| Partners and Events | No.37 February 2003 |

The EU's Anti-Doping Policy and its Relevance to Disabled and Able-Bodied Sports Jacob Kornbeck Administrator, European CommissionDirectorate General for Education and Culture, in Brussels. This following texts combine the revised and annotated version of the welcome speech and Epilogue by Jacob Kornbeck held at the Congress for Harmonisation of Doping Policies in European Sports for Athletes with Disabilities, 31st August - 1st September 2002, Bratislava, organised by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) and co-financed by the European Commission as pilot project 20/24 (2001-2002). Workplan of this conference Under last year's Call for Proposals, the European Paralympic Committee won a contract with a view to prepare and organise this Congress. Judging from EPC's project proposal, it promises to be an interesting event: The question of how best to align anti-doping work targeting disabled sportspersons will be discussed here by experts and stakeholders alike. It was decided to include the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in this work and to base large parts of our discussions on WADA's draft World Anti-Doping Code. The young Agency and its emerging Code have started many discussions which we would probably not have imagined just a year ago. The draft Code was presented to the public after the application to hold this event had been lodged and has become a major topic within the international community of anti-doping work. I am please that the organisers decided to include the Code it in this Congress, knowing very well both the opportunities and the challenges which this approach involves. The objective is indeed ambitious: to develop a "Declaration of Commitment" which should act as a model for future co-operation. Paralympic versus Olympic sports At this Congress, it is truly exciting to witness the diversity of sports as evidenced through the differences between Paralympic and Olympic sports. Such comparisons can provide entirely new angles on sports - a change of perspective which is much needed, given the way in which society's mainstream concentrates most of its interest on able-bodied sports. And not only are most people only interested in able-bodied sports - in fact, they are only interested in a small segment of able-bodied sports. The proportion of TV programme time dedicated to soccer as opposed to other disciplines is in that respect highly revealing. In this context, disabled sports are an important alternative and for someone like me, who knows as much - or as little - as the average citizen about them, sports for the disabled allow us to take a fresh look at sport. Sometimes, it looks like sports which haven't - yet - lost their innocence. We know that, alas, this is not always true, as recent positive cases in doping controls performed on Paralympic athletes have shown. Still, Paralympic sports are different and provide stimulating inspiration. Today and tomorrow we shall look into the specific paralympic doping issue. Mainstreaming and inclusiveness in Paralympics and anti-doping policy With these ideas in mind, I would like to underline the need for mainstreaming. For despite the specificity of the questions raised here, we must bear in mind the embeddedness of disabled people in society and, likewise, of disabled sports within the totality of sports. Mainstreaming is an important goal in politics targeting the disabled. Mainstreaming is also a matter of urgency in international anti-doping work as it strives for the unity of lists, rules, procedures and practices. The presence of so many WADA representatives here - representing an Agency which does not have a mandate specifically for disabled sports - should be a sign, I think, that the Congress, despite its focus on Paralympics, refuses to glide into secludedness and forget the larger context. Mainstreaming is in the interest of all. Both disability policies and anti-doping policies should aim to be truly universal. Mainstreaming is also in the interest of sport if it wants to represent most, or all of society. In the words of B. Sevelius (2000), 'Sport cannot speak of "sport as an important part of society" if we have no intention to present, offer and develop sport as an activity available to most of the people' (pp. 6). This quote represents the common interest of disability policies, anti-doping policies and sport in general in striving for inclusiveness and resisting all tendencies towards seclusion, sectarianism and segregation. Epilogue: Doping is a Societal Problem in Europe I am impressed by the ease with which the Declaration has been voted, given that it refers largely to WADA's draft World Anti-Doping Code and I suspect this document is likely to give rise to reserves and maybe reticence in other fora. On reflection, I have come to believe that this is due to both structural and ideological differences between Paralympics and Olympics. With respect to structural differences, the much higher levels of professionalisation and commercialisation in able-bodied sports mean that the 'Play the Game' argument does not suffice to legitimise serious sanctions against doping. One consultancy report commissioned by the European Commission, based on a review of literature into the history of doping, pointed to professionalisation and commercialisation as the main factors creating a doping-prone environment (KPMG, 2002). In this respect, differences between Paralympics and Olympics should