Insane WMA plan would force USATF to do drug-testing
|
World Masters Athletics is getting too big for its britches. It was formed (as WAVA) in the late 1970s to give geezers a chance to compete in track and field. But over the years, it’s become an elitist IAAF-wannabe. That includes pretending to crack down on doping by doing a handful of tests at world meets (several dozen tests among 5,000 athletes). But at the Lahti General Assembly on August 5, 2009, delegates from 140-plus nations will vote on a 40-page anti-drug policy (see it here) that sets up a drug czar within WMA and forces “Members” (national groups like USATF) to do drug-testing at their championships. The proposed policy also contains a ridiculous suggestion that the WMA Council reserves the right to order “unannounced out-of-competition testing” of any masters athlete anywhere in the world!Â
Yes, you heard that right. Just like the elites, you’d be expected to provide USATF your whereabouts at all times, and if you missed three surprise tests within five years, you’d be banned for a couple years, or for life if repeated. I’m not making this up.
And USATF could not simply opt out.
As noted here, if the policy is approved, you couldn’t be a member nation of WMA unless you adopt these Draconian rules:
Every athlete under these Anti-Doping Rules may be subject to in-competition testing at the competitions at which he competes and for out-of-competition testing at any time or place only after WMA informs Members that it has introduced out-of-competition testing. Athletes shall submit to doping control, as provided for in these Rules, whenever requested to do so by a responsible official.
2. It is a condition of Membership of WMA that each Member (and Area Association), includes within its/their constitution/s:
(a) a provision giving the Member (and respectively the WMA Regions) authority to conduct in (and only when announced by WMA, out-of-competition), doping controls, a report which, in the case of the Member or WMA Region, must be submitted to WMA on an annual basis (see Rule 41.4 below);
Â
(b) a provision giving WMA, if it so chooses, authority to conduct doping MH/dmv Page 17
18022009 controls at the Member’s National Championships (and respectively at the Regional Championships);
Â
(c) a provision giving the WMA, once decided upon by Council, authority to conduct unannounced out-of-competition testing on the Member’s athletes, and;(d) a provision making it a condition of membership or affiliation that participation in competitions which are sanctioned or organised by Member or alternatively, Competitions, subject to any in-competition and when introduced by Council, out-of-competition testing carried out by the Member, WMA and/or any other body with competent authority to test under these Anti-Doping Rules.
WMA gives itself some wiggle room by saying that it can modify the “Prohibited Substances List” that WADA promulgates. But the idea that WMA would kick out USATF for not adopting these idiotic rules (thus barring Yanks from world masters championships) is beyond funny. It’s pathetic and suicidal to the masters movement.Â
What are the chances of this policy passing? Who knows? But the WMA Council has come out foursquare for it. WMA Secretary Winston Thomas of Britain writes in his report: “The new WMA Anti-Doping Rules have been agreed with the IAAF and WMA Council. The Council is recommending them with the Regulations to the (General Assembly) for ratification.”
But cooler heads may prevail, such as the Brits, who in 2007 made a proposal to study the Prohibited Substances List and make some masters exceptions. But time ran out at the Riccione General Assembly before a vote could be taken, so it’s returned again for a verdict in Lahti.
Here’s how the proposal is described:
The British Masters Athletic Federation propose that WMA Council ask the IAAF Medical & Anti-Doping Commission and WADA to draw up a separate and less rigid list of prohibited substances, applicable only in Masters Athletic competition, to allow for prescribed edication for age related conditions in athletes aged 35 years and over.
Â
Reason: BMAF feels that master’s athlete particularly in the older age groups, need to have different values in prohibited substances from those of normal athletes, whilst following the same anti-doping principles.
What punishment would be meted out to masters dopers? Pretty much the same as that for elites — generally a two-year ban for a first offense and a lifetime ban for a second offense.
But wait! Two years is nothing in the life of a masters athlete, right?
So the Norwegians want WMA to get even tougher, and have proposed this amendment to WMA anti-doping rules:
23)Proposed change of WMA ANTI-DOPING RULES
Norwegian Masters OrganisationRULE 40. 1 (a) (i). (b) (i). (c) (i) (ii)
(a) for a violation under Rules 32.2(a), (b) or (f) (prohibited substances and prohibited methods), except where the prohibited substance is a specified substance in a case
under Rule 40.5 below, or Rule 32.2(i) (competing whilst suspended or ineligible):(i) first violation: for a minimum period of four years’ ineligibility.
(ii) second violation: ineligibility for life.
(b) for a violation under Rule 32.2(c) (refusal or failure to submit to doping control) or Rule 32.2(e) (tampering with doping control):
(i) first violation: for a minimum period of four years’ ineligibility.
(ii)second violation: ineligibility for life.
 (c) for a violation under Rule 32.2(d) (3 missed tests):
 (i) first violation: for a period of two year’s ineligibility.
(ii) second and subsequent violations: for a period of four years’ ineligibility. The reason for the proposed changes of the rules is the experienced lack of impact from the two years exclusion. We know one master athlete having two world records M50 and M55 in shot put. Then he was caught for doping. After 2 years quarantine he got a new world record in M60. We believe that the athlete has prepared the comeback in his out of
competition period with smartness and great expectations.To avoid such praxis we propose the rules to be changed from 2 to 4 years exclusion from competition as indicated above.
