03/06/2020 12:20 am Welcome to isteroids.com - BLOG

Wednesday 12, Jul 2017

  Plan To Combat Doping In Sport Approved By Russian Government

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

The Russian government has officially approved a national plan to combat doping in sport after the order was signed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

The 36-point document was developed by the Independent Public Anti-Doping Commission (IPADC) that is led by honorary International Olympic Committee member Vitaly Smirnov. The Russian sports ministry that has been accused in the past of being complicit in a state-sponsored doping program at major sporting events like the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Games will coordinate and conduct the plan.

The IPADC said in the initial proposal that was created in February that the measures should be implemented by the end of the year. It is widely believed that this step by Russia will prove beneficial to doping in Russia following allegations of state-sponsored doping and widespread drug scandals involving the nation.

One of the main features of this new plan will be to take back prize money and awards from those who breach anti-doping rules. The Sports Ministry of Russia, headed up by Olympic gold medalist Pavel Kolobkov, has set up a deadline of October 30 for the implementation of anti-doping legislation that meets international law and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code.

The national plan to combat doping in sport by Russia also features measures associated with allocation of more funds to test Paralympic athletes. It also features creation of agreements with whistleblowers to give legal protection to them in exchange for assisting investigations and preventing those who break anti-doping rules from holding state or non-state posts in physical culture and sports. The Russian sports ministry will focus on the establishment of a legal framework in a bid to restore reputation of the country and its place within the anti-doping movement.

A statement from the Russian Government read the order approved a set of measures aimed at preventing and combating doping in Russian sport, which, in particular, provides the normative legal, organizational, scientific and biomedical support activities in this area, the creation of innovative methods and information technologies to prevent doping, the development of appropriate educational programs interaction with international sports organizations.

The sports ministry of Russia is hopeful that its efforts will assist both the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and the Russian Paralympic Committee in their reinstatement efforts. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency remains non-compliant with WADA and the Russian Paralympic Committee is still suspended by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). The Russian Anti-Doping Agency recently overcame a major hurdle on its path to potential reinstatement when the World Anti-Doping Agency allowed them to resume testing last month. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency was granted permission to “plan and coordinate” testing, providing it is carried out under the supervision of WADA-appointed international experts and UK Anti-Doping (UKAD). WADA President Sir Craig Reedie had then remarked WADA recognizes this milestone as a key component of the roadmap towards compliance while there is still more to be done. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency has been non-compliant since November 2015 ever since findings of the WADA Independent Commission emerged in the context of state-sponsored doping by Russia in athletics.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Plan To Combat Doping In Sport Approved By Russian Government

Wednesday 05, Oct 2016

  Doping Ban Of Maria Sharapova Reduced

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has reduced doping ban on tennis player Maria Sharapova. The CAS announced the two-year ban on Sharapova has been reduced by nine months.

Sharapova remarked she had learned a lesson from the “tough months” behind her. In a message to fans on her Facebook page, Maria Sharapova said she feels in so many ways like something she loves was taken away from her and it will feel really good to have it back.

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) handed the original ban – backdated to start on January 26, 2016 to Sharapova, a five-time major singles champion, following her positive test for the drug Meldonium. The 29-year-old Sharapova had termed the original ruling of the ITF as “unfairly harsh” as an independent tribunal had found that the tennis player had not intentionally violated anti-doping rules.

Sharapova did admit to making use of Meldonium during the season’s opening major in Melbourne but said she had been unaware that it had been banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Sharapova went on to say that she started to believe the ITF tried to make an example of her by handing her a two-year ban after she tested positive for Meldonium.  The substance was added to the list of banned substances of WADA at the start of the year after mounting evidence that it has the ability to improve blood flow and enhance athletic performance.

Sharapova was backed up by her attorney John Haggerty who criticized the ITF for their failure to properly warn his client. Haggerty remarked Maria took responsibility for her mistake and the ITF handled this matter poorly from start to finish. The attorney of Sharapova added it is time for the International Tennis Federation to take responsibility for its mistakes and change its procedures so that this can never happen to another player. Haggerty added the ITF has a lot to learn based on this ruling.

