[DRAFT] Doping during International Sport Events

[New Min]

Doping during International Sport Events
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: New Min

---

Aware of the physical advantages an athlete gets by using doping,

Noting the health risks that come with the usage of doping,

Understanding that, if not banned, athletes are forced to use doping to be able to seriously compete with those that do use doping,

The World Assembly,

1. Defines "sports federation" as any sports organisation with regulatory or sanctioning functions.

2. Defines "independent medical doctor" as a medical doctor, that is

1. not being paid for by an athlete's team or a sports federation, and
2. has not had any type of business relationship with one of the aforementioned bodies.

3. Tasks WAFDRA to create a list of performance-enhancing substances that athletes are banned from using at sporting events held within WA nations' borders, unless

1. they have a medical issue for which the correct medicine has been prescribed by an independent doctor in the proper dosage, or
2. the substance is part of their regular nutritional needs, such as water.

4. Sports federations are required to regularly test participants for use of banned substances during all international sports events held in WA nations unless the substances are included in the exceptions of clause 3. If an athlete tests positive but contests the findings, the sports federation involved with the event shall hand all evidence of the test over to WAFDRA.

5. Mandates that WAFDRA investigates contested positive test results of banned substance use during international sports events held in WA nations, and will

1. keep all information pertaining to the investigation confidential until the investigation's conclusion, and
2. pass the results back to the sports federation.

6. Requires the sports federation involved to

1. publicise the results if the WAFRDA investigation confirms the positive finding, and
2. take disciplinary action against any athlete found guilty of having used illegal substances, including but not limited to issuing a fine or excluding them from international sporting events for a set time, and
3. ban any doctors found guilty for having assisted in illegal substance use from prescribing medications to athletes partaking in international sports events.

Co-authored by Araraukar.

Aware of the physical advantages a sporter gets by using doping,

Noting the health risks that come with the usage of doping,

Understanding that, if not banned, sporters are forced to use doping to be able to seriously compete with those that do use doping,

The World Assembly,

1. Defines “doping", for the purpose of this resolution, as performance-enhancing substances used during sport events for non-medical reasons.
a. Performance-enhancing substances can only be used for medical reasons with a valid prescription and,
b. can not be used in a bigger quantity than prescribed.

2. Bans the usage of doping by participants during all international sport events.

3. Mandates the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) with investigating cases of possible doping use during international sport events.
a. The WAFDRA shall keep all information regarding an investigation, including the existence of it, secret during the investigation.
b. If an investigation results in the conclusion that there was no doping use, the WAFDRA shall keep the entire investigation a secret.
c. If an investigation results in the conclusion that an individual has used doping, all information regarding the investigation shall be made public.

4. Requires international sport federations to take disciplinary action against individuals that were found to have used doping during an international sport event.

1. Defines “doping", the use of a substance that is
a. listed on the ‘WAFDRA Doping List, and
b. not taken in conformity with a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor.

2. Tasks the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) to create a list of performance-enhancing substances without a reasonable medical use.

3. Bans the use of substances listed by the WADFRA by participants during all international sports events held within WA member nations, except those events with less than two athletes/teams from WA member nations.

4. Mandates the WAFDRA investigate allegations of doping during international sports events held in WA member states.
a. The WAFDRA will keep all investigation results confidential until the investigation's conclusion.
b. If an investigation finds no unlawful doping, the WAFDRA will not declassify the results.
c. If an investigation results in the conclusion that an athlete used substances in contravention of WAFDRA policies, the WAFDRA will publically issue investigation findings.

5. Requires international sports federations residing in WA member nations take disciplinary action against individuals doping during an international sports event.

1. Defines "independent medical doctor" as a medical doctor, that is
a. not being paid for by the athlete, his/her team or a sport federation, and
b. has not had any type of business relationship with one of aforementioned bodies.

2. Defines "doping", the use of a substance in international sporting events, that is
a. listed on the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) Doping List, as defined in clause 2, and
b. not taken in conformity with a valid prescription issued by an independent medical doctor.

