Governing Bodies Of Sport In Order example essay topic

"The two major justifications for the ban on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport relate to the protection of the health of athletes, and the maintenance of fair competition" (Black, 1996; as cited by Waddington, 2000) The main objective of the U.K. Statement of the Anti-doping Policy stems from this. The aim is to ensure that the various governing bodies of sport in the United Kingdom have consistent and regular sets of policies and regulations in order to "protect the rights of athletes to compete drug-free" (U.K. Statement of Anti-doping Policy). This policy, (January 2002) published by U.K. Sport, was considered "a major landmark in the fight for drug-free sport". It was an attempt to set standards in accordance with the International Standard for Doping Control (IS DC). The policy also intends to ensure that "governing bodies are compliant with legislation that protects the rights of athletes" (Annual Report 2001, p. 4). Indeed, as Verroken (2002; as cited by Burgess, 2002) states, "a strong relationship between sport and the Government is vital in achieving a drug-free environment for elite athletes".

According to the policy, Governing Bodies will agree an anti-doping programme on an annual basis with UK Sport and work with UK Sport to achieve the programme targets. They will appoint an individual to be responsible for the anti-doping policy and programme. They will also appoint either a UK Sport or an ISO 18873 (International Standard for Doping Control) certified agent to carry out testing. Furthermore, they will provide UK Sport with necessary information to arrange testing. Again, they will have to advise athletes about testing procedures in preparation for their involvement in the testing programme, and convene, in a timely manner, independent review, investigative hearing and appeal panels to ensure fair procedures for the review of evidence and communication of the decisions. Additionally, they will have to attend to the analysis of the "B Sample" and provide a fair process to investigate allegations or admissions of drug misuse.

The policy also states that Governing Bodies are responsible for applying sanctions against athletes who have committed doping offences. These sanctions should be in accordance with the regulations of the sport as outlines by the Governing Body or the International Federation. The sanctions should also comply with the rules of eligibility as defined by the British Olympic Association or the Commonwealth Games Association. UK Sport's role is also clearly defined in the policy.

UK Sport will have to agree an annual anti-doping programme, consisting of testing (where appropriate), education and information, with the Governing Bodies and also assist with its delivery. They will have to guarantee the confidentiality of information arising from programmes except where it is required, in order to provide transparency and accountability for public funding and the integrity of the testing programme. UK Sport will also report to the designated official, within the Governing Body, both negative and positive test outcomes, within an agreed time frame. Again, they will assist, as required, with the provision of information to the review, investigative hearing or appeal panels.

Training workshops will be provided for Governing Bodies, on operational and legal issues. Governing Bodies will also have to be supported with advice and guidance, from the Anti-Doping Programme, team to achieve programme delivery arising from the policy. Supporting, independent advice on complex scientific or medical issues will also be provided by UK Sport, who will also promote an independent dispute resolution system for sport. Finally, UK Sport will have to continue independent, high quality collection services, as well as assisting Governing Bodies with the monitoring and reporting of results. Furthermore, according to the policy, Sports Councils have the power to withdraw funding from athletes who have come under Review Panel scrutiny. There are also two key Acts that have implications for the policy.

They are the Data Protection Act, and the Human Rights Act. Their implications are discussed in further sections". Of all the functions of state-run sports in modernizing societies, that to promote and maintain health must take first place". (Riordan, 1986; cited by Waddington, I., 2000)". Anti-doping codes seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport".

(Williams, C., 2003) Nowadays, not only is the use of drugs to improve performance prohibited under the rules of sport governing bodies and committees, it is also a punishable offence. However, this was not always the case. Also, even in present times, public attitudes towards the use of drugs are not always consistent (Waddington, 2000 p. 91). There is, thus, the need for effective anti-doping policies not only because drugs damage the health of athletes, but also because doping is a form of cheating. Furthermore, doping is harmful to the image of sport, as "doping destroys the principle of fair competition and if we tolerate it, we will fatally damage public confidence and destroy the very principle of fair sport" (Banks, T. 1999, p. 4). The use of performance enhancing drugs in sport is an age-old practice.

