The UK Anti-doping Policy 2009
Introduction
The next few years will see the UK host a number of high caliber supranational sporting events. These include the Olympics and Paralympics sport event in 2012 and the Commonwealth Games in 2014. Analyzing an anti-doping policy is in real time since it corroborates lessons learned by the rest of the world and the adoption of best practices in the evaluation and implementation of anti-doping policies. Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.8 of the Code (WADA, 2009, p.17).The UK National Anti-Doping Policy was enforced on 14 December 2009, and is created to allow for amendments as regularly required, (this is done after making due consultation on any substantial amendments with the relevant stakeholders) to ensure that is properly mirrors governmental policy goals and objectives on matters of doping in sport are achieved (UKAD, p.1).
The purpose of the policy
The UK National Anti-Doping Policy purpose is to stipulate policy objectives and goals of the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations in the field of doping in sport, and to identify the roles and responsibilities of each of UK Anti-Doping organizations, the Sports Councils, and the national governing bodies of sport in the UK. (p.1). The UK Anti-doping policy helps in the delivering and supporting of those objectives and requirements in accordance with the Worlds Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code (Department of culture, media and sports, 2009, p.5).
Policy objectives
The main objective of the anti-doping policy is to eliminate doping in sports. The policy aims at ensuring that, the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations succeed in curbing the vice of doping in the UK sporting arena. For the policy to be effective, it is imperative that, there should be concerted and coordinated efforts between the government and the sports movement, which should be highly collaborative. This ensures effectiveness in the development of policing and enforcement of the anti-doping rules and regulations.
Policy background
Doping in sport is widely regarded as cheating. In retrospect, it is a way of killing the spirit of sportsmanship. Since, doping puts the health of the athletes in danger, contrary to the spirit of sport and that of those who emulate and aspire to become athletes, the vice also undermines the otherwise positive impact of sport in society (Haywood, L. et al., 1995, p. 222). Current anti-doping policies in competitive sports in consensus advocate for fair-play and are concerned for athletes health. Since the inception of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), efforts on anti-doping have been significantly intensified. Resources have been marshaled to the anti-doping crusade, and there has been the need for all governments participating in high profile sports to adopt the WADA Code and have homegrown policies that are in harmony with the Code. Most of the effort is directed towards elite athletes with much less effect on amateur sports people, and the general public. The first UK National Anti-Doping policy was published by UK Sport in May 2005 after far-reaching consultations with the sports councils and national governing bodies (NGBs) of sports. Accordingly, the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations regard the elimination of doping in sport as an important public policy objective (Department for culture, sports, and media 2009, p. 1).
Key issues behind the policy
Various substances have been used to enhance athletic performance since ancient times. The ancient Greeks imbibed hallucinogens while other cultures used cola among other performance enhancing substances to overcome injury effects (by improving their endurance), and thus giving them the competitive mileage over their opponents. Consequently, this tradition transitioned into the modern sporting era as a many of athletes in the past two centuries have continued to use caffeine and strychnine among other substances to enhance their sporting prowess. The UK government intends to improve its reputation in the build up to major sporting events that are forthcoming in the UK. The country also seeks to unionize its anti-doping organization so as to ensure that the standards of the sport are maintained and the ultimate goal of ensuring fair competition as provided for by the WADA code is achieved (UKAD 2009, p.5).
Policy context
The policy has been drafted in the context of major sporting events which are forthcoming in the UK (The 2012 Olympics and Paralympics games and the 2014 Commonwealth games. The policy has been drafted to lay proper ground for the WADA code in view of sporting activities in the UK. The major stakeholders in the UKs Anti-doping policy a all UK Sport initiatives, Sport England, Sport Northern Ireland, Sport Scotland, the Sports Council for Wales. The IOC and member governments, as well as sporting organizations had agreed to adopt a World Anti-Doping Code (Department for culture, sports, and media 2009, p.6).
UK Anti-doping policy rationale
It is clear that since the years when the Greeks dominated athletics (and were found to be using hallucinogens and cola), doping in sport is regarded as cheating. It naturally kills the spirit of sportsmanship and is detrimental to the growth of sport in the society. For the UK and other countries in general, sport is very significant. The sporting activity consumes huge sums of money from the nation and the sporting community. The success of the athletes is a uniting factor for the nation. In addition, sporting events attracts throngs who generate substantial revenues. The athletes themselves are celebrities who act as role models for the younger generation. Sporting activity is health promoting in nature and is an active lifestyle that encourages mass participation. The use of forbidden drugs and substances in sport taints the image of sport it is the epitome of bad sportsmanship. There is a supranational concern of keeping sports clean and fair as provided for by the WADA code (WADA 2009, p. 5).
