Athletes’ perspectives on WADA and the code: a review and analysis

ABSTRACT

This article presents athletes’ perspective on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Code (WADC). Following a brief historical overview on athletes’ view on doping controls, the article synthesizes existing empirical research on athletes’ attitudes with examples and quotes expressed through various media on both anti-doping and specific topics within WADA’s anti-doping framework. Although pockets of disconcert persist, the analysis shows that athletes generally express contentment with the current system and its ambitious aim to homogenise anti-doping efforts. However, athletes have also raised serious concerns on four specific issues, namely on a), the fair and consistent application of the rules for all athletes in a sport, b) the obligation to submit their whereabouts, c) the due processes when facing accusations of violations and d) the possibility for athletes to genuinely participate in the policy and decision making process. The chapter concludes with recommendations on how WADA could accommodate the athletes’ concerns.

KEYWORDS:

• Athletes perspective
• anti-doping
• whereabouts
• WADA

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Athletes who have been included in a Registered Testing Pool by their International Federation and/or National Anti-Doping Organization shall provide whereabouts information. […]. The International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations shall coordinate the identification of such Athletes and the collection of their whereabouts information. Each International Federation and National Anti-Doping Organization shall make available, through ADAMS or another system approved by WADA, a list which identifies those Athletes included in its Registered Testing Pool (World Anti Doping Code 2015 2015).

2. For violations of Article 2.4 (whereabouts violations), the period of Ineligibility shall be two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault (World Anti Doping Code 2015 2015).

3. This was confirmed in a study of 645 Danish elite athletes, of whom 77% ‘agreed’ or ‘mainly agreed’ that the social sanctions are a greater deterrent than the ban (Overbye et al. 2015).

4. This was exactly what Vittorio Adorni, president of the ProTour Council said when DNA-testing of riders were discussed in 2006: ‘It is the only way to remove all the doubts and it will not be as serious as it seems’, said Adorni to the Italian paper La Gazzetta dello Sport, If a rider has nothing to hide then what problem is there?’ (Maloney 2006a).