Committee publishes "blocked" study on doping
8 September 2015
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee publishes a study commissioned in 2011 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) from researchers at the University of Tubingen and other institutions, which suggests that 29-45% of athletes under examination may have been doping.
- World Anti-Doping Agency: doping prevalence survey (PDF 926KB)
- Inquiry: Blood doping in athletics
- Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Commenting on the evidence on blood doping heard during the blood doping evidence session and the Committee's decision to publish the report, Committee Chair, Jesse Norman MP said:
"This study was commissioned in 2011 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), but WADA has been unable to publish it because the IAAF has refused permission for it to do so. The University of Tubingen has been quoted as saying 'The IAAF's delaying publication for so long without good reason is a serious encroachment on the freedom of publication,' and its lead author, Rolf Ulrich, as saying 'The IAAF is blocking it.'
The head of WADA acknowledged today at the hearing that its inability to publish the report is contrary both to its practice and its wider duty of transparency. The report contains no identifying information about any athletes, and its conclusions have already been widely reported. In this context, the Committee felt that it was in the public interest to put this report into the public domain."
Response to Paula Radcliffe
In response to a press statement by Paula Radcliffe, Mr Norman said:
"Ms Radcliffe's comments appear to focus far more on the Sunday Times's reports than on today's hearing. But for the avoidance of doubt the witnesses in evidence and the Committee itself at the hearing were all careful not to identify any individual athletes, and did not discuss specific allegations or test results. The Sunday Times database has not been passed to the Committee, and Committee members have not had the ability to consult it. No names of any athletes were mentioned in the hearing except those already in the public domain.
It is untrue to suggest that 'the cloak of Parliamentary privilege' has been used to implicate any specific individual in any form of doping. Anyone with concerns about this is encouraged to view the hearing online, or to consult the transcript, which will be published shortly."