drug-free” (U.K. Statement of Anti-doping Policy). This policy, (January 2002) published by U.K. Sport, was considered “a major landmark in the fight for drug-free sport”. It was an attempt to set standards in accordance with the International Standard for Doping Control (ISDC). The policy also intends to ensure that “governing bodies are compliant with legislation that protects the rights of athletes” (Annual Report 2001, p.4). Indeed, as Verroken (2002; as cited by Burgess, 2002) states, “a strong relationship between sport and the Government is vital in achieving a drug-free environment for elite athletes.”

According to the policy, Governing Bodies will agree an anti-doping programme on an annual basis with UK Sport and work with UK Sport to achieve the programme targets. They will appoint an individual to be responsible for the anti-doping policy and programme. They will also appoint either a UK Sport or an ISO 18873 (International Standard for Doping Control) certified agent to carry out testing. Furthermore, they will provide UK Sport with necessary information to arrange testing. Again, they will have to advise athletes about testing procedures in preparation for their involvement in the testing programme, and convene, in a timely manner, independent review, investigative hearing and appeal panels to ensure fair procedures for the review of evidence and communication of the decisions. Additionally, they will have to attend to the analysis of the “B Sample” and provide a fair process to investigate allegations or admissions of drug misuse. The policy also states that Governing Bodies are responsible for applying sanctions against athletes who have committed doping offences. These sanctions should be in accordance with the regulations of the sport as outlines by the Governing Body or the International Federation. The sanctions should also comply ...

... middle of paper ...

...and educate them. Some criticism was, however, centred around the fact that certain sports are not in favour of linking anti-doping compliance directly to public funding. Others have criticized the fact that the efforts of U.K. Sport, to inform and educate Governing Bodies about the policy, has had “patchy progress” (PMP Review, Appendix – Strengths and Weaknesses of Current System). Others have also helped cast light on the fact that several Governing Bodies have refused to understand, implement, and support the policy.

The struggle against doping in sport is a very difficult one. Verbruggen (1997; as cited by Waddington, 2000, p.180) has stated that “the fight against doping simply by controlling and punishing doesn’t work. The cheats stay ahead”. In a way, he also emphasized the need for constant revision and reappraisal of existing policies; policies that work now may not work in the future due to any number of factors. What is encouraging about U.K. Sport is that it follows this principle. Indeed, U.K. Sport aims to replace the existing Statement of Anti-doping Policy with a new United Kingdom National Anti-doping Policy that will come into force on the 31st of January 2005.