The international campaign against doping is currently governed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). This is an autonomous agency that was created through a collaborative initiative that championed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as a result of the Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport(1999). The formation of the UK Anti-doping policy is in tandem with the worlds nations and the Olympic Movement concerted efforts towards enhancing, supplementing and coordinating current education for athletes concerning the negatives of doping. The policy is geared towards the reinforcement of ideal fairness in sports (UKAD, 2009, p.7).
The policy can also be rationalised by the fact that, the UK government (like other governments) has committed (through the Copenhagen declaration on Anti-doping in sport, 2003) herself to the World Anti-doping code-which is a guiding framework that unionises anti-doping policies, rules and regulations (Department for culture, sports, and media 2009, p.5) in the entire world.
The UK government also ratified the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport (2006), this formally bound the state-legally and politically to Ensuring that anti-doping rules and regulations in the UK are compliant with the code, ensuring that the law of the land prohibit the proliferation of prohibited substances to the athletes, and promoting and facilitating cohesion between the public and private sector bodies in the war against doping in sports.
By looking at the EU context, there is no clear cut policy on doping. However the EUs responsibility remains, supporting, coordinating and facilitating its member states policies on anti-doping in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty. In addition, UK Sport- UKs National Anti-Doping Organisation (NADO), holds the responsibility of implementing and overseeing the UKs anti-doping policy and confirming compliance with the Code. The organisation establishes anti-doping policy standards, tests and educates athletes in the UK in accordance with the code. Moreover, after the creation of the initial WADA code in 2003, a unique relationship was established between the government and sport. The government funds the organisation hence ensuring that the organisations functions are compliant with the Code (Department for culture, sports, and media 2009, p. 8).
In general, Anti-doping policies seek to safeguard what is intrinsically important about sport. Scholars refer to this intrinsic value as the spirit of sport it is the real meaning of Olympism playing true. The ultimate satisfaction in sporting activities is the celebration of the human soul, body and mind, and is portrayed by the following values
Ethics, fair play and honesty, Health, Excellence in performance, Character and education, Fun and joy, Teamwork, Dedication and commitment, Respect for rules and laws, Respect for self and other participants, Courage, Community and solidarity (WADA, 2009, p. 13). The above values clearly imply that doping is fundamentally repugnant to the spirit of sportsmanship.
Policy assumptions about sport, leisure or tourism
The policy framework is built on assumptions that high profile athletes are a source of prestige for the nation. Hence, to safeguard the nations image in view of sport, leisure and tourism there is need of having a unionised regulatory framework on anti-doping. The policy formulation ahead of the upcoming sports events (the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, and the 2014 Commonwealth games) is timely since it is assumed that events such as the Olympic s will generate high revenues for the nation. This assumption is within context since the Olympics have been known to be very prestigious events. The policy also assumes that doping is fundamentally contradicts with the spirit of sportsmanship. This assumption is also in the WADA code. In trying to safeguard the spirit of sportsmanship, the policy assumes that it is also safeguarding the huge sums of money invested in the sporting activities by the public and the private sectors. The UK Anti-Doping policy has been crafted on the basis that all sports should comply, nationally and internationally, with creating a clean and fair sporting environment (Department for culture, sports, and media 2009, p.1).
Policy and various themes (social inclusion, economic development, and national prestige among others)
The characteristics and functioning of the UK Anti-doping policy can be examined by international policy processes through careful analysis of the case in the UK context which can then be used to explore the developments of the policy in relation to themes such as national prestige, economic development, social inclusion and environmental stability among others. The UK Anti-doping policy has brought changes in the regulation of sporting in the UK from a dominant perspective of harmonizing the rules on doping in sports from a series of self-contained issues which was addressed by individual sporting councils andor other competition organizers to one that demands extensive collaboration between sport councils and the UK government. In other words, this has brought the issue of harmonization of the Anti-doping policy to the forefront. The interests of the policy actors are stipulated and the role of key organizations, the Sports Councils, the National Governing Bodies (NGBs), National Anti-Doping Agency, and the UK government, in facilitating closer co-ordination, is geared towards safeguarding the nations reputation and prestige in view of the forthcoming major sporting events (Department for culture, sports, and media 2009, p.1).
