In the recent ‘Play the Game’ conference, I took the opportunity to follow some of the lectures and discussions in the area of anti-doping, just as I tend to follow the media debates that tend to flare up when some prominent case has emerged. This does not in any way make me qualified to comment on an expert basis, but I did find several aspects quite interesting and intriguing also for a mere observer.

It has always seemed to me that anti-doping discussions have focused on a few specific topics: how can the testing keep up with continuously emerging new methods of doping and concealment, how strict should the world of sport be in its attitude of generally prohibiting performance through doping, and how severely should one punish those who are caught. But additionally aspects have emerged.

Nevertheless, the most fundamental question seems to remain, both on grounds of principle, and due to difficulties in consistent enforcement: are there reasons to rethink and suggest that certain forms of doping should be allowed and, if so, on the basis of what criteria would one draw the line? It seems there will also be people who suggest that stimulants that are readily available, and therefore would make it possible to retain a ‘level playing field’, should be allowed as long as they do not fall in the category of creating major health risks. Or one would go even further, arguing that the individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves in weighing risks against advantages. To some extent, it mirrors the debate about taking steps towards legalizing certain drugs in the society as a whole.

Of course, many will then say that it is not enough to ensure a level playing field. The positive side of sports is to see what the human body and mind can achieve without stimuli. Moreover, in some sports, where part of the interest in not just in fair competition here and now but also in historic comparisons, doping makes it impossible to see how skills and abilities improve over time. Many argue that, for instance, many of the old world records, achieved in earlier days of inadequate control, now render the performances of top performers, for instance in track and field, uninteresting because they cannot match the old results.

Some of the arguments involving ‘civil liberties’ do not just concern that basic right to choose; they also affect the entire process of testing and fair treatment. Here one general problem is related to the reality that, although testing methods constantly improve, the experts who work on making the use of doping impossible to detect always seem to be one step ahead. This may happen because of new drugs or because of methods that help mask the use of drugs. It is suggested that this makes the drug testing too capricious and therefore inherently unfair, both to the individual and between individuals competing with each other. This was recently highlighted also when it was found that contaminated meat could lead to positive test results, something that provided excuses in the case of a number or Mexican soccer players and created serious concerns in connection with the PanAmerican Games in Guadalajara.

The reliability of testing also becomes an issue from legal and civil liberties standpoint, in the sense that testing methods may have become much more accurate and sophisticated, but the processes in the handling of test materials and test results continue to rely on human intervention, with an inevitable scope for both manipulation and honest mistakes. This means that cases of positive findings may lead to legal battles that effectively undermine the overall anti-doping efforts and also create doubts in the minds of the general public.

Finally, while It may be realistic to establish fairly clear and consistent ‘punishment catalogs’ for different types of doping violations, there will be always be an element of differences in circumstances that requires a subjective judgment to be applied. Perceived inconsistencies will then become yet another reason for those who want to question the overall fairness and moral underpinning of the anti-doping efforts. It becomes even more complicated if the spectrum of international sports federations attempt to follow WADA regulations and determine punishments accordingly, only to find that the IOC wants to apply a separate policy of keeping violating athletes out of the Olympic Games for periods that may not match those of the initial sanctions. In a recent ruling, the Court of Arbitration for Sports determined that this approach violated principles of avoiding double punishment. IOC and WADA will now need to rethink.

All in all, it clearly appears that the overall issue of anti-doping efforts is becoming more complex and therefore more controversial, well beyond the debate about the underlying moral and philosophical aspects. In some ways, scientific progress may add to the complexities rather than being helpful, and the increased focus on human rights and legal considerations makes for a much more difficult atmosphere in all the forms of decision-making. Legitimate concerns are pitched against other fully justified considerations. It is a sad distraction that is not helpful to the focus on other aspects of sports, but it is an issue that cannot be dismissed and will not go away.

The world of handball today lost two highly respected members. The German referees Bernd and Reiner Methe passed away tonight, at the age of 47, as a result of a frontal collision, when they were on the way to handle the Bundesliga game between Balingen and Magdeburg. The game was of course cancelled after the shocked players and spectators learned of the reason why the referees had not shown up.

Bernd and Frank were top level referees together for well over 20 years, and had been at the service of the IHF and the EHF at numerous World and European Championships since 1998. Perhaps the highlight of their career was the assignment to the final of the 2010 Men’s European Championship. They were nominated for the Women’s World Championship next month.
The Methe twins were known and respected around the world for their competence, integrity and solid personalities. They were persons who could be trusted with the toughest games in the most difficult atmosphere. And they were great members of the circle of referees, both in their home country and internationally.

