I don’t Wanna Talk About It

Anyone who follows sport knows that to be competitive today it is vital that you have a good support team around you. They also know that those supporting the individual athlete and team must be pulling in the same direction in order to achieve the best outcomes.

So it would be fair to say that amongst the sporting fans of the world there is an expectation that the various intertwined teams supporting sport will work together for the best outcomes for the various sports.

At the Paris Olympic Games an Australian hockey player was arrested on the street buying cocaine from a drug dealer. The individual concerned was released after spending the night in jail with a warning, but no fine or criminal record. It would appear that the French Police were more interested in the arrest of the dealer, however there have been allegations made that there were a few other incidents where the French authorities were possibly more lenient that usual to protect the Olympic Games brand..

After his release the head of the sport’s high performance unit Bernard Savage was quoted as saying, “It is our understanding that Tom was acting alone, and the only events that brought the players or him to the players attention was him indeed being arrested.” Such a statement was questionable at the time, and as more details have come out appears to be even more debatable.

Chef de Mission of the Australian Olympic team, Cycling great Anna Meares was on the front foot and said at a press conference “As a result, Tom will lose all of his remaining Olympic privileges. He has already moved out of the Olympic Village and as it was my understanding, he was not attending the closing ceremony. If he was, he would not be able to attend. In terms of our actions at this point, there is not much further that we can do as this occurred outside the team environment.”

Such sanctions at the time seemed fair and appropriate.

Over a month after the player’s arrest Hockey Australia’s Integrity Unit announced it had imposed a 12-month suspension. They announced that “Six months of this suspension will be served fully, with the remaining six months fully suspended, contingent upon meeting conduct and behavioural requirements.”

To some that was believed to be fair, while others felt it was extremely lenient. One reason it was felt to be lenient was that it was alleged that the same individual was one of the Australian players who broke the strict isolation protocols at the Tokyo Olympics. Others felt a tougher message needed to be sent to those in the sport as this was the first such scandal involving drugs.

The punishment handed down would probably have been deemed adequate and we would have heard the last of it had the athlete in question not continued playing in Germany, and then been picked up to play in the Hockey India League all within the six months of their suspension. (The Punishment That Never Was)

The second paragraph of the Hockey Australia announcement stated that the athlete would “be prohibited from playing in any match, competition, or event at any level sanctioned or organised by Hockey Australia, including the upcoming Hockey One League and FIH Pro League seasons.” Additionally, they were required to complete mandatory training and education programs as part of the sanction. However they would remain eligible to be picked for the national squad in 2025.

So the sanctions only applied in Australia.

Not The Footy Show was contacted by a number of people from around the world asking how this could possibly be the case when this occurred at a World event, arguably the biggest there is, certainly one of Hockey’s two prestige events. Surely the ban had to be a global one? Why were none of those with global power stepping in? So we decided to look into the matter a little closer and discovered a real tangled web. One in which some parties simply did not want to talk.

Probably the best place to start is with the World Anti Doping Code. This is no small document. It is however where what is allowed and what isn’t should be extremely clear. To try and help us all understand what is allowed and what is meant by certain sections we have quoted them in detail, and make no apology for this.

Article 1 of the WADA (World Anti Doping Authority) states under the heading “Definition of Doping,” that “Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the antidoping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.”

Under the heading “Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person” it states “2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Athlete establishes that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.”

There is an added note attached to this clause which makes this very clear, “Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child.”

Sub section 2.7 goes on to say that “Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Other Person” is not allowed. What constitutes trafficking? The dictionary definition is to ‘deal or trade in something illegal.’ So would sharing a quantity of a prohibited substance be classified as trafficking? Most likely it is not, if one takes the definition literally.

The Code however does go and say in section 2.10.1.3 that it is not acceptable if an individual “Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual.” So one would presume that this means that if someone is caught purchasing an illegal substance that they intend to share they are in trouble. Of course it would have to be proven that they were going to share that illegal substance.

Cocaine is listed as one of the drugs prohibited “in competition” by WADA at the start of 2024 under “non-specified stimulants.”