In response, the ITF issued a statement in which it remarked it had taken appropriate action to inform players, including Sharapova, of changes to the banned list. The world governing body of tennis said it would continue to review the way it communicated with them. The ITF statement further reads it believes that the appropriate steps were taken to publicize any changes to the Prohibited List and added we have nonetheless reviewed, and will continue to review, our processes for communicating changes to the Prohibited List to players with the aim of ensuring that no player can claim that they had not been fully informed.

The CAS arbitration panel ruled she had committed an anti-doping rule violation for which “she bore some degree of fault”. The panel also remarked the decision to reduce the ban concerned solely on the degree of fault that can be imputed to the player for her failure to make sure that the substance contained in a product that she had been taking over a long period remained in compliance with the anti-doping rules.

Maria Sharapova can now expect herself to be back in the court as early as the 2017 French Open, scheduled to begin on May 29.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Doping Ban Of Maria Sharapova Reduced

Thursday 03, Mar 2016

  National Women’s League Football Player Banned

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

Drug Free Sport New Zealand has announced the case of a footballer banned for six months for unintentionally taking a banned substance truly suggests that athletes are required to exercise “utmost caution” with medications.

National Women’s League (NWL) footballer Kelsey Kennard was banned by the New Zealand Sports Tribunal after she returned a positive sample for Probenecid last November. Kelsey was provisionally suspended without opposition on December 23 after she admitted the violation. The Football South player will be eligible to play again on June 1.

In a statement, the Sports Tribunal said the National Women’s League football player had no intention of playing football for the next few months and it was because of this reason that she did not told the doctors treating her that she was subject to the anti-doping testing regime. The statement also added Kennard also did not make inquiries about what medication she was being given. Kennard was persuaded shortly after to play football and she started training for the 2015 NWL competition. The Football South player was tested at her last NWL game of the season.

Kennard attended an Urgent Doctor’s clinic On 10 September 2015 and was diagnosed with a bad case of cellulitis. The NWL footballer was administered the protocol treatment for cellulitis, which are antibiotics taken together with Probenecid for boosting the effectiveness of the antibiotics. Kennard made a return to the clinic the following two evenings and the same treatment was provided to her, including a further dose of Probenecid on each occasion.

The punishment of Kennard was reduced to six months after the Tribunal was satisfied Kennard established no significant fault to the violation. The standard suspension for the unintentional use of Probenecid is two years under the under the Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2015. The New Zealand Sports Tribunal took exceptional circumstances of the case into account, including the emergency nature of the treatment and the clear therapeutic reason for taking the substance and also said it believed Kennard when she said there was no intention to play in the National Women’s League at the time she took the substance. The Tribunal also considered the length of time Probenecid remained in her system as well as her switch from non-national level athlete to the national level between the time of taking it and the time of testing.

Graeme Steel, the Drug Free Sport NZ chief executive, remarked this case emphasized the requirement for athletes to understand the anti-doping rules around medications. Steel also added Drug Free Sport NZ stresses that athletes need to check whether a medication is prohibited in sport before they take it. The Drug Free Sport NZ chief executive added Kelsey Kennard has learned a hard lesson for not doing this and we would hope that other athletes learn from her mistake and take action to check the status of medications before they take them. He also remarked athletes could check the status of medications on the website of Drug Free Sport or by checking with their medical professional.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: National Women’s League Football Player Banned

Wednesday 13, Jan 2016

  Legal Team Is Reviewing Doping Decision, Says Essendon Captain

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

Essendon Captain Jobe Watson has remarked it has been difficult for the team to come to terms with the decision that found him and 33 other Australian Football League players guilty of doping offences. The suspensions mean 12 current Essendon players and the five at other clubs are suspended for the 2016 season.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal ruling of March 2015 that had initially cleared the players. The CAS panel found 34 past and present Essendon players guilty of violating anti-doping rules and suspended them for the 2016 season. The decision is expected to further damage credibility and sustainability of Essendon and may mean a likely end to some careers.

In a statement on website of the Essendon Football Club, Watson on behalf of the players said the decision announced by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to uphold WADA’s appeal is devastating. The Essendon Captain remarked the team is struggling to come to terms with the decision and feels it does not support firm belief of the team that we are innocent. Watson also said our legal team is conducting a thorough review of the decision and will explore any avenues available to us and added that the players would like to thank our families, our friends, our members and supporters for their unwavering support.

