Are WADA fit to 'police' doping in sport

[King Boonen]

Re:

What about who funds Wada and how much exactly. Don't think that is disclosed anywhere but do correct me if wrong.

Contributions to WADA, I'm unsure if this covers all money received.:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/finance/contributions-funding

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

What about who funds Wada and how much exactly. Don't think that is disclosed anywhere but do correct me if wrong.

Contributions to WADA, I'm unsure if this covers all money received.:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/finance/contributions-funding

Other income is covered here:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wad-020_annual_report_2015_vf_high_1006_final.pdf

Mainly see Note 14 on the financial statements (page2 65-66).

 

[sniper]

thanks KB, much appreciated.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What about who funds Wada and how much exactly. Don't think that is disclosed anywhere but do correct me if wrong.

Contributions to WADA, I'm unsure if this covers all money received.:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/finance/contributions-funding

Some weird-ish data in there (to layman's eyes that is).

For instance why did UK contribute more than twice as much as Turkey?

And why are the "donations" such unround numbers?
I'd expect a donation to be, say, 5.000 dollars, not 4.734 dollars.

Why do some countries only have money under "invoiced amount", but nothing under "received amount".

For Japan, what does "additional contribution" mean?

 

[sniper]

And are those contributions voluntary or is there an obligatory contribution to be made?
Why do so many countries of differing sizes contribute the same amount?
E.g. Benin.........................................................
481 [invoiced] 0 [received]
Botswana...........................................................
481 [invoiced]
481 [received]
Burkina Faso....................................................
481 [invoiced]
481 [received]
Burundi......................................................
481 [invoiced]
481 [received]

What kind of contribution is that? And couldn't they roudn it to 500?
And why was Benin's contribution not received?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What about who funds Wada and how much exactly. Don't think that is disclosed anywhere but do correct me if wrong.

Contributions to WADA, I'm unsure if this covers all money received.:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/finance/contributions-funding

Other income is covered here:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wad-020_annual_report_2015_vf_high_1006_final.pdf

Mainly see Note 14 on the financial statements (page2 65-66).

Cheers, interesting.

This tells us about the grants received.
But I'm still not sure if we are seeing what WADA's base budget is made up of.
The contributions in the other document are "contributions to WADA's budget", so apparently they have a base budget independent of those contributions (and grants?).

By the way, Canada being such a huge contributor to me is fishy.

WADA benefits from two major government supports in
Canada.
...
The grants are subject to the following conditions: WADA
must maintain its permanent operational headquarters in
Montréal, maintain a minimum staff of 17 to 25 employees,
supply quarterly unaudited and annual audited accounts,
budgets and activity reports, and continue its original mis-
sion. The aim of these government supports is to encourage
and maintain WADA’s activities on a long-term basis.

How many Canadian positives have we seen in the past years?
Not many that I can think of.

I 'm not claiming to have a clear cut solution for this (if any), but from what I'm seeing there it seems to me that the current funding system opens the door to all sorts of favoritism.

 

[King Boonen]

The overall financials are on page 49, that covers income and operating expenses. Please read through the documentation, I'm not going to start pulling out things for you that can easily be found and understood (I'm not an accountant so if I can understand a lot of it I'm sure most people here can).

About the contributions by nation. I don't know but I would guess it is IOC members, based on GDP, numbers of athletes competing, size of olympic testing pools etc. that dictates how much each nation contributes. That's likely why the numbers aren't rounded, they are spat out by a formula and that's what nations get billed.

WADA have to be based somewhere, Canada donate more money so they get the prestige of having WADA there, it's like bidding for a TDF start. I don't really believe the altruistic aims claimed at the end of the last part you quote but it's better than nothing.


As for funding being open to abuse, I'm really not sure how else they could do it. I suppose you could enforce only formula derived contributions so no-one can pay extra but thats about it I would think.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

What about who funds Wada and how much exactly. Don't think that is disclosed anywhere but do correct me if wrong.

Contributions to WADA, I'm unsure if this covers all money received.:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/finance/contributions-funding

Other income is covered here:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wad-020_annual_report_2015_vf_high_1006_final.pdf

Mainly see Note 14 on the financial statements (page2 65-66).

Cheers, interesting.

This tells us about the grants received.
But I'm still not sure if we are seeing what WADA's base budget is made up of.
The contributions in the other document are "contributions to WADA's budget", so apparently they have a base budget independent of those contributions (and grants?).

By the way, Canada being such a huge contributor to me is fishy.

WADA benefits from two major government supports in
Canada.
...
The grants are subject to the following conditions: WADA
must maintain its permanent operational headquarters in
Montréal, maintain a minimum staff of 17 to 25 employees,
supply quarterly unaudited and annual audited accounts,
budgets and activity reports, and continue its original mis-
sion. The aim of these government supports is to encourage
and maintain WADA’s activities on a long-term basis.

How many Canadian positives have we seen in the past years?
Not many that I can think of.

I 'm not claiming to have a clear cut solution for this (if any), but from what I'm seeing there it seems to me that the current funding system opens the door to all sorts of favoritism.

