 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
22nd May 2008
Hans-Jörg Wirz
President of the European Athletic Association (EAA)
Re: EAA Anti-doping
As a reply to my letter of 27th January 2008 I received your letter of 23rd April 2008, and apparently this late reply only came about after my letter had received a wider attention within the athletic world, and it has now been followed up by your mail of 13th May 2008, apparently inspired by still further public attention.
As for your letter, your only comments to the proceedings of the EAA anti-doping efforts, which I have described in detail, are that “I cannot agree with your one sided interpretations and conclusions” and “I cannot accept your letter”. As for being one sided, may I point out that my “Overview” includes also all the improvements which has been made, and which were made within the frames of the Anti-doping Working Group (ADWG) during the time it was actually allowed to work, that is from April 2005 and until June 2006, when the group in reality was shut down by you.
Unfortunately, before that period there is only one long ugly looking line of events, and complete lack of action, so consequently, there is only one side to report about, which obviously is why it is one sided. Moreover, there are no interpretations or conclusions in my material, what I have stated is simply the cold facts of this miserable affair, and so far absolutely no one has questioned, let alone proven, any of these facts to be incorrect, least of all you in your letter and mail.
Concerning your mail, you are asking me about an interview. I assume that you are referring to an interview in the Danish National TV-channel DR1, and so I can tell you that there has been, so far, three interviews narrated by Niels Christian Jung, the Danish sports journalist of the year 2007, who was bestowed by this honorable title mainly for his exposures concerning doping abuse within cycling and specifically his exposures concerning the Danish rider Michael Rasmussen (and before that Bjarne Riis where Jung took on him the role of a mole in the Riis team). More background information can be found via the links at the bottom of this letter (alas in Danish).
He has now taken an interest in the EAA anti-doping efforts, as disclosed in detail by me, and as for my aim it should be quite clear to most people who read these details, but obviously not you, that they expose the completely irresponsible anti-doping work of the EAA, for which you, and the former councils, are fully responsible. Not even the fact that 9 out of the 10 doping cases, related to the 2004 Olympics, had to do with athletes from within the EAA, could force you into any real action.
I am disgusted to see you writing about credibility, fairness and quality. Nothing could be farther away from the way the EAA has handled this issue, and when reading your interpretation I can see only one out of two reasons for your way of responding to the exposures, either you simply do not understand what it is that you have been doing or not doing concerning anti-doping, or you are trying to hide behind empty words and meaningless expressions. Either way you are not a worthy president of the EAA.
I have stated clearly, and beyond any doubt, how poor the anti-doping effort of the EAA has been over the last 10 years, not to mention the time before that, and logically I can see only one out of two reasons for this, either you have been a completely incompetent president, or you have, for reasons unknown to me, purposely obstructed improvements in the anti-doping effort. Should there however be a third reason, which I am not able to see, please tell me about it.
In either case you have failed your responsibility towards athletics and towards sport as a whole, and the majority of the improvements in the fight against doping within the EAA have been made not because of the EAA leadership, but in spite of it. Therefore the only decent thing to do to restore credibility to the EAA is to resign from the Council.
I suggest you read my material once more in every detail, and that you make an effort to understand what it is telling everybody else, but apparently not you, and I will only repeat from it, which is also obvious from the material, that if it had not been for me, there would still have been practically no improvement instigated by the EAA in the fight against doping.
You have shown that your word cannot be trusted, and based on the whole line of events it is clear that you are also not trustworthy at all when it comes to actually fighting doping, and therefore - after 10 years of sloppiness and obstruction - you cannot be trusted to lead the fight against doping in the years to come, and a meeting with you would therefore also be a complete waste of time.
For your information, I have, in connection with the congress of DAF, resigned from my post in the federation. Therefore I can now concentrate on this, and at the same time any retaliations against DAF will be futile.
I believe that every clean athlete, and every clean federation, will find yours, and the relevant council members´, role in this grave matter completely irresponsible and despicable, or how do you think they will feel when they learn for example that you have for so many years completely disregarded any improvement of the safety of the athletes undergoing doping control.
