MR MATTHEW READER, MR JOHN SCOTT AND MS ALLISON HOLLOWAY

19 JULY 2006

  Q80  Dr Harris: You need to tell us if you think this is the case because I cannot put the evidence on the record. What about monitoring the financial rewards that an athlete has had so that a sanction regime could actually hit him in the wallet retrospectively rather than simply prospectively in respect of a ban?

  Mr Scott: As you know, for example the IAAF does that already. You will have seen that with the Dwayne Chambers case where he has received a financial penalty for the rewards he gained when he was competing with drugs in his body.

  Q81  Dr Harris: That is just one sport and in a sense he was punished for his honesty because he admitted a history of use, and I do not think many athletes and others in sport are going to queue up to do that, are they?

  Mr Scott: No. the reality is that I would struggle to name athletes that have owned up to doping. Having been caught, most still maintain that they are innocent. Ben Johnson of course famously maintained his innocence until he was finally put on oath on the stand. It is the psychology of those types of people.

  Q82  Dr Harris: If you think there are advantages to this passport idea, how are you collectively going to help push it because there are practical objections? Who is responsible for doing so?

  Mr Scott: This is an issue that we believe again requires international partnership because there is no point in it being applied to just one group of athletes. You are talking about top level athletes who are competing constantly internationally, and so it needs the support of WADA, the IOC and the international federations concerned. The best forum for that is the Foundation Board of WADA because all those parties sit round that table and are represented at that table.

  Q83  Chairman: Do we have someone on that?

  Mr Scott: Not at the moment, no.

  Mr Reader: There are five places allocated to Europe, two of which are to the Council of Europe and three of which are to the European Union, although currently one of those is the deputy chair. Currently and for the future, the EU presidency holder sits on the foundation board, and they consult Member States prior to the Foundation Board meeting. There is very much an opportunity and a responsibility to feed in views to our representative.

  Q84  Chairman: John, I understand that the IOC may try to insist on immunity from prosecution of doctors and coaches who are found with Class A drugs within Olympic venues in 2012. What is our view on that?

  Mr Scott: I was not aware of that, Chairman. That is the first I have heard of that.

  Q85  Chairman: Could I say that that is a possibility. Perhaps you could let us have a written note to say how you would respond?

  Mr Scott: Have you been told that by the IOC? Is that something you have seen?

  Q86  Chairman: It is something of which I have been informed which I would like to check out.

  Mr Scott: Yes, we will look into that.

  Q87  Margaret Moran: This is a question for Matthew. In the previous CMS select committee report there was a suggestion that there should be more cross-departmental working so that parts of the UK Government can jointly determine whether to seek to pre-empt the views of new medical research and developments by sportsmen and sportswomen and their coaches. How much co-ordination is there in practice across Government, for example, with the Home Office and Department of Health, and do you think that that kind of cross-departmental coordination could help to pre-empt the use of medical research? I should say that the Government's response did not actually address that issue. That is why we are particularly interested in it.

  Mr Reader: The answer is that we have made informal contacts within Whitehall, and so we do regularly speak to our counterparts—for example, in the Home Office. I may have mentioned earlier that in terms of where the future threats are, there is an argument for saying that it would be helpful and advantageous to have a cross-governmental group of either officials and ministers. My answer to that would be that if there are particular issues that need to be addressed, then there may well be a benefit in that. In the first instance, we would very much look to UK Sport as our specialist adviser and through its network and through the WADA accredited laboratories and its research links into the various research organisations. They are the eyes and ears, if you like, out there in the field. If there are particular issues that Government can come together to address, then we are very happy to consider that. I suppose the short answer to the question is that there is not anything formal on the table at the moment.

  Q88  Margaret Moran: There is no liaison directly with the Department of Health to work out what medical research is going on out there that might be helpful?

  Mr Reader: Not in recent months; if there were a particular issue that had been identified, as I say, coming through the specialist and the experts in the field via UK Sport, then we would certainly speak to our colleagues about that.

  Mr Scott: Alison can perhaps help you with something we are doing on that front.

  Ms Holloway: We have obviously realised over recent years that there is very little joined-up thinking in this area. Research is a particular area to which we are starting to direct our attention, particularly because at first we were focused on making sure our foundation programme was running effectively. Over the next year to two years, we will be looking at putting in place a research steering group to bring together academics and practitioners from various areas of sport, education and medical science who can help to advise us on where the best research or the most effective research could be. We will be looking at having within this steering group medical and scientific researchers and social science researchers to help us to do an audit of all the research that is going on at the moment across the world and also then to advise us on where we could recommend research investment could be placed for anti-doping.