Indeed, it has been found that they were used even 2000 years ago (Waddington, 2000 p. 98). But, a shift in perspective has occurred. It is only recently that this practice has begun to be regarded as unacceptable. Studies have shown that there has been a significant increase in the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the last few decades (Waddington, 2000 p. 14). This has occurred due to factors like significant technological and biomedical development, which has led to a widespread availability of such drugs. Furthermore, of late, there has been significant de- and professionalization of sport.

Indeed, the stakes have been raised due to politicization of sport, and the factor of sportive nationalism (Hoberman, 2001) and national pride have begun to be associated with winning, due to an increase in the number of international sporting events (Waddington, I. p. 125). Furthermore, the increasing commercialization of sport has led to the availability of enormous financial rewards for the winners (Waddington, 2000 p. 126). The idea of anti-doping policy-making is a relatively recent one. However, there have been very few social science studies concerned with the monitoring and evaluation of policy partly because anti-doping policies have been so unstable (Houlihan, B. 2001, p. 24). In the 1960's and early 1970's, the issue was seen as one that affected only 'other's ports, countries, and not 'our own' (Houlihan, B. IEC Scientific Conference: Doping In Sport). There was also the fear of delving too deep, and unearthing a problem that may have become unmanageable.

The attitude of governments varied widely (Houlihan, B. IEC Scientific Conference: Doping In Sport). Subversive governments, like the Soviet Union, were pro-doping and some actually established state-funded doping programmes for their athletes. Inactive governments were those that did nothing about the issue because of their low-level of participation in international sport, or because of a shortage of resources that could be allocated towards tackling this issue, or simply because they chose to ignore it. Active governments like France and Belgium, however, had identified doping as a matter of public concern and had started a legislation against doping as early as the mid 1960's. The Council of Europe played a key role in shaping the early anti-doping policy agenda.

In 1978, it formed a Recommendation on doping, intended to pave the way for domestic anti-doping policy. This early phase of policy-making (till the mid 1980s) focussed on aspects of doping that were specific to particular sports, countries or events. Furthermore, the aspects themselves relied on intangible resources that were controlled by individual actors. Since the liaison between actors, at this stage, was informal and limited, there arose a realisation for the need for increased cooperation amongst them. This realisation was fuel led by factors like the significant increase in the number of doping cases in the late 1980's and early 1990's, a growing awareness that the cost of establishing effective anti-doping programmes requires cooperation amongst international federations, increasing doubts about the reliability of existing testing processes, and "the increasing willingness of athletes to challenge he decisions of the federations in courts".

(Houlihan, B. IEC Scientific Conference: Doping In Sport). Thus, the current phase of policy-making is focussed upon a need for harmonization of policy, based on closer cooperation between governmental and sports bodies. This has occurred as federations and active governments have become aware of the universality and changing face of the issue. Factors like a shift in balance between subversive, inactive and active governments have aided in these efforts. Previously, subversive and inactive governments have begun to take measures in order to combat this issue.

There has also been a growth in the number of forums where policy actors can meet to discuss doping issues and exchange knowledge and information. The Anti-doping Charter of the Council of Europe was, in 1989, re designated as a Convention that is available for signature (Houlihan, B. IEC Scientific Conference: Doping In Sport). Not only did this Convention focus upon the need for harmonization of anti-doping efforts across countries and sports, but it also emphasized the importance of harnessing financial, administrative, and legal resources of states. While other organizations like the IAAF emphasized the importance of the involvement of scientists in anti-doping agencies, there were also a series of bilateral and multi-lateral agreements between states, that occurred in the late 1980's (for example, the International Anti-doping Agreement). The effect of the development of these agreements was to provide, by the mid 1990's, a substantial infrastructure that helped coordinate the debate on harmonization. This also provided a network for the implementation of policies".

In the U.K., anti-doping policy has been shaped by the parallel activity of the British Sports Council and the governing bodies of sport" (Houlihan, B., 1997, p. 204). By the late 1970's, the British Sports Council began to play a pivotal role in the development of policy. It engaged in the funding, research, and refinement of testing procedures. It also played a role in achieving agreement on the IOC list of substances and practices that were to be banned.