To provide a complete overview of all the details, for all to see, and to draw the attention to this dark chapter in the history of anti-doping, in order also to learn from it, I have compiled them on:
www.123hjemmeside.dk/eaa-anti-doping
So let me repeat from my latest letter:
A need for change.
Georg Facius
http://www.journalisten.dk/niels-christian-jung-valgt-til-arets-sportsjournalist
http://www.journalisten.dk/tolv-ars-slid-forlost-i-lyngby
_______________________________________________________________
Dear Georg,
After my return from the European Athletics Council Meeting in Torino I was informed about your public comments concerning the position of European Athletics. What are you aiming to achieve with such an interview? Anti-doping measures deal with credibility, fairness and quality. I am of the opinion that these values are fulfilled by our measures and development processes in this field. You have to cover for your statements yourself. I only ask you to respect as well the values mentioned which are necessary for the anti-doping activities.
I do not intend to go on with a written exchange but I am ready to discuss and explain in a meeting the situation and the necessary procedures and measures taken.
Kind regards,
Hansjörg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hansjörg Wirz
President European Athletics
Pilatusstrasse 26
CH-8203 Schaffhausen
Phone +41 52 625 78 95
Fax +41 52 624 50 03
e-mail hjwirz@bluewin.ch
_____________________________________________
Hansjörg Wirz Pilatusstrasse 26 CH-8203 Schaffhausen
Tel
+41 52 625 78 95
Fax
+41 52 624 50 03
e-mail
hjwirz@bluewin.ch
web-site
www.european-athletics.org
HANSJÖRG WIRZ PRESIDENT
Mr. Georg Facius
Loevsangervej 10
DK-8530 Odder
Schaffhausen, April 23, 2008
Dear Georg,
I come back to your letter of the beginning of the year. I do not intend to enter into all the different details. You will certainly not be surprised if I inform you that I cannot agree with your one sided interpretations and conclusions. Fact is that we had a start which was more than difficult and that after some time I took on an interim basis the lead of the Anti-doping Working Group to secure the right development in this area and to appoint a leader who will be able to fulfil the requirements. In addition some of my statements have been presented in a way which did not respect the whole complexity and the juridical aspects of the matter.
Since we made that restart by respecting the share of responsibility between the area and the IAAF, we moved forward step by step. Several of your proposals are implemented or are in procedure.
A credible system is based on quality which has the effect that before the implementation of an activity the quality factors have to be secured. Such procedures need sometimes more time mainly also because the juridical aspects have to be respected which are very important in this field.
With all the efforts we made the following status has been reached:
Supporting the IAAF with an important number of blood samples to develop the system of individual athlete profiles.
Establishing a close cooperation with the Medical and Anti-doping Department of IAAF.
Creation of a Medical and Anti-doping Commission after having started with an Antidoping Working Group including the redefinition of the task and terms of reference.
Involving more juridical skills into our activities.
Implementation of Anti-doping Delegates with all EAA events as well as all Premium Meetings and finishing the document about Doping Control Delegates about recruitment, training, accreditation etc.
Developing education activities on Youth level and practiced at EAA competitions.
Implementation of special entry conditions for first editions of all European Athletics competitions after an ineligibility period of 2 years or more.
The Commission is working on different documents to secure the increase of quality and additional education programmes.
The new competition system in Europe, based on the decision of the Osaka Congress, will include the anti-doping activities.
The Member Federation Support will depend on different fulfilled conditions. One of them will be out of competition testing.
The Council is in the discussion of an anti-doping strategy paper in addition to the IAAF activities and the constitutional obligations.
This list of facts is proving that we have taken yours as well as other concerns seriously and that European Athletics goes in some fields further than IAAF. In addition we have respected another wish of your federation: We have included a woman and I have therewith respected my promise at the Congress that we will include women in our structure when the quality requirements are fulfilled.
Probably now you can understand that I cannot accept your letter, whereas I can fully accept some remarks. Anti-doping is not on isolated issue: it is a part of the whole complexity of our sport. In such procedures there are always different ways to reach the goal. I have the impression that based on your letter you accept only one solution.
Myself as President I accept different ways and ideas as long as the quality and the targets are achieved.