WADA isn't in the business of catching dopers. Their mission is: " Its key activities include scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the World Anti Doping Code (Code) – the document harmonizing anti-doping policies in all sports and all countries." https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are

In Canada the CCES is taking the lead in catching the dopers and promoting clean sport. They maintain a list of current sanctions. http://cces.ca/canadian-sport-sanction-registry There's 5 Canadian cyclists currently under suspension.

Given that, how does "from what I'm seeing there it seems to me that the current funding system opens the door to all sorts of favoritism" make sense?

John Swanson

 

[Semper Fidelis]

WADA and the IOC are the same. They both are about as transparent as Dog poop.

 

[sniper]

Re:

The overall financials are on page 49, that covers income and operating expenses. Please read through the documentation, I'm not going to start pulling out things for you that can easily be found and understood (I'm not an accountant so if I can understand a lot of it I'm sure most people here can).

About the contributions by nation. I don't know but I would guess it is IOC members, based on GDP, numbers of athletes competing, size of olympic testing pools etc. that dictates how much each nation contributes. That's likely why the numbers aren't rounded, they are spat out by a formula and that's what nations get billed.

WADA have to be based somewhere, Canada donate more money so they get the prestige of having WADA there, it's like bidding for a TDF start. I don't really believe the altruistic aims claimed at the end of the last part you quote but it's better than nothing.

As for funding being open to abuse, I'm really not sure how else they could do it. I suppose you could enforce only formula derived contributions so no-one can pay extra but thats about it I would think.

Cheers, and agreed on all of this.

No, I am definitely not expecting you to do the heavy lifting for me. If I gave that impression I shouldn't have.
Admittedly I lack the time and knowledge to go through it in any kind of detail. And you're right that I should withhold judgement until I do have the time and knowledge. Still, I'm curious and sceptic, hence my questions. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of the system can expand on some of them.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
WADA isn't in the business of catching dopers. Their mission is: " Its key activities include scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the World Anti Doping Code (Code) – the document harmonizing anti-doping policies in all sports and all countries." https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are

In Canada the CCES is taking the lead in catching the dopers and promoting clean sport. They maintain a list of current sanctions. http://cces.ca/canadian-sport-sanction-registry There's 5 Canadian cyclists currently under suspension.

Given that, how does "from what I'm seeing there it seems to me that the current funding system opens the door to all sorts of favoritism" make sense?

John Swanson

Don't WADA approve and sanction AD laboratories world-wide? (yes they do, see the boldfaced part in your post).
So right there there is plenty of room for favoritism.
One clear-cut example is the Lausanne Lab which has been proven to be through and through corrupt plenty of times, yet never ever has been sanctioned.

WADA and the IOC are the same. They both are about as transparent as Dog poop.

nice metaphor.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
WADA isn't in the business of catching dopers. Their mission is: " Its key activities include scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the World Anti Doping Code (Code) – the document harmonizing anti-doping policies in all sports and all countries." https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are

In Canada the CCES is taking the lead in catching the dopers and promoting clean sport. They maintain a list of current sanctions. http://cces.ca/canadian-sport-sanction-registry There's 5 Canadian cyclists currently under suspension.

Given that, how does "from what I'm seeing there it seems to me that the current funding system opens the door to all sorts of favoritism" make sense?

John Swanson

Don't WADA approve and sanction AD laboratories world-wide? (yes they do, see the boldfaced part in your post).
So right there there is plenty of room for favoritism.
One clear-cut example is the Lausanne Lab which has been proven to be through and through corrupt plenty of times, yet never ever has been sanctioned.

WADA and the IOC are the same. They both are about as transparent as Dog poop.

nice metaphor.

The only Canadian accredited lab is in Montreal. Are you suggesting that Christiane Ayotte (Director of Montreal lab) has corrupted the lab with WADA's blessing because Canada helps fund WADA? I guess anything is possible, but I'd need to see more than what's been shown. A lot more.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Also, I thought the problem wasn't with WADA, or even the Lausanne laboratory. The big problem is with Martial Saugy. http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/

Now why Saugy retains any position of authority is a very good question. He should have been sacked after the Armstrong revelation. Does anybody know who Saugy reports to? I guess WADA might not have authority to "fire" him directly which would leave them with the option of shutting down (removing accreditation) one of their most important labs.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

The only Canadian accredited lab is in Montreal. Are you suggesting that Christiane Ayotte (Director of Montreal lab) has corrupted the lab with WADA's blessing because Canada helps fund WADA? I guess anything is possible, but I'd need to see more than what's been shown. A lot more.

John Swanson

I'm suggesting there is scope/opportunity for favoritism there. Whether this scope/opportunity is being explored is anybody's guess. It's like that with all COIs. They open the door to corruption, which isn't saying that corruption is taking place. Just that there is scope for it. Which is why COIs should be declared and preferably removed.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Also, I thought the problem wasn't with WADA, or even the Lausanne laboratory. The big problem is with Martial Saugy. http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/

Now why Saugy retains any position of authority is a very good question. He should have been sacked after the Armstrong revelation. Does anybody know who Saugy reports to? I guess WADA might not have authority to "fire" him directly which would leave them with the option of shutting down (removing accreditation) one of their most important labs.

