Towards Competence Based Anti-Doping Education

There is an abundance of information on anti-doping published by WADA, International Sports Federations, and National Anti-Doping Organisations.  Anti-doping cases are also constantly being reported in both the popular and sports media.  It is therefore somewhat surprising that athletes continue to fall foul of anti-doping regulations, apparently, because they did not understand their responsibilities under the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code).

A recent example is the case of a female Irish kick boxer whom had previously won a number of World and European titles. This athlete was found on in January 2009 to have committed an anti-doping violation by refusing without justification to submit to sample collection after notification.

The statutory penalty under the Code for such a violation is a suspension of two years.  The Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel imposed a reduced period of ineligibility after they found that the athlete had no significant fault or negligence in refusing the test.  The Irish media reporting that the panel “accepted that the athlete did not understand the national anti-doping rules and the serious implications of a refusal to be tested.”

How could it be that a multiple World and European Champion in sport could rise to this level without understanding her responsibilities under the Code?

This is in fact only one case in many where athletes have in their defence intimated that they did not understand their responsibilities under the Code and it begs the question do we need to increase efforts around athlete education and is it now the time to be assessing our athlete’s competence when it comes to their responsibilities.

The World Anti-Doping Code is the document that harmonizes regulations regarding anti-doping in sport across all sports and all countries of the world. It also provides a framework for anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations for sport organisations and public authorities.

The Code has been recently reviewed and an updated version came into effect on the 1^st January 2009.  Article 18 of the Code deals with education stating that the primary goal is “to prevent the intentional or unintentional use by athletes of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods.”

The requirement “to promote anti-doping education” is clearly set out in the roles and responsibilities of all signatories. Each is expected to deliver an anti-doping education programme in order to create “an environment that is strongly conducive to doping-free sport and will have a positive and long-term influence on the choices made by Athletes or other Persons.”

The focus of education for athletes in the Code is on the provision of accurate and updated information on at least the following issues:

• Substances and methods on the Prohibited List;
• Anti-doping rule violations;
• Health Consequences of doping, including sanctions, health and social consequences of doping;
• Doping Control procedures;
• Athletes’ and Athlete Support Personnel’s rights and responsibilities;
• Therapeutic use exemptions;
• Managing the risks of nutritional supplements;
• Harm of doping to the spirit of sport.

This is an inputs based approach that does not necessarily lead to the development of athletes that have the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes required to meet their Code responsibilities.

What is needed is an outcome based approach that provides the opportunity for an athlete’s competence in their anti-doping responsibilities to be assessed and confirmed.

Such an approach would lead to knowledgeable athletes who understood their responsibilities, ensured they attended to these and demonstrated a commitment to drug free sport.

Ensuring that all athletes were competent in meeting their anti-doping responsibilities would in effect remove the defence or mitigating circumstances of “not understanding”.

Adopting a competence based training approach rather than just providing “accurate and updated information” are competent to meet their responsibilities or for those not yet competent, that more training and support is required.

The current favoured input based model is not a sufficient approach to the education and training of our athletes in their anti-doping responsibilities.  Input based training may develop athletes who know about and can talk about anti-doping but it doesn’t confirm that athletes are competent to meet all their responsibilities under the Code.

To achieve this we need outcome based training that assesses that learning has occurred and that the athletes can demonstrate competence against agreed standards.

One of the advantages of adopting a competence based approach to training would be the assessment of each athlete’s competency in terms of their anti-doping responsibilities.  This would determine whether the athlete had demonstrated that they were a) competent or b) not yet competent.  If they were not yet competent they would require to undertake further training until such times as they could demonstrate competence.

The requirement to demonstrate competence against a set of internationally recognised standards could become an athlete licence.  This could become a key component of the athletes’ WADA passport and could become a requirement to compete at international level.

The principles of outcome based or competence based training and education is well understood in sports organisations.  Most coach education and an increasing amount of technical officials training is based on these principles.  Different levels of award having agreed standards around which coaches and technical officials must demonstrate competence to ensure successful completion.

There is a need to stop athletes accidently incurring anti-doping violations as a consequence of a lack of understanding of their responsibilities.  There is also a need to stop athletes being able to rely on a lack of understanding as a defence or a set of mitigating circumstances.  This issue can be addressed by the signatories to the Code adopting a competence based approach to athlete education rather than relying on the current input based approach.

ENDS

The Lord Lieutenant of Belfast

I was delighted to learn this week that Dame Mary Peters, the 1972 Olympic pentathlon champion, has been appointed as the Lord Lieutenant of Belfast by the Queen writes Norman Brook.

I got to know Mary when I was based in Belfast as the National Athletics Coach for Northern Ireland.  Having an Olympic Champion on our doorstep was great for Northern Ireland Athletics and Mary did a lot to support the sport locally including running a trust fund to support talented young athletes. 