Sincerely,
Hansjörg Wirz
27th january 2008
HansJörg Wirz
President of the European Athletic Association (EAA)
I have received your letter of 15th January 2008 informing me, that I will not become a member of the Medical and Anti-doping Commission. This inevitably induced me, in my mind, to go back over the events during the last 7–8 years, and so, I would like to share my experiences concerning the actual EAA efforts against doping.
During my eight years as a member of the Competition Committee from 1996 to 2004 I often informed about the problems with the doping controls, which I encountered almost everywhere during my assignments as an EAA Delegate, and of course recounted in my written reports. There was never any reaction to this, neither from EAA nor in the Competition Committee.
So, at the Calendar Conference in October 2000, at a meeting between the Council and the Member Federations, I made a speech: “Out of control tests”, in which I informed about the problems, in order to inform and warn EAA as well as the Member Federations about what was going on, and how badly this issue was being handled in Europe. There was no reaction whatsoever to this.
At the meeting in the Competition Committee in April 2001 I therefore proposed “that an EAA Anti-doping Committee/Commission should be established to deal with these problems and with doping problems in Europe in general, so that EAA could play a more active role concerning this issue”. There was no support for this in the Committee, so again nothing happened.
As a consequence of this I, on behalf of DEN, made a formal proposal, in accordance with the EAA Constitution, for the Congress in October 2001, that an Anti-doping Committee should be established. The day before the Congress you contacted the Danish delegation, and promised to establish an Anti-doping Commission if DEN would withdraw the proposal of a Committee. We accepted this and asked that the Congress be informed about the agreement.
That information was never given, and when the Minutes of the Congress appeared, nothing was mentioned as to the reason why our proposal had been withdrawn. In fact the proposal was simply omitted completely from the material, with no explanation whatsoever. In a mail of January 14th 2002 DEN therefore asked for a correction of the Minutes in this respect. This was ignored completely.
Your promise to establish an Anti-doping Commission was given on the 19th October 2000. In April 2002 an Anti-doping Working Group was established. On the 10th of August 2002, during the ECH, a short meeting with some of the members of the Group was arranged with no prior notice and no agenda.
On the 27th May 2004 I send a letter to all the Members of the Council with in-dept information of the problems with anti-doping in general, and doping control in particular, as one of my many efforts to get things rolling. There was never any reaction.
The almost unbelievable and deploring details of all this can be found in my “Overview of the proceedings of the Anti-doping Working Group”. This compilation I had to make in 2004, as one of the means to put pressure on EAA, when nothing happened in reality between October 2001 and December 2004. The fact, that simply listing up the factual events could do that, speaks for itself. I have since kept it updated.
On the 13th December 2004 the first formal meeting of the Working Group was held. It thus took more than 3 years from your “promise” was given till the work of the group was started in reality. That this happened at all is due only to my tenacity, and my refusal to give up on, what to me was of the greatest importance to every chemistry-free athlete and hence to our sport.
At the meeting of the Anti-doping Working Group 26 April 2005 I proposed, as I had done already in 2002 (see overview), that EAA should send a Doping Control Delegate to each Permit Meeting. Your reaction to this, as quoted in the minutes of the meeting was: “HJW replied that in order to send DCD to EAA permit meetings it is necessary to know how the different anti-doping systems in the respective countries work”. My comment to this is that it shows a complete lack of understanding of what this is all about, as the task of the DCD obviously should be exactly that, to observe, assist and report about how the doping controls were actually working around Europe.
Again, anticipating this and therefore to ensure that at least some improvements were made, DEN had made a proposal for the Congress in April 2005, that there should be Doping Control Delegates at all permit meetings. EAA tried desperately to do away with the proposal on completely false grounds (Overview February-March 2005). In the end this was also never put to the vote, but after negotiations prior to the congress EAA promised, that for a start DCD´s would be sent to permit meetings on a random basis. It could not have been more obvious and clear that EAA was strongly opposed to this initiative.
