The Luxembourg Anti-Doping Agency (ALAD) has issued a statement in which it details the arguments for and against changing the system by which athletes are tested for doping.
The effective fight against doping in sport requires, among others, a control system that offers as few loopholes as possible. The demands of top athletes to provide an indication of their whereabouts for three months - for the purpose of enabling an unannounced inspection - provides the cornerstone of an effective control, along with the actual control itself. These two aspects have increasingly become the target of criticism by active and former athletes who complain of a violation of their personal rights. The reporting system, often described like an electronic ankle bracelet, is contrary to national and European data protection law; also, visual control of an athlete uninating has been described as disproportionate and humiliating at the same time. They have asked for a control system that better respects the privacy of the athlete.
Those athletes in the elite programme of the Luxembourg Olympic and Sporting Committee (COSL) are required to announce a one-hour period every day (for a period of three months) when they must be accessible in a particular place for a doping control. They can specify this hour as they wish: in practice usually in the range 06:00 - 07:00, because during this period, every athlete is found usually at home before they leave for their morning workout or workplace visits. The national data protection authority has consented to the collection of personal data of athletes. Information about the location provided by the athlete can be adjusted at any time by the athlete to the end of the previous day. Objections to this procedure are focused on restriction of freedom of movement; however, such instances are rare.
Concerning the control itself, this is regulated by the international standard for controls. For the implementation of certain rules, which are expressed in rights and obligations, apply to both the athletes and to the trained inspectors.
ALAD has admitted that the discharge of urine under visual control is an intrusion on the privacy of the athlete. However, as some athletes have cheated in the pastby replacing urine samples, this approach is essential. To rule out any fraud, the unrestricted view of the inspector must be given.
The goal of equal opportunity for all participants in a competition to ensure and serves to protect the spirit of fair-play of athletes, is essential. Unfortunately, experience of the past shows that dishonest athletes consistently exploit to cheat each gap of the inspection process.
"With all due respect for the interests of the athletes, the fight against doping without some interference into privacy is simply not feasible. A questioning and the possible associated erosion of the control system are synonymous with taking a backward step in the fight against doping."
The above clarification comes following the recent decision to incur a ban on a Luxembourg cyclist who failed to provide a doping control; this decision was argued to be wrong in the minds of various current and former Luxembourg athletes.
