Photo/ Getty Images
MOSCOW, October 7, 2016 - No-one, probably, doubts that the international anti-doping movement needs to be improved. Plenty of reasons exist.
But which path is appropriate for WADA?
Should it be a kind of revolution, with blood (and urine samples too), sacrifices (clean athletes, of course), prisoners (or banned athletes) and tears (the tears of anyone but, at least, of the corrupt)?
Or should WADA lead by evolution – by developing its own structure, becoming more transparent, cleansing any form of corruption and violation, ensuring its own ability to make independent and fair decisions?
Or is there maybe a third option?
One basic question: Is everyone in favor of a global, transparent anti-doping system?
If the answer is an immediate Yes then stop and think: Is there a sport, or a state, that is 100pc clean? The answer is No. That means that one side is against clean sport - and that might mean not only a handful of athletes intent on cheating.
For example, a vast pharmaceutical industry produces not only legal and approved medicine. It also produces substances banned for sport and creates new ones which will appear on WADA’s prohibited list very soon.
This is enormous business with a vast amount of money, much more than WADA’s annual budget. Also, it is no secret that, sometimes, the deciding factor is money rather than truth.
As long as one side supports clean sport, there will be an opposite one.
Do the opponents of clean sport profit from doping scandals? Of course. Amateur athletes, who run for recreation or compete in low level events, hear about new substances that help improve results quickly and will go to a pharmacy to try it themselves. Above all, this might be dangerous.
More than 40 athletes from 13 countries have been named in the massive cyber-attack on WADA’s internal web services. Athletes’ therapeutic use exemption (TUE) files were leaked to the public, starting a new debate about clean sport.
Due to the dates on the files, however, the athletes are blameless. They were taking drugs legally because of documented and confirmed medical conditions. The hackers merely revealed a part of the game. TUEs were never a secret for anyone who has given the anti-doping rules a second look.
Yet the subject of permissions for TUEs is a very important one. Even though the system works well (or so it is claimed), it is still most likely possible to cheat using medical documents. Maybe this is a signal for WADA to improve its system yet again, to take a step forward. At least regarding cyber security.
As soon as something becomes a topic of discussion, WADA reacts and makes changes. Current examples are TUEs and issues regarding asthma medicine and a number of others. WADA’s clarifications on the subject have been a first step in the right direction.
Now, to review the situation in Russia:
How could WADA have not been aware of such evidence inside its own system?
What then is the role of WADA?
How is it possible, with the power WADA possesses, that an entire state might have been cheating for several years and nobody knew? Could a good anti-doping agency really have been absolutely unaware? Or was it not unaware at all?
If there was indeed a state-run doping program ("if" respecting the presumption of innocence first and foremost) in one country, is it possible, that the one country really deceived the rest of the world?
If one person, Grigory Rodchenkov, former head of the Moscow laboratory, had not revealed his claims to The New York Times, would this have stayed hidden forever?
Are Russians the best in espionage or the worst at not getting caught?
If they were the worst, does that mean somebody else is now better at covering up doping and is still yet to be caught?
If one part of the system was corrupt and if the guilty were banned or punished, are there individuals in the governing body of the anti-doping system who should shoulder responsibility as well?
No-one has spoken out about this.
The final version of Richard McLaren's report is still awaited - with all the figures, evidence and nothing but the facts.
Many have been surprised to see Russian authorities asking for the evidence. But would anyone believe even the most respected individual who insisted on the existence of evidence but refuses to produce it?
If the evidence is revealed for all to see then nobody could deny the facts.
Instead, for the time being, the world of sport will have to wait on the promise that everything will be revealed. Will a guilty party be named within WADA then?
The most jarring element of the Sochi investigation is that a way was found to open sealed samples and reseal them.
WADA, it seems, badly needs to ratify new sample bottles. If this 'bottle breach' was successfully enacted in an experiment in front of McLaren’s own eyes, then the situation is much worse than just a "state-run doping program": it is a threat to every athlete.
There is no guarantee that a single sample is safe. Has this been discussed in previous months?
This is not the only issue either. Sometimes it seems that journalists and other authorities have been putting much more effort into investigating doping cases than WADA itself, which was created for this purpose.
Perhaps this is not only the opinion of one Russian reporter, who has not been covering doping issues for so very long. A lack of trust in WADA exists among athletes as well.
Sergey Bubka, senior vice-president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), refused to comment on the matter despite several attempts to contact him during the summer.
It seemed he had his own position but was hesitant to make it clear to his colleagues through the press. Finally though, he gave a statement, revealing his own distrust in WADA.
"Recent events have shown that despite the sports movement and the governments’ spending yearly close to $30m in WADA but much more so in the 300,000 annual anti-doping tests for an average of 0.5pc positive cases, questions can be raised about the effectiveness of the anti-doping fight," he told Insidethegames.
Bubka added: "All this has brought a lack of confidence by the clean athletes in WADA as the organisation responsible for the fight against doping."
The reality is that there are plenty of problems around the anti-doping movement but not everyone thinks in the same way.
WADA's 'think tank' and executive board meetings in Lausanne were crucial because, before any further measures are taken, the anti-doping agency had to discuss its own issues first.
The main conclusion of the meetings was that WADA needs to have more capabilities and more power - and, of course, more money - to investigate, research and fight the cheats.
That was WADA's message to the world: We need more money and more rights and then we will be able to fight doping more efficiently.
But shouldn’t the main problems be highlighted first of all? Sir Craig Reedie told R-Sport, that no-one had spoken to him about the possibility that a new organisation could be created instead of WADA.
Soon afterwards rumours of corruption within WADA surfaced.
Then, if someone from the governing body were to be found guilty (again, the presumption of innocence), is the solution closing down WADA and building a new, transparent organization from the ground up?
Or is it just a matter of replacing individuals in the hope that any strands if corruption would leave the agency with them?
As long as there are proponents of doping, it cannot be fully eradicated which means that it is impossible for sport to be 100pc clean.
But if at least the main anti-doping organisation is proven to be clean then all the rest would be easier. WADA just needs to decide which path it wishes to follow . . . evolution or revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment