Exercising a public function: Spelman v. Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355 (QB)

Redacted (public version) of the transcript: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/355.html

Guardian newspaper report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/16/rfu-environment-secretary-drug-taking

A lot has been recently written about Jonathan Spelman, a 17year old boy and son of a Cabinet Minister (Caroline Spelman is Member of Parliament and Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and on the 16^th April he was formally suspended from Rugby by the RFU for 21months for an anti-doping violation: http://www.rfu.com/News/2012/April/NewsArticles/160412_Spelman_judgment.aspx .

While the details of this anti-doping violation are now public knowledge, as is his unsuccessful fight to seek a privacy injunction barring reporting of this, what is perhaps more interesting is the Court’s view about sport.

 

The Background to the case

Jonathan Spelman played rugby for England U16 and for Harlequins RFC however he suffered a serious cruciate ligament injury in September 2011 which prevented him from playing. According to newspaper reports, he then ordered a series of steroids over the internet in an attempt to speed his recovery. The RFU name these substances as: testosterone, drostanolone (both anabolic steroids), growth hormone (GHRP6), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), clomid (clomiphene) and nolvadex (tamoxifen).

The Privacy injunction was an attempt to prevent the Daily Star Sunday (a tabloid newspaper) from revealing these allegations, an effort that subsequently failed. The resulting publicity in the media ultimately led to his voluntary appearance before the RFU’s independent disciplinary tribunal last month. Earlier this week, the tribunal reduced his anti-doping violation by three months to take into account his youth, immaturity and admission of guilt.

 

The Privacy Injunction attempt

Although the Daily Star Sunday did not yet have a fully written article, they were making enquiries of various parties to try to corroborate their information about Jonathan. After they approached these sources, they were contacted by the Claimant’s solicitors who instructed them to effectively cease and desist what they felt was an invasion of privacy and a political assault against Mrs Spelman.

By contrast, Express Newspapers argue that by giving full and prior notification of a potential story, they acted properly and responsibly, a principle that Max Mosley has previously campaigned on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/02/max-mosley-media-warn-subjects-expose . They also argued that Mrs Spelman was only an incidental aspect to the story [25] and that the key fact is that Jonathan is an elite sportsman who aspires to play at national and international level [66].

The initial hearing was on Saturday 11^th February 2012, see here for a redacted judgment:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/239.html and http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/392.html

As with many privacy cases, the crux of the case turned on the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the balancing exercise that needed to be undertaken between the diametrically opposite rights enshrined by Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (Right to freedom of expression). At [30], the Court confirmed that neither of the Articles took precedence over the other, instead, the importance of each right, the justifications for any interference, and the proportionality of any action should be carefully reviewed. The Court also re-stated the importance of maintaining open justice and the public accountability of the Courts [19].

See: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/02/24/spelman-injunction-lifted/ for an interesting analysis of this balancing exercise.

As an aside, at [24], there is also an interesting discussion of the mechanics of how Sunday papers work and the exclusivity they prize over the daily titles that could effectively scoop them to reporting ‘their’ story if the injunction was discharged during the week .

 

Unfettered Watchdogs

While the paper expressed the view that it would be cheaper to not contest the injunction, they felt that this would place serious constraints on their freedom of expression and their function as a ‘unfettered Watchdog in a democratic society’. Perhaps surprisingly, the Court broadly agreed and cited what it saw as two key paragraphs specifically applying and underpinning this principle in sport.

6. The Assembly is aware that personal privacy is often invaded, even in countries with specific legislation to protect it, as people’s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media. The victims are essentially public figures, since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales. At the same time, public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society — in many cases by choice — automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy.

7. Public figures are persons holding public office and/or using public resources and, more broadly speaking, all those who play a role in public life, whether in politics, the economy, the arts, the social sphere, sport or in any other domain.

Resolution 1165 (1998) of the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe on the Right to Privacy

And from the recent Grand Chamber case of Axel Springer AG v. Germany [2012] ECHR 227 (7 February 2012) [90]:

An initial essential criterion is the contribution made by photos or articles in the press to a debate of general interest (see Von Hannover, cited above, § 60; Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium, no. 64772/01, § 68, 9 November 2006; and Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 46, 4 June 2009). The definition of what constitutes a subject of general interest will depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court nevertheless considers it useful to point out that it has recognised the existence of such an interest not only where the publication concerned political issues or crimes….. but also where it concerned sporting issues or performing artists (see Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 5266/03, § 25, 22 February 2007; Colaço Mestre and SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, § 28, 26 April 2007; and Sapan v. Turkey, no.44102/04, § 34, 8 June 2010).

