Fight against sports drugs turns political

WADA chairman John Fahey is gratified that governments are becoming involved in moves against sports doping. Photo / Sarah Ivey

The World Anti-Doping Agency was founded 10 years ago last week. It is headed by an Australian and a New Zealander and is credited for developing a credible resistance to doping in sport.

Wellington-born John Fahey, a former Premier of New South Wales and Federal Minister for Finance in John Howard's Liberal Government is WADA president.

Its director-general is New Zealander, lawyer David Howman. Both were in Auckland this week for the biggest anti-doping conference ever held in New Zealand.

Anti-doping officials from 29 countries attended the meeting which focused on improving education of athletes to reduce the incidence of inadvertent positive doping tests.

It is Fahey's first visit since becoming president two years ago.

What has been the most significant move in the past decade?

I think the big movement has been by governments.

WADA is a unique organisation, 50 per cent contributed by both sport and governments, and more and more governments are seeing the need to examine [and] tighten their laws, so there is a resource available within their boundaries to deal with the issue.

All anti-doping agencies are funded by their governments independently. It is encouraging that despite the recession the indication from a straw poll of the government members on WADA's executive committee was that the financial commitment is not going to fall.

Our collections [from funders] are on target, whereas in WADA's early days we struggled. That's a quick indication of the willingness of governments to be involved and I think that willingness comes not just from the embarrassment of failure but as a way of dealing with a problem that is affecting youth broadly, [for example] what's going on in gyms, drug-taking for reasons of vanity.

Looking back on my own experience in government, we had issues to deal with and the thought was that this was sports' problem. It was clear that sport was probably trying to put off the inevitable and hope it would go away. Decades went by and nobody did anything about it.

What are the challenges and goals for the next decade?

We have always recognised there is no silver bullet. Human nature will mean athletes will seek fame and fortune by foul means from time to time. This will be a constant challenge.

We are better and we are getting better. Because we are starting to realise that it is intelligence [along with targeted testing] that works.

Are athletes soft targets when a collective suppliers, coaches, doctors, managers are often complicit?

History will show that the athlete is frequently less guilty than the coach, the manager, the agent, in some cases the parents. The rules plus laws have to extend to pick up the entourage.

What we do look on with some disappointment are the laws relating to trafficking, importation across borders and the fact there are no barriers to that in many countries. We need to get to the source of supply.

China and India primarily?

That is the region where the bulk of manufacture is. We now have an officer imbedded in Interpol in Lyon specifically working on this.

But as to Interpol's effectiveness the information they find out has to be dealt with by the police in the country of manufacture. It's an initiative that has just started and that in practical terms [we believe] will bring dividends.

Is greater awareness needed by the public and lawmakers that it is sports fraud?

It is. One can't disagree that if you win a gold medal because there is something pumping you over the line that shouldn't be there then you have broken a rule.

But a law that requires some penalty that is greater than the sanctions that sport imposes upon you? It is a difficult one. I have to fall back on what our Code says: a sanction of two years on first offence (which can be raised or lowered depending on circumstances).

I look on with some interest at countries that have brought this within the criminal code, such as Italy. And I look on to Australia and am really pleased that the legislation that established our anti-doping organisation allowed the sharing of information with customs and federal police.

In Australia we found that the number of doping breaches has increased while the number of tests has gone down, because they are using the intelligence. If something comes across the border and Customs picks it up and it is addressed to a coach, we know where the doping control officers are going to be next week.

We encourage every government to look at [Australia's] rules, specifically regarding trafficking. On the other hand we are not going around telling governments how to make laws to suit the needs of their people.

Is this an area that needs to be pursued to get to those who enable athletes to dope?

There has to be confidence in any system for it to succeed and a belief, particularly by the clean athletes, that there is no point in cheating because you are likely to get caught. Deterrence is a big factor.

(WADA director-general David Howman points out that governments can regulate professional bodies governing the likes of lawyers, doctors, agents and that where WADA has sufficient evidence of involvement in doping by a professional it would provide that information. Potentially the professional could be struck off or fined.)

Doesn't responsibility for catching doping athletes need to be taken out of the hands of sports bodies because of the conflict of interest inherent in its function to promote its sport? For example, the UCI (the world cycling body) has responded to criticism of its role in testing at this year's Tour de France by saying it won't work with its critic, the French anti-doping agency (AFLD), again?

Ultimately the integrity of whatever sport is on the line and if they don't put in place a regime for testing in any particular event that the public has confidence in, the fan base diminishes and with that sponsorship goes. The reality now is corporates don't want to have their images tainted by association with something the public isn't terribly proud of.

While we will always respect the independence of sport to run their event we encourage wherever possible that there is confidence in the way in which their testing programme is conducted. [WADA provides observer teams at Olympics and a number of other major events to audit the testing process.]

Is having an independent body controlling and conducting testing financially possible?

Some sports can't afford it and it would be financially impossible to have an independent body for all. Where possible, we encourage independent testing and more sports are recognising the need for it.

While the World Anti-Doping Code provides for sports bodies to collect samples at their events, article 15 enables anti-doping agencies to conduct additional testing which provides an independent arm that we didn't have before.

What is happening regarding the falling out over the Tour de France testing between the UCI and the French anti-doping agency?

WADA is the arbitrator [in that dispute]. We are trying to sort out the claims and counter-claims and hopefully get a sensible outcome. Cycling is an important sport and we don't particularly want to see the UCI in strife.

They have started to make a bit of an effort in the last couple of years. They have a responsibility [to combat doping] and they seem certainly to be addressing it.

On the other hand the AFLD is a pretty tenacious group and we have no doubt they have the right spirit and their heart is in the right place.

It comes down to looking at whether the rules were applied correctly and if not [asking] why not, and how that can be fixed for the future.