During all this, as a punishment for being so active about anti-doping, and for being very active in the Competition Committee, I was not reappointed for the Committee. EAA does not like persons who challenge the establishment and question its leaders. However, democracy is at stake when, in order to avoid voting on a proposal, promises are being given but not kept, and when it is attempted to reject proposals on false grounds. EAA internal penalties has many faces, from not being appointed for this or that, to such as placing me out in the open, far away from the covered section, where all other EAA leaders were sitting on the grand stand at the ECH in Gothenburg – how pathetic. At least I got a good look at the Shot Put final, apparently better than some other EAA leaders.
For lack of being able to say openly about anti-doping “we do not want to get involved”, the mantra has all along been: This is not our responsibility, it is the responsibility of IAAF. You have said this so many times yourself, and at the first real meeting of the Working Group in 2004, which I had pressed so hard for, you are quoted in the minutes as follows: “He underlined that it is necessary to maintain credibility by handling all doping matters correctly and that EAA cannot act in isolation. HJW pointed to the role and responsibility of the IAAF in all doping matters. The EAA must respect IAAF´s competence and cannot assume a competence of its own”. This shows a complete lack of understanding of what this was all about.
I find it extremely difficult to find any sign of dedication, or at least a positive attitude on the part of EAA, when I look at the way this has been handled. People who take the time to read the papers I am presenting here, will see one long line of passivity and obstruction towards the initiatives to improve the quality of the fight against doping on European level. I leave it to them to judge, as I will leave it to them to draw the consequences in relation to those responsible. All I do is to present the hard facts, and make sure that they are known, for the benefit of the fight against doping, and therefore also for the benefit of athletics.
And I do wonder, do you yourself really think that this line of events is worthy of the EAA – I don´t. What actually lies behind all this animosity against initiatives towards doping? - I don´t know, that is anybody´s guess. I see it as extremely bad leadership.
The improvements that has been made in the latter years, such as DCD´s at all EAA events, permit meetings, E-cups etc., (as already suggested by me in relation to the meeting in 2002 – see Overview, November 2002), where before there were none except for ECH and Cup finals, initiative for a DCD-seminar, a major increase in the number of tests including EPO tests and guidelines for DCD´s and Chaperones, are all improvements that have been instigated through the Anti-doping Working group, and if I had not forced ADWG into existence, and forced it into work, as this line of events clearly show, these papers also clearly show that it is most unlikely that there would have been any significant improvement in the fight against doping on European level. What a poor situation that would have been for EAA and its credibility.
And sure enough, you have tried to make the most of this improved situation in speeches and in interviews. In an interview in EAA Update in June 2007, you stated, among other things: “There is an extensive anti-doping programme at work in Europe----additionally we have recently set up a Medical and Anti-doping Commission, who have worked hard to integrate the Anti-Doping activities into our competition system and not just using it as an isolated control system”.
This is the completely opposite of what you said in 2004 – see bold text above – and displays an EAA anti-doping policy without any consequence and consistency. Together with what is otherwise revealed in these papers, it should be abundantly clear to everyone, that EAA has only taken real action against doping, when forced to do so.
You are making your statement at a time where the Anti-doping Group, which did that hard work you are praising, had in fact been blocked for one year, and the appointment of the Commission, not to mention its work, was more than half a year away in the future. I think this speaks for itself, and the doldrums between October 2001 and December 2004 has now been followed by the doldrums of at least 1½ year since the last meeting of the ADWG. Nevertheless, it must have felt good for you to be able to speak about improvements within EAA, (and to forget that they had not been achieved because of, but in spite of EAA leadership), in a world where the skeletons are tumbling out of the closets all over, where elite sport, including our bellowed athletics, is loosing all credibility, and hardly anyone can watch elite sport without a nagging doubt as to whether the athletes are clean or powered by chemistry.
So, in conclusion, I am not at all surprised that you have taken the recent establishment of the Commission, which you promised established 6 years ago, as an opportunity to discard me from within EAA. I have no doubt that you, as well as others, have considered me as someone who most unpleasantly rocked your boat, but I also have no doubt, that those, who will study these papers, can see, that I have had every good reason to do so, but I must say that this has been, by far, my most unpleasant experience in my more than 40 years in athletics.
However, my great satisfaction is that something did happen, that some eyes were opened, and that valuable improvements were made, but there is still so much to be done.
To use another EAA mantra – a need for change.