The Court held that given this, and the fact that at least one of the facts was true (and thereby could act as a complete defence to any potential defamation action [60]), it would be in the public interest for the newspaper to publish. The Court did however recognise that such an article could be intrusive or offensive depending on how it was written [102] and reserved the right to award damages (including aggravated damages) for the disclosure of private information if the publisher could not justify its use [120].

 

Child Athletes

The rest of the judgment is comparatively unreported; however I would argue that it is actually the most interesting and far-reaching part! Essentially, the Court moved from the basic proposition that children enjoy no general rights to privacy simply because of their age [53], to suggesting that the fact that Jonathan was nearly 18 was irrelevant as the principles of the case and the public nature of his role would equally have applied by virtue of his status as an international U16 player [72].

While I would not recommend using Mr Justice Tugendhat’s comments at [68] to meet the Government’s legacy sport targets for youth sports participation:

The material benefits to those few children who succeed at the highest level can be fabulous. But these benefits may come at a high price. It is a matter of common knowledge that the effort to achieve the highest honours in sport can damage a person’s health and family life, and lead to an early death, or even to a life of misery when careers end early and in disappointment. But the price in terms of health and happiness may be paid even by the less successful performers (being the overwhelming majority, of course) without their ever obtaining the material or other significant benefits.

It is his subsequent comments that are potentially the most significant. At [69], Tugendhat J suggests that:

69….those engaged in sport at the national and international level are subject to many requirements which are not imposed on other members of the public. Matters relating to their health have to be disclosed and monitored, and they may have little if any control over the extent to which such information is disseminated. It is a condition of participating in high level sport that the participant gives up control over many aspects of private life. There is no, or at best a low, expectation of privacy if an issue of health relates to the ability of the person to participate in the very public activity of national and international sport.

He then proceeds to extend this principle even further beyond professional athletes to journeyman athletes who merely ‘aim for’ rather than necessarily achieve the highest levels of sport [70].  Strictly speaking this area of the judgment is obiter, however it does make me wonder how many current child athletes (and their parents) understand the responsibilities that this extension of the principle entails. Not only are national and international child athletes role models and can legitimately be subjected to public scrutiny, but so now are lower level younger athletes. How far does this diminution of reasonable expectation of privacy extend? County level? What about pupils competing in the National School Games? It will be interesting to see how this area develops.

One last paragraph that sports governing bodies may wish to address is the potential ethical and welfare concerns raised by the Court in [107] that:

…..the demands made on children for the benefit of sport have increased very greatly over that period. Whereas in the past there was relatively little money to be made out of sport by anyone, sport has in recent years generated huge revenues, mostly from broadcasting and other intellectual property rights. So there is a risk that those responsible for organising national and international sporting activities may have interests that conflict with the welfare of the children who participate, or aspire to participate, in these activities.

Is this Tugendhat J’s response to the furore over Tom Daley’s media commitments, or is he suggesting that greater work should be undertaken to ensure that young athletes in professional and elite sport are not just protected from abusive relationships, but from the pressures and responsibilities of playing sport itself?

Ironically, this judgment has only increased these pressures.

World Sports Law Report’s: Tackling Doping in Sport 2011 (in association with UK Anti-Doping & Squire Sanders Hammonds, 16-17 March, London [DAY 2]

If there are any errors or inaccuracies these are from me rather than from the speakers. The official WSLR review of the event can be found here: http://e-comlaw.com/sportslawblog/template_permalink.asp?id=386

Day 2  (http://www.tacklingdopinginsport.com/)

