[DRAFT] Doping during International Sport Events

[Kenmoria]

“The active clauses look fairly good, but now I strongly recommend adding a preamble. This would show the reasons behind your legislation and give member states a reason to vote for the proposal.”

[New Min]

“The active clauses look fairly good, but now I strongly recommend adding a preamble. This would show the reasons behind your legislation and give member states a reason to vote for the proposal.”

"The first version of the draft had a preamble, but our lazy delegacy staff forgot to add them to the other versions, but that is fixed."

[Araraukar]

OOC post, some notes.

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.

The a. there can be problematic if the nation has fully public healthcare and thus all doctors are paid for by the member state. Perhaps something about "or has their prescriptions checked by [whatever the sports federation is in that case] official" should be added. The sports federations should in any case have people specialized in sports medicine to know what works as legit medications and what doesn't, and perhaps make randomized checks to see that everything is as it should be (not the same thing as testing the athletes).

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.

I'd rather make this read as

4. 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
2. the substance is part of their regular nutritional needs, such as water

5. 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 4. 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.

These changes make the ban exceptions clearer, and also there's no need to involve an international regulatory body if the athlete owns up to their substance use.

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.

Similarly I would change these to...

6. 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,
2. pass the results back to the sports federation;

7. Requires the sports federation involved to

1. publicise the results if the WAFRDA investigation confirms the positive finding,
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 international sports events.

These changes would make the sports federations themselves publish the results, which is as it should be, and, by leaving any mention of negative results out of the proposal, decide for themselves whether they want to publicise all results. Because banning the result publication in the cases of negative findings can also affect an athlete's career negatively. Yellow press is everywhere, and just WAFDRA staying quiet on the issue won't stop speculation from happening.

Also, I would throughout change "doping" to "using illegal substances" just to make this read as more professional legislative text. Or are you close to/over the character limit?

[Kenmoria]

“You require an article, probably "the" in this case, before each mention of the WAFDRA.”

[Araraukar]

“You require an article, probably "the" in this case, before each mention of the WAFDRA.”

OOC: Do you, though? If you treat it as a name? You don't write "the Joe" every time you mention Joe in your writing.

[Kenmoria]

“You require an article, probably "the" in this case, before each mention of the WAFDRA.”

OOC: Do you, though? If you treat it as a name? You don't write "the Joe" every time you mention Joe in your writing.

(OOC: No, but you would put “the UN” or “the BBC”. Generally, acronyms have an article before them, though there are exceptions for ones that have entered into common usage as a normal word.)

[New Min]

OOC: I will make a new draft as soon as I get back from holiday. About the "the" thingy, if put before an acronym which you pronounce as a series of letters (eg UN) you say the, for example the UN. If the acronym is pronounced as a word, you dont use the, for example UNICEF (he works for UNICEF, without the).

[Imperium Anglorum]

I work for the BoE. I work for Unicef. I work for USAID (huh, that one is weird). I work for the WHO. I work for the IMF. I staff all quangos with jobs for the boys appointments. I work for Nasa. I work for the FDIC. (Also, I work for the liars in chief™.)

[New Min]

-snip-

Thank you for the feedback. I have used it to create the 5th version of my draft, and I have listed you as co-author.

[Linux and the X]

We would recommend that exculpatory findings be published upon motion of the accused athlete.

Additionally, we would prefer that leagues permitting doping be allowed to operate, under strict requirement that such leagues may not compete in non-doping events.

[Shamian]

Question: the current proposal is aimed at curtailing/controlling the use of performance enhancing substances.

What are anyone's general thoughts on adding to this bill, to also cover performance enhancing upgrades?

Personally, i'm not into the whole transhumanism thing, but several members of my hackspace are - and given the current state of technology (both conventional & biotech), then it is conceivable that within the next decade, that performance enhancing addons may become viable. No, i'm not talking deus-ex style cyborg type modification - although apparently that's already an emerging problem for the Paralympics organisers.