We can not see the reason for not taking the lead in the fight for having clean competition well aware of IAAF/WADA’s rules. Remember masters compete for a long period, may be 60 years, but juniors and top athletes just for a few years. Therefore two years penalty does not have the same effect on masters.
9 Responses
In case WMA yanks the PDF from its Web site, here’s another copy, posted on this site:
http://www.masterstrack.com/news2009/doping2009.pdf
Forty WMA pages on anti-doping procedures?
As a masters athlete I find it absurd that a flyweight organisation such as WMA goes to all this trouble and grief to document a parallel set-up to IAAF and country anti-doping rules – and intends to inflict it on the Lahti WMA General Assembly. It is overwork. Delegates simply cannot handle it.
Masters athletics is not of this dignity anyway. All WMA needs to do is to cite the IAAF rules and specify “with the following exceptions for masters athletics.” On second thoughts, preferably the other way around – the IAAF rules should specify “with the following exceptions for masters athletes.”
If the WMA Law and Legislation Committee instead wants something useful to do, it should explicitly require as a condition for country WMA membership that all national masters organisations (for some reason BMAF springs to mind here) have their own documented grievance and disciplinary procedures and so can handle doping cases themselves. At the moment, all (notably BMAF) do not have grievance and disciplinary procedures.
In the same vein, it would help if all national WMA-affiliated masters organisations (such as BMAF), were directly responsible to their IAAF-affiliated national governing bodies (such as UKA). At the moment, they are not. The model of the US Masters Committee under USATF comes to mind and there are equivalent set-ups in most countries. Country masters organisations could thus benefit from the work put into their national disciplinary rules and procedures, without WMA re-inventing the wheel.
Implement the last two paragraphs and you already have anti-doping rules for masters athletes and a viable disciplinary framework for infringements; with IAAF or ultimately CAS as the final disciplinary hearing and appeal instance also for masters athletes.
More importantly, it would put the pompous and self-aggrandising WMA Law and Legislation Committee out of business. And good riddance.
This attempt to mandate drug testing by all WMA affiliates is so ridiculous that I think it is responsible for my computer crashing this morning. How absurd. With all the blather about helping countries build up masters track and field – for example much was made of this at the WMA regional meet in Clermont, Fl last summer – now – the powers that be are going to mandate drug testing on a par with that of elite athletes or throw the affiliate out of WMA.
Well there we all go – unless – of course WMA is going to pay for all this.
Have they heard that there is a world wide recession? What drug are they taking?
While I know that a very small number of masters athletes are taking various performance enhancing drugs -“know” in that a few have been caught in Europe and at WMA meets – and others may be taking them- and not get tested and caught – the notion that there is sufficient money just hanging around to enforce this policy – just boggles the mind.
I am one of probably few masters athletes who goes to my doctor annually and files requests for my asthma inhaler with WMA. Personally I know of some who use these inhalers for which a TUE is needed but who never bother to file the paperwork. Then there are those who for medical reasons take so-called banned drugs – in order to have a healthy life – and on rare occasion are tested and “outed”. Much pontification comes forth about “cheating ” when there is a true medical need for the drug.
WMA has a death wish if it attempts to enforce this rule.
I suggest that WMA start spending some time doing useful things to increase participation in masters track and field and stop this silly business of trying to catch the nuts whose fragile egos cause them to cheat.
Consider my situation–I have never in my life taken a banned substance. I have also never performed at a world-class level. I have never taken any prescription medication, and only taken adult aspirin twice. I am currently an established attorney who relies upon his reputation for honesty and integrity.
What if I get tested and for some reason, such as a botched test, or ineffective chain of custody of the sample, the test is positive? Why would I risk this insult to my reputation just to have some masters track times ratified?
If I could be guaranteed that the testing was 100% accurate and reliable, I would say go ahead and test. But of course no such guarantee is possible. And who wants to mount a ridiculous appeal and subsequent legal battle to clear their name for the meager benefit of having a time recorded.
It would be very difficult for me, given my love of track, to give up competing the 2 or 3 times a year I actually run a meet.
Maybe there should emerge a private organization that takes it upon itself to manage master’s track in the USA, not affiliated at all with USATF or WMA or whatever. Just rambling now, this is frustrating.
USATF doesn’t do the drug testing, it is USADA.
It sounds like the emphasis for masters would be on testing at Championships. I would be very surprised to see something passed that mandated random testing, simply because no one would be interested in tracking all these masters athletes. It looks like they are just reserving the right to do out of competition testing, it doesn’t look like they are trying to require it.
Don’t take drugs and you don’t have to worry about testing. If you need to take something for medical reason, ask for exception and it will be granted. The critical question is who will pay for it. I am all for testing at world championship and nationals.My prediction is that nothing will changee. There will be tests at World Championship and there will be no tests at US nationals. However, there will have to be testing in Sacramento.
I did not mean to post the previous comment anonymously. Milan
I would like to see testing. If they would like to keep track of all of us I wonder how they would do that? And when would it start? The first time you sign up with USATF? At a meet they could just threaten to test everyone and those who are using anything illegal, if they were smart, would not show up or come up “injured”.
You are absolutely right. In it something is also idea excellent, I support.
Leave a Reply