1. Anti-Doping at the Olympic Games. Richard Budgett (London 2012). The first lecture discussed the planned anti-doping provision at London 2012. Just listening to the statistics in particular outlined the sheer logistical task ahead, indeed London plans to undertake the most number of blood and urine doping tests yet (6,200 tests total split as 5,000 at the Olympics, 1,200 at the Paralympics), reaching an expected peak of 400 on one day! (To put this into perspective, UKAD only conduct 7,500 annual tests!). For the first time at the Olympics, Blood and Urine will also be collected in the same room hopefully speeding up the process. One problem that was however raised in light of David Howman’s speech the day before was that all the Doping Control Officer’s (DCO) will be volunteers and the potential for this to lead to bribery?
2. Anti-Doping at the Commonwealth Games. David Grevemberg (Glasgow 2014). This lecture presented an overview of the planned anti-doping provision at Glasgow 2014. What was noticeable was the stark contrast between the statistics for the two events: Glasgow will have 17 sports, 25 disciplines, 250 medal events, 71 Nations and territories and 11 days of competition, indeed the costs of the Olympic stadium alone would fund Glasgow’s entire budget. One issue that hasn’t yet been decided though was whether the DCOs were coming from London, foreign jurisdictions or from training Scottish medical staff and providing an anti-doping legacy after the Games.
3. Keynote Speech – Legacy for Anti-Doping. Hugh Robertson MP (UK Minister for Sport and the Olympics). The Keynote Speech has been widely reported by the media (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/9550585; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-olympics-london-doping-idUSTRE72G43Z20110317) however it is still worth highlighting a number of points the Minister made. The first point to note is that he felt that sport was facing twin threats from doping (possibly from more individual sports) and from corruption (possibly from more team-based sports). Combating these two threats was vital if sport was to retain its integrity. One throwaway comment that perhaps jars with the current England FA coverage is that he viewed all Olympic sports stars as role models [whether this is enforceable though is another matter!]. The Minister praised UKAD and encouraged its close relationship with law enforcement, interestingly though he suggested that they should focus not just on target athletes but on stemming the entire flow of drugs at the source. He also seemed amenable to pass legislation on this issue if it was needed in the future, and in echoes of David Howman’s speech called for a strengthening and harmonisation of clearer doping rules across Europe.
4. Using intelligence to combat doping in the run up to the Olympic Games. Nicole Sapstead (UK Anti-Doping). This lecture developed the theme from both David Howman and Travis Tygart’s earlier presentations. Somewhat provocatively, the talk opened with the statistic that there were 498 days until London 2012, but 0 days to combat cheats and their entourage! An interesting rhetorical question was whether UKAD had failed if they detected a BALCO-esque scandal just before / during the Games, or whether this in fact represented a success? What was interesting from this presentation was how UKAD collates information, trends and intelligence into a central database in order to analyse doping patterns. Nicole also outlined how UKAD used both a tactical (directly focused) and strategic (wider education) approach to combating drug cheats. She also highlighted the success of the recent anti-doping reporting hotline (run through the independent Crimestoppers): 0800 032 2332 where callers can anonymously pass on information to authorities 24/7 (http://www.ukad.org.uk/news/report-doping-in-sport)
5. Background to and experience of the [Biological Passport] programme. Michael Ashenden (SIAB Research). This lecture explained how doping cases no longer involved positive tests, but also now involved ‘non-analytical positives’ where other evidence / interviews / suspicions could be considered indicators of guilt. One such area is Biological passports. The passport relies on two cornerstones, the initial software filtering which highlights deviances from the norm, and the subsequent review of this data by a series of experts to rule out pathological or other non-doping factors. The presentation concluded with an exhortation to discover even more markers within the blood to test for in order to block any potential loopholes.
6. Advancements in the use of biological markers in anti-doping control. Paul Scott (Scott Analytics). This lecture could best be described as a critical analysis of the current biological passport scheme and how it could be improved in the future. Some of the suggestions raised privacy / freedom issues, such as the ability to test at any time of day or night, but this must be balanced against the fact that athletes are not currently tested between 11pm-6am and if they declared their whereabouts for later the following day, it was possible to flush certain substances from their body. Tightening the window for analysis of samples would have financial and complexity implications, but effectively sport needs to decide whether it wanted to prohibit doping or to trade-off lower costs with less reliability. A greater use of “non-starts” rather than full doping violations was also suggested.
7. Procedural issues in anti-doping proceedings. Antonio Rigozzi (Levy Kaufmann-Kohler). This lecture compared and contrasted the admissibility of evidence under Swiss law and the WADA Code, in particular whether the WADA Code could be supplemented by IBA Rules on evidence (www.ibanet.org). Some doubts still exist over the admissibility of polygraph tests, however there is a suggestion that CAS has applied the criminal rather than civil test and therefore its decision in this area is open to challenge.
8. Potential civil liabilities arising from doping control. Stephen Sampson (Squire Sanders Hammonds). This lecture explored whether athletes could bring civil claims against an Anti-Doping Organisation (ADO) and/or Governing Body for irregularities or problems with the doping control process. A number of case studies were discussed, as was the position in the event of a material departure from WADA rules, however it was also noted that such an action was very unlikely to succeed, particularly if the ADO / NGB had acted fairly, proportionately and justly in accordance with the rules. Interestingly while the WADA Code has been used as a ‘shield’ to protect athletes from abuse, this proposition envisages it being used as a ‘sword’ to attack for a breach.
9. Contaminated meat: A threat to athletes subject to doping control. Mike Morgan (Squire Sanders Hammonds). This lecture discussed whether clenbuterol from contaminated meat was behind a string of recent doping results, and if so what could be done about it. Arguably the problem lay both within the agricultural sector in particular countries (Taiwan, China, South Korea and Mexico in particular) [but clenbuterol was not at levels harmful to the health of the general population], and also inconsistencies in the legal treatment of the athletes contaminated by the drug. One interesting argument from the questions was whether meat could be treated along similar lines to supplements? Taken to its logical conclusion, this would suggest that under strict liability, an athlete could be to blame if they didn’t convert to veganism?
10. The risks – recent experiences of a NADO. Aurora Andruska (ASADA). This session was a multimedia presentation on the recent Australian experience with the supplement Methylhexaneamine.  The presentation also analysed the media reporting of the issue and the subsequent repercussions for the four athletes that tested positive for the substance.
11. Reducing the risk. David Hall (Informed Sport – HFL), Jeni Pearce (English Institute of Sport, England Cricket), Graham Arthur (UKAD). This final section was less a lecture and more a question and answer session on supplements. Two interesting things came out of this session in particular, the first is that there were two main areas where contamination occurred: Using contaminated raw ingredients; and where third party manufacturers had cross-contaminated the product with a prohibited substance. It was also useful to hear about the current EIS policy on supplements, where athletes can receive specialised nutritional advice, guidance and support for supplement use on condition of signing up to an agreed code of conduct. Importantly, the EIS did emphasise though that this programme was one of risk management and that athletes remained liable for what substances entered their bodies; indeed, it was impossible to test every sample although the EIS could minimise this risk by only using approved suppliers and by keeping a record of what supplement batch was taken in order to trace any contamination.