Watson also remarked we will not be making any further comment and ask the media to please respect our privacy during this extremely challenging period. The professional Australian Rules footballer said we would also like to thank the AFL Players Association for their ongoing support throughout the last three years.

It is widely believed that the 34 players would take Essendon to court and this could possibly mean millions of dollars would be at stake. Commenting on the CAS verdict, AFL players’ association chief executive Paul Marsh said the association would talk to the league and Essendon Football Club first. Marsh added there would be a “very high” chance of court action if the talks do not work out as expected.

Ben McDevitt, the chief executive of Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, said there were very little grounds for the players to claim they were at no significant fault.

The AFL players’ association chief said he does not believe anyone wants to drag this through the courts and add another few years to this process but added he would like to think that there could be productive discussions to try and get to this point. Marsh also remarked legal action is something that one can look at if the talks fail and added legal team of the players will now conduct a thorough review of the decision.

Federal Greens leader Richard Di Natale, a medical doctor and a former VFL player, criticized the CAS verdict and said the onus of responsibility needs to be applied further up the line to those health professionals, health administrators and other individuals who have had a role to play in what’s occurred here.

In another development, AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan commented that the Brownlow Medal awarded to Watson in 2012, the game’s highest individual honor, would be reviewed in February in light of the doping verdict.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Legal Team Is Reviewing Doping Decision, Says Essendon Captain

Wednesday 17, Jun 2015

  Monaghan Player Banned Over Doping

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

A joint statement from the GAA and Irish Sports Council has outlined that Monaghan GAA player Thomas Connolly has been found guilty of a doping offense.

Connolly, who has represented Monaghan at minor, U21 and senior level, tested positive for Stanozolol (3’-hydroxystanozolol glucuronide). Stanozolol is commonly used by athletes to lose fat while retaining lean body mass.

The Monaghan footballer tested positive in an out-of-competition test on 13 February, shortly after he joined the senior panel for the 2015 National League. The ban imposed on the Gaelic footballer from Monaghan has been backdated by the GAA anti-doping hearings committee to March 18, when he was provisionally suspended by the GAA.

The statement said the GAA and the Irish Sports Council jointly announce that the GAA Anti-Doping Hearings Committee determined that player Thomas Connolly has committed an anti-doping rule violation. It was further added that the GAA player from Monaghan has been sanctioned by a period of ineligibility of two years commencing on the March 18, 2015 – the date on which he was provisionally suspended by the GAA, subject to rights of appeal within 21 days under the Irish Anti-Doping Rules. The committee said it had come to the view that the violation was not intentional. It pointed out that Connolly chose to accept tablets from someone with no medical qualifications and did not seek advice from a doctor, pharmacist, nutritionist or anyone in the Monaghan set-up that suggests he has taken no steps to identify what it was that was provided to him.

It was also disclosed that this was a reduction from the standard period of four years’ ineligibility because the GAA Anti-Doping Hearings Committee was of the view that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional, under article 10.1.3 of the Irish Anti-Doping Rules.

Connolly, who tested positive for the anabolic steroid Stanozolol last February, has received a suspension of two years. Stanozolol is listed as an exogenous anabolic androgenic steroid on the prohibited list of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Connolly said he was given tablets by a “work colleague” after he complained of “pain and stiffness” as a result of the training he received as a new member of Malachy O’Rourke’s Monaghan football panel.

Malachy O’Rourke and county board chairman Padraig Sherry testified that Thomas Connolly had not been informed of anti-doping rules. However, it was established that Connolly is responsible for educating himself about banned substances. The committee was convinced by Connolly’s testimony and legal argument by his barrister, Aaron Shearer, that Connolly unknowingly took steroids and this reduced the four-year ban to a two-year ban.

The GAA anti-doping hearing committee was chaired by Adrian Colton QC and other committee members were former Dublin manager Dr Pat O’Neill and former GAA president Nickey Brennan. The GAA Anti-Doping Hearings Committee expressed concern about the apparent lack of understanding and application of the anti-doping rules and processes at county level in this case. It urged the GAA to intensify its work to ensure that all players, county officers, coaches, managers, medical and allied sports science personnel and players representatives are fully cognizant of their obligations under anti-doping rules of the association.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Monaghan Player Banned Over Doping

Thursday 27, Jun 2013

  BOA Lifetime Ban On Drugs Cheats Is Impending UKAD Work

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

BOA Lifetime Ban On Drugs Cheats Is Impending UKAD Work

The chief executive of UK Anti-Doping (UKAD), Andy Parkinson, has warned that the lifetime ban on drug cheats by the British Olympic Association (BOA) is impeding the battle to stamp out the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.

