The World Anti-Doping Code

Fit for Purpose?

Lovely Dasgupta

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138497474
• eBook ISBN: 9781351018647
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Sports Medicine

Following the recent doping scandals that have brought the highest echelons of international sport into disrepute, this book examines the elitism at the core of the World Anti-Doping Agency and considers how the current World Anti-Doping Code might be restructured.

Analyzing the correlation between the commodification of sports and doping, and the role WADA plays in this context, it takes into consideration the perspectives of non-elite athletes as well as athletes from developing countries which have previously been excluded from the anti-doping discourse. It offers recommendations for improving the coordination and implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code and argues for the creation of a more inclusive anti-doping regime.

This is an important resource for students of sports law, sports management and sports ethics, as well as vital reading for sports administrators, sports sociologists, sports policy makers, sports lawyers and arbitrators, as well as athletes themselves.

Chapter 1

The anti-doping narrative

A case of self-legitimization

Introduction

This chapter looks into the world of sport before the implementation of WADA as well as the scandals that ultimately led to WADA. The chapter will examine the deliberations that took place at the International Convention Against Doping in Sport that was organized by UNESCO. The document that resulted from this Convention will be analysed to highlight the interaction between governmental and non-governmental bodies on the issue of doping in sport. The Convention legitimized the argument of an existing consensus on adopting strict anti-doping measures, but it remains to be seen what the role of the state is in implementing and ensuring effective anti-doping measures. This leads to the inevitable question of the autonomy that WADA was proposed to be given as compared to the autonomy that WADA ought to have been given. The other issue is with respect to the role that sports governing bodies were ready to concede in favour of the state governments for the purpose of enforcing anti-doping measures. Most importantly, this chapter investigates the real intent for developing a consensus on adopting anti-doping regulations viz. to stop trafficking in drugs or to protect health or to prevent performance enhancement. If the real agenda was to prevent large-scale scams, then trafficking definitely is one of the concerns. However, the question that arises is whether the sports governing bodies are well enough equipped and have the necessary jurisdiction to prevent trafficking. If not, then the only other entity that can prevent trafficking is the state. If the state is to play a major role in stopping trafficking, then a global inter-governmental body is needed to enforce anti-doping measures. If the real agenda is to protect health through anti-doping measures, then the state appears to be the aptest entity to enforce such measures. After all, public health policies are to be framed by the state, and there is no argument that sportspersons have different health concerns than ordinary people. If performance enhancement is the sole goal of anti-doping measures, then questions are bound to arise in categorizing legitimate performance enhancement techniques vis-à-vis illegitimate performance enhancement techniques. Using the “spirit of sport” argument as justifying the current anti-doping regime is the other point that needs to be understood. The spirit of sport argument invokes the ideals of amateurism and overlooks the reality of professionalism. Hence, the justification of the WADA Code is coming from within the system and in the absence of any external parameters. It is a case of self-legitimization. The extent of this process of self-affirmation without debating the issues of autonomy, the intent of anti-doping philosophy or the validity of the concept of spirit of sport are the topics of discussion in this chapter. The first chapter thus maps all the aspects of the debate to point out the nature of the existing anti-doping regime.

Late beginning! Flip-flop on psychotropic performance enhancers

In 1968 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) officially banned doping.¹ The International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF)² was the first sports federation to ban performance-enhancing drugs in 1928.³ Considering that the modern Olympics started in 1896,⁴ this late vilification of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) appears to be an afterthought. Documented literature on the history of doping indicates that the use of PEDs in modern sports was an accepted fact.⁵ One of the most celebrated examples of the use of PEDs in sports is that of American marathon runner Thomas J. Hicks.⁶ In the official report of the 1904 Olympics, prepared by Charles Lucas, there is a detailed account of the Hicks case.⁷ Charles Lucas, who was also one of the officials in charge of Hicks, reported that Hicks was administered small doses of sulphate of strychnine.⁸ This dosage was given at intervals whenever Lucas and his colleagues felt that Hicks would collapse. Hicks was given one-sixtieth of a grain of sulphate of strychnine along with the white of one egg when he was seven miles away from the stadium.⁹ Again, when Hicks had crossed twenty miles and was starting to look ashen, one-sixtieth grain of strychnine was administered to him along with two eggs and a sip of brandy.¹⁰ This description, being part of the official record of the 1904 Olympics, clearly indicates the acceptability of the practice of using psychotropic performance enhancers/PEDs. This chemically aided win was not looked down upon or derided. On the contrary, it was celebrated as an honest win.¹¹ This incident within sports merely mirrors the then-prevailing societal attitude in the West towards psychotropic substance.¹² The representation of drug use in popular Western culture (e.g. songs of the 1930s) substantiate this condescending attitude.¹³ A clear instance of this is the song “Wacky Dust” by Ella Fitzgerald, in which she exalts the use of cocaine.¹⁴