Performance enhancement from Doping is for life and not just for Christmas

Source: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62297/title/Muscles_remember_past_glory

The .pdf file of the full PNAS research findings can be downloaded at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/02/0913935107.full.pdf

This interesting story caught my eye this morning. Essentially five scientists from the University of Oslo, Norway (Jo C. Bruusgaard, Ida B. Johansen, Ingrid M. Egner, Zaheer A. Rana, and Kristian Gundersen) have announced their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) that “Myonuclei acquired by overload exercise precede hypertrophy and are not lost upon detraining,”

In lay speak, while it is common knowledge that the principle “use it or lose it!” applies to exercise and that muscle fibre will atrophy when it is inactive over long periods of time, this research found that muscle fibres retained nuclei substantially longer after overload (training) was discontinued, indeed the scientists even suggested that the presence of this nuclei may also help to delay muscle atrophy.

Where the findings become really interesting for sports lawyers though is in Professor Gunderson et al’s findings on page 3, that contrary to popular opinion, these muscle nuclei do not disappear with the surrounding fibres when the muscle atrophies. “If a hypertrophic episode leads to a lasting higher number of myonuclei, this might provide a long-term advantage even if the stimulus for hypertrophy subsides. The advantage could manifest itself as resistance toward detraining-related atrophy and a more efficient response to retraining.”

 And at page 4: “because anabolic steroids facilitate more myonuclei, nuclear permanency may also have implications for exclusion periods after a doping offense.”