The concept of anti-doping policy has been shaped and is shaping the sporting community. Modern scientist and doctors are considered to be shaping the anti-doping policies. However, the epistemic community is limited in fully carrying out its role in the Anti-doping policy process. The ethical basis for anti-doping is the safeguarding of the athletes health. Anti-doping policy is necessary to prevent health damages from doping. The anti-doping code has provided for the principle concern about the health of the sportsmen and sportswomen (WADA 2009, p.10).
Political ideologies influencing the policy or issues
The UK Anti-doping policy has received political goodwill from luminaries such as the Minister of sports, media and culture, Gerry Sutcliffe. Speaking at UK Sports National Anti-Doping Conference, Gerry made it clear that, the fight against doping is a global fight, thus the governments move towards forming a new, stand-alone NADO reflected timely change. The NADO will build on the excellent work of UK Sport which has established us as a world leader in the field. When advocating for the need for anti-doping in sport, a strong argument seems to emerge from the values implied by the medical practitioners role and the proper use of medicine. In legal terms, the concept of medical ethical standards does not condone doping methods since they are instances of medical use for non-therapeutic reasons. Medical ethical standards and practices today in most cases relate to preventive and therapeutic purposes and discourage the use of bio-medical technology for human enhancement. In part of an acknowledgement of the growing of the international competitiveness in sports and the increase in overseas training has threatened domestic anti-doping policy in many parts of the EU. The UK governing bodies had to coalesce in order to pursue a national policy. The British government has been a strong supporter of the activities of the Council of Europe in encouraging governments to consider anti-doping policies. Achieving consensus on the substances and practices to be proscribed has not met any huddles so far. The main huddle has been in the reaching of consensus on the testing procedures. The questions that arise are who to test, when to test and how often to test. The process of testing is however more problematic specifically to the UK as it involves the use of sampling with the elite athletes being familiar faces, however sampling does not guarantee getting the right athlete to test since in some Olympic sports elite athletes are barely known.
There is a tendency of thinking that most elements of leisure recreation, sport, arts and tourism are overboard when it comes to politics and that they are need not to be factored in contesting ideologies. In fact, they should not affected or be affected by politics. This is far away from reality. Political ideologies such as liberalism, conservatism and liberalism among others do affect or are affect policy-making process in the leisure context (Veal, 2002, p.36). However, western countries have become much more affluent and political ideologies influence in sports has lately been more prosaic. These societies have increasing preponderance of facilities and white collar jobs the old political class has become blurred-politically speaking. Thus some researchers have suggested that, the political process is much more overlain with political rationalism that transcends ideology. In the context of tourism, the relationship between politics, policy-making and planning has focused on values rather than ideologies. In retrospect these specific values that impinge tourism and leisure need to be well stipulated (Hall Jenkins 1995, p.35).
Strengths and weaknesses of the policy
The anti-doping crusade is global and has comparatively been success with regard to striking playing true in sports. The UK Anti-doping policy strengths lie in the policies unionizing characteristic. The UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) offers guidance to NGBs on the process to be followed especially when an NGB is adopting the UK Anti-Doping Rules. This ensures that there is effectiveness and efficiency in applying and governing the conduct of Athletes and their supporting personnel who are under the authority of the NGBs. Strength of the policy is in the political backing the policy has received, the new National Anti-Doping origination (NADO) opened its business late last year (2009).
In its introduction, the UK government approved a 60 per cent increase in anti-doping budget to ensure that major strengthening of powers-implementation and enforcing is successful. In a Clear statement of intent, the Minister for Sport, Gerry Sutcliffe confirmed the plans for the National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO). The NADO was provisionally termed as UK Anti-Doping, and was mandated to take on existing educational and testing responsibilities from UK Sport. The organization is also granted significant powers to ensuring that the UK is well-placed to tackle doping in sport in the upcoming 2012 Olympics and Paralympics events, the 2014 Commonwealth games and beyond. Moreover, the recommendations for the NADO were first proposed by UK Sports Board in late 2007. The board recognized the need for centralized doping case management and stronger links with law enforcement organs this ensures that the policy is effective holistically. The Anti-doping policy has also received backing from the private sector-in terms of funding. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has provide facilities and equipment to allow Kings College London to run a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited settlement laboratory to be used for carrying out doping tests during the upcoming sporting events. The facility is has capacity to analyze thousands of samples throughout the Olympic Games and Paralympics Games. The facility will operate 247 until the games are over. This kind of concerted effort by the private sector boost the development of the policy since it allow s for growth of capacity through an increased knowledge base.