I'm thinking more along the lines of virally delivered genetic therapies; for example, aimed at increasing the base haemoglobin content of the target organism's bloodstream. As this is a modification to the competitor's baseline DNA, rather than a temporary/artificial performance enhancing compound, it would not fall within the scope of the current proposal.

Now before anyone replies that the above is pure science fiction, I will just point out that this technique (Transgenic haemoglobin modification) has already been proved viable in lab tests on mice - twenty years ago (1997) during research into sickle cell anaemia (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9346488). I'm frankly amazed that to date, none of the more morally flexible nations (Russia, for example), have already been caught using similar techniques on their athletes. Indeed, perhaps caught is the operative word there....

Anyhow, i propose considering:

1/ Adding transgenics - for other than therapeutic purposes - into this bill somehow, and mandate continuous genetic monitoring of competing athletes (as at the present time, watching for sudden change in genetic markers is the only practicable way of policing this).

2/ Adding a rider, mandating that Paralympic athletes use only prosthesis that do not exceed human baseline ability.

[New Min]

We would recommend that exculpatory findings be published upon motion of the accused athlete.

"Sports federations are allowed to publish when requested by the accused athlete but are not forced to, and our delegation would like to keep it that way, as there may be other facts that the sports federation has to think of."

Additionally, we would prefer that leagues permitting doping be allowed to operate, under strict requirement that such leagues may not compete in non-doping events.

"Allowing doping would force athletes to use doping in order to be able to seriously compete with those that do use doping."

-snip-

OOC: Will look into it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: About the "the" thingy, if put before an acronym which you pronounce as a series of letters (eg UN) you say the, for example the UN. If the acronym is pronounced as a word, you dont use the, for example UNICEF (he works for UNICEF, without the).

OOC: This is how I was taught it at school; if you can pronounce it as a word (acronym), you treat it as a name. If you can't, and have to say it letter by letter (initialism), then you use the article. And at least I can say "WAFDRA" just fine.
Although, I can also pronounce "Sae'k'h'aor" as a name without issues, which I've been told is madness... XD

[New Min]

-snip-

OOC: Even though I understand you believe this should be banned, I think it would be too complicated to add it to this specific proposal.

Are there any more suggestions? (I kinda forgot to give this proposal attention lately)

[Kenmoria]

“Clause four has some strange numbering, it excepts substances listed by itself.”

[New Min]

“Clause four has some strange numbering, it excepts substances listed by itself.”

"Fixed"

[New Min]

OOC: I will submit this proposal if there are no further comments in the coming ~24h.

[Bears Armed]

2. Defines "independent medical doctor" as a medical doctor, that is
not being paid for by an athlete's team or a sports federation, and
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
they have a medical issue for which the correct medicine has been prescribed by an independent doctor in the proper dosage,

I think that (2) should also mention doctors employed by athletes' sponsors, for cases where sponsorship is allowed... and there's also the possible situation where the doctor is employed directly by the athlete, rather than being in a health organisation where the athlete is just one of many potential patients, although admittedly in that case deciding where to draw the line would be tricky. Maybe the anti-doping organisation should actually be authorised to review the paperwork & any related test results justifying prescriptions (if that doesn't breach any WA-guaranteed right to patient confidentiality? I can't remember offhand what the current situation is in that respect...), at least when the doctor is based in a WA member?
Talking of where doctors are based, clause 6.c. probably needs re-writing to avoid illegality for trying to have direct effects on [doctors in] non-member nations: I suggest saying that athletes competing in international sporting events in WA nations can't use prescriptions from those doctors, rather than trying to place the limitation directly on doctors who might be outside the WA's authority.

[Bananaistan]

"What's an international sports event?"

- Ted

[Wallenburg]

"I take issue with clause 6(a). Internal regulation of drug use among athletes ought to remain internal. Requiring the publication of all drug tests including a positive result does no good, and only harms the athlete involved. It also flies in the face of medical confidentiality.

