MR MATTHEW READER, MR JOHN SCOTT AND MS ALLISON HOLLOWAY

19 JULY 2006

  Q60  Dr Harris: Is someone responsible and is someone responsible for London 2012 going to go to Beijing?

  Mr Scott: Yes.

  Q61  Dr Harris: Who?

  Mr Scott: I understand that they will be appointing a medical director. Anti-Doping will come under the responsibility of the medical director for the games. That person is not yet in post but we are still two years out from Beijing. That individual will carry that responsibility. I expect we will be there as well observing anti-doping at the Games.

  Q62  Dr Harris: What are you going to do about coaches? There is a lot of stuff about athletes but some people feel that the problem starts with coaches and that if we can crack that, we might improve the situation? Is there some way of penalising coaches, or do you think that there is a case for criminalisation of people with that sort of responsibility?

  Mr Scott: Certainly under the code, as you know, coaches are sanctionable where it can be proven that they have had any degree of intervention in either the application of doping or doping methods. The sanctions on the coaches are more severe, as you know, including a life-time ban. UK Sport similarly has a life-time ban instantly on any coach receiving public funding who has been involved with anti-doping. I think the education of the coaches is equally important as it is of the athlete. Remember that quite a lot of the doping that goes on is, even today, inadvertent. It is just plain stupid. They should not have taken something. So there is an important role to let the coach know what systems are in place to help the athlete make the right choice.

  Q63  Dr Harris: On the subject of inadvertency, there is this issue of people saying they took a supplement and so forth. Do you think the recent legislation on vitamins and minerals has been helpful in this area?

  Mr Scott: I think the whole issue of supplements remains a major challenge. We are just putting out a new guide to athletes. At the moment, what we can offer is advice basically on risk assessment and risk management of supplements. We would love to see an industry standard in the supplements area. That was a commitment given by a number of the big players at a seminar hosted by WADA last year in Germany. We would like to see progress on that front, but at the moment it remains a high risk.

  Q64  Dr Harris: What about criminalising? I guess that is a policy issue. Are there thoughts about bringing criminal sanctions into this? France and Italy, as I understand it, do that but if it s not a controlled drug in this country, there is no criminal sanction.

  Mr Reader: There are no current proposals to criminalise any aspects of anti-doping.

  Q65  Dr Harris: Are you sure? The Home Office is always coming up with new things to ban from that.

  Mr Reader: That may well be the case. There are substances and methods on the prohibited list which we have already touched on, which include social drugs—cocaine and heroin, for example. Clearly, as Class A drugs, they are high priority for our law enforcement agencies. There are products on there, such as steroids, which I understand it is an offence to supply or possess with the intent to supply, but not possess for personal use. That is something that we keep under review.

  Q66  Dr Harris: Are there thoughts in the run-up to London, and we have covered this in another inquiry, to toughen up the anabolic steroid enforcement side? I think these are Class C drugs.

  Mr Reader: The short answer is that we keep it under review with the Home Office. There are no imminent plans. There are no specific plans at the current time.

  Q67  Dr Harris: The moment when there is an alleged case of doping, governing bodies deal with that. Some people argue that there is a conflict of interest for those who are seeking to promote sport also being in charge of running the inquiry. Is there a case for an independent ombudsman type authority to deal with this so that not only is there no conflict of interest, but there is seen to be no conflict of interest?

  Mr Reader: Yes, and I think this issue was touched on the Culture, Media and Sport select committee inquiry. There is a recommendation that UK Sport and the Government consider the establishment of a national tribunal service and that, as I understand it, is currently under consideration. UK Sport is undertaking an options appraisal into that.

  Q68  Dr Harris: What about doctors? We know that doctors are involved in doping in other parts of the world. It would be hard to believe that if some of the things had happened in this country doctors would be involved. Are you confident that the World Medical Association for example is taking a tough enough line? Is the GMC actively involved as a stakeholder in trying to ensure that no doctor gets involved in this sort of stuff?

  Mr Scott: We obviously work very closely with the medical profession. The likelihood of there being rogue doctors out here is a reality we have to consider. That is certainly what the Spanish scandal has revealed very clearly. Again, we put a lot of effort into ensuring that there is education material available to doctors so that they know the kinds of decisions they need to be making with regard to specific athletes, who are elite performers, because there are risks they run and any prescriptions that they may legitimately make to them for a medical reason could actually contain bad substances. Something as simple as that was what I was talking about by inadvertent doping. It is still possible but it is about that relationship between the athletes and their doctors.