This would seem to suggest that the advantages gained from taking performance enhancing substances, particularly anabolic steroids may stay in the body permanently, even when that athlete has demonstrated they are clean after a period of suspension, thereby giving drugs cheats an unfair advantage over other athletes. If these findings are true, they would certainly seem to support the British Olympic Association’s current life ban for Drug Cheats.

It also gives me hope that if my abdomen can somehow remember what a six-pack feels like all those years ago, there is hope for me yet, or at least that’s what I keep telling myself!

Punishing the Innocent

http://news.guelphmercury.com/article/649371

On 9 April 2010, University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) football player Nathan Zettler was charged with possession of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone for the purpose of trafficking.  In response to the police investigation, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) was invited by the university to conduct team-wide drug tests on all its players. 

There were nine adverse findings: one asserted refusal, four admissions of use and three adverse analytical findings.  Mr. Zettler’s trafficking case is being investigated further.

Canadian Interuniversity Sport subsequently suspended first year linebacker Jordan Meredith who had tested positive for Tamoxifen and second year linebacker Joe Surgenor who had admitted to steroid use – both had admitted their guilt, waived their rights to a hearing and accepted a two-year period of ineligibility thereby enabling CCES to disclose their identities.  The remaining cases are pending.

Last week, the University of Waterloo suspended the entire team and cancelled its season. 

Third year linebacker Brandon Krukowski was charged with possession and trafficking of drugs yesterday.

The Waterloo Region Record newspaper just published an article I wrote entitled, ‘University has punished the innocent.’ It was also re-printed in the Guelph Mercury. Here are a few excerpts:

———-

The university’s suspension of its football team for the upcoming season because nine of its 62 players were caught doping is being portrayed as an act of courage and conviction. The university is being praised in some circles for standing up and doing the right thing. This righteous indignation, however, misses a bigger point.

The innocent are being punished for the crimes of the guilty.

Where does Waterloo get off suspending non-guilty players?

The Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) policy on doping control (Policy 90.10) is silent on punishing innocent players and sanctioning teams for the actions of its individual players.

Affected coaches will be on paid administrative leave — meaning they will be paid to not coach, so other than their egos and, to an extent, their reputations, they will not suffer.

But it’s a different story for the student athletes who did not dope but who are being penalized as if they did. They are guilty of no crime.

Waterloo’s suspension of next year’s season has not only broken the players’ hearts but also possibly a contract between the university and these student-athletes. To wit, these particular student-athletes went to Waterloo to play football and get a university education. In return for representing Waterloo on the gridiron, the university in effect promised a football team to play on and classes in which to enrol. In this light, the season’s cancellation is troubling.

This is not an instance of Canadian Interuniversity Sport suspending the University of Waterloo’s football team because of a systemic failure akin to Southern Methodist University’s suspension in 1987. In a precedent setting decision, the National Collegiate Athletic Association suspended Southern Methodist’s football team because its program was “built on a legacy of wrongdoing, deceit and rule violations.” No such allegation has been levelled at the University of Waterloo. In fact, Canadian Interuniversity Sport chief executive officer Marg McGregor says that they “are not taking the view that this is an isolated problem at the University of Waterloo.”

We live in a country governed by the rule of law. Canadian Interuniversity Sport applied its rules – to which all student-athletes are bound – and suspended the nine guilty student-athletes. What rule was broken that gives Waterloo the right to cancel a season and penalize students who have done no wrong?

———-

Is Rugby Union soon to follow in the footsteps of Cycling and Athletics?

Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport1/hi/rugby_union/my_club/bath/8093596.stm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6737649.ece http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8174825.stm

Following several doping related incidents 2009 seems to be a year the RFU and Bath Rugby may want to either put behind them or feel proud of.

It all started in January when it evolved that Matt Stevens had failed a drugs test and then in February was banned for 2 years. (see the following link for the full story http://sportslawnews.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/matt-stevens-starts-2yr-drug-ban/)

Then in June Michael Lipman, Alex Crockett and Andrew Higgins quit Bath following claims that they refused to take drugs tests. It was alleged that Lipman, Crockett and Higgins had taken recreational drugs whilst at an end of season party. As a result their then club Bath requested they take drugs test. The 3 players were said to have dodged these requests. However all 3 deny that they were avoiding tests and in doing so they walked out on the club, claiming “scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations” had forced their exit.