In the same document WADA states quite clearly that the definition of “Prohibited In-Competition” and under the heading “Stimulants” is as follows: “Subject to a different period having been approved by WADA for a given sport, the In-Competition period shall in principle be the period commencing just before midnight (at 11:59 p.m.) on the day before a Competition in which the Athlete is scheduled to participate until the end of the Competition and the Sample collection process.”

It should be noted that cocaine is not listed as a prohibited drug at all times by WADA. It is only prohibited when “in competition,” then the first clause quoted would come into effect. While not deemed illegal outside of competition, cocaine is classified under “Substances of Abuse.”

When it comes to proving that there has been a violation the Code says “The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.”

While cocaine it is not a prohibited substance outside of competition. It is written by those who manage anti-doping programs that “Cocaine does have a performance enhancing effect when used In-Competition.” An athlete faces a ban of up to 4 years if a Substance of Abuse, such as cocaine, is found to have been used In-Competition.

in 2021 it was announced that the Anti Doping Authorities recognised drugs are frequently abused in society, outside the context of sport, however under the World Anti-Doping Code, these authorities are obliged to vigorously pursue all potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations within its authority.

It is important to understand that the Anti Doping Authorities cannot test for Substances of Abuse outside of competition. However they do make sure that athletes are educated to realise that if they use an illicit substance Out-of-Competition, they need to be aware that these substances can stay in their system for a period of time, which might mean the substance could be detected duriung an in-competition test.

In Article 10 “where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Substance of Abuse: 10.2.4.1 it says that “If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-ofCompetition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period of Ineligibility shall be three (3) months Ineligibility.”

It goes on to say that In addition, “the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the Athlete or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by the Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility.”

However 10.2.4.2 states that “If the ingestion, Use or Possession occurred In-Competition, and the Athlete can establish that the context of the ingestion, Use or Possession was unrelated to sport performance, then the ingestion, Use or Possession shall not be considered intentional for purposes of Article 10.2.1 and shall not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances.”

It would appear that they key question in this case the was did the offence occur in competition?

This is where the various bodies seem to be on different pages.

Some have stated that the athlete in question could not be sanctioned because they were “out of competition.” Australia had been eliminated from the Olympic Hockey tournament. However re-read the WADA definition of “In competition” quoted again here: “Subject to a different period having been approved by WADA for a given sport, the In-Competition period shall in principle be the period commencing just before midnight (at 11:59 p.m.) on the day before a Competition in which the Athlete is scheduled to participate until the end of the Competition and the Sample collection process.”

However, this is the Olympic Games and as we were advised the International Olympic Committee sets its own rules. We checked those and they are incredibly similar and read as follows:

“In competition period is defined as:
In-Competition: For purposes of these Rules, “In-Competition” means the period commencing at 11:59 p.m. on the day before a Competition in which the Athlete is scheduled to participate through the end of such Competition and the Sample collection process related to such Competition

A Competition is defined as:
A single race, match, game or singular sport contest at the Olympic Games Paris 2024 (e.g. a basketball match or the final of the Olympic 100 Meter race in athletics).”

The men’s Hockey Tournament in Paris started on July 30th and finished on the 8th of August. Australia bowed out on the 4th of August, the athlete was arrested on the 6th of August, and the hockey tournament ended on the 8th of August. So by all definitions this was an “in competition” offence even though the athlete was no longer participating. Both of the explanations state that in competition is “through the end of such Competition.”

However some of the World’s governing bodies became very upset and aggressive when this was queried, and stated that we did not understand. So we asked for clarification on their interpretation. We received no reply.

When asked about the situation at the Paris Olympic Games WADA advised that “The International Testing Agency delivered the anti-doping program at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, on behalf of the International Olympic Committee. They would be better placed to provide comment, as appropriate.”

At the time of writing we have received no reply from the International Testing Agency after seeking clarification on what was “in-competition” and if they had made any recommendation regarding sanctions as this appeared to be an “in-competition” breach.

This was an Olympic Games, overseen by the International Olympic Committee, and we were told they were in charge of the whole event. That being the case we contacted the IOC to ask them to clarify their own interpretation of “In-competition” and whether they too had recommended any sanctions.

It is worth noting that in the past the IOC has come in over the top of National Olympic Committees with its own sanctions.