All of us who had the privilege of knowing Bernd and Frank will keep fond memories of our encounters with them. Our deepest sympathy goes to their wives, children and other family.

Some days ago, I wrote about the problems caused by a tendency to give far too little exposure to corruption and mismanagement in sports. I noted that these problems are regrettably very widespread but do not get much attention, in part because of frantic efforts to cover up the problems and in part due to a lack of investigative journalism in sports.
However, there are a couple of exceptions, in the form of organizations that are too big and too important to be able to stay under the radar. In this category we find the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Football Federation (FIFA). The image of IOC, notwithstanding some stories related to the decision to award the 2018 Winter Olympics to Korea, is currently less of an issue than it used to be in connection with the Games in Salt Lake City, and the notion of scandals in the IOC currently pales by comparison with what is constantly brewing regarding FIFA. So FIFA will be my topic.

But I will not use this posting to explain much about FIFA’s size, structure and basic operations. This information can be found in great detail on their web site www.fifa.com . At least their transparency goes that far. And I will not delve into years of stories and accusations involving FIFA: despotism, large-scale bribery, election fraud, and misuse of resources under its current president Joseph (Sepp) Blatter. Andrew Jennings ( www.transparencyinsport.org ) and www.JensWeinreich.de , have done such a fantastic job over the years to document all these issues, that it would be both insulting and meaningless for me to try to summarize all that here.

Nevertheless, many readers have probably found it unavoidable to read recent stories about strong suspicions related to the decisions to award the hosting of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup to Russia and Qatar respectively. And many are likely to have heard about accusations of wrongdoing and subsequent withdrawals or expulsions of Executive Committee members, in connection with the recent FIFA Congress where Blatter was reelected yet again. Revelations related to a vast bribery affair, involving a Swiss sports marketing firm paying millions and millions in personal bribes to the top-level FIFA officials (in exchange for obtaining TV rights) are still pending and brewing. Essentially I am reminding about these issues to make clear that corruption is alive and ‘well’ in FIFA as we speak.

So the real issue is actually: can one attach any credibility to the suggestions (by Blatter) that FIFA is really going to be turning things around firmly and quickly, and is there reason to believe that the many new processes that very recently were set in motion by the President and the Executive Committee will actually amount to more than window-dressing. Those who understand how enormous an impact it would have on sports corruption everywhere if FIFA actually managed to change its ways so completely, may of course like to take an optimistic view. And there are also many who think that Blatter, despite what he says in public, is so well aware of his dismal personal reputation and the awful image of FIFA, that he just might want to try to leave a legacy of being the person who should get credit for turning things around, rather than getting the blame for having created the pervasively corrupt atmosphere.

Personally, I find it tough to believe in the prospects of real, major change, when it all depends on a President who is not even willing to admit openly how bad the situation is, on an Executive Committee where the majority of the members seem to be under a major cloud of suspicion (to say the least), and on the broader group of FIFA insiders where many would stand to lose a lot. But I am willing to remain optimistic while awaiting the deadlines and the actions that have been promised. The structures that have been set up seem just fine on paper but, as we all know, it is action and results that count.

Four Task Forces have been established: Revision of the FIFA Statutes; Revision of FIFA’s Code of Ethics: Transparency and Compliance; and Football 2014 (focus on rules, refereeing, women’s football, competitions etc.). These Task Forces will report to an overarching Good Governance Committee comprised of representatives for broad spectrums of stakeholders inside and outside football. This Committee is described as a ‘solutions committee’ that will oversee the reforms of FIFA. The Task Forces will report in stages until March 2012, and the Good Governance process will continue until the FIFA Congress in June 2013. However, several segments are scheduled to be ready for approval throughout 2012.

It seems that a lot will depend on the clout and the independence of the Good Governance Committee. But the real test will come when this Committee reports its findings and recommendations to the FIFA Executive Committee. Will they listen, and will they be prepared to accept what is recommended?? Clearly, the real intentions of the powerful Blatter will make all the difference at that point in time. And it will be interesting, and telling, to observe what type of recommendations will be emerging during this process and how they are received when they are officially put forward.

The problem is that the changes that are needed are absolutely fundamental, or even earth-shattering, by FIFA’s standard. Minor tweaking will not serve any purpose, even if it is ‘dressed up’ to look significant. That, if anything, would simply serve to confirm suspicions that real change was never intended. But even smaller installments of significant changes would be a positive signal. Not just the world of football but the entire world of sports will be anxious to see the outcome.