This article will briefly look at the present fight against doping in sport and suggest some alternatives to the current system.
Using the example of Athletics, during the 2012 Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) carried out a record 6,000 drug tests, yet that still left 4,000 athletes untested. Furthermore those 6,000 tests carried out don’t uncover ‘out of competition’ drug takers, who during tournaments are able to test clean. Their annual budget to police Olympics sports is £17.8 million, a fraction of the budget of national associations (In the year prior to the 2012 Olympics, Great Britain’s budget was approximately £78 million). So because of the lack of resources, WADA’s role is primarily as a guiding organisation with the main enforcement burden falling on national sports associations. This, as has been seen with doping scandals in Kenyan and Russian athletics is difficult because of the poor standards of governance in many national associations. Moreover there are even questions whether in some countries doping is institutional and even government backed.
So are WADA and anti doping bodies up against an impossible task, or is more funding and international co-operation the answer? Arguably this won’t make a difference, as there is a fundamental conflict in world sport, which means it is no ones interest to catch drug cheats. For sports associations in charge of advertising and finances, the last thing they want are drug scandals damaging the appeal and credibility of the sport they are trying to sell. Therefore if we continue with the status quo in anti doping, there must be a move to establish independent regulators in individual countries with total freedom from national federations. Alternatively, there are other options, albeit more radical ones:-
- Full legalisation of drugs
To many this is accepting the reality (or accepting defeat) that drugs are already prevalent in sport and impossible to control. Legalising performance enhancing drugs would, many argue, level the playing field and allow proper regulation reducing the possible harm drugs can cause to athletes. Furthermore, is access to the best chemist any different from the current system in which access to the best equipment or the best coaches is often the decisive factor? Alternatively there are those who suggest this would reduce competitions to freak shows, determined not by skill but by those willing to take the most risk; and
- Criminalisation
Making performance enhancing drugs illegal is another option, one which is illustrated by Germany’s recently passed Anti-Doping Bill (which introduced a range of measures designed both at elite athletes and those who supply, administer or are involved in the production of doping). The central tenet to this argument is that making doping a criminal offence would act as a deterrent to those doping or those connected to doping. There are a number of problems with criminalising doping. Firstly, doping is a strict liability offence, namely if you are caught you are assumed guilty not innocent. In England & Wales, criminal prosecutions require the Crown to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a much higher threshold. Secondly, a country-by-country approach is very limited, given that sport is international. For instant taking Germany’s recent legislation, foreign athletes may just avoid German competitions and equally the best German athletes may move abroad. This suggests that for criminalisation of doping to work there has to cross-jurisdictional legislation (ie: like Intellectual Property Regulations).
Realistically, it is likely that the status quo will remain, however if the stream of doping revelations continue it will be interesting to see whether the clamour for alternative approaches will increase.
edwardjeavonssportslaw 