Paul Wright | The importance of transparency in anti-doping cases

Ever since competition in sporting endeavours resulted in winners receiving prizes, competitors were always seeking ‘the edge’ – that magic thing that would separate them from the rest of the competition.

In ancient Greece, Boars testicles were a ‘must-eat’ if winning in the Olympics was the aim. It wasn’t until the PanAm Games in Cali, Columbia, in 1971, when drug testing was introduced, that a realistic attempt was made to level the playing field in international competition, thus ensuring that the competitors were all using only natural talent and skill.

The development of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code saw all countries, who wished to participate in the Olympics and other allied games, signing on to the code and promising to abide by the rules and regulations that made ‘cheating’, or the use of unauthorised substances or methods (with the sole aim of gaining an advantage over other competitors that did not use similar substances or methods), illegal. An integral part of the code, the way in which WADA can ensure that ALL competitors do not cheat is by mandating competitors to be subject to a rigid and unrelenting drug-testing protocol.

An important part of this protocol is that all athletes in the testing pool must submit to the local and international testing agencies, a one-hour window every day when they can be subject to a drug test. This is called the whereabouts rule. This schedule is usually sent in by the athlete quarterly, but it can be subject to change, if and when the athlete, for whatever reason – travel, family emergency, etc – has to change the place and/or time when they are available to the testers.

For example, if in the quarterly report an athlete had put the one-hour window of availability for testing for 8 a.m. at home on a particular day, but for reasons that came up, realised that he/she would not be at home on that particular day, but would be in another part of the country or even overseas, athletes can indicate, online, that there is a change in the time and place of their availability. If, however, an athlete forgets to make the change online, and the tester turns up at the designated time and place and the athlete is not present, during the one-hour stipulated on the form, then a ‘missed test’ is recorded.

The athlete, and the governing sport authority, is contacted by the testing authority, and the seriousness of the missed test outlined. If an athlete misses three tests in a 12-month period, then sanctions would apply, as the assumption is that the athlete is deliberately avoiding the testers, and maybe involved in unauthorised or illegal activity. The second missed test in the 12-month period would usually be accompanied by contact to all the support personnel and the governing sport authority in the athletes’ country. Therefore, three missed tests in a 12-month period is rarely forgiven, and a ban prescribed by the code usually results.

UNFORTUNATE

Our own Andre Russell was forced to forego lucrative tournaments and opportunities to earn when he missed three tests in a 12-month period recently. It is unfortunate that even with education, seminars and reminders, there are athletes who use banned substances or methods in an effort to gain the ‘edge’ over fellow competitors. Those athletes must be caught and sanctioned. There is, however, an effort by the drug-testing authorities to allow any athlete so accused to have the opportunity to present a case, where an explanation can be presented to an independent body.

This independent body will decide if the breach was deliberate or if the athlete’s explanation is reasonable. History is replete with local anti-doping agencies finding ways of excusing ‘star’ athletes who have transgressed, that is why an open hearing – when the case against the athlete is presented and his/her support team present their case for exemption – is essential. This openness or transparency can eliminate any hint of bias either for or against the athlete.

In Jamaica, such transparency is now forbidden, and even the exhortations of legal luminaries, athletes and ordinary citizens to return to open hearings go unheeded. The recent decision by the final court of appeal in athletics, the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS), is welcomed by all well-thinking administrators, fans and the athletes themselves.

The fiasco surrounding nations ignoring or pardoning ‘star’ athletes who test positive, a la Russia and Kenya (to name a few), is prominent in the minds of those who long to see a level playing field in sport. No one should be above the law. No one.

Transparency and rigour in the testing programme of all signatories to the WADA code is essential. Jamaica, a country of three million-plus citizens, has been producing the ‘world best’ athletes since 1948. There are rumours, so far unsubstantiated, that there must be something untoward here in this island, why so many of our citizens are so gifted. Let us not sully our reputation and legacy by hiding behind closed doors when a citizen transgresses the rules. Brand Jamaica is much too precious.

Dr Paul Wright is a sports medicine specialist and radio personality.