3. Tasks the WAFDRA to create a list of performance-enhancing substances without a reasonable medical use.

4. Bans the use of substances listed by the WADFRA by participants during all international sports events held within WA member nations, except those events with less than two athletes/teams from WA member nations.

5. Mandates the WAFDRA investigate allegations of doping during international sports events held in WA member states.
a. The WAFDRA will keep all investigation results confidential until the investigation's conclusion.
b. If an investigation finds no unlawful doping, the WAFDRA will not declassify the results.
c. If an investigation results in the conclusion that an athlete used substances in contravention of WAFDRA policies, the WAFDRA will publically issue investigation findings.

6. Requires international sports federations residing in WA member nations take disciplinary action against individuals doping during an international sports event.

Aware of the physical advantages an athlete gets by using doping,

Noting the health risks that come with the usage of doping,

Understanding that, if not banned, athletes are forced to use doping to be able to seriously compete with those that do use doping,

The World Assembly,

1. Defines "sports federation" as any sports organisation with regulatory or sanctioning functions.

2. Defines "independent medical doctor" as a medical doctor, that is

1. not being paid for by a member state, an athlete's team or a sports federation, and
2. has not had any type of business relationship with one of the aforementioned bodies.

3. Defines "doping", the use of a substance in international sporting events, that is

1. listed on the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) Doping List, as defined in clause 4, and
2. not taken in conformity with a valid prescription issued by an independent medical doctor.

4. Tasks WAFDRA to create a list of performance-enhancing substances without a reasonable medical use.

1. Nutrional needs cannot be included on this list.

5. Bans the use of substances listed by WADFRA by participants during all international sports events held within WA member nations, except those events with less than two athletes/teams from WA member nations.

1. Sports federations are required to regularly test participants on doping during all international sports events included in the aforementioned clause.
2. If a test results in a positive outcome, the sports federation shall classify the information and hand it over to WAFDRA.

6. Mandates WAFDRA investigates positive tests of doping during international sports events held in WA member states.

1. WAFDRA will keep all investigation results confidential until the investigation's conclusion.
2. If an investigation finds no unlawful doping, WAFDRA will not declassify the results.
3. If an investigation results in the conclusion that an athlete used substances in contravention of WAFDRA policies, WAFDRA will publically issue investigation findings.

7. Requires international sports federations residing in WA member nations take disciplinary action against individuals doping during an international sports event.

[Wallenburg]

A few suggestions:
1) "Athletes", not "sporters".
2) The current language bans caffeine, sugar, and arguably even water, since all of these would enhance the performance of athletes during sport events. You'll need to tighten the definition of "doping".
3) You cannot impose regulations on international sport events or federations hosted or operating in non-member states.

[Tabcorp Park]

Would this affect events such as horse racing?

Substance like Cobalt can be naturally occurring however its classed as an enhancement.

Race day treatment is an enhancement and considered doping in some circles.

Allowing an animal to compete whilst running on anti bleeding tablets is another example of doping in some places but accepted in others.

The point is, a sporting event can take many different forms, and what constitutes doping can very from code to code.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: WA law is only binding on WA members. Your current wording does not adequately reflect this situation, and whatever wording you adopt instead would have to explain how it applies to international events that include entrants both from WA members and from non-members.

[New Min]

A few suggestions:
1) "Athletes", not "sporters".

"Will do."

2) The current language bans caffeine, sugar, and arguably even water, since all of these would enhance the performance of athletes during sport events. You'll need to tighten the definition of "doping".

Would this affect events such as horse racing?

Substance like Cobalt can be naturally occurring however its classed as an enhancement.

Race day treatment is an enhancement and considered doping in some circles.

Allowing an animal to compete whilst running on anti bleeding tablets is another example of doping in some places but accepted in others.

The point is, a sporting event can take many different forms, and what constitutes doping can very from code to code.

OOC: That is a good point. I am thinking about mandating the WAFDRA to make a list of substances considered doping. Could that work?