be quite evident. Then to ideological differences. In Workshop No. 4, dealing essentially with Article 4, section 1, of the draft Code (Acceptance of the Code - see figure 1) - the workshop which I participated in - I heard very few critical voices, indeed sometimes I had the feeling that I was playing the Devil's advocate with my observations, and I heard the argument that 'those who won't accept the Code don't have to participate' [not a verbatim quote]. Many able-bodied athletes are workers and their financial and socio-cultural welfare is seriously affected by sanctions which may interrupt their careers or, in some disciplines, even bring them to an end. In a number of jurisdictions, these implications are likely to prompt public authorities to take a very sceptical stance towards the Code. I reckon that there are important differences between public authorities - the side which I know best - and sports organisations, but it also seems that the degree of feasibility within Paralympics, as opposed to Olympics, might be different. In any case, I would recommend that the Paralympic movement, despite its enthusiasm, which I admire, keep an eye on the development of the consultation procedure launched by WADA as far as the Olympic system is concerned. A Paralympic pledge to implement the Code cannot stand alone and must take account of developments in wider fora. This also applies to the highly problematic Article 4, section 1, which in my opinion could be the most critical part of the entire text. Excerpt from The World Anti-Doping Code, draft Version 1. 4.1 Acceptance of the Code 4.1.1 Athletes, including minors, and athlete support personnel are deemed to accept the Code by virtue of their participation in competitive sport. 4.1.2 The International Olympic Committee, International Federation, the International ParalympicCommittee, National Olympic Committees, other International sport Orgnaizations, and National Anti-Doping Organizations shall accept the Code by signing a common declaration of acceptance upon approval by each of their respective governing bodies. 4.1.3 Governments shall accept the Code by execution of [a Memorandum of Understanding] [an International Instrument] [To be developed by governments before February 2003.] 4.1.4 Other bodies that demonstrate a defined mandate and responsibility for anti-doping may accept the Code by signing a common declaration of acceptance upon approval by their respective governing bodies. 4.1.5 Beginning with and including the Olympic Games in Athens 2004, acceptance of the Code by both its national Olympic Committee and government shall be required for a country to host Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games, or world championships. 4.1.6 Beginning with and including the Olympic Games in Athens 2004, acceptance of the Code by its National Olympic Committee shall be required for a country to participate in Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games, or world championships. 4.1.7 A list of all acceptances will be published on the WADA web site and in publications selected by WAD to provide broad exposure. Figure 1. Acceptance of World Anti-Doping Code (WADA, 2002). The structural aspect of doping and the need to relativise the role of the individual athlete are therefore extremely important. In addition to this observation, which is fuelled mainly by my concern over individual athletes' rights and the rule of law in an environment where individual responsibility may be a rather fictitious affair, I would like to emphasise how much I appreciated it every time I heard someone point to the presence of doping outside the sports world. The emergence of a 'doping society' in which normality is reinforced by various substances because students want better grades or workers want to better perform is a case for concern and deserves to be treated by futurologists. Research from Italy (C. Pesce and S. Donati) indicated that 4.5% of boys and girls at age 11 take creatine while the figure for the 13-year olds is even more alarming: 12% [sic]. These data were reported at a conference in Copenhagen earlier this year and a Danish doctor was quoted saying that similar trends could be observed in Denmark². Such behaviour is not driven by the motivational strands inherent to sports, indeed some young people seem to take nutritional supplements just as part of a particular lifestyle. This artificially reinforced normality is a serious societal problem and may be the main reason why the European Union has a policy on doping substances and practices. Were doping only a question of fair play, then concern and action at the European level would, under the principle of subsidiarity, hardly be legitimate. But it is far more: doping is dangerous and doping affects large populations - among these are many people who are particularly fragile, either because of their position within given group structures, or due to their age, or on account of both of these. This is what B. Houlihan (1998) called people 'dying to win'. It is in fact largely because of those aspects, which are not sport-specific, that the EU has an anti-doping policy. The history and justification of the EU's anti-doping policies Both the problems of the disabled and the fight against doping are being tackled at the European level, in addition to the work done at national and local level, within the statutory sphere and by civil society alike. Linking them in a framework like this congress seems a very natural thing