We also asked if the athlete in question faced any sanction from the IOC in the future, for example would they be eligible to be selected in 2028?

The response was brief, and none of the questions were addressed. We were simply told, “kindly reach out to the Australian Olympic Committee directly.”

This we did, and again at the time of publishing we have received no response.

Finally, we also contacted the sport’s governing body, the International Hockey Federation (FIH) as ultimately it was their sport that was brought into disrepute at the Paris Olympic Games, to try and establish why there was no international sanction from them.

They referred us to point 6.1 of their Integrity Code, which reads as follows: “Where the same conduct could be pursued as a breach of this Integrity Code or a breach of the integrity code of a Continental Federation/National Association, the FIH Integrity Unit shall decide whether to pursue the matter under this Integrity Code or to refer the matter to the Continental Federation/National Association (as applicable) to pursue it under the Continental Federation/National Association Integrity Code. Where a Continental Federation/National Association fails to act effectively in respect of the matter, the FIH may (at its absolute discretion) pursue the matter under this Integrity Code.”

Our interpretation would appear to be different from that of the FIH. Our reading of the above is that the FIH’s Integrity unit “shall decide whether to pursue the matter” or leave it to the Continental Federation/ National Association. The FIH claimed that their interpretation was “as Hockey Australia has all the resources and procedures in place (which is the case), the case must be dealt with directly by them and not by the FIH Integrity Unit.” Quite where it says that the national federation must deal with it we are not sure.

Interestingly the FIH’s Integrity Unit does have the power to pursue the matter if it feels that the Continental Federation or National Association “fails to act effectively in respect of the matter.” Clearly they felt that a national suspension sufficed.

Regrettably, the limits of the punishment handed out by Hockey Australia have made a mockery of the situation, with the said player still playing albeit overseas. Should the FIH have enforced a worldwide ban for the same period?

There have been allegations that Hockey Australia was aware of recreational drug use within the high performance program prior to the Paris Olympic Games. We checked whether such a violation needs to be reported.

Here once again the regulations are fairly clear, and it would appear that such a situation can be kept in house as long as the discovery is outside of a competition. However with the High Performance players having been part of a draft, and rostered to local clubs in the Western Australian Premier League competition, surely as players registered to clubs for that season even if they were not playing, surely they are to all intents and purposes “in competition?”

As Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) advised, “Sports do have to report information about suspected Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) as defined in the World Anti-Doping Code and the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy (ANADP) to SIA (see article copied below from ANADP)
18.7 The Sporting Administration Body shall report any information suggesting or relating to an anti-doping rule violation to SIA and to the International Federation and shall cooperate with investigations conducted by any Anti-Doping Organisation with authority to conduct the investigation.”

However, as indicated “the use/possession of cocaine out of competition is not an ADRV (as it is only prohibited in-competition) – therefore in this instance, this is not something that needs to be specifically reported to SIA under the policy, nor something that we would be able to progress an investigation into.”

While one can understand that a sport would be embarrassed to discover such an issue amongst its high performance athletes, one would think it would be prudent for all parties to be made aware, so that it can be monitored and the players concerned given the relevant counselling to avoid a major public incident.

Looking at the overall situation it is reasonable that fans would expect there to be clear protocols when it comes to such incidents? Nowhere does it appear to be written down for all to see how such an offence should be handled. Surely this is not too much to ask as fans, players, sponsors and even administrators?

What is frightening in this case is the apparent attempt by some of sports highest bodies to absolve themselves from any responsibility when it comes to making a tough decision. Should we expect more from those leading these organisations?

One can’t help feeling that some should hang their heads in shame, as their lack of action has not only sent a very weak message to the athletes, but has set a standard that is extremely dangerous to the next generation coming through.

Sadly the overall conclusion based on the handling of this incident is that it gives a clear indication as to why sport has never managed to keep pace with those using high performance drugs to gain an advantage. If you do not have everyone pulling in the same direction, and all in agreement as to whom is in charge and responsible, along with very clear interpretations of the parameters set then there really is no hope.

(This article was created after a number of individuals contacted us to question the suspension, and why as the offence had happened at a world event there was not a worldwide ban. This was not written as a swipe against the athlete concerned, but to try and understand the process that led to the sanction handed down).