3) You cannot impose regulations on international sport events or federations hosted or operating in non-member states.

OOC: WA law is only binding on WA members. Your current wording does not adequately reflect this situation, and whatever wording you adopt instead would have to explain how it applies to international events that include entrants both from WA members and from non-members.

OOC: I am thinking about rewriting it in a way it only applies to sports events and sports federations located in a WA-member state. Is that possible?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I am thinking about rewriting it in a way it only applies to sports events and sports federations located in a WA-member state. Is that possible?

(OOC: That’s certainly possible to do. It would just require adding a few clarifiers to some of the clauses.)

[Tabcorp Park]

OOC: That is a good point. I am thinking about mandating the WAFDRA to make a list of substances considered doping. Could that work?

Maybe a line that states that each sporting governing body of individual nation is required to create and publish an acceptable tolerance to natural bodily occurring substances whilst in competition.

[New Min]

OOC: Based on all feedback, I made a new version.
(Thanks to Separatist Peoples for almost completely rewriting my 2nd draft before I posted it here.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Use the full name for WAFDRA before using the shorthand, and put the shorthand as "(WAFDRA)" after the full name, to make it clear which committee you're referring to.

EDIT: If SP wrote your current draft, you should at least offer them co-authorship.

[New Min]

OOC: Use the full name for WAFDRA before using the shorthand, and put the shorthand as "(WAFDRA)" after the full name, to make it clear which committee you're referring to.

OOC: Will do!
EDIT: Actually, the full name is already used in clause 2

EDIT: If SP wrote your current draft, you should at least offer them co-authorship.

OOC: I did, but he told me he did it pro bono

[Kenmoria]

“If clause 2 specifically excludes substances with a medically use, what is the point of clause 1b, which allows things with a medical use? Also, you have a comma and a full stop directly next to each other in clause 3.”

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Use the full name for WAFDRA before using the shorthand, and put the shorthand as "(WAFDRA)" after the full name, to make it clear which committee you're referring to.

EDIT: If SP wrote your current draft, you should at least offer them co-authorship.

I turned it down. I know first time authors like seeing their name up there all alone when it passes. I sure did.

Also, I didn't want the finger pointed at me if something went catestrophically wrong.

[New Min]

“If clause 2 specifically excludes substances with a medically use, what is the point of clause 1b, which allows things with a medical use? Also, you have a comma and a full stop directly next to each other in clause 3.”

"Should removing clause 1b fix the issue?"
EDIT (OOC): The definition ensures that even substances listed on the WAFDRA Doping List can be used with a valid prescription, so I personally think it should stay.

I turned it down. I know first time authors like seeing their name up there all alone when it passes. I sure did.

Also, I didn't want the finger pointed at me if something went catestrophically wrong.

OOC: Personally, I wouldn't mind putting you up as co-author (as I already proposed), but if you don't feel the need to be up there, that's fine too

[Kenmoria]

“If clause 2 specifically excludes substances with a medically use, what is the point of clause 1b, which allows things with a medical use? Also, you have a comma and a full stop directly next to each other in clause 3.”

"Should removing clause 1b fix the issue?"
EDIT (OOC): The definition ensures that even substances listed on the WAFDRA Doping List can be used with a valid prescription, so I personally think it should stay

(OOC: On second thoughts, the definition is fine currently, I misread 1a. However, I have noticed that the ending subclause punctuation on clauses 1a and 1b differs from the rest of the subclauses in the proposal.)

[New Min]

"Should removing clause 1b fix the issue?"
EDIT (OOC): The definition ensures that even substances listed on the WAFDRA Doping List can be used with a valid prescription, so I personally think it should stay

(OOC: On second thoughts, the definition is fine currently, I misread 1a. However, I have noticed that the ending subclause punctuation on clauses 1a and 1b differs from the rest of the subclauses in the proposal.)

OOC: I believe it is fixed now

[Araraukar]

EDIT: Actually, the full name is already used in clause 2

OOC: Hence:

OOC: Use the full name for WAFDRA before using the shorthand

I'll give this a more thorough look-see after crawling back home after what is probably the last warm-enough-to-go-swimming day this year, but you might want to include the requirement for international events to reach all the way to definitions.