In sports like cycling, horse racing,¹⁵ swimming, sprinting, long distance running etc., the use of PEDs was very common.¹⁶ The use of these psychotropic performance enhancers was done openly and without secrecy.¹⁷ Similarly, there have been instances of the use of PEDs in professional football.¹⁸ For instance during the 1924–25 FA Cup, Arsenal players used stimulants in their match against West Ham United.¹⁹ Hence, there appeared to be no inherent bias in the West against the use of psychotropic drugs in sports.²⁰ Further, the use of different PEDs in sports was also accelerated by the growth of sports science.²¹ Sport performance provided an important field of study to understand human biology.²² Thus, early attempts to establish anti-doping laws/regulations need to be rationalized on parameters other than moralistic aversion to the use of PEDs. Historical accounts of the origins of anti-doping regulations in sport are rooted in concerns with regard to the betting industry, primarily horse racing.²³ The spread of antipathy for PEDs from horse racing to human sports thus needs to be contextualized. The rise of the IOC and its stance on the questions of amateurism versus professionalism set the tone of the subsequent policy on PEDs.

Ahoy amateurism! Gimmick or concern of the IOC?

The IOC began its journey by propagating the idea of amateurism. Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the modern Olympics, was keen on portraying sports as honest and morally pure.²⁴ The IOC coined a smart catchphrase viz. amateurism. It gradually developed and gained momentum as the years passed.²⁵ Coubertin’s noble intentions of promoting not-for-profit sport enabled the IOC to increase its commercial value. Amateurism was used as a smart marketing tool to initially establish Olympic sports as an elite and exclusive group of activity.²⁶ It distinguished the ethos of working class from nobility.²⁷ Thus the Olympic brand was created, symbolizing a puritan form of activity called “Olympic sport.” Consequently, all the sports federations seeking IOC recognition had to strictly follow the principles of amateurism.²⁸

The IAAF, as mentioned above, became the first International Sports Federation (ISF) to uphold the principles of amateurism. Its founder and chairman, J. Sigfrid Edstrom, was a staunch proponent of amateurism. He exemplifies the reasons that facilitated the spread of PED antipathy from animal sports to human sports. He ensured that the IAAF maintained the strict divide between amateurism and professionalism. Accordingly, in 1928 Edstrom got the IAAF to adopt a formal definition of doping. As per this definition, use of PEDs (specifically stimulants) to increase athletic skills beyond average was doping. Along with the definition, the IAAF also specified sanctions to be imposed in the event of doping rule violation,²⁹ which in most cases involved suspension from all forms of amateur athletics. The justification of this first notable anti-doping rule clearly resides in the concept of amateurism. Edstrom was also a prominent member of the IOC, serving as vice president and later president between 1946 and 1952. Hence, he carried his views on amateurism to the policy-making process within the IOC.³⁰ Thus, amateurism became the major catalyst and reason for the gradual development of anti-doping policies within the IOC framework. Amateurism was treated as a sacrosanct principle, and preservation of the same was the stated mission of the IOC.³¹

Understandably, the preservation of this holier-than-thou attitude of the IOC needed strictures against all practices contrary to the idea of amateurism. The IOC Charter of 1933, for instance, outlines the virtues of an amateur by insisting that a “true sportsman” is the one who plays sports for the sake of it without any other motive. The pure joy of participation was eulogized. Monetary gain was derided and looked down upon. Olympism was referred to as the epitome of moral purity and nobility.³² Losing, as opposed to winning by use of unfair means, was vehemently discouraged. The 1938 Charter champions the cause of amateurism further, by introducing stringent consequences for fraudulently misrepresenting oneself as an amateur. An athlete who was found to be misrep...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 The anti-doping narrative: a case of self-legitimization
• 2 The Russian doping scandal and the WADA Code: a flawed deal for a developing country/non-elite athlete?
• 3 Relook at the WADA Code: an elitist paradigm or an inclusive document?
• 4 WADA from a non-elite perspective: the missing link in the anti-doping discourse
• 5 Changing the anti-doping narrative: time to incorporate the subaltern discourse
• 6 Conclusions
• Index