In July Justin Harrison admitted taking cocaine and was suspended from playing or coaching for 8 months for “actions prejudicial to the interests of the game”. Harrison admitted to taking the class A drug in the toilets of a West London pub and he also confessed to shouting “Class A, it’s OK, everyone’s doing it” on a coach carrying members of the Bath academy.

Now we are in the second week of August and following the goings on in June Lipman, Crockett and Higgins have been suspended by the RFU for 9 months after being found guilty of misconduct for failing to comply with their club’s request for a drugs test. What is interesting is that all allegations that the players had taken the drugs were dropped at the start of the hearing, which then allowed the hearing to focus on whether the club’s requests were reasonable or whether the 3 players actions in quitting the club after being asked to take the tests were reasonable.

The panel chaired by Judge Jeff Blackett fully supported the club’s actions and stated, “If the players had nothing to fear from taking a drugs test then they would have taken them.” They then went on to say, “The reality of the case was that at the time when asked to take a drugs test, the players believed there was a risk of positive results.

“This was either because they knew they had ingested drugs or they had drunk so much alcohol that they could not remember whether or not they had ingested drugs. Each of the players therefore decided to play for time, keep out of contact and then hide behind legal defence.”

Richard Mallett, solicitor acting on behalf of Lipman, Crockett and Higgins, said: “All three players are absolutely devastated by today’s result and that they have now been suspended from playing the game they love.” However, there is no sign of an appeal at the moment. This is possibly because everything that was stated in the panel’s summing up is true and their actions have hit home, after all nothing screams guilty more than refusing or obviously avoiding a drugs test on several occasions. The 3 players will now have a lot to do in repairing their damaged reputations.

Whilst some may feel disheartened that Rugby Union seems to be following in the footsteps of cycling, athletics, swimming etc and gaining a reputation for doping, others may see the shining light at the end of the tunnel. 2009 may be viewed as a breakthrough in tackling drugs in Rugby. Especially with premiership Rugby growing in popularity recreational drugs can no longer be ignored.

“The RFU disciplinary panel takes no pleasure in imposing its sanction as the players involved are decent young men,” the judgment added. “There is also a need for a strong deterrent in this sanction.”

The RFU supports Bath’s tough stance on what seems to be a zero tolerance for drugs, whether they be performance enhancing or purely recreational. In addressing the issues raised players will be subject to a new education programme next season whilst Bath’s head coach wants to push through a new code of conduct for all to abide by, which includes a ban on recreational drug use. Other clubs and sports should perhaps take a leaf out of Bath’s book by taking the initiative and going above and beyond that which is covered by WADA regulations to preserve the quality and reputation of the sport whilst protecting the health and welfare of its players and all those young people who look to professional sports players as role models.

Doping in Biathlon is ‘Systemic’ Allege IBU President & Canadian Coach

The Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/Sports/Biathlon+doping+systemic+says+Canada+coach/1384583/story.html

International Biathlon Union president Anders Besseberg recently said that, “Unlike previous doping cases, we are now facing systematic doping on a large scale in one of the strongest teams in the world” referring to Russia after then World Cup leader Ekaterina Iourieva and multiple world champions Dmitri Yaroshenko and Albina Akhatova were sent home from the world championships in Korea last month following positive tests for what is believed to be a new generation of EPO. 

Canadian coach Geret Coyne just echoed Besseberg’s concerns at last week’s IBU World Cup in Whistler, BC saying as well that doping in the sport is systemic.

Michael Phelps Finally Talks

The Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090313.wphelps0313/BNStory/International/home

US Olympic swimming sensation Michael Phelps spoke publicly for the first time since the infamous bong photo was published last month and talked about his ‘stupid mistake’.  Mr. Phelps appeared sincere in apologizing to the public for letting them down.  Only a cynic would suggest that he might have also been motivated to control the damage to his reputation given that there are millions of dollars in endorsements which are at stake.

Schumacher (the cyclist) gets a 2yr drugs ban

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7928676.stm;  http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7668224.stm

 

German Cyclist, Stefan Schumacher has been banned from cycling for two years (until 21 January 2011) after failing a drugs test during last year’s Tour de France. Schumacher tested positive for Cera (Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator), a variation of EPO.