By the late 1980's, a majority of governing bodies had adopted this list of banned substances, or had evolved adaptations of the same. U.K. governing bodies have tried to ensure that the progression of domestic policy development is parallel to international policy development. Thus, they have often sought to pursue national policy goals through international bodies (Houlihan, B., 1997, p. 206). The implementation of policy has also had a chequered history in the U.K. Most governing bodies had adopted an anti-doping policy by the mid-1980's, but it was only when pressure was placed upon bodies by the Sports Council that effective testing procedures and methods were put into place. The major policy shift occurred in 1988 when the Council established the Doping Control Service in order to provide information, education, and independent testing. Random, out-of-competition testing was also introduced in this stage.

Thus, by the early 1990's, "a broad policy consensus was beginning to emerge as was the complex inter organisational framework for implementation, involving governments, domestic and international sports organisations, and international governmental organisations" (Houlihan, B., 1997, p. 208). However, there still existed a number of difficulties such as determining an appropriate number of tests, undertaking tests on foreign athletes participating in the events in the U.K., slow spread of action with regard to positive test results, and also the willingness of athletes to challenge positive results in the courts. Thus, the UK Sport statement of Anti-doping Policy attempts to provide a clear and consistent framework which lays out the responsibilities of all involved in the anti-doping process. Not only does it protect athletes' rights to participate in drug-free sport, but it also actively encourages the support of medical professionals and administrators, and, at the same time, it is publicly accountable for its plans and outcomes. This policy has "brought the U.K. in line with all phases of the International Standard for Doping Control" (PMP Review, Section 2, p. 11). An Analysis If one studies Lowi's (1972, as cited by Veal, 2002) categorization of the types of public policy, one can instantly see that the U.K. Sport Statement of Anti-Doping Policy can be described as one that is regulative.

Not only does the policy provide a means for "controlling the behaviour of members of the community" (Henry, I. P, 2001 p. 4) who are, in this case, members of the sports community, it also outlines procedures and steps that will be taken in order to meet policy requirements including strictures to "penalize those who are guilty of contravening this policy" (UK Sport, 2002 p. 5). Boundaries are explained clearly (for example, it provides a comprehensive list of banned substances), and it also provides a detailed description of each step of the policy process. The policy can, to an extent, be seen as upholding the tenets of a "Third Way" political ideology. The measures for promoting equality and fairness - a basic aim of the policy -may echo the tenets of social democracy.

However, the idea of "no rights without responsibilities" (Veal, 2002, p. 45) is also present here. The policy ensures the right to equal participation by outlining clearly what the responsibilities of participants, with respect to doping are. The presence of Third Way political ideology is further emphasized by the fact that the State plays a fairly limited role with respect to the active working of the policy. For instance, independent reviews, the investigative process, analysis of blood samples, etc. are left to the National Governing bodies. In fact, U.K. Sport is the main liaison between the government and National Governing Bodies.

Although U.K. Sport's authority is conferred by the Government and U.K. Sport has also to report to the Government, the actual organization that is responsible for developing and issuing the National Doping Policy is U.K. Sport itself (PMP Review, Appendix - International Comparisons, p. 1). Furthermore, it is U.K. Sport that is responsible for anti-doping education. U.K. Sport receives exchequer funding in order to fulfil its current role as the UK's national anti-doping organization. U.K. Sport is accountable to the Parliament through the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. U.K. Sport also receives 9.2% of the Lottery Sports Fund (UK Sport, 2002). Indeed, the policy gives Sports Councils the power to withdraw funding from athletes who are suspected of doping. The "issues approach" (Veal, 2002, p. 146) to policy planning appears to have been used to a certain extent. This policy is a product of careful thought and consideration. The principles have been stated, the issue has been identified clearly, and priorities and procedures have been assessed.

Indeed, this policy appears to be a product of careful review of all factors associated with this issue. The policy appears to follow a "mixed-scanning" model (Etzioni, 1967; as cited by Veal, p. 83). This policy appears to have been formulated after careful scrutiny of the history of this issue of doping. All possible alternatives of action were evaluated only in light of this issue, and it was then that the policy process was formulated. An alternate viewpoint however suggests the importance of the "network metaphor" model (Houlihan, B., 1999, p. 313). In fact, there appears to be a diffusion of power amongst a variety of actors, namely, U.K. Sports, National Governing Bodies, etc.