So making clause 1 something like...

1. Defines “doping", the use of a substance in international sporting events, that is

1. listed on the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) Doping List, as defined in clause 2, and
2. not taken in conformity with a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor.

Then you need to actually add the definition to clause 2 - the whole proposal currently lacks a definition of what the "dope" actually is, that's used in "doping".

Also, isn't this currently a committee-only violation, since the only clause that isn't tasking the committee to do something, refers to "international sports federations", not nations? And also, any international sports association or agency or whatnot that isn't a "federation", would be excempted from clause 5.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, I'd recommend a requirement as to the independence of any medical doctor writing prescriptions for these medications. History is replete with doctors who know which side their bread is buttered on pumping athletes full of steroids, opioids, amphetamines, and all other manner of medications, both legit and ill-, without any regard for side effects or post-prrformance athlete health. In no case should a prescription written by a doctor on a team, national, or sport federation payroll be accepted as legitimate under WAFDRA doping rules."


OOC: Cf. everything from former Warsaw Pact Olympic teams to the current practices of the National Football League; and at least as important as maintaining the integrity of competition is ensuring the athletes don't suffer permanent damage from the pain pills, Toradol, etc. which team doctors administer to get them back on the field despite injuries.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Cf. everything from former Warsaw Pact Olympic teams

OOC: Or, for that matter, modern Russian Olympic teams.

[New Min]

OOC: Based on all the feedback, I have uploaded a 3rd version.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

1. Defines "independent medical doctor" as a medical doctor, that is
a. not being paid for by the athlete a member state, his/her an athlete's team or a sport federation, and
b. has not had any type of business relationship with one of aforementioned bodies.

"A suggestion for upgrade. Yes, it's plausible that an athlete might buy off a doctor to give her the wrong kind of 'athletic supplements' - but the way you first had this, the state or charities were going to be the only source of funding for athletes' medical care, and that's more of a moral hazard than the athlete paying. If the doctor answers only to the athlete, that brings the lowest chance of malpractice."

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2a has become recursive, by mentioning itself. I think you meant to put ‘as defined in clause 3’ instead.”

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

a. not being paid for by the athlete, his/her team or a sport federation

That is still an issue, as it ignores all cases where the regulatory body isn't called a "federation". At the very least you should define "sport federation" by what it's supposed to do. And don't copy Wikipedia word for word when you do...

3. Tasks the WAFDRA to create a list of performance-enhancing substances without a reasonable medical use.

Caffeine, glucose, smelling salts, things along that vein come to mind... You would also be banning any refreshments, including water, for athletes like marathon runners or soccer players (who may end up having to run up and down the field for a full two hours with minimal breaks). Sounds like a recipe for causing deaths when it's run in warm weather. If that's not what you're going for, you need either a better definition - as throwing all the power to a gnome committee is not the right solution - or you need to restrict the committee's powers on deciding what to put on the list. I would suggest starting from not banning nutritional needs.

4. Bans the use of substances listed by the WADFRA

Not a grammateur, but using "the" before WAFDRA doesn't sound right in my ear. If you were using the full name of the committee, then yes, but not with a pronounceable shorthand.

by participants during all international sports events held within WA member nations, except those events with less than two athletes/teams from WA member nations.

What's with that exception? Like, why does it exist? You would, for example, completely legalize the use of doping for any individual sports like, say, boxing, if only one person per nation participates, or, insanely, Olympic Games, since you only get one olympic team per nation.

5. Mandates the WAFDRA investigate allegations of doping during international sports events held in WA member states.

Shouldn't there be, you know, tests done on the athletes so that a requirement of some kind of proof other than "they're better than the other competitors" could be added? Otherwise you'll be bogging the committee down by allegations from jealous losers. Additionally, shouldn't the nations do the testing and initial investigations, only bringing the matter to the committee if the complainant disagrees with the result of the national investigation? That way you would also give the WA nations something to do.

b. If an investigation finds no unlawful doping, the WAFDRA will not declassify the results.