 

Somewhat predictably, Schumacher proclaimed his innocence: “One thing is clear: I have not doped and I have nothing to hide,” and vowed to clear his name at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

 

Three other riders (Italy’s – Leonardo Piepoli and Riccardo Ricco, and Austrian – Bernhard Kohl) also admitted to using CERA at the 2008 Tour. Two other riders, Spaniards Manuel Beltran and Moises Duenas Nevado, tested positive for an older version of EPO during the Tour itself, and Kazakhstan’s Dmitri Fofonov failed a test for heptaminol after stage 18.

 

 

Biological Athlete Passports

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7908777.stm ; http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=754; http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126983.800-cheat-test-turns-athletes-blood-into-a-passport.html .

 

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has announced that it is very close to being able to implement the long awaited “Athlete Passport” system. It is hoped that the passport will provide testers with a lifelong “biological fingerprint” of competitors to compare drug-samples against and will be a key component in the central ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration & Management System) Database. More details of ADAMS can be found here: http://www.uksport.gov.uk/pages/adams/

 

Any anomalies in blood chemistry, such as raised haemoglobin levels (associated with EPO abuse) or other biological disturbances would then allow further tests to be conducted and potential cheats identified at a much earlier stage than at present.

 

The idea has been pioneered by the International Cycling Union (UCI), the Federation Internationale de Skiing (FIS) and the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF), and further trials of the scheme will take place at the World Athletics Championships in Berlin this summer.

 

Although the UCI has been at the forefront of piloting the passport scheme, and last year took 8,300 blood samples from 804 cyclists, its efforts are not currently being supported by WADA, after the UCI President sued WADA following a row over Floyd Landis’s appeal against his doping ban. http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NjE5MQ&MenuId=MjI0NQ&BackLink=%2Ftemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI5%2Flayout.asp%3FMenuId%3DMjI0NQ

Suspended Italian footballers may get last minute reprieve

Source: http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-3042-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/ ; http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=622094&&cc=5739 ; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article5671739.ece; http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7907742.stm ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2009/02/wada_not_wavering_on_whereabou.html

The full text of CAS 2008/A.1557 WADA v. CONI, FIGC, Daniele Mannini & Davide Possanzini can be downloaded from here:  http://www.tas-cas.org/recent-decision

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will now re-open the proceedings of the two Italian footballers (Daniele Mannini & Davide Possanzini) who last month were awarded a one year competition ban after arriving late for a drug test in 2007. Both the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Italian Professional Football Association (FIGC) had indicated that they would not stand in the way of any appeal.

In the original case both Mannini and Possanzini were banned for 15 days by the Italian Olympic Committee, however this suspension was appealed by WADA, who argued that the usual punishment was 2 yrs. The court accepted this, but reduced the ban to one year to reflect the fact that the players bore “no significant fault” for providing a late sample.

The incident happened on 1^st December 2007, when both players were ordered to attend a drugs test to give blood and urine samples. En route to the test though, they were ordered by both the President of Brescia and the Brescian coach to attend a post-match dressing down following the club’s third successive defeat and this detour made them 10-25 minutes later for the drugs test.  The door to the dressing room was subsequently blocked from the inside which prevented the doping control officers from gaining access to keep the players in visual control.

Indeed, Michel Platini (President of UEFA) hit out at the original decision at a news conference, stating that:  “This decision was simply scandalous. Football has to find a way to fight back against Wada, who do as they please, when they please. It’s the same with the ‘whereabouts’ rule. I totally support the recommendation not to follow Wada’s code. Wada can find footballers for 330 days out of the year. I think they have a right to be left alone for one month each summer.”

Unsurprisingly, WADA responded to these (somewhat naive) comments arguing that for any testing to be effective, you can’t just take 30 days out and call it a ‘holiday’. As Gordon Farquhar (the BBC’s Sports News & Olympic Correspondent) says, all sports are equal but some sports (*cough*  football and tennis  *cough*) think they are more equal than others!

For what it’s worth, I hope that the two Brescian footballers escape a ban as they were only following team orders, and that any penalty should be on Brescia rather than specific individuals. That said I think football has to decide whether it follows ALL of WADA’s rules or goes its own way, it can’t pick and choose the rules it likes, and discards the rules it doesn’t.