  Q89  Margaret Moran: In the first session, we heard some very powerful arguments around ethical issues for and against the use of HETs in sport. How far do those arguments feature within the WADA decision-making process and should there be more attention paid to those arguments and, if not, why not?

  Mr Scott: Our view is very firmly that doping has no place in sport. We do not believe that the values that sport is meant to represent are helped in any way by people engaging in doping practices. WADA has clearly recognised the significance of the ethical debate by making the spirit of sport, the ethical dimension, one of the criteria under which they would consider applying a prohibited status to either a substance or a method. So they are very aware of that. The ethics of this is absolutely central to why we are in this. It goes to whether this is about something that should be controlled by sport, controlled by Government, whether it should be criminalised, whether it should be code of conduct. That is something about which, under the code and under the UNESCO Convention, there is still a degree of flexibility to allow individual countries to address that in the way they fit. For example, the code does allow for the continuation of a legislative framework which pertains in countries like France. Here the Government has taken the position that this is an issue that should be owned by sport, and that it is about the kind of sanctions that sport should be applying to people who are not following its rules. That reflects the culture and the moral framework that pertains in individual countries.

  Q90  Dr Turner: We spoke about the prohibited list before. How much input do you as a body have into the WADA code and the prohibited list? Do you think the WADA code goes far enough to satisfy some of the concerns that you have, which we have already raised? There is a review going on. Which features would you like to see updated and what impact do you think the review is going to have?

  Mr Scott: Firstly, may I reiterate the points that Matthew made about where we are now as to where we were? We must not underestimate the scale of progress that has been made with the advent of the WADA code to actually bring the range of sports together around a common agenda here and agree to a harmonisation in what are, quite often, very jealously guarded areas of responsibility. They do not willingly give up any of that. To achieve the WADA code was a major milestone. As Matthew again said, it is not perfect. Of course we are at the sharp end of this. We are a national anti-doping organisation trying to make this work across over 50 sports in the United Kingdom context; that is nearly 200 governing bodies because we have one of the most complicated sporting systems in the world. Certainly, starting to roll something like a code out very practically means teasing out some of the challenges that the code represents. We have gone through a consultation process for this phase one, as we will with the following phases. The way we did that was to put up our initial thoughts on some of the pitfalls and areas that needed improvement in the WADA code, and we shared that with the stakeholders, and indeed with the public because it was available on our website. On the basis of that feedback, we have now submitted our response to WADA. It was reviewed by DCMS and by the Minister before it went. The Minister fully associated with it and then attached a forward to it picking out some of the key themes he felt WADA needed to address. That similarly is now available on our website. Within that are a number of very technical issues clearly in terms of making the code really work. There are some very fundamental points as well, which I think we have already begun to rehearse here about the nature of the banned list and getting it absolutely clear as to why something is on the banned list and what is an absolute given before something goes on the banned list. Should it be performance-enhancing plus or can it be that if it challenges the spirit of sport, and it is damaging to health? Clearly a lot of things are damaging to health but they are not on the banned list. That is something we are asking be looked at. We think that is absolutely fundamental to the code. One of the other big issues, and this is a huge challenge for WADA, is that we honestly believe that we are applying the code very rigorously to our athletes, absolutely rightly. We believe it is absolutely right that we do that, but we are not convinced that that is happening in other parts of the world and that, in terms of fairness, there is a question mark here as to whether our athletes, in terms of the rigour with which we are applying it, are being disadvantaged internationally. So code compliance, making sure that the rest of the world steps up to the bar, is the big challenge.

  Q91  Dr Turner: Are you satisfied, too, because there have been criticisms that there is inconsistency in the application of the WADA code both in sports and countries? You have expressed your concern about the consistency between countries. Are you satisfied that it is being consistently applied across different sports in our own country? Are there any inconsistencies there?