The new rule of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on banning an athlete from competing in the next Games after they have tested positive was also criticized by Parkinson who said it would be easier if everyone followed the standards set by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which have established a suspension of two years as the fairest penalty for an athlete testing positive for banned drugs for the first time. Parkinson added that we seen in the United States and also in the United Kingdom how going beyond the anti-doping rules established by WADA creates confusion and impedes our role and also said the World Anti-Doping Code, agreed at an international level, encourages athletes to provide substantial assistance which can be grounds for a reduction in the sanction period.

Any athlete who tests positive for banned drugs is automatically prevented from representing Britain in the Olympics, under the rules of the BOA but the Britain’s anti-doping chief believes that athletes would be more willing to cooperate with them if there was an incentive for them to be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

Parkinson said if, as is the case with the eligibility rules of the International Olympic Committee and here in the UK the British Olympic Association, we remove all incentives for athletes to share their stories and information with us, then we will continue to struggle to catch those who are supplying performance enhancing drugs and often operate on the edges of sport with relative impunity and it is clear that this is a hard message to get across and to agree on, largely because these eligibility rules are easy to defend, but if we cannot be seen to be working with all athletes, then what hope do we have in really getting to the heart of the doping problem and to those that traffic and supply. He also added that the fight against doping now more than ever requires a mature and coordinated effort to work together and UK Anti-Doping has firmly established itself in its first year and offers the chance to continue to play a lead role at home and overseas to better protect the rights of athletes to compete in doping-free sport.

The views of Parkinson echoed that of Dick Pound who claimed in 2008 that he did not believe that the BOA rule would survive, if it was challenged legally.

Since 1992, by-law 25 has been on the BOA’s statute book when it was decided by the then chairman Sir Arthur Gold that Britain must take the moral high ground in the fight against doping. The British Olympic Association is now the only national Olympic committee to maintain this hard-line stance but have always maintained that it will “vigorously” defend any attempt to remove the anti-doping by-law.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: BOA Lifetime Ban On Drugs Cheats Is Impending UKAD Work

Monday 03, Jun 2013

  Some Athletes Believe Doping Substances Are Effective

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

Some Athletes Believe Doping Substances Are Effective

Most elite athletes consider doping substances “are effective” in improving performance though they do recognize that this constitutes cheating and can endanger health and entail the risk of sanction, according to a recently concluded study.

It was also disclosed by the study (Doping in Sport: A Review of Elite Athletes’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Knowledge. Morente-Sánchez J, Zabala M. Sports Medicine. 2013 Mar 27) conducted by researchers from the Department of Physical and Sports Education at the University of Granada that the reasons why athletes start to take doping substances are to attain athletic success, improve performance, financial gains, improve recovery, prevent nutritional deficiencies, and because other athletes also use them. This research also showed a widespread belief among elite athletes that the fight against doping is inefficient and biased, and that the sanctions imposed are not severe enough.

Researchers Mikel Zabala and Jaime Morente-Sánchez revealed their findings in an article in the journal “Sports Medicine” after analyzing the beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes of elite athletes from all over the world about doping. The involved researchers conducted a literature review of 33 studies on the subject published between 2000 and 2011, in order to analyze the present situation and, as a result of this, to act by the formulation of specific, efficient anti-doping strategies.

The study results revealed that athletes participating in team-based sports appear to be less susceptible to using doping substances and it was emphasized by the authors that anti-doping controls in team sports are clearly both quantitatively and qualitatively less exhaustive. It was indicated by the study that doctors and other specialists are less involved and coaches seem to be the principle influence and source of information for athletes when it comes to starting or not starting to take banned substances. The researchers remarked that there is still a lack of knowledge among athletes about the problems entailed in using banned substances and methods even though they are becoming increasingly familiar with anti-doping rules and therefore there should be remedied through appropriate educational programs. They also suggested that a substantial lack of information exists among elite athletes about dietary supplements and the secondary effects of performance-enhancing substances.