However, Rhodes' (1988, as cited by Houlihan, 1999) variation on the network metaphor must also be kept in mind. This is because the set of organizations are connected to each other not just on the basis of shared interests and resource dependence, but also a common value system, namely, that of preventing the use of performance-enhancing drugs. This policy follows a process of strategic management. Indeed, the focus of the policy is on long-term goals i.e. sporting bodies' freedom from the bane of performance-enhancing drugs.

Other alternative policies have been studied, and have helped complement this policy. The policy appears to have several rationales. One is the need for health promotion. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, this is a major justification for the ban on the use of performance-enhancing drugs (Waddington, I. p. 97). Health and health-related issues are a growing concern in today's world, and sport is seen as a way of improving health. Secondly, this policy has also arisen out of a need to promote, provide, and maintain fair competition, as doping is widely regarded as a form of cheating (Waddington, p. 97).

The concept of "fairness" is rooted in the ideal that all competitors must have an equal chance of winning. A third rationale for the policy arises from the fact that doping is harmful to the image of sport (Waddington, p. 97. ). All these rationales are highlighted clearly in statement 4.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy (UK Sport, 2002, p. 15). According to Donnelly (1989 as cited by Veal 2002, p. 11), human rights are those rights which all human beings are deemed to be entitled to, on the basis of their humanity alone. Various bodies like the International Olympic Committee, the Council of Europe, etc. have declared the practice of sport to be a right.

Also, the 1992 declaration of the European Sports Charter has, as one of its aims, the need for governments to set out in their Code of Sports Ethics that it is their responsibility to ensure that the moral and ethical bases of sport are protected; that that sportsmen are protected from practises that are abusive and debasing, like the use of drugs (Veal, 2002, p. 17). It also asks governments to take steps to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to improve their standard of performance in sport. Furthermore, the European Anti-Doping Charter for Sport states that "the governments of member states should offer their co-operation to the sports organisations, so that the latter take all measures falling within their competence to eradicate doping" (European Anti-Doping Charter for Sport, 1984). These ideals are upheld by the policy itself as it attempts to protect the athletes' rights to fair and drug-free competition through the development and implementation of consistent, secure and reliable doping control procedures and practices (UK Sport, 2002, p. 15). The policy also states that the objectives of disciplinary procedures, sanctions and appeals are to ensure that the athlete's right to natural justice is upheld. (UK Sport, 2002, p. 15).

The review stage also, in itself, protects the rights of the athlete by providing an opportunity to examine the evidence and to identify any possible deficiencies in it, that would justify its rejection (UK Sport, 2002, p. 25). Thus, one finds that Turner's (1994, as cited by Veal, 2002) notion of citizenship is also applicable to the policy, as the sportsperson is entitled to participate, being, at the same time obligated to participate fairly. A review of the Drug Free Sport Directorate was conducted by PMP in January 2004. It was conducted through consultation with a wide range of organizations, individuals, governing bodies of sport, and athletes. The review revealed several strengths and weaknesses of the anti-doping policy (PMP Review, Appendix - Strengths and Weaknesses of Current System) The review found that the policy was viewed by many as having an excellent reputation internationally. It also found that U.K. Sport has made considerable efforts to meet with all Governing Bodies of Sport, in order to inform and educate them.

Some criticism was, however, centred around the fact that certain sports are not in favour of linking anti-doping compliance directly to public funding. Others have criticized the fact that the efforts of U.K. Sport, to inform and educate Governing Bodies about the policy, has had "patchy progress" (PMP Review, Appendix - Strengths and Weaknesses of Current System). Others have also helped cast light on the fact that several Governing Bodies have refused to understand, implement, and support the policy. The struggle against doping in sport is a very difficult one. Verbruggen (1997; as cited by Waddington, 2000, p. 180) has stated that "the fight against doping simply by controlling and punishing doesn't work. The cheats stay ahead".

In a way, he also emphasized the need for constant revision and reappraisal of existing policies; policies that work now may not work in the future due to any number of factors. What is encouraging about U.K. Sport is that it follows this principle. Indeed, U.K. Sport aims to replace the existing Statement of Anti-doping Policy with a new United Kingdom National Anti-doping Policy that will come into force on the 31st of January 2005.