indeed. For the commitment of the European Union to the fight against doping is motivated largely by the social and societal aspects of doping - those which are not sport-specific. Much of the Community's sport-related policies can be described as concerned with social inequalities in sport and how best to reduce these. The fight against doping became an EU issue twelve years ago when the Council and Representatives of the Member States, in their Resolution of 03.12.1990 (3), noted that "the use of drugs, including the abuse of medicinal products, which is damaging to health, is increasingly prevalent in Europe, particularly in sport". Since then, ministers and even the heads of state and heads of government have adopted various texts stressing the need for action at European level. In 1999, the Commission presented a 'Community support plan (4) designed to provide the right amount of European added value in the fight against doping, while fully respecting national competences in the field of sports. Should there still have been any doubt about the legitimacy of such policies, then the European Parliament gave the text a very warm welcome. In its report (5), Parliament noted that sports doping "has become an international business run by well-organised criminal networks" and called on the Commission to take a number of measures (the list below is not exhaustive): -include doping in its public health policy; -include doping in its research policy ; -urge the IOC to review its list of doping substances ; -inform Europe's citizens - especially the younger ones - about the dangers of doping ; -strive for greater coordination of policies on doping in sport; -fund pilot projects to promote the fight against do ping. Thus, Parliament has shown high expectations as regards the Commission's commitment to inspire, promote, fund and lead the necessary coordination. The last invitation I quoted is the justification for grants like the one made to the project group responsible for this Congress. The specific problems related to Paralympic sports fit well into this thinking since it is very much concerned with disability as a social - and not a physiological - category. Relevance to enlargement The social dimension must not be forgotten, and this is especially true in the present Member States' and the Community's dealing with candidate countries: Economics must not get the last word. The recent study by Langewiesche & Tóth (2001) analysing the political, economic and social dimensions of enlargement was in this respect timely and highly relevant. Enlargement offers huge business opportunities while at the same time important social hazards are possible. We should see enlargement as a chance to look into social problems of many kinds, of which the relationship between disabled and able-bodied citizens is a good example. Sport provides good case-studies for such discussions and indeed the Community's sport policy has always taken into account both the economic and social aspects of sport (See Andreu, 2002). In the case of doping in disabled sports, the organisers had noted a general lack of written policies in candidate countries and concluded that this Congress could be a catalyst for change. References Andreu, J. (2002). 'Die Sportpolitik der Europäischen Gemeinschaft zwischen Wirtschaftlichem und Sozialem'. In: Richard B. Eimer, (ed.). 2. Internationaler Sportrechtskongress. Vorträge und Diskussionsbeiträge (pp. 24-30). Bonn: Avrio Publication Ltd. Houlihan, B. (1998). Dying to Win: doping in sport and the development of anti-doping policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe KPMG (2002) : Aren't We All Positive? A (socio)economic analysis of doping in elite sport . KPMG, Bureau voor Economische Argumentatie, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, in association with T.M.C Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands Sevelius, B. (2000): 'Foreword'. In: A., Roinkier, et al., (eds.). Sport for Disabled People in Europe. ENGSO Seminar, Lisbon, April 2000. (pp. 5-6). Warsaw: Academy of Physical Education. WADA (2002). Draft: World Anti-Doping Code, E-version 1.0. Via: www.wadaama.org (Last visited 04.12.2002) (2) Reported by the magazine of the Danish sport federation DGI, Ungdom & Idræt, in its issue No. 4/2002. An earlier report was printed in No. 5/2001. The international scientific symposium on nutritional supplements referred to was organised in Copenhagen on 25 January 2002. (3) Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 3 December 1990 on Community action to combat the use of drugs, including the abuse of medicinal products, particularly in sport. In: Official Journal of the European Communities, No. C 329 of 31.12.1990 (4) COM (1999) 643 of 1 December 1999 : Communication on Community support plan to combat doping in sport. (5) European Parliament 1999-2004. Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport: Report on the Commission communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Community support plan to combat doping in sport. Session Document. Final. A5-0203/2000 Jacob Kornbeck Administrator European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture Sport Unit B 100, 5/41 B-1049 Brussels Tel.: +32-2-29-62778 jacob.kornbeck@cec.eu.int http://www.icsspe.org/portal/texte/area/bulletin/ The EU's Anti-Doping Policy and its Relevance to Disabled and Able-Bodied Sports Jacob Kornbeck Administrator, European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture, in Brussels.