Steve Cox | May 30, 2018
Rehashing WADA
COLUMN
Broc Tickle was at Glen Helen this weekend, but he wasn’t racing. He wasn’t even wearing any team gear. Because right now he has no team, as Red Bull KTM ended his contract following Tickle’s failure of a WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) urinalysis. I covered this in an earlier column titled “Ban Wada.”
Seeing Tickle at Glen Helen refreshed my anger at this injustice. The dude should be racing, but right now he’s facing a four-year suspension because he unknowingly took a banned substance that is available very cheap at any GNC in the U.S. This is what WADA considers “doping.”
There are tons of philosophical problems here. For example, WADA claims they want to prevent athletes from taking “performance-enhancing drugs” (PEDs), yet they allow athletes to take NSAIDs (Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) like Tylenol (acetaminophen), Advil (ibuprofen), or Aleve (naproxen). Those are definitely performance-enhancing drugs for anybody who has soreness or pain of almost any kind.
It’s these sorts of inconsistencies that cause a thinking person to question the point of WADA in the first place. But as I said in my last column on the subject, the point of WADA is to make money. It’s a business, and it exists to punish athletes for money.
Now, it’s time to take this analysis a step further:
After I wrote my last column on this subject, I started searching the web for scholarly analysis of WADA, and I found it HERE.
It’s entitled “Ideology, Doping and the Spirit of Sport,” and it’s written by Vincent Geeraets, who is a scholar of Legal Theory at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in The Netherlands. I encourage you to read the entire article, because the author leaves absolutely no stone unturned, and he cites sources for every claim he makes, but I’m going to deliver some highlights for you here.
Mr. Geeraets goes directly after WADA’s own justifications for its own Code, and the enforcement of said Code. He starts with WADA’s three-part justification for banning a substance.
WADA is committed to the following three criteria:
- Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
- Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete;
- WADA’s determination that the use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.
Interestingly, it is sufficient for a substance or method to be included on the Prohibited List if it meets two of these three criteria. A substance or method can thus be classified as doping if it (1) enhances the performance and poses a health risk, (2) enhances the performance and violates the spirit of sport, or (3) poses a health risk and violates the spirit of sport. Prima facie, this is a broad delineation, as it does not, for example, exclude the possibility of a substance being included on the Prohibited List even though its use adversely affects the athlete’s performance. Indeed, the broadness of the delineation has attracted criticism. In a ‘Call for WADA’ a number of scientists urged WADA to adopt a more restrictive approach by making the first criterion a necessary condition. Although WADA initially considered taking on this recommendation when preparing the new Code, the ‘two out of three’ approach ultimately prevailed.
It prevailed because it makes it easier for WADA to ban more substances, and in doing so, punish more athletes, which—again—is how WADA justifies its exorbitant expense/income. It’s about money, not science and not sport.
Mr. Geeraets goes on to break down the “spirit of sport” claim, as it’s very obviously subjective in nature. There are 11 points here, and Mr. Geeraets defeats all of them, one-by-one, piece-by-piece.
Mr. Geeraets then breaks down WADA’s claim that submission to WADA regulation is voluntary. He goes into much detail, but to put it simply, it’s voluntary in the same way it’s voluntary to wear a helmet as a supercross competitor: You can choose not to, but that means you’re choosing not to compete in the first place. Basically, if you’re a fan, you don’t have to pee in a cup for WADA, so if you’re a racer and you don’t like WADA, you can volunteer to quit your job.
It’s more nonsense. Complete nonsense.
In conclusion, Mr. Geeraets correctly points out that supporting WADA, and indeed WADA itself, is presented as an ideology, rather than a logical, practical and optional institution.
In this paper, we have shown that WADA has sought to defend the current Code in terms of the spirit of sport and with the help of the argument of voluntary consent. We argue that WADA’s defence of these arguments does not stand up to scrutiny. With regard to the analysis of the concept of the spirit of sport, WADA provides us with an enumeration, but this enumeration has been found to be inconsistent. Similarly, the argument of voluntary consent also fails to withstand scrutiny. Since WADA significantly curtails athletes’ options, with the result that their only choice is between committing to the Code or retiring from their sport altogether, their commitment to the Code cannot be said to be voluntary. Lastly, we claim that WADA’s arguments are not just bad arguments, but should be considered ideological in nature. And indeed it is ideology’s ability to distort social reality that is the specific aim of these arguments because, in this way, they can be used to ward off any critical discussion of the Code.
That’s ultimately the danger of WADA: Their rules are considered self-justifying and beyond reproach, and I don’t believe that’s a good way to do things—not in business, government, or sport.
Broc Tickle deserves to be racing. He’s invested his entire life into becoming one of the best racers on the planet, and a four-year ban might as well be forced retirement forever, because that’s what it will be for any athlete in professional motocross or supercross.
Decisions made in our sport should be made by people who understand our sport, who care about our sport, and who are interested in what’s best for our sport.
WADA is not interested in what’s best for any sport, much less ours. WADA is only interested in what’s best for WADA. They need to go. CN