Examining the Current and Future Scientific Field of Antidoping: “Cheaters Should Never Win”

Abstract

To frame the current advances in anti-doping sciences, an initial definition of doping is necessary while it may in all cases foster a lively debate. The 2021 World Anti-Doping Code defines doping in Article 1 as “one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Articles 2.1 to 2.11 of the Code” (WADA, 2019) with an extremely detailed “Prohibited List” covering the Use or Attempted Use of doping substances and methods and certain malicious practices (Pavot, 2020). More simplistically, antidoping provisions may be considered violated when an athlete uses or attempts to use a prohibited substance or method or when a prohibited substance is detected in an urine or blood sample. Much then relies on the technical ability of an antidoping laboratory to detect such method or substance within a strict scope of international standards and operating guidelines. In an ideal scenario, laboratories would define and disseminate standard testing procedures for all kind of existing and upcoming substances, with unequivocal criteria for the definition of positivity, and the procedures would have been previously validated in blinded randomized and controlled studies with athletic subjects from both sex. Moreover, the epitome of experiments would make the sanctioning process swift with undeniable definitions of substances, dose and timing of use, administration, and individual metabolic variations (Faiss et al., 2019). In the current world of global sports, the context is much more complex with each sporting performance scrutinized, and criticized often with a distorted judgement. The fight against doping is today at a crossroads. Multidisciplinary issues at stake in the social, biological, and global sciences should enable the system to move forward so that cheaters never win—or at the very least—their victory is increasingly difficult and risky through the threat of control, denunciation, or otherwise. In this context, the contribution of non-biological disciplines also appears fundamental throughout the process. Education is a critical issue since the culture of the fight against doping must be instilled in athletes and their entourage from an early age. Moreover, the sanction-based argument is now outdated and a new argument, based on the values of clean sport, must be supported. However, these programs are often implemented by National Antidoping Organizations (NADOs) who face multiple challenges in making them efficient (Gatterer et al., 2020). Other topics demonstrate the usefulness of the contribution of disciplines such as law, political science, communication, and even marketing. Obviously, with the importance of the World Anti-Doping Code and disputes before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the importance of the legal field seems natural. Political and governance issues have received renewed interest in recent years: one can think, for example, of the concerns raised by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Report of 17 June 2020 to the U.S. Congress regarding WADA Reform Efforts, which suggested, among other things, that the U.S. financial contribution to WADA be suspended. This report focuses—albeit in a biased way—on the issues at stake in the governance reform of WADA that is currently underway as well as on the major political issues that are currently at stake in the fight against doping. We could also talk about the relationship between WADA and the IOC, NADOs, and international federations, the question of gender representativeness in antidoping bodies, etc. Communication and marketing issues are also at the heart of the questioning. A certain lack of knowledge about WADA's functions sometimes raises many expectations that it cannot meet. WADA is more of a regulator than a player, and the media are sometimes unaware of its role. Moreover, the 2020–2024 strategic plan is not mistaken in this regard, since a project on the agency's brand image is clearly mentioned. The question of whistleblowers is a particularly topical issue. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has launched the Speak Up! platform to encourage whistleblowers to come forward, but its implementation must be accompanied by protection for whistleblowers, who sometimes risk their lives to report such actions. However, not all States necessarily play the game, as is shown by the deadly Rodchenkov Act (Haas, 2020) in the United States, which provides—not for the protection of potential whistleblowers—but for universal criminal jurisdiction to be granted to the United States if it has been involved in doping activities in the past. While penalizing doping may be an avenue, albeit somewhat outdated, the protection of whistle-blowers to dismantle important—sometimes transnational or even State owned—networks seems to be a higher interest. However, the Rodchenkov act seems to be the opposite of what should be done. One can also think of the protection of anti-doping organizations as an example of multidisciplinarity in the social sciences. On June 15, 2018, the Parliament of the Province of Quebec adopted Bill 238 concerning immunities granted to the World Anti-Doping Agency. Immunities are used to protect an organization from prosecution or seizure in the country that grants them. During the examination of the bill in the Parliamentary Committee, Olivier Niggli, the Director General of WADA, even qualified the Agency as a “special animal” with regard to its status. Indeed, the WADA is a foundation under Swiss law which is not an international organization but an international non-governmental organization. After the exclusion of Russia from the Rio Olympic Games after a thorough investigation, WADA has been subjected to several reactions. In September 2016, the Russian “Fancy Bears” hacker group entered the WADA's servers, revealing a series of confidential information relating in particular...