News
04.08.2016
World Anti-Doping Agency basically agrees to publication of Tübingen study on doping in athletics
Waiting for IAAF’s response
I. On May 20, 2016, the Director General of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), David Howman, wrote a letter confirming that WADA basically agreed with the publication of a study of doping in elite sports. This study had been prepared for publication by the lead author, Professor Rolf Ulrich (University of Tübingen), together with an international team of researchers. Prof. Dr. Dr. Sandberger has represented the University of Tübingen and Prof. Dr. Rolf Ulrich in these negotiations. However, in his 20 May 2016 letter to Tübingen’s Professor Sandberger, David Howman wrote that WADA would still need to discuss with the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) the conditions under which the IAAF would have access to the raw data. This letter seemed destined to mark the end of years of negotiation between the WADA, IAAF, and the University over the release of the study. The chronology of these negotiations is as follows.
II. In 2011, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) commissioned a study, titled “Doping in Elite Sports Assessed by Randomized-Response Surveys.” This study used an established anonymous survey technique from mathematical statistics, the unrelated question method, to investigate the prevalence of doping by top athletes at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics in Daegu, South Korea, and at the Pan Arab Games in Doha, Qatar, the same year. Using the results of the surveys, an international group of researchers led by the University of Tübingen’s Professor Rolf Ulrich produced a paper describing the methodology of the study and an analysis of the data. WADA provided organizational and financial support for the study; the results were planned to be published jointly with WADA. WADA asked the researchers to sign a non-disclosure agreement on 26 October 2011, after the results were analyzed and presented to it. However, after this date, WADA informed the researchers that there would be a delay before the study could actually be published. It appears, in retrospect, that this delay was caused by the fact that WADA had an agreement with the IAAF, under which WADA had to consult the IAAF before agreeing to publication of the study. The researchers had been unaware that this agreement existed.
III. Until mid-2015, the University Tübingen negotiated with a WADA-appointed lawyer, who himself spent two years seeking IAAF consent to publication of the study. According to the WADA-appointed lawyer, he received no response. At this point, Prof. Dr. Dr. Sandberger sought help from Dr. Pierre-Yves Garnier, Medical & Scientific Senior Manager and Director of the IAAF Medical and Anti-Doping Department, sending him the authors’ manuscript. The IAAF forwarded the manuscript to an anonymous reviewer, who raised various questions about the study. The authors of the study then composed a response to all of those questions, and this response was returned to Dr. Garnier.
IV. On August 16, 2015, in an unexpected development, the London Sunday Times reported on the Russian doping scandal uncovered by German journalist Hajo Seppelt and also reported on the embargo on the publication of the WADA-commissioned study. This led to a first hearing by the UK parliamentary committee for Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by Jesse Norman, in October 2015. At that time, the UK Parliament somehow obtained a copy of the study manuscript and posted the manuscript on the Internet in the fall of 2015, without seeking the consent of the authors. However, the posted manuscript represented only the core summary of the study, and omitted more than 30 pages of Supplemental Materials necessary for a full scientific presentation of the methodology and the findings. At the October hearing, WADA head David Howman explained that it was the agency’s policy to publish academic studies, but that there was an agreement with the International Association of Athletics Federations, which meant the IAAF’s consent was needed.
V. At a second hearing by the same UK parliamentary committee on December 2, 2015, IAAF president Lord Sebastian Coe and IAAF anti-doping manager Thomas Capdevielle were questioned about the apparent blockade of the study’s publication. Their statements were inconclusive, and indeed appeared frankly contradictory. They reiterated that the IAAF did not have the power to block the study; yet they stressed that the IAAF had the right to review the study for validity prior to approving its publication. Notably, although the IAAF’s Dr. Garnier had been provided with all requested documentation, and had repeatedly promised that a decision was imminent, none came.
VI. On April 4 2016, Professor Sandberger again called upon David Howman and on Lord Coe to look into the state of negotiations between WADA and the IAAF. He received a reply on April 14 2016 from IAAF Secretary General Jean Gracia, who claimed the data belonged to the IAAF and had been withheld from the IAAF by WADA since 2012, although the IAAF had repeatedly requested it. David Howman responded on April 21, telling Professor Sandberger that WADA had no further objections to publication. Professor Sandberger then asked David Howman to transfer the raw data to the IAAF and promised to present the final version of the manuscript to WADA prior to submitting it to a scientific journal.
VII. David Howman essentially agreed to this arrangement in his letter of May 20 2016, as noted in the first paragraph above – but stated that WADA “will directly discuss with the IAAF the conditions under which the IAAF will have access to the raw data. As a matter of principle WADA avoids imposing undue conditions to the circulation of scientific information unless detrimental to the fight against doping in sports.” Since then, WADA has assured the researchers that it has made every effort to negotiate with the IAAF regarding the sharing of the data, but has received no answer from the IAAF despite multiple inquiries.
VIII. The study, found a very high estimated prevalence of doping among athletes at both of the elite events where the study was conducted in 2011. These findings have more recently been supported by WADA’s own investigating committee, which probed processes within the IAAF in 2015, and by the Russian doping scandal.
IX. The study’s authors and the University of Tübingen call upon the IAAF to work with WADA to meet any remaining outstanding prerequisites and to release the study. This is a necessary step in the prevention and combatting of doping, as well as a sign of respect for the freedom of research.
Contact:
Dr. Karl G. Rijkhoek
University of Tübingen
Public Relations Department
Phone +49 7071 29-76788
karl.rijkhoek[at]uni-tuebingen.de