Georg Facius
Enclosures:
Overview of the proceedings of the EAA Anti-doping Working Group
Out of control tests
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
THE EAA ANTI-DOPING WORKING GROUP
|
|
2001
October
|
Proposal from DEN for the EAA Congress in Moscow,
introducing an EAA Anti-Doping Committee.
Prior to the congress H. Wirz contacted DEN asking for withdrawal of the proposal, while he in turn promised that an Anti-Doping Commission would be established by the EAA Council – this was accepted by DEN.
|
|
|
2002
April
|
Instead of an Anti-Doping Commission,
an Anti-Doping Working Group was established - ADWG.
|
|
10 June
|
G. Facius forwarded a number of proposals to C. Prokop, suggesting that they be distributed to the members of the ADWG to comment on.
|
A reply to this was never received
.
|
10 June
|
G. Facius forwarded a request from Torsten Carlius to
C. Prokop in which TC expresses the wish of a cooperation between the ADWG and World Masters Athletics.
|
A reply to this was never received, and Torsten Carlius never got any reply.
|
2 July
|
G. Facius forwarded a mail to C. Prokop, referring to the two former mails, asking whether he should distribute the material to the members of the ADWG.
|
A reply to this was never received.
|
10 August
|
At a short notice, a meeting (the first) of the ADWG was convened in Munich during the ECH.
Reference is made to the Minutes of the meeting.
The EAA Doping Delegate Guidelines, for which two proposals were presented, respectively by J. M. Alonso and G. Facius were afterwards discussed by mail, and on
10 January 2003 the EAA office informed the ADWG that the guidelines had been approved by the Council.
The final, approved text has not been received by the ADWG members.
|
Only few of the tasks outlined in the Minutes have been carried out.
What has happened since concerning the Guidelines, and whether they have been used, is not known and they are not to be found
on the EAA website.
|
|
4 November
|
As agreed at the meeting in Munich G. Facius forwarded to C. Prokop and the EAA, a list of EAA Permit Meetings where introduction of a doping delegate should be considered
|
There has never been any reaction to this.
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
8 January
|
As agreed at the meeting in Munich G. Facius forwarded, among other things, a complete draft for Doping Steward Guidelines to C. Prokop and the EAA.
|
There has never been any reaction to this.
|
February
|
In a mail to C. Prokop and EAA, G. Facius called the attention to the fact that it has been possible to comment on the proposal for the WADA Code, and asks whether anything has been done in this respect.
|
There has never been any reaction to this.
|
August
|
At the WCH in Paris, G. Facius asked C. Prokop about a future meeting of the ADWG, and Prokop confirmed that a meeting would be held in Crete.
|
|
6 October
|
In a mail to C. Prokop, G. Facius requested further information concerning date etc.
|
|
14 October
|
G. Facius called C. Prokop on the phone, asking about the meeting. Prokop requested items for the agenda.
|
|
15 October
|
G. Facius sent a mail to C. Prokop with items for the agenda together with relevant documents (as forwarded earlier).
|
|
16 October
|
G. Facius receives a mail from the secretary of C. Prokop, stating on his behalf that “EAA holds the opinion that due to logistical reasons a meeting cannot be held in Crete” – but that “I will do my best to find another date in the future”.
|
Another date was never proposed
.
|
2004
|
|
|
31 March
|
During the indoor championships in Budapest, C. Prokop asked a number of Federations to co-sign a letter to the President of the EAA. A letter drafted by C. Prokop on behalf of the German Athletic Federation.
Reference is made to this letter which, among other things deals with
“the enormous differences and deficits that exists between the Member Federations of the IAAF regarding their adherence to objectives and rules of IAAF and WADA”
and stated the following:
“We share the opinion of the European Commissioner, Mrs Viviane Redding, that Europe and the EU should clearly demonstrate their commitment to the fight against doping.
We do also think that the EAA itself, should be interested in playing a leading role in the fight against doping, taking into consideration its tradition, its reputation and aims as well as its rules and regulations”
|
This high profiled initiative, and these impressive sentences does not seem to tally with the efforts of C. Prokop as chairman of the ADWG
.
|
13 May
|
In a fax to the co-signatories of the abovementioned letter, DEN, ESP, FIN, FRA, GER, GBR, ITA and LUX, President H. Wirz replies to the letter.