What, so people will be left guessing if the committee still hasn't processed the allegation, or if it found the allegation to be false? How's that going to help anyone?

c. If an investigation results in the conclusion that an athlete used substances in contravention of WAFDRA policies, the WAFDRA will publically issue investigation findings.

They should bloody well make it known (not sure "issue" is the best verb to use, maybe "publicise"?) for negative results as well.

6. Requires international sports federations residing in WA member nations take disciplinary action against individuals doping during an international sports event.

Again with the "sports federations"... Also, wouldn't a simple ban from the next international sports event that the athlete would otherwise have partaken be better than just requiring someone to say "Naughty" to a cheater? I would also give this disciplinary action to the WA nations themselves, rather than an international committee (since that's what the "federation" will end up being, if used in the manner you're using it here), and only having WA intervene if there is evidence of nationally-promoted/accepted performance enhancement.

Also, why do the subclauses of clause 5 end with periods when the subclauses of other clauses don't?

I haven't changed any of the wordings here, just applied the list code in the relevant bits.

Code: Select all

[box]Doping during International Sport Events

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

1. Defines "independent medical doctor" as a medical doctor, that is
[list=a][*]not being paid for by the athlete, his/her team or a sport federation, and
[*]has not had any type of business relationship with one of aforementioned bodies.[/list]

2. Defines "doping", the use of a substance in international sporting events, that is
[list=a][*]listed on the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) Doping List, as defined in clause 2, and
[*]not taken in conformity with a valid prescription issued by an independent medical doctor.[/list]

3. Tasks the WAFDRA to create a list of performance-enhancing substances without a reasonable medical use.

4. Bans the use of substances listed by the WADFRA by participants during all international sports events held within WA member nations, except those events with less than two athletes/teams from WA member nations.

5. Mandates the WAFDRA investigate allegations of doping during international sports events held in WA member states.
[list=a][*]The WAFDRA will keep all investigation results confidential until the investigation's conclusion.
[*]If an investigation finds no unlawful doping, the WAFDRA will not declassify the results.
[*]If an investigation results in the conclusion that an athlete used substances in contravention of WAFDRA policies, the WAFDRA will publically issue investigation findings.[/list]

6. Requires international sports federations residing in WA member nations take disciplinary action against individuals doping during an international sports event.[/box]

It will look like this:

Doping during International Sport Events

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

1. Defines "independent medical doctor" as a medical doctor, that is

1. not being paid for by the athlete, his/her team or a sport federation, and
2. has not had any type of business relationship with one of aforementioned bodies.

2. Defines "doping", the use of a substance in international sporting events, that is

1. listed on the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) Doping List, as defined in clause 2, and
2. not taken in conformity with a valid prescription issued by an independent medical doctor.

3. Tasks the WAFDRA to create a list of performance-enhancing substances without a reasonable medical use.

4. Bans the use of substances listed by the WADFRA by participants during all international sports events held within WA member nations, except those events with less than two athletes/teams from WA member nations.

5. Mandates the WAFDRA investigate allegations of doping during international sports events held in WA member states.

1. The WAFDRA will keep all investigation results confidential until the investigation's conclusion.
2. If an investigation finds no unlawful doping, the WAFDRA will not declassify the results.
3. If an investigation results in the conclusion that an athlete used substances in contravention of WAFDRA policies, the WAFDRA will publically issue investigation findings.

6. Requires international sports federations residing in WA member nations take disciplinary action against individuals doping during an international sports event.

To use the edits, click the "select all" at the top of the code box and copy-paste it into your first post. And when you make changes, please make sure you have an ending tag for the list code too. Hope it helps!

