Drugs and Football: Further Regulation and Recent Events

With high profile doping scandals traditionally more widespread in the fields of cycling and track and field, the Premier League is in the process of beefing up its anti-doping rules in order to bring them in line with the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) code.

In May 2008 Sepp Blatter announced that FIFA had come to an agreement with WADA regarding the new code to be adopted. This was signed by FIFA and WADA after they agreed on certain exemptions relating to the WADA mandatory two year suspensions for positive drug tests. The WADA code has been in operation for many years in other sports where drug abuse has been viewed as more widespread. Football in the UK has a drug testing programme in place but these additional steps signal the football authorities' intentions to further safeguard the integrity of football matches in the face of the continuing threat of drugs.

The new proposals would see players tested for both recreational and performance enhancing drugs at set times throughout the working week including home visits. The new regulations may mean that footballers will face similar conditions to athletes who have to notify drug testers where they will be for one hour of each day (the whereabouts rule). The recent example of the whereabouts rule being enforced is the story of British Olympic gold medallist Christine Ohuruogu, who missed three drugs tests in 2006 and was banned for one year. In similar circumstances, Rio Ferdinand was banned for eight months after failing to attend one drugs test in 2003.  United captain Rio Ferdinand has however backed the new whereabouts programme, saying:

"It sounds fair. If it brings us up to the level of all the other sportsmen, then I'm in favour."

As recently as late March 2009, FIFA has asked for WADA to relax their rules relating to the whereabouts regulations insisting that teams rather than individuals should be tested and that this should occur in season time only. Of specific interest is whether the WADA regulations already bind all national associations to the whereabouts rule because FIFA signed up to the WADA code in 2008.

Missed drug test v failed tests

Ferdinand is just one of the high profile players that have fallen foul of the drug testers. While Ferdinand only missed a test and as a result was banned, former Chelsea goalkeeper Mark Bosnich and Romanian international Adrian Mutu both failed drug tests and had to serve football playing bans. Both were found guilty for having tested positive for cocaine. In both cases, Chelsea sacked the players for breaches of their employment contracts. Interestingly, Chelsea are in the process of claiming compensation from Mutu for the transfer fee Chelsea should have received from a purchasing club for his services. This is because Mutu was released on a free transfer after having his contact terminated. Quite how Mutu is responsible for having any say in his transfer value that Chelsea claim they are now owed by Mutu is subject to a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision that is expected in the near future.

One recent example that illustrates the doping conundrum issue that is facing footballers is a recent Italian decision. On the 1 December 2007 two Italian footballers Mannini & Possanzini were selected for a random post-match drugs test. Just as they were about to be tested they were told (by their manager and president) to return to the changing rooms rather than attend the drugs test immediately. An infamous 20 minute rant by the manager followed before they were released to take the drug test. It turned out that they missed the test and faced WADA sanctions as a result. Even though they took the test 25 minutes later and the tests proved negative they have been banned by the CAS for a year under the WADA code. Many would argue that such a decision is extremely harsh bearing in mind the players merely followed the team managers instructions.

The combined effects of either missing a drugs test (which can be subject to a straight ban) or not being present where you should be when the drug testers come knocking (the three strikes and your banned whereabouts rule) means that in the future (once the current dispute between WADA and the various football authorities is resolved), it is likely that a combination of the football club, the players themselves, club doctors and agents may have to be responsible for passing on each player's whereabouts to the relevant UK doping body.

It  would certainly promote widespread debate about the need for such stringent rules if Wayne Rooney, for example, was banned under the three strikes whereabouts rule even if no actual doping offence had been committed. With WADA and the football authorities currently at loggerheads over the controversial implementation of the whereabouts rule, the current rules and regulations are to many, somewhat unclear. Conversely, UK Sport the agency that runs Britain's anti-doping programme, has explained that the whereabouts rules have worked well in other sports for years and therefore should not pose significant problems to football.

From an Athlete's Perspective

The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) chief executive Gordon Taylor has commented that he feels the whereabouts rule may be quite a draconian rule to enforce.

"We feel to invade the privacy of a player's home is a step too far. If we complain about anything to do with drug-testing people think we might have something to hide, but football's record is extremely good and there has been a virtual absence of any performance-enhancing drugs over decades."

In mid January 2009, to muddy the waters further, a group of athletes from a variety of sports,  under the representation of the Sporta organisation, have brought a challenge in the Belgian courts citing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to an individual's right to privacy. They argue that an athlete should not have to reveal to anyone where they are based for the administration of the whereabouts rule. Although a final decision is unlikely in 2009 it is interesting to see the lengths that athletes are looking to go to in order to protect their livelihood.

United manager Alex Ferguson expects that the new rules:

"..will cost the Football Association a fortune and the implementation will be very difficult."

Once WADA and FIFA settle any differences of opinion over the scope and duration of the whereabouts rule, the proof of the pudding may be when high profile football stars due to laziness, forgetfulness or other reasons (shopping with a WAG not being a good enough excuse!) are not where they should be three times in a row. Although not a betting man, this author's money is on this happening sooner rather than later and a high profile ban shocking players and clubs alike into the realisation that tough sanctions are in place if you do not play by the new rules.

For further information, please contact Daniel Geey.