The University of Granada researchers, in the light of these results, consider it imperative to plan and conduct information and prevention campaigns to influence the attitudes of athletes towards doping and the culture surrounding this banned practice. Mikel Zabala and Jaime Morente-Sánchez conclude that we should not just dedicate money almost exclusively to performing anti-doping tests, as we currently do and to improve the situation, it would be enough to designate at least a small part of this budget to educational and prevention programs that encourage athletes to reject the use of banned substances and methods. One pioneering example in their opinion, in this context, is the Spanish Cycling Federation’s “Preventing to win” project.

In another development, a study published online in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology has revealed that the use of recombinant human erythropoietin is prohibited among athletes because it reportedly enhances performance but there is no scientific evidence that it does so.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Some Athletes Believe Doping Substances Are Effective

Wednesday 13, Feb 2013

  Australian Police Cold On Doping Claims

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

Australian Police Cold On Doping Claims

There are no active criminal investigations into allegations raised by the year-long examination by the Australian Crime Commission of organized crime and drugs in sport despite the state-based police being aware of the findings for the past five months.

ACC chief executive John Lawler said the operation had largely collected intelligence rather than evidence and was not intended to result in arrests and the purpose is to understand the threat, risk, and vulnerabilities. Lawler, under pressure to defend the handling of the sensational report made by his agency, told the estimates hearing the ACC utilized its “full suite of powers” in the operation, code-named Project Aperio, which included more than 30 coercive examinations. Under questioning from opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis, the ACC chief executive refused to say whether any current AFL or NRL players were examined as part of the operation.

The apparent hole in the Australian Crime Commission investigation was confirmed by many sources within Essendon club management, staff, and the playing group. It is also believed that the scientist who designed and administered the club’s 2012 treatment program suspected of breaching anti-doping rules, Stephen Dank, appeared twice before the commission. It is further believed that Dank was not accused of committing a crime in two interviews, one in May last year and the second in December and the scientist was not able to inform the club of the first interview due to the secrecy provisions surrounding the ACC and Dank denied he gave banned substances to any player.

The ACC chief executive however maintained the operation by his agency that was aided by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the Therapeutic Goods Administration had uncovered the widespread use of peptides in sports, a new generation of performance enhancing drugs and identified risks posed by organized crime aimed to infiltrate and corrupt professional sport. Lawler also defended his decision of inviting federal ministers and the heads of the major sports to Canberra to the public release of the report by saying the highly public launch had delivered an “important message of public safety” about drugs in sport. ACC executive director Paul Jevtovic, in an interview, confirmed the dissemination of intelligence from the report had yet to result in a single active police investigation. Intelligence reports from the ACC operation were being assessed but no investigations had been launched in their jurisdictions, according to Victoria, Queensland, West Australian, and South Australia police. Jevtovic remarked appropriate investigations will be undertaken in the fullness of time in the law enforcement context and the ACC had focused its operation on the links between professional athletes and crime figures.

Questioning Lawler, Senator Brandis said the absence of specific allegations had cast innuendo over all sports. Leading NRL coach Wayne Bennett of Newcastle Knights lamented the way the issue had been handled while Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley said the damning claims and the absence of specific allegations had damaged hard-earned reputations. Meanwhile, Civil liberties campaigner and Queensland lawyer Michael Cope said the operation was an example of government agencies such as ASADA using the powers of the ACC to circumvent privilege against self-incrimination.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Australian Police Cold On Doping Claims

Thursday 01, Nov 2012

  Anti-Doping Law Flouted By Ban On Armstrong

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

Anti-Doping Law Flouted By Ban On Armstrong

According to experts, the decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to ban @Lance Armstrong and stripping him of his seven Tour de France wins rides roughshod over established anti-doping rules.

Many sport law specialists have remarked that the anti-doping agency report that triggered the downfall of the disgraced cyclist and the endorsement of the same by the governing body of cycling, UCI, ignored the statute of limitations that ordinarily applies in such cases.

Lance Armstrong was banned for life and stripped of all his titles. His results after August 1998 were annulled and all his sponsors, including Nike, left him. This was after former teammates of the cyclist (Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters, and David Zabriskie) condemned him with sworn eyewitness testimonies saying that Armstrong used and even encouraged the use of performance enhancing drugs and even threatened those who refused to take drugs by telling them their place in the team will be given to someone else.