Reference is made to this reply, which conclude the following:
“Sharing your concerns, the Council has dicussed the matter and followed my proposal to ask the EAA Anti Doping Working Group, under the lead of Clemens Prokop, to take up the matter and work out proposals taking also in consideration the suggestions of your letter”.
|
As of today
(23 November 2004) the members of the ADWG as such have not received a copy of the letter of 31 March nor of the reply of 13 May
.
|
27 May
|
G. Facius sent a mail to the EAA office for the attention of the Members of the EAA Council.
|
|
28 May
|
G. Facius sent the mail one more time, this time asking for a confirmation of the reception – which was given.
Reference is made to this mail, which, among other things, dealt with problems concerning doping controls, stating hard facts about shortcomings experienced at international competitions around Europe.
The following was also stated:
“
The Anti-doping Working Group was formed in 2001, and I have been a member of the group ever since. During all that time there has been held only one (1) meeting (August 2002), and I do not know exactly what has induced this diminutive - or practically non existent - activity.
I have tried repeatedly to bring about some activity, and
attachment d)
is part of a mail I forwarded to EAA in October 2003 with proposals and topics for a meeting of the Group, as I have earlier forwarded similar material. Unfortunately there has never been any reaction to this.
I do hope that the above, and the attached material speaks for itself. It is all facts and figures and I will not add any subjective remarks, except saying that, when I read the material it tells me that something - in fact an awful lot - needs to be done, and that nothing is being done now.
I sincerely hope it tells you the same.”
|
Among others, copies of the mail was also forwarded to C. Prokop and the other members of the ADWG, which inclue two members of the Council and the representative of the EAA office in the ADWG.
No reply or reaction to this mail has been received.
|
8 July
|
G. Facius sent a mail to EAA, att. the representative of the EAA office in the ADWG, asking for a copy of the letter of 31 March 2004 from C. Prokop.
|
No reply or reaction to this mail has been received.
|
26 July
|
G. Facius repeated the request.
|
No reply or reaction to this mail has been received
|
4 August
|
G. Facius sent a mail to C. Prokop asking for a copy of the letter, and asking about information of a possible next meeting of the ADWG, and about the plans for the ADWG on the whole.
|
No reply or reaction to this mail has been received
|
|
21 September
|
G. Facius sent a mail to H. Wirz with copies to EAA and
C. Prokop in which, among other things, is stated the following:
Thus I have no more imagination left to deal with the fact that I have now, for a very long time since the one and only meeting of the ADWG tried, again and again, to call for a meeting of the ADWG, and have repeatedly forwarded suggestions and proposaIs for a meeting agenda, and informed about problems and shortcomings in the doping control in Europe (lastly summed up in my mail of May 27 to the Council), trying to the best of my ability and knowledge to live up to the task bestowed on me as a member of the ADWG, under the, perhaps misunderstood, impression that EAA would appreciate when members of committees, commissions and working groups used their time, energy, skills and knowledge by working for EAA.
In spite of this and in spite of the ADWG being an official working group, selected by the Council which is elected democratically by the Member Federations, there has been absolutely no response and no reaction from the responsible bodies, EAA, the Council, or the chairman of the ADWG, and I fail completely to understand how this can be possible in a civilised, democratic organisation.”
|
|
21 October
|
H. Wirz forwarded a mail informing that a meeting of the ADWG will be organised within a short time.
The meeting will be attended also by the President and the General Secretary of the EAA
|
.
|
|
13 December
|
Meeting of the ADWG
. Various information concerning the last year. Otherwise the issues brought forward were mostly about collecting information, making surveys, doing research and waiting to see the outcome of IAAFs plans for a seminar for Doping Control Delegates.
G. Facius had proposed, in writing, before the meeting, that separate DCD´s should be appointed for all EAA events, including Permit Meetings, as a practical and efficient way of improving the standard, and the equality of the procedures, the need for which he had documented in several reports. This was not received favourably, and was omitted from the Minutes of the meeting.
