Anti-doping education can also begin from Federation websites

Every now and then the Union Sports Ministry issues directives to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) about complying with various guidelines formulated by the Government with regard to their functioning.

More often than not these directives are either ignored or else implemented rather lethargically. For example, the ministry had sought last August details from the NSFs regarding their teams that went to the Commonwealth Games last year, when it found that a large number of officials who were not part of the official contingent had made it to Glasgow. Nothing has been heard of it since.

Communication sans follow-up?

In its communication to the IOA and the NSFs in October last year the ministry pointed out that there were previous communications dated 17 July, 2014 and 6 August 2014  related to these issues that seemed to have been by and large ignored.

As far back as 30 March, 2010 the ministry had declared NSFs receiving Rs 10 lakh or more annual grants as public authority and thereby asked them to provide suo motu information as per RTI Act 2005. Then also there was a directive that they should place certain information on their websites.

So, how will the IOA and the NSFs react to the latest directive issued today, March 2, 2015?

One is not trying to find out who did what. The idea of writing this blog piece is to focus on an area that seems to have been ignored by most of the federations and, unfortunately, missed by the ministry.

‘Anti-doping’ gets priority on the websites of most of the sports organizations the world over nowadays. A section devoted to the subject on a website is the best avenue to spread awareness and educate athletes. To a large extent, it also takes care of the oft-repeated complaint from athletes “but we were not aware of these rules” or “we are not aware of the latest prohibited substances” or “we found nothing of relevance regarding anti-doping when we searched the website."

This may or may not be true, but it sort of provides an alibi to the athlete during a hearing procedure related to an anti-doping rule violation. Many adjudicators in India have pointed out the lack of awareness among athletes on the topic of anti-doping measures and rules and about the need to educate athletes from rural areas regarding dangers of using drugs without proper medical advice. Yet there seems to have been no serious effort made to rectify this situation, particularly through the use of websites including that of the NADA.

The 23 points now

Among the 23 points listed by the ministry in its latest communication, there is one item that deals with doping. The ministry has asked the NSFs to place on its website a“Note on efforts for having dope free sports and compliance to WADA/NADA Code along with details of cases found positive during the last calendar year and action taken thereon”

This is fine from the ministry’s point of view in ensuring that there is compliance. “Action taken thereon” is rather superfluous of course. The National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) that functions under the ministry, is the sole authority in India to lay down rules, test athletes,  carry out ‘results management’ procedures, to bring forward ‘positive’ cases before panels and to impose sanctions as ordered by the panels. The federations have to just enforce these sanctions. NADA updates the list of suspended athletes on its website on a regular basis and there can be little confusion regarding who has been suspended or about the number of athletes under suspension. No national federation keen to continue its affiliation with an international federation will be thinking of not enforcing these sanctions!

But we should not just be concerned about a ‘note’ being published on a website regarding compliance. The athletes should be provided information on a variety of topics related to anti-doping, at a minimum the latest rules of NADA and the National and International Federation, the latest WADA Code, the latest Prohibited List of substances, any useful information regarding drugs and supplements, procedures related to doping control, rules regarding  issue of therapeutic exemptions that allow an athlete to use banned drugs, ‘results management’ procedures, hearing procedures, appeals etc.

How they do it

It is best to have an entire section devoted to ‘anti-doping’ as is the practice with most of the sports associations abroad. Take for example the British Athletics website  or for that matter the USATF  one 

These are not only user-friendly websites but also very informative from an athlete’s perspective. The UK athletics website has the following topics under its anti-doping section, 1) anti-doping education, 2) check your medication, 3) register medication, 4) therapeutic use exemption, 5) supplements and nutrition, 6) ADAMS, 7) UKAD anti-doping advice card, 8) rules and procedures, 9) Testing procedures,10) Notice and news, 11) currently under sanction.

The above headings are apart from  ‘WADA Code 2015 explained’,  a ‘Clean sport’ app, doping control test video that explains what happens during a dope test, from notification to provision of a urine sample, and FAQs, quiz and links to other useful websites. All of these obviously placed there to help the athletes.

In contrast, even the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) which has a brand new, refurbished website seems to have not bothered to update its anti-doping rules and procedures.

Rather interestingly, the AFI website lists ‘anti-doping’ under ‘development programme’. You may almost miss this section since no one could be expected to look for it under ‘development’. But that is beside the point.

A look at the rules, available not within the anti-doping section but inside the AFI constitution,  will reveal that these rules are not only archaic and highly misleading they are not even in line with the latest IAAF anti-doping regulations or for that matter the 2004 or 2009 rules of the IAAF.

On one page the existence of NADA is acknowledged, but within the rules the ‘doping commission’ is the supreme authority!

Who has the authority?

Rule 4 lists responsibility for doping control. There is no mention of NADA, the sole agency entrusted with the responsibility of conducting in-competition and out-of-competition testing in India.

The disciplinary procedures still state that an AFI disciplinary panel would hear the athletes. Since 2009, the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, formed under the NADA rules has been handling all ‘positive’ cases in all sports.

That the AFI has not been able to correct these rules despite amendments carried out to its constitution at least on two occasions in recent years is unfortunate.

The sporting world had moved to the WADA Code-based anti-doping rules since 2004 (revised in 2009) but the AFI rules still mention a sanction of two years for a first doping offence, for three years for a second and for life for a third.

And here we are not even trying to bring in a comparison with the 2015 Code that has an entirely different set of sanctions now, but the 2009 Code. Unless we go back to pre-2004 days we may not be able to find anything remotely resembling the AFI anti-doping rules available in its constitution which is an amended version of 2013.

Get the basics right

A large majority of the federation websites does not have an anti-doping section, and only very few have any reference to any rule, forget the 2015 NADA rules or the WADA Code. Those who do have may not be having the NADA rules. Say for example the Badminton Association of India (BAI) . It does have an anti-doping section, but no reference to NADA rules or the NADA.

The Indian Weightlifting Federation website, for example, lists an anti-doping policy that cannot be accessed.  You will be lucky to get the 2015 Prohibited List on one of these websites unless through a link to the WADA website.

The majority of the websites also do not have the constitution of the NSF placed there.

Anti-doping information is a ‘must’ in tackling doping and ensuring that athletes do not fall into the trap just because of lack of awareness or inaccurate information. The websites of NSFs, apart from fulfilling mandatory requirements listed by the Government, should also be expected to provide basic information to the athletes on doping matters so that they are fully familiar with the rules and procedures. The task of the NADA and that of the adjudicators and lawyers will then become that much easier.

**