My relationship with Mary moved from that of being colleagues to being friends shortly after I stepped down as Northern Ireland National Coach.  In 1992, I joined the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and was asked to work closely with Mary on the Ulster Games Foundation.  Mary chaired the Foundation’s Board whilst I was Company Secretary.  The Ulster Games Foundation using a mix of public and private funding supported international sports events to come to Northern Ireland.  Mary and I shared a passion for sport and enjoyed being able to support international sports competitions in Northern Ireland.

I later had the pleasure of working with Mary on an initiative supported by the British Council that saw us bring a group of young sportsmen and women from Northern Ireland to South Africa in an execise designed to show how sport could promote mutual understanding amongst people from different back grounds.  We took young people from both Protestant and Roman Catholic backgrounds in Northern Ireland to work with young people from Black, Coloured and White communities in South Africa.

This initiative was held as part of Britain Means Business week and Mary joined us as an ambassador for the British Council.  During the week she tirelessly took part in visits to schools, universities, informal settlements, and a series of formal Britain Means Business week events.  One of the highlights was a lunch in Parliament with MPs with a particular interest in sport.  It was at this lunch that Danny Jordan, Chief Executive Officer of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, announced that he was resigning as a Member of Parliament to take up the post of CEO at the Sout African Football Association. 

Mary was such a great success during this initiative that the British Council invited her to continue working with them in an ambassadorial role. 

I was delighted to learn that Mary has been honoured in being invited by the Queen to take up the ceremonial role of Lord Lieutenant of Belfast for the County Borough of the city.   She will replace the current incumbent Lady Romayne Carswell when she retires in August.  The title Lord Lieutenant is given to the British monarch’s personal representatives and usually a retired local notable, senior military officer, peer or business person is given the post honorarily.

 Dame Mary will be only the ninth Lord Lieutenant of Belfast since the role was created in 1900.

 Mary is reported to have said: “I just find it quite amazing that I should be put in this position. A wee girl from a very average background to be the Queen’s representative in Belfast is just extraordinary.  I feel very humbled by it.  I would say a lot of former Lord Lieutenants have been from the aristocracy and I just think that maybe the time is right for somebody with a different background to take on the role.”

There is no doubt that this is a fantastic honour for Mary, but is is also a fantastic honour for sport.

Companies should include Sport in their CSR Programmes

When I was CEO at the British Triathlon Federation, we successfully secured Corus Steel as our Premier Sponsor writes Norman Brook.  That sponsorship included a strong Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) element that attracted match funding from the National Sports Foundation.

The CSR element of this sponsorship allowed British Triathlon to launch a series of children’s events, the Corus Kids of Steel,  aimed at introducing increased numbers of young people to the sport of Triathlon especially children from under-represented groups and from socially disadvantaged areas.

The sponsorship also enabled the employment of an equity officer and introduced initiatives to promote triathlon amongst diverse and under-represented groups.  Big advances were made in respect of triathlon for people with a disability, known as Paratriathlon and other initiatives addressed women, black and ethnic minorities and the gay and lesbian community.

This week a major report was released titled “Corporate Social Responsibility and Sports Sponsorship”.  The report includes a number of case studies including the Corus sponsorship of British Triathlon and one of its conclusions is that companies delivering CSR programmes need to include sport in their strategies.

The report suggests that companies have tended to spend their CSR budgets on supporting environmental or arts-based projects but the report concludes that sport is now an ideal way for companies to be seen fulfilling their social and community obligations.

Steven Hemsley, the report’s author, suggests that sport is now an effective CSR medium because: “It boasts values that all socially-responsible businesses should be striving for. These include fair play to everyone involved including employees, customers and suppliers, transparency and opportunities for all to succeed, as well as good community relations.”  He adds: “During difficult financial times it becomes even more important for businesses to strengthen relationships with their key stakeholders and linking CSR to sport allows organisations to do this.”

The study also outlines the struggle that many organisations face in overcoming media, public and employee cynicism when associating their CSR strategy with sport. It explains that there are pitfalls to avoid if a CSR programme is to work and how organisations must ensure that the activity is run with integrity.

Whilst pure sports sponsorship is often based on hard-nosed marketing and business decisions, CSR investment is based more on how a business can improve the communities in which it operates. The report emphasises how important it is that companies chose a cause and sport which has a synergy with its own mission statement and values as well as its products and services.

The report includes a number of case studies examining how major companies link their CSR agendas to their support of sport. In addition to Corus supporting British Triathlon there are case studies looking at companies such as Nike, Standard Chartered Bank, McCain, Aviva and Ricoh.  The report looks at sports such as  athletics; soccer including the Premier League and the Homeless World Cup; tennis; hockey; volleyball; yachting, F1 motor racing; cycling; table tennis; Major League Baseball; and the NFL.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sports Sponsorship is published by the marketing intelligence company International Marketing Reports.  Full details can be found here.