C. Prokop, chairman of the ADWG, did not attend the meeting which was chaired by H.J. Wirz.
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
8
February
|
G. Facius submitted his comments concerning missing text in the Minutes of the meeting on 13 December, including:
Decision
that someone must be present at doping control stations who, apart from the local language, speaks English well.
Proposal
of separate doping control delegates at more EAA events.
|
|
|
10
February
|
As a consequence of this, The Danish Federation forwards a proposal for the EAA Congress, concerning separate doping control delegates.
|
|
|
8 March
|
Letter from the EAA General Secretary stating: “---Council noted that your proposal concerns an EAA Regulation which, to amend, alter or abolish, falls into the responsibility of the Council and therefore is not a matter for Congress”.
|
|
|
17 March
|
Letter from the Danish Federation pointing out that in the Constitution there are no limits as to what kind of proposals Members may forward for consideration at Congress, and that the proposal was expressed explicitly as a change of the text in the EAA Handbook.
|
|
|
15 April
|
At a meeting prior to the EAA Congress between the EAA President and the three delegates from DEN, an agreement was reached that, as a start,
separate doping delegates would be nominated in 2005 for a number of EAA Permit Meetings chosen at random. Thus the proposal from DEN was withdrawn.
|
|
|
26 April
|
Meeting of the ADWG
attended also by the EAA President and General Secretary as well as a member of the EAA staff.
EAA President Hans-Jörg Wirz was appointed intermediate Chair as Clemens Prokop had withdrawn as Chair and member of the ADWG.
It was agreed that the text, which was missing in the Minutes from the last meeting, would be included in the Minutes of this meeting.
|
|
|
15 June
|
As no Minutes of the April meeting had been received, G. Facius made a request for it.
Later in the day, a short list of some points from the meeting was received.
|
|
|
21 July
|
The complete Minutes from the meeting has not yet been received.
|
|
26
August
|
The minutes was received.
In these are stated that the number of doping tests will be increased from approx. 200 in 2004 to over 650 in 2005. As decided the new EAA blood screening project had been introduced and 100 EPO blood test were conducted at the European Cup in Florence, and also 100 blood tests will be conducted at the European Cross Championships in Tilburg as well as additional test at the ECH u/23 in Erfurt.
According to the agreement following the Danish proposal (10 February), separate doping control delegates had been appointed for four EAA Permit Meetings, and it was decided that from 2006 and on separate doping control delegates will be appointed for all EAA events.
A special seminar for doping control delegates will be prepared.
|
|
|
14
December
|
Meeting of the ADWG.
A joint IAAF-EAA doping control delegate seminar will take place in May 2006. It was decided to appoint a separate anti doping delegate for each EAA Premium Meeting.
For 2006 is planned alone in European Championships and European Cups a total of 313 urine tests, 78 EPO tests and 390 blood screenings.
Two new members were appointed to the ADWG.
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
30 June
|
Meeting of the ADWG.
It was decided to increase even more the number of blood screenings at EAA events and lower the number of in-competition tests for EPO.
It was decided to appoint separate medical delegates for the major championships. It was also decided that EPO tests should be conducted in relation to all European records in the running events.
For 2007 is planned alone in European championships and European Cups a total of 470 urine tests, 80 EPO tests and 845 blood screenings
.
|
|
|
10
December
|
Meeting of the ADWG was foreseen but was postponed.
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
14
April
|
EAA Congress – EAA-president Wirz boasting about the great anti-doping efforts by the EAA, announcing that instead of the Anti-doping Working Group, a Medical- and Anti-doping Commission would be set up.
This brings us back to the Danish proposal in 2001 (see above).
It took 6 years for the EAA to arrive at this, and to fulfil the promise made to DEN 6 years ago.
|
|
|
10
July
|
Letter from EAA-president Wirz to all appointed members of committees, commissions and working groups, that the future members will be appointed after the Calendar Conference in October.
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
9
January
|
E-mail received with the names of the new members, including the members of the Medical- and anti-doping Commission.
The chairman and the members of the former ADWG all continue in the Commission, except for Georg Facius who is dismissed.
