 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
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 the appointed chairman of the working group: Clemens Prokop, President of the German Athletic Federation, and member of the EAA Council, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|