12-19-2007, 08:44 PM
ME: WADA's (World Anti-Doping Agency) code is a two year ban at the first positive test. You've had a difficult time to get other sports organizations to move towards this type of hard-line. Does the Mitchell Report putting the issue at the forefront again might let these other organizations revisit this? Has anyone come to you before or after for advice, consultation or such?
Dick Pound: I have always thought that we could get the professional leagues to accept pretty well everything in the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) except the meaningful sanction period. I don't think the present mentality of either owners or players would accept the idea of a meaningful sanction for a little thing like drug use. Think of waht happens now: a good steroid program will produce benefits for four or five years, but the "firm" and "resolute" response of the leagues is a sanction of 4 games (NFL), 20 games (NHL) or 50 Games (MLB). For someone who wants to cheat to gain an advantage, it is a good investment to risk such a minimal sanction.
The professional leagues are not interested in what WADA has to say. Interestingly enough, however, the Mitchell recommendations for a testing system are almost identical to the Code, although WADA is not mentioned.
ME: Since most major sports organizations are basically large corporate businesses… do you think by that nature, they will be reticent to do anything that will affect their bottomline? Might this be the biggest gap in the distance between the WADA and the major sports organizations?
Dick Pound: I think it is bad business for any business to be seen to encourage or condone cheating. There have been many recent examples of businesses destroyed by cheating. If I were running the business, I would make sure that we embraced the highest standards of conduct and that we did not just talk the talk. The bottom line would be improved, not hampered, if (everyone) involved, players, owners and the public, were confident that there was no cheating.
ME: Are there other options than an immediate 2-year ban? Would being slightly more flexible in lieu of the financial realities that the major sports organizations get them to come further than they have been? Or do they need to "blink" and meet you and the WADA policy?
Dick Pound: That is a decision for them to make. But, if you want your program to provide both prevention and deterrence, the sanctions have to be serious enough to dissuade someone from using the drugs. The sanctions referred to above are not meaningful. I could see a gradual ramp-up as part of a policy of greater engagement in the process.
ME: By their corporate nature: Does this even further give sway to the argument that there needs to be independent drug-testing policing major sports? And, even with the example of a hard-hit MLB, will they still attempt to police it themselves?
Dick Pound: There will be no credibility at all if they insist on running the policy in-house. Mitchell made it clear that there would have to be an independent administration and transparent reporting on the results.
Dick Pound: I have always thought that we could get the professional leagues to accept pretty well everything in the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) except the meaningful sanction period. I don't think the present mentality of either owners or players would accept the idea of a meaningful sanction for a little thing like drug use. Think of waht happens now: a good steroid program will produce benefits for four or five years, but the "firm" and "resolute" response of the leagues is a sanction of 4 games (NFL), 20 games (NHL) or 50 Games (MLB). For someone who wants to cheat to gain an advantage, it is a good investment to risk such a minimal sanction.
The professional leagues are not interested in what WADA has to say. Interestingly enough, however, the Mitchell recommendations for a testing system are almost identical to the Code, although WADA is not mentioned.
ME: Since most major sports organizations are basically large corporate businesses… do you think by that nature, they will be reticent to do anything that will affect their bottomline? Might this be the biggest gap in the distance between the WADA and the major sports organizations?
Dick Pound: I think it is bad business for any business to be seen to encourage or condone cheating. There have been many recent examples of businesses destroyed by cheating. If I were running the business, I would make sure that we embraced the highest standards of conduct and that we did not just talk the talk. The bottom line would be improved, not hampered, if (everyone) involved, players, owners and the public, were confident that there was no cheating.
ME: Are there other options than an immediate 2-year ban? Would being slightly more flexible in lieu of the financial realities that the major sports organizations get them to come further than they have been? Or do they need to "blink" and meet you and the WADA policy?
Dick Pound: That is a decision for them to make. But, if you want your program to provide both prevention and deterrence, the sanctions have to be serious enough to dissuade someone from using the drugs. The sanctions referred to above are not meaningful. I could see a gradual ramp-up as part of a policy of greater engagement in the process.
ME: By their corporate nature: Does this even further give sway to the argument that there needs to be independent drug-testing policing major sports? And, even with the example of a hard-hit MLB, will they still attempt to police it themselves?
Dick Pound: There will be no credibility at all if they insist on running the policy in-house. Mitchell made it clear that there would have to be an independent administration and transparent reporting on the results.
There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics.
![[Image: goochserious.jpg]](http://www.boredplanet.com/img/goochserious.jpg)
Enter Text to validate the ridiculous amount of time you spend online here. </center>
Enter Text to validate the ridiculous amount of time you spend online here. </center>