Browse
related articles
Drugs need to be top of the mind
The whole issue of drugs has to be among the top two or three things of which a sportsman is conscious. Along with ensuring that you are properly physically and mentally prepared for competition, and having the right tactics for any event, being conscious of the rules about drugs is vital.
Virtually every modern sport has the most stringent rules about drugs and generally there is a 'no tolerance' approach to any abuse. Break the rules and you are banned. This is what happened to the British athlete Christine Ohuruogu who missed three 'out of competition' drugs tests in 2005 and 2006 and as a result was banned for one year by the British Olympic Association.
Rallying to Ohuruogu's defence at the time was Linford Christie who said: "Some athletes are not great at lifestyle management. They think it's not their job and they are here to perform." Aside from the fact that if you were looking for a character witness on this subject, Christie is not perhaps the ideal candidate, the sheer arrogance and hubris of this line of defence is astounding.
But Steve Cram, also a former British Gold Medal winner, is on the same track. "This process is about catching people who are cheating, not about catching people who are careless.
Christine's offence was one of not taking due diligence with regards to her responsibilities as an athlete and she has served a hefty penalty for that." Does Ohuruogu, and those like Christie and Cram who defend her, really think that missing three drugs test is a minor misdemeanour and not worthy of severe punishment? Clearly they do.
Guilt must be presumed
If you follow Cram's line that there is no presumption of guilt if a drugs test is missed, then surely this encourages others also to miss tests?
Let's think through the logic. Say an athlete has decided that he will use a performance enhancing drug for a time, but stop taking it a short while before the competition for which he is training. During the period when he is doping he is called forward for an 'out of competition' drugs test, but fails to attend - and does so repeatedly. How is a distinction made between this villain and someone who is just "not great at lifestyle management"?
Of course you cannot do this - you have to treat the two cases exactly the same and not make value judgments, as Christie and Cram and others are doing, that Ohuruogu is not a drugs cheat. How do they know?
Ban drugs cheats for life
If it is part of the requirement for a top sportsman today to be aware of and conforming to the rules about drugs (as surely it is), then it is reasonable to legislate that when the rules are broken the penalties are severe.
If an athlete knows that the penalty for taking drugs, or for avoiding tests that look for drug abuse, is a lifetime ban then when they ignore the guidelines and a ban results they have no reason to complain.
Of course you need the rules to be clear and you need their application to be fair. And, in the spirit of natural justice, you do need a proper appeals procedure. It isn't always a black and white matter and where there is doubt then you need a process which tries as far as possible to get to the truth.
Ohuruogu is allowed to compete at the World Championships under UK Athletics rules, but is banned from the Olympics by British Olympic Association regulations - a ban against which she is to appeal. The discrepancy here is confusing and shows that one of the basic tenets of natural justice - the need for consistency - is not being followed.
Ohuruogu has in the opinion of many won a gold medal that is tainted - and the fact that some of the great and the good of British athletics are lining up to defend her bodes ill for the sport. She may well be innocent of drug abuse - but by missing three tests she is guilty, in my opinion, of treating the drug testing rules with contempt. And that, for me, should be enough to ban her for life.
Paddy Briggs, BrandAware
