WADA: Athletes Are Personally Responsible For What They Ingest And With Whom They Associate

Guest Commentary by Ben Nichols, WADA Senior Manager, Media Relations and Communications

MONTREAL – Athlete responsibility is something we hear about often in anti-doping. It is the cornerstone of any anti-doping program, and, under the updated set of rules that came into play at the start of this year, it is now a more central tenet of the World Anti-Doping Code than it ever was in the past.

Why should athletes be personally responsible for what they ingest? Especially, some argue, when their job is to compete to the best of their ability in their chosen sport on the field of play, not to be an expert in science or biochemistry. That is the job of others. Anti-doping organizations – including WADA – hear these arguments all too often, and as with any rules developed via democratic process, a number of different aspects have to be considered before a viable solution is proposed and, eventually, agreed upon.

WADA – and anti-doping organizations, be they National Anti-Doping Organizations, Regional Anti-Doping Organizations, International Federations or Major Event Organizations – understand the challenges athletes face. Being a sportsman or woman is no longer simply a case of pulling on your team jersey or slipping on your running spikes and going out to compete in the sporting arena. Modern-day sport in 2015 brings with it many other responsibilities: be it speaking to the media, public appearances for sponsors or being well-informed of what substances and methods are prohibited in sport.

It is this last responsibility that often riles many athletes, as they ponder what they can or cannot take within anti-doping rules. And yes, anti-doping is often a complicated topic that requires a thorough understanding from those subject to its rules: the athletes.

When commentators talk about anti-doping, they often allude to the fact that athletes are personally responsible for what they ingest, and therefore what may or may not be revealed through urine or blood sample analysis. This is the case whether the athlete intended to use a prohibited substance or method or not; in other words, the buck stops with the athlete.

This strict personal responsibility principle that rests on the athlete’s shoulders is the starting point for any anti-doping case, but through the revised World Anti-Doping Code, the athlete has a better opportunity than ever before to prove whether or not they are at fault or significantly at fault in the case.

This enhancement to the rulebook offers a common sense response to a complex matter, and means the onus is firmly on the athlete to explain his or her case. It is then down to an anti-doping organization, and, ultimately, a tribunal to examine the plausibility of that explanation and how it fits into the rules of the World Anti-Doping Code.

If this fundamental principle did not underpin anti-doping rules, one can only imagine the issues that sport would face on a regular basis. There would far too often be a shifting of blame from the culpable athlete to others. There would be more confusion, and more athletes getting away with cheating due to an abdication of their responsibility. And what would be the result? Well, if cheats were allowed to continue competing, the playing field would be very lopsided indeed.

So, what other responsibilities does an athlete have under the revised Code?

Much has been made of the lengthening of the standard period of ineligibility for a rule violation from two to four years. This change – which crucially had the strong support of athletes across the world – is one of the main changes under the improved set of rules.

Athletes are required to know and comply with all anti-doping policies and rules. One of those rules is “Complicity” which states that if an athlete has been involved in assisting or covering up another athlete’s rule violation, the athlete can now be sanctioned for the same length as if he or she had doped. In other words, helping a friend avoid to getting caught by anti-doping authorities is as much a crime as the doping itself.

Athletes remain responsible for being available for sample collection by Doping Control Officers at any time. Particularly pertinent – and a bone of contention for some athletes in the past – is the Athlete Whereabouts system. This is the system through which athletes in a Registered Testing Pool (the pool of elite athletes designated for out-of-competition testing within a particular sport or country) must provide their ‘whereabouts’ during one specific hour each day when they are available for testing. The previous rule stating athletes receive a rule violation if they file three Whereabouts failures within an 18-month period has been reduced to 12 months. The rationale for this change is that under the previous (2009) Code it was deemed that too much time could elapse between potential Whereabouts filing failures. The decision to shave off six months to the ‘Whereabouts failure period of time’ is expected to benefit the athlete and will be seen as more proportionate.

WADA has long been aware that athletes don’t usually dope alone. More often than not, behind a doped athlete is an unscrupulous coach, agent, physician or doctor influencing the athlete to cut corners and choose the wrong path.

These influential entourage members have been a concern to the anti-doping community, and as the new rules were developed in the review process that led to the revised Code, it was deemed important to better encompass the athlete entourage within these new rules. Central to this shift in direction is a new rule titled ‘Prohibited Association’.

Prohibited Association – which is designed for athlete support personnel involved in doping but outside the jurisdiction of authorities – makes it a rule violation for an athlete who engages with support personnel that are either ineligible or have been convicted of conduct that would constitute doping in the last six years.

While respecting that athletes rarely dope alone, this rule places the onus firmly on the athlete to very carefully mull over who they associate with.

The athlete does, however, need to have received notice of the support personnel’s ‘disqualified’ status beforehand in order to receive a rule violation. And, with a nod to common sense, the rule does not apply in unavoidable instances, such as when the athlete is in a relationship with the entourage member, or if there is a child/parent relationship.

The revised Code positions athletes right at the center of anti-doping rules, and requires the athlete community to play its part in keeping sport clean. Anti-doping would not work if the rules did not have the buy in of those that they serve: the athletes.

One area of interest is “substantial assistance”, an article in the revised rules through which sanctioned athletes have an opportunity to have the length of their sanction reduced if they help in a significant way.

The anti-doping community accepts that to tackle the doping issue, it will often take more than the emergence of a rule violation or two to get to the real root of the problem. The substantial assistance article now includes assurance to the athlete providing assistance that: the agreed upon reduction in the period of ineligibility can no longer be challenged on appeal; and that, in exceptional circumstances, WADA can approve a substantial assistance agreement that provides no period of ineligibility.

While seen as contentious to some, WADA hopes that this change will encourage dopers to come forward with crucial evidence that will help the anti-doping community protect clean athletes.

There can be little doubt that, more than ever before, athletes are at the center of anti-doping rules. It is, after all, the clean athletes of the world that WADA and anti-doping organizations are here to represent in this new era for clean sport.

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use