New anti-doping rules

[dch]

In the edition of Focus I received today there is a small item in the Chief Executive's Update column on the Anti-Doping policy. This indicates that BOF's anti-doping rules have been repealed and replaced by those of UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) with effect from 11th May 2011.

I have had a brief look at the UKAD rules and this would appear to be a significant change from the previous situation.

As I understand it the old BOF rules effectively only applied to a limited number of people - those entering M/W21E classes at National Events and participants at squad training camps and similar activities. The UKAD rules seem to apply to anyone connected with the sport and continue to apply until the individual gives written notice of their retirement.

Looking back in the news archive on the BOF website I can't see any item explicitly announcing this change. It is included in the Board minutes posted on 3rd June, but the Board summary posted on 25th May only indicates that a statement was agreed, not that there was a change to the rules.

This seems to be a particularly bad example of poor communications with the change apparently not being announced for over 3 weeks after it took effect and even then the initial announcement being hidden away in minutes. I expect that very few orienteers would have known of the change before it appeared in Focus over a month after it took effect.

I would consider that for a rule change such as this a reasonable amount of advance notice would be appropriate. In particular it is likely that there would be a non-trivial number of orienteers who come under the scope of the new rules who have been using prohibited prescription or over-the-counter medicines who would need time to make alternative arrangements (or decide not to).

[greywolf]

The UKAD rules seem to apply to anyone connected with the sport and continue to apply until the individual gives written notice of their retirement.

That's how I'd read it too... but the SOA sports science co-ordinator (no, i didn't know either) seems to disagree

I guess the chances of most of us punters getting tested are pretty small anyway, so we shouldn't panic, but it might have been helpful for BOF to have flagged up rules like:

All Athletes (including but not limited to Athletes in the National Registered Testing Pool) must make themselves available for and must submit to Testing by (or as authorised by) the NADO (urine and/or blood) pursuant to these Rules at any place and time (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition, whether in the UK or overseas)
and
A Minor may not participate in the NGB’s sport unless a parent or guardian of that Minor has consented to Testing of the Minor.

or to have provided some sensible advice to law-abiding punters on whether they need to (and how to) apply for a TUE

[cbg]

From the UKAD site:

"Who can be tested: Any athlete that has entered a competition or has been named as a member of a team participating in a competition at any level within the UK is eligible for testing as part of UK Anti-Doping’s national Anti-Doping programme."

However:

"The selection of athletes for testing is determined by UK Anti-Doping in conjunction with the NGB or IF. Selection is based on the following criteria
Placing in the event (e.g. 1st, 2nd or 10th) or lane draw
Discipline, category or round
A set number of players from each team (usually using random selection)
Pre-selected testing
Qualifying for national representation.

Most sports will not recognise a World or National record until an athlete has been tested and a negative result has been returned."

The costs of testing mean that it is very unlikely that Jo/Joe Average will be selected. However the principle that "Athletes have the right to compete in doping-free sport" is entirely right, at all levels. It is of course b difficult for a 'normal' competitor to ensure that accidental ingestion does not occur (remember Alain Baxter and his American Vic inhaler?) but we should not get unduly worried by it. That doesn't negate having the policy.

I suspect that BOF could not have avoided following UKAD policy and remained any status as a professional sport. In fact I am surprised that it has only just toed the line - way behind many other sports.

[greywolf]

The costs of testing mean that it is very unlikely that Jo/Joe Average will be selected. However the principle that "Athletes have the right to compete in doping-free sport" is entirely right, at all levels. It is of course b difficult for a 'normal' competitor to ensure that accidental ingestion does not occur (remember Alain Baxter and his American Vic inhaler?) but we should not get unduly worried by it.

except that a) punters do get tested (and caught) occasionally, and b) the issue is not about elite athletes who apparently can't read a list of ingredients but about the many non-elite competitors who have long-term prescriptions for substances on the prohibited list, and who now need to get a TUE if they are to stay strictly within the rules. Yes, the chances are probably very small that would get tested or caught, but it would be nice if someone from BOF could quantify the risks and the likely response of the governing body if such a case arose.

(or do you think that "Athletes have the right to compete in doping-free sport" means that all kids with methylphenidate prescriptions should be banned from competing?...)

BTW, I'm not objecting to the policy or rules per se, just the almost complete absence of any notice or guidance from BOF (and no, a non-informative sentence or two tucked away in the middle of the most boring bit of Focus doesn't really count)

[Paul Frost]

The SOA website published an article "Prohibited Substances" about the changes, written by Adam Hunter, SOA Sports Science Co-ordinator back in May.
There is a link to a quiz to test you knowledge against the clock.

The "Caffeine and Anti-Doping" article was published at the same time.

[Scott]

b) the issue is not about elite athletes who apparently can't read a list of ingredients but about the many non-elite competitors who have long-term prescriptions for substances on the prohibited list, and who now need to get a TUE if they are to stay strictly within the rules.

4.2.5 If an Athlete who is not in the National Registered Testing Pool or the Domestic Pool is tested pursuant to these Rules, and that Athlete has been Using a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for which he/she is entitled to a TUE, then he/she may make a retrospective application for a TUE to the UK TUE Committee no later than five (5) working days after the Sample is collected

I'm assured that individuals will have been told if they are in one of the Testing Pools, and therefore need to go out and get TUEs in advance of any test.

But yes, I agree that a "what the rules mean for you" summary would be a good idea.