(Juan Manuel Alonso, IAAF and Philip Lamblin has withdrawn and two new members have been appointed)
|
|
|
|
When the first meeting will be held is not known, but as of now it means that the ADWG/the Commission and its anti-doping work this time has been suppressed for at least 18 months.
|
|
Georg Facius
January 2008
Speech given at the meeting between the EAA Council and the EAA Member Federations on the occasion of the EAA Calendar Conference October 2000:
OUT OF CONTROL TESTS
The basic problems with today´s doping control are to be found at the top and at the bottom of the whole system.
At the top you have WADA, IOC, the NOCs, the European Union, National governments, National Sports Federations and National athletic federations, all of them wanting their piece of the cake, and all of them demanding to have their influence on the system.
I call it the Tower Of Babel of doping. And just like with the tower of Babel they do not understand each other, and go around doing things in their own way. If this shall not finish up just like the Tower Of Babel, they will have to communicate and to work together along the same lines.
So, in my opinion, the most important task for WADA in the first place, is to introduce one set of doping rules and doping procedures all over the world, and for all sports. Until that happens, the important thing for IAAF and EAA is to ensure, that at least within athletics we conduct doping control strictly according to one set of rules. Except of course at the Olympic Games, which is another of those pieces of the cake.
This brings us to the bottom of the system, to people like me who are acting as EAA Representatives and doping control delegates, or people who are meeting organisers, and last but not least the doping control officers and their helpers.
Let me be very specific. I have attended a meeting in Europe, where nine tests were conducted.
Before the testing started the meeting organizer had protested strongly against not being allowed to take part in the selection of the athletes for testing.
The doping stewards were very young girls, who turned out to know nothing about the procedures and their responsibilities.
Accordingly the athletes were generally notified too late, and on only one of the nine notifications were written the time of notification, and at least six of the athletes had not received their copy of the notification. Obviously the doping control officer could not, and did not, check whether the athletes appeared within the allowed one hour limit.
The doping control officer allowed one athlete to leave the doping control station unaccompanied, for a length of time, to fetch some water in his car, and one athlete was left alone in the toilet for a short period.
One athlete had protested in writing on the doping control form, against the doping procedure, but nothing was done, and no additional test was conducted.
It turned out that not one of the nine doping control forms were filled out correctly.
On all nine forms, the bottle codes were written in the right place, but at the same time also in a wrong place, indicating a distinct lack of knowledge of the form and the procedure.
On five forms were missing the time when the sampling procedure had been completed.
On eight forms the sex of the athlete was not stated.
On two forms the amount of urine was not stated.
On two forms the competitors number was missing.
On one form the time of arrival at the control station was missing.
On six forms the time of notification was stated, although, as mentioned before, that time was only written on one notification, and as a matter of fact these two times were not identical.
None of the samples were tested for PH.
The doping control officer and the meeting organizer argued about who should bring the samples to the laboratory.
These facts are not collected from different meetings, it all happened at one meeting, but I have come across similar problems at other meetings, although not of this magnitude.
Luckily there are many meetings where the doping control is handled correctly, but that does not change the fact that we have to start at the bottom, and eliminate such out of control tests, and that must first and foremost be the responsibility of the national federations. However, I think that EAA must also play a more active role in this. The distance between IAAF, the IAAF Rules and Regulations, and a European meeting organizer is very big, often much too big.
Georg Facius
ANTI-DOPING RESOLUTION OF THE EAA
At the same meeting in October 2002 the conclusion of the above resolution was changed according to a proposal from DEN
FROM
"The EAA and its member federations call upon all other Area Associations of the IAAF to intensify the fight against doping"
TO
"The EAA and its member federations call upon the IAAF
,
and all other Area Associations of the IAAF, to intensify the fight against doping".
Georg Facius
Fine resolution from EAA (after the change), but how did EAA and its leaders live up to this resolution themselves:
HJ. Wirz 2004:
“He underlined that it is necessary to maintain credibility by handling all doping matters correctly and that EAA cannot act in isolation. HJW pointed to the role and responsibility of the IAAF in all doping matters. The EAA must respect IAAF´s competence and cannot assume a competence of its own”.
January 2008
Georg Facius
|
|
|
|
|
|
|