John Swanson

Agreed, and point taken.

I think meanwhile he left the Lausanne Lab.
But no sanctions, not even an investigation, even though it's on the record that he helped destroy Russian samples.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Also, I thought the problem wasn't with WADA, or even the Lausanne laboratory. The big problem is with Martial Saugy. http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/the-destruction-of-samples-and-martial-saugy/

Now why Saugy retains any position of authority is a very good question. He should have been sacked after the Armstrong revelation. Does anybody know who Saugy reports to? I guess WADA might not have authority to "fire" him directly which would leave them with the option of shutting down (removing accreditation) one of their most important labs.

John Swanson

The lab he runs/ran is part of the Centre Universitaire Romand de Medecine Legale (CURML, excuse the lack of accents). Prof. Silke Grabherr is the director so I would think he answers to her although he is a Professor so decisions over his career would no doubt be up to the University of Lausanne board.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...

The only Canadian accredited lab is in Montreal. Are you suggesting that Christiane Ayotte (Director of Montreal lab) has corrupted the lab with WADA's blessing because Canada helps fund WADA? I guess anything is possible, but I'd need to see more than what's been shown. A lot more.

John Swanson

I'm suggesting there is scope/opportunity for favoritism there. Whether this scope/opportunity is being explored is anybody's guess. It's like that with all COIs. They open the door to corruption, which isn't saying that corruption is taking place. Just that there is scope for it. Which is why COIs should be declared and preferably removed.

I guess I'm not getting what form this favourtism would take. WADA's abilities are very circumscribed.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I guess I'm not getting what form this favourtism would take. WADA's abilities are very circumscribed.

John Swanson

Did you know/get what kind of form IAAF's corruption took before Seppelt exposed it?

Antidoping corruption comes to us in different forms and shapes. But we only learn about the exact form and shape after somebody blows the whistle. Which rarely happens.

Again, I'm not claiming there is anything untoward happening in Montreal's lab.
Nor am I claiming to have a solution to the funding issues and the corresponding COIs.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
I guess I'm not getting what form this favourtism would take. WADA's abilities are very circumscribed.

John Swanson

Did you know/get what kind of form IAAF's corruption took before Seppelt exposed it?

Antidoping corruption comes to us in different forms and shapes. But we only learn about the exact form and shape after somebody blows the whistle. Which rarely happens.

Again, I'm not claiming there is anything untoward happening in Montreal's lab.
Nor am I claiming to have a solution to the funding issues and the corresponding COIs.

Quote: "I'm suggesting there is scope/opportunity for favoritism there"

And I'm saying that I don't get what form that favourtism could take since WADA's powers are circumscribed. Maybe you could give an example.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

examples?
but of course.

Somebody in Montreal destroying samples.
WADA turning a blind eye.

Somebody at WADA receiving whistleblower information about doping in Canada or corruption in Montreal lab.
WADA not acting on it.

More generally,
In whatever respect you can think of, the Montreal Lab may not adhere to the WADA code and WADA may turn a blind eye.

Don't bite the hand that feeds.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

examples?
but of course.

Somebody in Montreal destroying samples.
WADA turning a blind eye.

Somebody at WADA receiving whistleblower information about doping in Canada or corruption in Montreal lab.
WADA not acting on it.

More generally,
In whatever respect you can think of, the Montreal Lab may not adhere to the WADA code and WADA may turn a blind eye.

Don't bite the hand that feeds.

Okay, so basically WADA has power to remove accreditation and you're saying the favour might be to not use that power.

And for the record, whistleblower information wouldn't go to WADA because they can't act on it. It'd go to the CCES (Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport). If they didn't act on it, the whistleblower could go the minister of sport (Carla Qualtrough). If she doesn't act then the country has a corruption problem that would either be dealt with in parliament or the next election. Or not.

John Swanson

 

[roundabout]

Re:

And are those contributions voluntary or is there an obligatory contribution to be made?
Why do so many countries of differing sizes contribute the same amount?
E.g. Benin.........................................................
481 [invoiced] 0 [received]
Botswana...........................................................
481 [invoiced]
481 [received]
Burkina Faso....................................................
481 [invoiced]
481 [received]
Burundi......................................................
481 [invoiced]
481 [received]

What kind of contribution is that? And couldn't they roudn it to 500?
And why was Benin's contribution not received?

A very quick search gives this

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/funding-by-governments

 

[Zebadeedee]

First the muppets elect as their chief, the protégé of probably the most corrupt man (Dassler) in the history of sport. Then, its anti-doping body wonders why it's not gettng anywhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/21/frustrated-anti-doping-organisations-turn-anger-ioc-thomas-bach

It's a shame Gilbert & Sullivan aren't around to set it all to music.