adopting the world
anti-doping code
by John Boultbee
Doping in sport has been a matter
of huge disappointment for honest
sportspeople for decades, and the
battle to keep ahead of cheats has
been an extremely difficult task for
International Sports Federations.
FISA has been a pioneer in this,
having introduced drug testing at
regattas in the early eighties and
unannounced out-of-competition
testing all over the world in the
early nineties.
The IOC provided some leadership in
trying to have Olympic sports harmonise
anti-doping efforts, but with limited
success – essentially because the main
focus was during the Olympic event.
Following the 1998 Tour de France
scandal and other prominent doping cases,
a major step forward was taken. The IOC,
the International Federations, and
interested governments formed WADA –
the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA
quickly established testing procedures and
systems throughout the world, and then
developed a code applicable to all sports.
John Boultbee
The first major
“pro” is that by
adopting the
Code, rowing can
remain an
Olympic sport. In
due course, it is
clear that the IOC
will not allow
sports to remain
on the Olympic
programme if they
do not adopt the
universal code.
Secondly, WADA now undertakes testing
– particularly out-of-competition testing
(the most effective testing for rowing, an
endurance sport) – for all sports
throughout the world. It is done totally
independently from FISA, although FISA
provides information to WADA about the
nations participating in World
Championships, and whereabouts details
of athletes.
The third advantage is that all sports will
have a common approach to testing and
sanctioning with a common list of banned
Lastly, the new Code makes a good
attempt at trying to distinguish those
who commit doping offences by
mistake or by carelessness (of which
there are many) from those who are
cheating. The new FISA Bye-Laws
reflect this attempt to recognise that
carelessness needs to be dealt with
differently. For example, any athlete
using food supplements can no longer
claim innocence, when it is so well
known and publicised that many of
them are contaminated with banned
substances. These athletes must be
considered as having moved outside of
the definition of merely being careless.
As far as “cons” are concerned, the main
one for FISA is that we had to
compromise our hard stance on sanctions
to be part of the uniformity now in the
World community. FISA has always had a
life ban for a first offence of “serious”
doping – steroids, EPO, etc. – and within
recent years our Congress twice endorsed
this strong approach overwhelmingly. The
life ban sent a very strong message to any
rower contemplating cheating.
At the FISA Annual Congress in Milan
last year, National Federation delegates
agreed to adopt the WADA Anti-Doping
Code. The FISA Council has since been
busy writing new Anti-Doping Bye-Laws
conform to WADA Code requirements.
These new Bye-Laws have just been
published and are available on
.
“The New Code makes a good attempt at trying to
distinguish those who commit doping offences by mistake
from those who are cheating.”
drugs. This may seem obvious, but it has
taken time to achieve.
What does the emergence of WADA mean
to FISA and what are the pros and cons
for the rowing family?
Fourthly, WADA is engaging in and
funding further research into detection of
new performance enhancing drugs.
Maybe as WADA and the Code become
more established there may be an opening
for FISA to argue that a uniform
minimum ban of 2 years achieves WADA’s
purposes and sports like rowing can take a
stronger stance should they wish…
