JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Doping body definitions cloud issue at Essendon


Chief sports columnist and associate editor with The Age

View more articles from Greg Baum

Email Greg

There is an inherently contrary element to the World Anti-Doping Agency code that stands to muddy the water if any Essendon players are charged by the Australian authority.

Broadly, the code makes little, if any, distinction between team and individual sports. Of the code's 135 pages, just one deals explicitly with team sports. Peculiarly, the code defines individual sport as ''any sport that is not a team sport'', and team sport as one ''in which the substitution of players is permitted''. It is manifestly inadequate.

In explanatory notes, it says a sportsperson cannot avoid or mitigate a penalty for a drug offence because they were duped by a ''personal physician or trainer''. This is under the policy of strict liability, whereby ''athletes are responsible for what they ingest''.

But it adds: ''Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel, and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any prohibited substances.''

Plainly, an AFL footballer cannot choose his physician or trainer, far less direct him. In fact, he cannot even choose his club. Whatever happened at Essendon, seemingly the only way a player could have complied would have been to refuse to have anything to do with the Bombers' medical or coaching staff. At a football club, that would amount to anarchy.

''ASADA is unable to talk publicly about the specifics of its investigation … until such time as its legislation permits,'' a spokesman said on Thursday. ''Generally speaking, under the WADA strict liability principle, athletes are ultimately responsible for any substance that goes into their body.''

But he did offer this glimmer of light: ''Every case presented to ASADA is unique, and every athlete or support person who faces a possible anti-doping rule violation has the opportunity to present their side of the story.''

One way to summarise it is this: team players must subjugate themselves to the rule of another.

Individual sportspeople are answerable to themselves. It is a considerable distinction, especially with a two-year ban on the line.

3 comments so far

  • So cricket is not a team sport as defined by WADA...interesting!

    Date and time
    August 16, 2013, 5:35PM
    • Bollocks!

      Falk Wieborn
      Date and time
      August 16, 2013, 6:16PM
      • Zahrakis opted out and there was no anarchy

        Date and time
        August 16, 2013, 6:59PM

        Make a comment

        You are logged in as [Logout]

        All information entered below may be published.

        Error: Please enter your screen name.

        Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

        Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

        Error: Please enter your comment.

        Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

        Post to

        You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

        Thank you

        Your comment has been submitted for approval.

        Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

        Follow Us on Facebook

        Featured advertisers