  Mr Scott: As you know, the code comprises some mandatory articles and some non-mandatory articles. I think it is in the non-mandatory articles that you will always get degrees of interpretation. Similarly, we are arguing that certain aspects of the code should now be upgraded to be mandatory. There are some challenges in that. One of the things we are very sensitive to is that athletes want to feel they are being treated the same no matter what sport they are in, and I think we subscribe to that as well. We believe that is absolutely fair and appropriate. For example, there are some challenges in terms of making a system practically operate, and this is particularly true when you are looking at how team sports operate versus how individual sports operate, the sorts of lifestyles and the way these people have their lives managed for them. Putting in place a fair mechanism there does tease out some of the realities of translating a principle into practice. We are saying that has to be looked at as well because we feel at the moment that there are some loopholes in terms of the expectations we place on our individual athletes and what we place on our team athletes.

  Q92  Dr Iddon: I want to move away from drugs now and perhaps look at other human-enhancement technologies. How much effort is the Government putting in to backing human-enhancement technologies, part from chemical substances?

  Mr Reader: Do you means in terms of legal things?

  Q93  Dr Iddon: Yes, of course.

  Mr Reader: The committee may be aware that the Chancellor announced a significant level of additional Exchequer investment into elite sport in the Budget in March. I think the total package between now and 2012 to support our elite athletes will be in the region of £600 million. There are three broad areas where that money is being directed: into the governing bodies for them to run their high performance programmes—that is employing the coaches, the performance directors and so forth; secondly, to the athletes themselves and UK Sport runs Athlete personal Awards, which basically is a contribution to the athlete's living expenses; the third area, which is the answer to your question, is in the support network around athletes. It is very important clearly for sports science and sports medicine—incorporating nutrition, psychology, biomechanics, strengthening and conditioning, all those sorts of areas—to make sure that in perfectly legal performance-enhancing activities athletes are receiving the very best services. That is delivered through the institute network. In England, that is the English Institute of Sport. UK Sport has taken on responsibility for oversight and the strategic direction of the English Institute of Sport. It is very closely locked in to the other two elements I talked about in terms of going into the governing bodies, so they are trying to bring together everything that the Institute is doing in direct support of the athletes and the governing bodies themselves.

  Q94  Dr Iddon: When it comes to clothing and equipment in its broadest sense, do we rely on industry bringing new technologies to the Government, to the sports people, or is there some pressure from your organisations to get industry to enhance our athletes' performance? Which way does it go?

  Mr Scott: Clearly the UK, in order to achieve the highest possible success at world level, needs to be improving performance all the time. Some of that will involve technology. If you look at the application, for example in swimming of the swimsuit, if you look at very technical sport like rowing where you are looking at the shape of the oar, these kinds of things are all extremely scientific. That is part and parcel of what sport is, particularly in those sorts of sports where it is seeking excellence in both the design and the technology and the athlete that uses them.

  Q95  Dr Iddon: Who promotes the changes? Is it industry or is it your organisations, or is there a bit of both? Is there liaison?

  Mr Scott: It is a bit of both; certainly through the Institute network, through the performance division of UK Sport, we constantly want to look at where there are opportunities to improve our athletes' performance.

  Q96  Dr Iddon: Is WADA also promoting activities of this kind?

  Mr Scott: No. The IOC clearly is but WADA is not.

  Mr Reader: Clearly the national governing bodies in the UK, whether that be UK Athletics or British Swimming or many of the others, clearly have a very strong interest in making sure that their athletes are performing to their very best ability.

  Q97  Dr Iddon: I am sorry, but I did not put that question very well. WADA is an anti-doping agency, I accept that. What I really meant to say is: are they looking at non-prohibited substances which may enhance athletes' performance worldwide?

  Mr Scott: Yes. As I say, any substance, drug or whatever that could potentially lead to unfair advantage is constantly reviewed through the prohibited list process, which is an annual review. Proposals are put to that committee from a number of sources: the governing bodies and governments can put them forward. That is the process by which I think what you are seeking an answer to is undertaken.

  Q98  Dr Iddon: Do we have access to their research, for example in improvements in nutritional standards for athletes and the use of legal supplements? Are we aware of what they are doing?

  Mr Scott: The UK has a representative on that committee, and so we are very lucky that we get quite a lot of information as to what is going on within that committee.

  Q99  Dr Iddon: Can you put a figure on how much money is going into giving human enhancement technologies that are not prohibited—clothing, equipment? Does anybody know?

  Mr Scott: No. Clearly an element of what UK Sport invests in to the governing bodies has a technology element to it. For example, we are investing in sports medicine research and sports science research. We are doing work in nutrition and psychology. All those areas are receiving support. It is obviously part of the total mix now that makes up the package that is needed to deliver world-class athletes.