[Uan aa Boa]

We do not consider this to be an appropriate area for World Assembly legislation. Aside from its relative unimportance when compared to the questions of free speech, human rights and capital punishment that have lately dominated the Assembly's agenda, only a small minority of nations are WA members and sport needs genuinely worldwide solutions to doping. The issue must therefore be left to sporting governing bodies with the appropriate membership. Creating an additional layer of bureaucracy overseen by a different body that only applies to competitions held in WA nations will hinder more than it helps.

[New Min]

OOC post.

a. not being paid for by the athlete, his/her team or a sport federation

That is still an issue, as it ignores all cases where the regulatory body isn't called a "federation". At the very least you should define "sport federation" by what it's supposed to do. And don't copy Wikipedia word for word when you do...

I'll look into that.

3. Tasks the WAFDRA to create a list of performance-enhancing substances without a reasonable medical use.

Caffeine, glucose, smelling salts, things along that vein come to mind... You would also be banning any refreshments, including water, for athletes like marathon runners or soccer players (who may end up having to run up and down the field for a full two hours with minimal breaks). Sounds like a recipe for causing deaths when it's run in warm weather. If that's not what you're going for, you need either a better definition - as throwing all the power to a gnome committee is not the right solution - or you need to restrict the committee's powers on deciding what to put on the list. I would suggest starting from not banning nutritional needs.

Good point, will fix it.

4. Bans the use of substances listed by the WADFRA

Not a grammateur, but using "the" before WAFDRA doesn't sound right in my ear. If you were using the full name of the committee, then yes, but not with a pronounceable shorthand.

I'll look into that as well.

by participants during all international sports events held within WA member nations, except those events with less than two athletes/teams from WA member nations.

What's with that exception? Like, why does it exist? You would, for example, completely legalize the use of doping for any individual sports like, say, boxing, if only one person per nation participates, or, insanely, Olympic Games, since you only get one olympic team per nation.

I think you misread it. Events with only one team from any WA member state (so in total, not per WA member state) are excepted, because if the only WA member team/athlete would use doping, we wouldn't care as the only ones affected by it are non-members.

5. Mandates the WAFDRA investigate allegations of doping during international sports events held in WA member states.

Shouldn't there be, you know, tests done on the athletes so that a requirement of some kind of proof other than "they're better than the other competitors" could be added? Otherwise you'll be bogging the committee down by allegations from jealous losers. Additionally, shouldn't the nations do the testing and initial investigations, only bringing the matter to the committee if the complainant disagrees with the result of the national investigation? That way you would also give the WA nations something to do.

Good point, will work on it.

b. If an investigation finds no unlawful doping, the WAFDRA will not declassify the results.

What, so people will be left guessing if the committee still hasn't processed the allegation, or if it found the allegation to be false? How's that going to help anyone?

Because even if someone is declared innocent, the fact that there has been an investigation would defame his/her name (which is why it happens in real life too). Look at Froome for example, even though he is declared innocent, the fact that an investigation about him occured (which was leaked, not officially made public) make that many people think he is still guilty.

c. If an investigation results in the conclusion that an athlete used substances in contravention of WAFDRA policies, the WAFDRA will publically issue investigation findings.

They should bloody well make it known (not sure "issue" is the best verb to use, maybe "publicise"?) for negative results as well.

I personally feel like 'issue' is fine.

6. Requires international sports federations residing in WA member nations take disciplinary action against individuals doping during an international sports event.

Again with the "sports federations"... Also, wouldn't a simple ban from the next international sports event that the athlete would otherwise have partaken be better than just requiring someone to say "Naughty" to a cheater? I would also give this disciplinary action to the WA nations themselves, rather than an international committee (since that's what the "federation" will end up being, if used in the manner you're using it here), and only having WA intervene if there is evidence of nationally-promoted/accepted performance enhancement.

One standard punishment is in my opinion not a good thing, as there can be a great variety of cases.

Also, why do the subclauses of clause 5 end with periods when the subclauses of other clauses don't?

The others are one sentence divided in subclauses, whilst in clause 5 it are separate sentences.

By the way, I will use your coding thingy as soon as I have a PC available.

[New Min]

I have uploaded a new version of the draft based on all the feedback given.