Coherence of drug policy in sports: Illicit inclusions and illegal inconsistencies (original) (raw)

Drug policy in sport: hidden assumptions and inherent contradictions

Drug and Alcohol Review, 2008

This paper considers the assumptions underpinning the current drugs-in-sport policy arrangements. Approach We examine the assumptions and contradictions inherent in the policy approach, paying particular attention to the evidence that supports different policy arrangements. Key findings We find that the current anti-doping policy of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) contains inconsistencies and ambiguities. WADA's policy position is predicated upon four fundamental principles; first, the need for sport to set a good example; second, the necessity of ensuring a level playing field; third, the responsibility to protect the health of athletes; and fourth, the importance of preserving the integrity of sport. A review of the evidence, however, suggests that sport is a problematic institution when it comes to setting a good example for the rest of society. Neither is it clear that sport has an inherent or essential integrity that can only be sustained through regulation. Furthermore, it is doubtful that WADA's anti-doping policy is effective in maintaining a level playing field, or is the best means of protecting the health of athletes. Implications and conclusions The WADA anti-doping policy is too heavily based on principals of minimising drug use, and gives insufficient weight to the minimisation of drug related harms. As a result drug 3 related harms are being poorly managed in sport. We argue that anti-doping policy in sport would benefit from placing greater emphasis on a harm minimisation model.

Recreational drug use and sport: Time for a WADA rethink?

Performance Enhancement & Health, 2013

This paper examines current policies towards drug use in sport to evaluate their appropriateness. The focus is on the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA's) attitudes and policies towards athletes' use of recreational drugs. Since recreational drugs such as marijuana are not performance-enhancing, one of the most frequently used arguments to justify doping controls -that those involved in drug use derive an unfair advantage over other competitors -cannot be used to justify controls on the use of such drugs. Given this, it is suggested that the attempt to control the use of marijuana within a sporting context is best understood in terms of the growing concern about drug 'abuse' within the wider society. The paper further suggests that the WADA has used the 'spirit of sport' argument to reach beyond traditionally accepted sporting concerns. In this regard, WADA is using anti-doping regulations to police personal lifestyle and social activities that are unrelated to sporting performance. On this basis, it is concluded that WADA's focus and resources should return to enforcing sporting values related to doping rather than policing athletes' lifestyles, and it is therefore suggested that the ban on marijuana and similar recreational drugs should be lifted.

Drivers of illicit drug use regulation in Australian sport

Sport Management Review, 2011

Under the oversight of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) a tightly organised global network of drug-use regulations have been operating in sport over the last decade. Not only have these regulations been broad-based and punitive, they have also become complex and ambiguous (Park, 2005; Rusmussen, 2005). The distinction between in-competition and out-ofcompetition drug testing is frequently blurred, and the confusion is compounded by the provision for therapeutic exemption, which means that players and athletes who have a medical condition that demands treatment with a drug on the banned list, can seek approval to use it. Moreover, the different sanctions associated with performance enhancing drug use and illicit drug use are not always clear, and some of sport's governing bodies have not been prepared to accommodate WADA's

Considering Harm Reduction as the Future of Doping Control Policy in International Sport

Since the 1960s, major international sporting organizations enforced a prohibition on performance-enhancing drugs. The scope of this enforcement expanded to the current system regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Although the sophistication of the detective sciences and the comprehensive enforcement of these prohibitions have improved over time, supporters of the ban on drug use in sport still struggle with 3 issues: Doping is still quite common; the ability to detect established drugs have driven users to newer, more experimental substances; and the prohibition policy lacks sufficient moral justifications. This article suggests that the debate over doping has bifurcated between those who continue to support antidoping measures with insufficient ethical grounds and those who would potentially permit the unregulated use of performance-enhancement technologies in sport because of insufficient justifications for prohibition. A third way, posed herein, suggests the most ethically defensible policy is a harm-reduction approach.

Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal

BMC medical ethics, 2007

Background: Current anti-doping in competitive sports is advocated for reasons of fair-play and concern for the athlete's health. With the inception of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), anti-doping effort has been considerably intensified. Resources invested in anti-doping are rising steeply and increasingly involve public funding. Most of the effort concerns elite athletes with much less impact on amateur sports and the general public.

The legal framework of doping: doping sanctions and their critique

2009

Doping is a problem that constitutes a danger for both sport and athletes and contravenes the principles of Olympism. Therefore, a legal framework has been set up in order to confront doping. Particularly, sanctions have been imposed to athletes found guilty for violations of the anti-doping rules. From their side, athletes have the legal rights to defend themselves. Certain performance-enhancing substances and training methods are forbidden by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and other international sport organizations. The current efforts of IOC, IAAF and WADA to enforce general regulations to punish doping violations is proven insufficient because their current policy fails to consider the sports code of ethics and the social aspects of the different national and cultural background from which dopers come. Effective action against doping demands international cooperatio...