Now the specialists suggest that Armstrong may even have grounds for making an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport over the decision.

Antonio Rigozzi, a doping law professor at the university of Neuchatel in Switzerland, said the case is certainly unique in its scale but it is not a reason not to apply or even ignore the (anti-doping) rules, as we have seen.

According to anti-doping rules, there is a limit of eight years to bring alleged violation cases but eyebrows were raised in legal circles about the agreements made with the former teammates of the cyclist to testify against him.

Alexis Schoeb, a Swiss lawyer specializing in sport, remarked that the fact that former cyclists who are currently owning up the use of drugs are treated in another way and the eight-year limitation has been respected while there is no such rule in the case of Lance Armstrong and this surely suggests that there is a touch of double standards.

USADA pulled off a political coup by allowing access to the public on its website to a very detailed report that practically made any appeal doomed to failure, French lawyer Jean-Jacques Bertrand said and added that dispassionate judges who apply the law as it stands are required for handling this case.

Meanwhile, more humiliation is on the way for Armstrong as his effigy will be burned at a Kent town’s annual bonfire celebration to mark a failed 1605 plot to blow up parliament and kill King James I. A 30ft (9m) model of the Texan rider will go up in flames in Edenbridge. With this, the cyclist joins the list of Cherie Blair, Katie Price, Gordon Brown, Mario Balotelli, Wayne Rooney, former French president Jacques Chirac, ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and Russell Brand; effigies of all of them were burned in the past. Armstrong’s effigy holds a sign reading: “For Sale — Racing Bike. No longer required.” The effigy of Lance Armstrong also sports a badge around its neck that says “Jim Fixed It For Me”, a reference to the late British television presenter Jimmy Savile who was accused of widespread child sex abuse.

pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Anti-Doping Law Flouted By Ban On Armstrong

Monday 20, Aug 2012

  Anti-Doping Policies Defended By Football Association

Posted By
Pin it Share on Tumblr

dopingThe Football Association have defended its anti-doping rules after Dispatches program of Channel 4 revealed names of several players who have failed drugs tests. The Association said its policy is to keep names of players who fail tests for social drugs out of competition private though a punishment of up to six months for first-time offenders can be given out.

Players should be allowed privacy to get help for their problems, when required, according to the association that added that there is no guideline for identifying those who have failed tests for recreational drugs away from game time.

The Dispatches program named players with experience of the Premier League but not active in the top flight for testing positive for cocaine. It was stressed by the FA that it is working hard for eliminating all illegal substances and underlined that players testing positive for social drugs would face punishment even if their names were not disclosed.

The association remarked that any player who fails to clear a test for a performance enhancing drug is named, irrespective of whether he or she is tested in or out of competition. The FA said in a statement that the association conducts a comprehensive anti-doping program that is the largest of any sport in the United Kingdom besides prohibiting all the doping offences listed in the World Anti-Doping Agency code and applies all the sanctions laid down in the WADA code for the offenses. It added that the association that is supported by all the football stakeholders recognize the issues that are or may be caused by use of social drugs by players and even choose to go beyond the World Anti-Doping Agency code by proactively testing all samples for social drugs, irrespective of whether the tests are conducted in or out of competition.

The Football Association added that football is one of the only sports in the United Kingdom that ban use of social drugs at all times and every defaulting player is charged and sanctioned that ordinarily includes a suspension from all football activity for a period of up to six months for a first time offense. The players are also subjected to target testing for a period of two years and names of such players may not be reported to help the player undergo any necessary rehabilitation and counseling. The FA added that while Premier and Football League clubs and players are subject to strict FA whereabouts regulations, all England representative teams are subject to UEFA and FIFA regulations and further added that players are drug tested on a no-advance notice basis. In case of any breach of the FA whereabouts regulations, the clubs or players are subject to disciplinary processes.

David Howman, director general of the World Anti Doping Agency, said the Football Association should consider naming all drug-using players, no matter what they are found to have taken or when they are tested. Howman added that the FA should do well to make its doping detection program fully transparent and avoid so much secrecy.



pdf_iconDownload in PDF: Anti-Doping Policies Defended By Football Association