"I must also ask how this proposal handles inaccurate drug test results, particularly false positives. Innocent athletes shouldn't suffer the consequences of a sports federation using shoddy or oversensitive tests."

[Araraukar]

"What's an international sports event?"

IC: "A sports event that's international, obviously."

OOC: What exactly is there unclear about it?

"I take issue with clause 6(a). Internal regulation of drug use among athletes ought to remain internal. Requiring the publication of all drug tests including a positive result does no good, and only harms the athlete involved. It also flies in the face of medical confidentiality."

IC: "If it is "internal" as in not pertaining an international event, then it wouldn't involve WAFDRA (OOC: which I notice the full name of it has vanished from the current proposal text and needs to be readded) in the first place. Additionally, WAFRDA is only involved if an athlete tests positive in relation to an international sport event, and denies drug use. Also, nothing requires all results to be published, merely the positive ones that have been affirmed by WAFDRA to be correct."

OOC: In an old version negative ones were required to be publicized as well, but not anymore.

As for medical confidentiality, somehow anti-doping measures exist in RL too, so it's clearly possible. Would adding something about "agree to testing and positive results being publicized, or no participation allowed" somewhere in there work?

[Bananaistan]

"What's an international sports event?"

IC: "A sports event that's international, obviously."

OOC: What exactly is there unclear about it?

OOC: Plenty. There's loads of sports events where the athletes compete only on their own behalf or for a private team and not as a representative of a country.

Also, let's say a race where all jockeys are from one particular country but some of the horses are not. Or the horses are owned by a non-national. Does it depend on the jockey's nationality, the horse's nationality or the owner's nationality? But what if in a particular race they're different nationalities but all happen to be resident in the country where the race happens. Is that an international sports event? And who get's tested, the horse or the jockey?

Or in football. Real Madrid vs Barcelona but in the UEFA Champion's League. Both teams are from one country but the competition is not domestic. Although one could argue that the meaning of "international" in football is solely related to representative national teams and any inter-club competition is not an international sports event. But then you could still have the argument that England vs Wales is not an international sports event because both teams are from one country.

The primary Gaelic Football and Hurling competitions are played by teams resident on both sides of the Irish border (and one in USA). But nobody would ever call the All-Ireland Championships a true international competition.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Plenty. There's loads of sports events where the athletes compete only on their own behalf or for a private team and not as a representative of a country.

OOC: And how does that not make it an international sports event?

And who get's tested, the horse or the jockey?

Not an expert in horse sports, but in my understanding they test both.

Real Madrid vs Barcelona but in the UEFA Champion's League. Both teams are from one country but the competition is not domestic.

...given the amount of foreign players in any soccer teams in Europe, I'd say any match between any of the teams, whether as part of an international tournament or not, should count as international.

Plus aren't they tested for drugs anyway, even in their domestic league?

But then you could still have the argument that England vs Wales is not an international sports event because both teams are from one country.

Never let the English or the Welsh hear you say that!

[Bananaistan]

OOC: So we're clear then that it's unclear as to just what factor makes a sports event international?

It's best to include a definition to firm up the scope.

And also on that clause. It states "... regularly test participants ... during all international sports events ...". This is unreasonable in the case of a single event. You can't very well stop the Gold Cup (or any other match/race/whatever) several times and wait for all the jockeys (or horses/competitors/players/athletes) to need to go.

[Araraukar]

OOC: So we're clear then that it's unclear as to just what factor makes a sports event international?

OOC: Not in my opinion, given that "international" rarely needs to be defined for any other resolution either, but I'll talk with Min about it.

It's best to include a definition to firm up the scope.

Or define an international sports event as a sports event that's international...

And also on that clause. It states "... regularly test participants ... during all international sports events ...". This is unreasonable in the case of a single event.

True. I thought it had already been fixed. Maybe it got lost/replaced by an earlier version in some rewrite.