  Q69  Dr Harris: There have been no cases in this country of GMC-registered doctors so far being caught. Linford Christie told us in a seminar that I think was public that he did not think that the UK sports authorities were doing enough to educate people, despite the 100% Me Campaign. I think he was aware of that. I do not want to go over everything that has been one. We have had a lot of detail on that. Do you think that was a fair criticism or unfair?

  Mr Scott: I would always be prepared to improve and do more. You have to remember where we come from. Certainly when Linford was in the system there was no education programme. 100% Me was only launched in 2005. I would question on what basis he was making that judgment, whether that was a bit historic in terms of what he experienced when he was in the system. We are now I believe rolling out a very effective programme. UK Sport has finite resources here. We are having to work through others, so our prime target has been the training of trainers to deliver the message on our behalf, which is the focus on tutors in the governing bodies. If the governing bodies are responsible for their sport, we are educating and providing them with the resource to educate their people.

  Q70  Dr Harris: I accept that answer. He was thinking more about what could be done in schools in terms of education, and everything is suggested for the citizenship side, maybe in school physical education lessons. I managed to go to a couple. I forged a note for everyone! That is an opportunity or maybe some of the sports degrees ought to have much more on this because a lot of athletes and coaches do go through that path.

  Mr Reader: I accept that. I am sure more could be done through the curriculum. It is worth noting, and the point has been made, that any athlete who is in the system, however young they are, when they have been identified as having talent and they are starting to be supported, they will be made aware of and will be participating in 100% Me programme. The other point I want to make is that you may be aware that the first inaugural UK School Games will be taking place in Glasgow, which will bring together all young talented athletes between 14 and 18. The idea is that that will be an annual event up until 2012. The purpose of it is to recreate an Olympic or Paralympic experience for young people. UK Sport will be there and will be publicising and encouraging athletes to be aware of the 100% Me programme. That is another opportunity.

  Q71  Dr Harris: So you have accepted that the curriculum has a role to play. Are DfES engaged with you at officials level or should we be asking DfES about school and university curricula?

  Ms Holloway: There is quite a lot in the current curriculum at the moment that focuses on education around the misuse of drugs. At all Key Stage 1, 2, 3 and 4 levels, there is curriculum focused on drug misuse, but there is also in GCSE PE a focus on anti-doping as an issue in PE. A lot of the young people who are interested in going into sport in the future and working in some aspect of sport, whether that be as an athlete or coach or physiotherapist or whatever, are given access to education on anti-doping. I think the real problem that lies in schools at the moment is that the teachers do not necessarily know how to deliver on this subject. It is a very sensitive issue. They do not necessarily have the expertise to deliver on the issue of drugs in schools. A National Healthy Schools Standard has been put into place. I do not know whether it has been rolled out across all schools yet but there is an expectation on schools that they have a recognised and named adviser within the school who can deal with drugs-related issues, that the schools are supposed to have a policy on how they deal with drug-related issues, and again, as I said, that the curriculum deals with drugs and the law, et cetera.

  Q72  Dr Harris: Perhaps you could send us, within reason, a bundle of curriculum materials, and then we can make a judgment. I do not think we have had that yet.

  Ms Holloway: We are currently developing some material for schools at the moment with various education consultants that do deliver education for teachers.

  Q73  Dr Harris: I would be interested, if you have access to it, what is listed in the curriculum at the moment. Thank you for that answer. My last interest is about the doping control passport idea. What do you think the potential benefits or pitfalls of that approach are?

  Mr Scott: It has been around for a while. We have looked at it. It would need the full cooperation of the international sports federations and, at the moment, I do not think that is there. Those that would require that are the ones operating at international level.

  Q74  Dr Harris: That is a practical point but I am interested in what you think it could achieve and obviously whether it could work?

  Mr Scott: That is the big question, if it does work.

  Q75  Dr Harris: Assuming it could work, what do you think are the benefits?

  Mr Scott: I suppose the primary benefit is that you have an up-to-date, ongoing data source about a particular individual. That is clearly of benefit. You would be recording the tests that were done. There is the ability to have a full briefing on what was in those tests. There are advantages to it.

  Q76  Dr Harris: But there could be baseline physiological measures before the career enhancement starts.

  Mr Scott: That could well be included.

  Q77  Dr Harris: Would that be useful?

  Mr Scott: Yes, undoubtedly, I think it could well be useful.

  Q78  Dr Harris: Haemoglobin is a good measure, it is argued in the literature, for monitoring EPO use far better than hematacrit but you need a baseline level, do you not?

  Mr Scott: You do.

  Q79  Dr Harris: That might crack the EPO problem?

  Mr Scott: It could contribute to it, certainly.