Moreover, the UK anti-doping policy education framework is an improvement of the UK Sportanti-doping education programme. The later programme termed as the 100ME is an athlete-centered initiative designed to educate and promote the advantages of drug-free sport to the entire sporting community. This ranges from the English Premier League and Olympic and Paralympics legends, to amateurs or young professionals at the start of their careers. The educational programme is a good foundation for the success of the policy since it provides timely, relevant and updated information on anti-doping, and focuses its attention on attitudes and values needed by a sportsman or sportswoman for believing that, they have the ability to compete, and win without using performance enhancement substances (Sport Scotland, 2010, Para.5).
However, the apparent assumption that anti-doping policy is a widely understood concept has reached belies. In fact, the anti-doping policy is still marred with inconsistency and is typified by a lack of clarity regarding some basic issues. The assumptions on the unionization of the anti-doping policies are without a doubt questionable. Basic questions such as what is doping and why do is it prohibited are far from being clear in the UK Anti-doping policy it is this absence of clarity that can significantly affect on the operation of the anti-doping policy.
The skeptics of modern sport drug testing programmes can also cite the failure of most Anti-doping policies to strategically test athletes in real time. The policy should indicate the timeliness of its analytical tests. This will prevent the issue of positive testing to doping as is continually observed I the world sporting community despite increased campaigns against performance enhancing substances. By doing so, the UK Anti-doping policy will not be imprecise and ineffective. These are some of the weaknesses in the UK Anti-doping policy which arise in regard to the war against doping. The conundrums are significant in their own standing, but there are more difficult issues in the UK Anti-doping policy which should be reviewed in order to make the policy very effective in preparation to the 2012 Olympics.
In view of these problems, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with the help of the Home Office, set up a Cross-Departmental Working Group on Anti-Doping in Sport in 2008 to evaluate the development of the sharing of information under the National Anti-Doping Organization. This is the group charged with the monitoring of the policy development (UKAD 2009, p.31).
The anti-doping policy in the long-may face stumbling blocks closely related to financial resources and its ability to meet the scientific challenges of continued experiments of new doping substances. Despite the concerted efforts by the UK government and other sponsors such as GlaxoSmithKline, new and more advanced drugs are being developed by athletes and the development of successful urineblood test to detect doping may need to be more sophisticated, in updating to these trends. An anti-doping organization (NADO) will require constant review and update of its analytical procedures. Every now and then, new generation of doping substances tends to demand more advanced and expensive experimental laboratories, research professionals and clinical trials. The major weakness in the policy is the prospect of sophisticated genetic engineering being adopted by athletes in their routine exercises to enhance performance. This requires the establishment of a vigorous financial foundation to sustain the policy with the required pounds in keeping up with the pace of the ever dynamic anti-doping campaign.
Conclusion
The responsibility of the UK anti-doping policy will remain within national sports without significant expansion of the activities and functions such as testing, education and implementation. This may hinder the policy growth in capacity for handling future challenges as identified by WADA. However, the UK government will need to collaboratively involve all the stakeholders the Sport councils, private and public sector, and the sporting community among others. The national anti-doping organization has shown commitment to working with law enforcement agencies with the intention of the fight against doping. The strength of this policy includes the global framework on anti-doping as captured by the World Anti-Doping Agency code. Other strength includes political goodwill and funding. The weakness of the policy is mostly in the long-term perspective. The policy should not cease to exist immediately after the upcoming sporting events in the UK, i.e, the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics and the 2014 Commonwealth games. The policy may be attracting funds currently due to vested interests in the prestigious sporting events such as the Olympics and future sources of funds to maintain the policy is doubtful, the policy can be opted out fully if funding is renounced. However, the policy has been properly structured to deal with cases of withholding of tests or refusal to undertake the prescribed tests and the part on educational mandate of the respective organs is implementable.
Anti-doping efforts occur in a global environment where most governments and states have shown their commitment towards the global fight against doping in sport. This has been witnesses by the ratification of the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport by their support of the World Anti-Doping Code. The Code provides for regular reviews to improve and strengthen the World Anti-Doping Code. These reviews may be structural andor administrative arrangements that will ensure that the efficiency and effectiveness of the anti-doping program are maintained. Most of the recommendations will be implemented through some comprehensive legislative changes that are proportion to government policies. In the near future, effective changes may result in an increased anti-doping operations, which will witness the role of anti-doping agencies outgrow current government sporting organizations. This will also mean that a global independent body may be formed to carryout operations-this body can mirror and evaluate anti-doping practices in the world.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment