FIFA have been consistent in their reservations about the WADA Code, since the first conference in 2003. Participants accepted the Code by acclamation, perhaps the applause drowned out FIFA’s intervention explaining their reservations.

 

A Memorandum of Understanding signed between FIFA and WADA tried to work through differing opinions about how anti-doping should operate. Expensive legal opinion, including the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that “neither the International Olympic Committee nor WADA has the right to dictate to FIFA as regards their disciplinary regulations for the fight against doping”. Subsequent debate about individual case management and principles of fault shaped the second World Anti-Doping Code which came into effect in January 2009.

 

The 2009 Code introduced whereabouts requirements on all sports, regardless of the way a sport or its athletes operate. Commentators are divided; some suggest football is trying to hide a doping problem; others outline minimal disruption arguments, “only one hour per day”, “only 30 players in the England squad”.

 

Claims that ability to test an athlete without advance notice on a 365 day basis is ‘one of the key principles of efficient doping control’ sounds like a new development. Not so, some sports have been testing at any time since the mid 1980’s. Back then, if the athlete was not where they said they would be, testers kept looking. The difference now is about the enforcement of a ‘convenient’ one hour testing slot. It’s not clear who it is convenient to.

 

Teams train together regularly, FIFA ask why this is not good enough? Answer, if a player misses training, he might avoid being tested. Clubs might become complicit in hiding players with drug problems. WADA therefore insist on individual whereabouts. Clearly access to players is based upon a lack of trust across sport. Yet players are expected to trust anti-doping authorities. Data on players’ whereabouts is collated by the testing authorities; how long this data retained, who accesses it, is not clear. What privacy protection is there for players or right to family life?

 

Why does WADA want daily whereabouts information on players? This requirement is based on fear. Fear of being tested is a deterrent for players; and WADA’s fear of micro-dosing with performance enhancing drugs like testosterone and EPO. But if whereabouts have to be provided from 6am to 11pm, what could a determined player do between 11pm and 6am?

 

Whereabouts rules do not apply equally across football; they apply to a limited number of elite players. The average Premier League football club could have various anti-doping requirements among its players. Not all players are in the registered testing pool of their respective countries or bound by the same whereabouts obligations. What happens when selection changes the national squad or a player is dropped through injury? Is whereabouts an eligibility requirement to play at national level? Who prefers not to play for their country rather than meet the bureaucratic demands of testing agencies? OK it may not be practical to apply whereabouts across all levels of football, but you get my drift, whereabouts has the potential to divide teams.

 

At least FIFA can blame WADA for these requirements, which raises an important question about who is running sport. Should anti-doping authorities require team sports to apply team principles? Share responsibility for cheating and for being drug-free; in the same way as you share the glory of winning.

 

Player associations voice concerns about the impact and consequent damage to careers and reputations, simply for living their lives and getting the bureaucracy wrong. For professional sports with financial investments to consider, whereabouts will impact upon players and clubs. Perhaps some believe this a good thing, over paid players being more accountable.

 

Whereabouts raises questions about who owns players, who controls their ability to ply their trade and what hours they really work for their sport. Employment rights are a legal entitlement. Duty of care of an employer for a drug abusing employee takes on a different meaning under WADA.

 

WADA has recently developed a new section to their website, to locate information on whereabouts in one area. Strangely, WADA has included statements from UK Sport and the IAAF supporting whereabouts, and testimonies and quotes of athletes expressing agreement with the current whereabouts system. No comments are posted from those expressing concern. You know an issue is in trouble when PR takes over and real questions remain unanswered. In the interests of fairness and transparency, what is needed is a web page that allows the concerns of athletes to be recorded; perhaps some of them might be addressed. But it’s difficult to raise concerns about anti-doping, without sounding as if you support drug use.

 

This is a point of principle, as I have said before; this is an issue about winning the hearts and minds of our athletes to support of drug-free sport. I doubt if it is really having that kind of impact. Whereabouts could be the nemesis that turns the ‘drug-free’ willing into the ‘whatever’ generation. Athletes are the target of anti-doping programmes in the same way they are the target of those who would seek ways around doping rules and supply performance enhancing drugs. The system relies upon athletes being on side.

 

Scoff at the stance football is taking if you will, but understand also the limitations of this policy. Recognise that certain individual sports have been the major problem in doping and one size does not fit all. Apply seemingly irrelevant punitive policies and credibility flies out the window. Now FIFA are standing firm and are joined publicly by UEFA, how many other sports (and let’s examine whether it is players or their federations expressing a view) are willing to put their heads above the crossbar?

 

I support zero tolerance on cheating in sport, but I am also committed to credible and effective anti-doping policies and processes. That is how you win those hearts and minds, because it makes sense to do so.

 

Michele Verroken is an international expert on anti-doping and integrity matters in sport. She has over 20 years experience of developing anti-doping policies and procedures for professional, Olympic and Paralympic sports. She developed the UK's national anti-doping policy, designed the Drug Information Database and now advises (among others) professional golf on its anti-doping policy. She is the founder of Sporting Integrity. More details on www.sportingintegrity.com

 
Comments

I repeat my comments from an earlier blog.

1.All must be subject to whereabouts to be possibly compliant
with EHRA and not just elite.
2.the one hour rule for 365 days is in breach of the working time
directive.As this is Health and Safety and breaches of such are
criminal offences whereabouts requirements are criminal.
By barry williams

9 April 2009 at 22:48pm

Intrusive Whereabouts testing...Data collection and usage without
proper explanation, rules, or legal jurisdiction having been
established...athlete contracts which are restrictive and don't
allow athletes to say no without being punished....and propagnade
filled web sites and newsletters that only allow one view to be
presented.  Happy days...Happy days.  The real cheats and
hypocrites in sport still sit in offices behind their nice desks
with titles like Chairman, President, Chief Executive and
Performance Director.  It was ever thus.
By Geoff Parsons

10 April 2009 at 20:33pm