Executive Summary

This is a report about sports policy and sustainability. It will focus on a precise sports policy and how it can be sustained for effective results in a country and the world a whole. Precisely, the paper focusses on the anti-doping policy that has grown prominent in the present world. With the wide range of sports and advancement in research, sports men and women use performance enhancement drugs to win competitions. This paper will focus on the anti-doping policy and the factors that affect its full implementation. Additionally, focus will be directed to the bodies relate to implementation of this policy and how it is done. Lastly, the paper will direct its attention to how this policy is monitored and evaluated so as to acquire effective outcome. Theories and scholars with varied views will be presented to offer concrete backing for points put across. Through all of these elements described by the paper, an analysis of the policy on its effectiveness and its projection for future sporting practices.

Sports Policy and Sustainability

1. Introduction

The main goal of the United Kingdom Anti-doping Policy is based on the safeguarding of health sports men and women in addition to keeping the competition as fair as possible. The focus makes sure that the varied bodies of sport in the UK have constant sets of policies and regulations so as to safeguard the rights of sports men and women to participate in a drug free competition. This policy, as stated by the UK Sport, was considered a landmark in the war of a drug free sports. It lay on trying to set standards that are in line with the International Standards for Doping Control (ISDC). Additionally, the policy looks to make sure that governing bodies that relate to sports, are in line with the policies that safeguard the rights of the sport persons. Impressing upon this is Verroken who states that there is a strong connection between sports and the government in getting a drug-free environment for professional athletes (Hill, 2013, 8).

2. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Anti-Doping Policy

The Anti-doping policy states that the governing bodies will settle on the anti-doping practice on a yearly basis with the sports ministries and engage in extensive effort to acquire the programme goals. A person will be chosen to be in charge for the policy and programme and an ISO certified agent who will be charged with undertaking tests. Additionally, they will offer the UK Sports with the needed tools and data to enable testing (King, 2009, 12). At the same time they will have to advise the athletes on the process for testing prior to the testing process and construct an independent review, and investigation so as make sure there is a review of evidence and decision is well communicated. The policy goes on to state that the governing bodies are charged with using sanctions against sports men and women who go against the anti-doping policy. The sanctions will be in line with the regulations of the sports body. The sanctions are in line with the Olympic Association body or the Commonwealth Games Association.

The task undertaken by the sports is extensively defined in the anti-doping policy. The UK sport will have to settle on a yearly anti-doping program that involves testing, where necessary, education and information, with the related bodies and help in delivery. Information confidentiality will have to be assured unless it is needed, so as to offer transparency and liability for financial support and integrity of the testing process (Bloyce, and Smith, 2009, 21). Additionally, they will offer data to the investigative teams or appeal panels and training practices offered by the related bodies in regard to operational and legal matters. The governing bodies need advice and guidance from the anti-doping team so as to be successful in the programme. Moreover, autonomous advice on complicated scientific or medical matters will be offered by the Sport governing body that will develop a conflict resolution process for sports. Lastly, the sports body has to progress with independent, quality collection procedures and help the bodies in the monitoring and reporting of outcomes.

Additionally, in regards to the anti-doping policy, the Sports Council has the ability to pull out its financial support from the sports men and women that are reviewed by its panel. There are Acts that are have vital impact on the policy and they are the Data protection Act and the Human Rights Act. This acts are backed by Waddington that the operations of state operated sports in today’s society, health advancement has to take first priority (Stewart, and Smith,2008, 280). While Williams adds that anti-doping policy aims to safeguard what is of great significance to sports.

3. Factors Influencing the Anti-Doping Policy

In today’s sport tendency, drugs are not just prohibited, they are similarly punished by jail term. This may not always be the situation. Moreover, in the present period, public opinion to the use of drugs are not reliable (Waddington, 2000, 91). There is hence the desire for appropriate anti-doping policies not just due to drug’s negative influence on the health of the people using them, but similarly due to doping as a form of cheating. Additionally, doping has adverse effects on the sports as it brings down the principles of fair play and if it is accepted it is bound to severely bring down the public confidence and spoil the principle of fair sport.

The use of drugs to enhance performance in sports is a tendency that has been there for a long period of time, since 2000 years in the past (Waddington, 2000, 98). However, a change in perspective has taken place. It is not long ago that this tendency has started to be termed to as intolerable. Research has proven that there is a huge rise in the use of performance enhancing drugs in the past years (Waddington, 2000, 14). This has taken place because of issues like major technology and biomedical advancement, which has brought about extensive access of these drugs. Additionally, not long ago, there has been major de-amateurisation and professionalization of sport. Surely, the playing fields have been raised because of the politics that are in sports, and the factor of sportive nationalism and national pride have started to be connected to winning, because of rise in the size of global sporting events. Moreover, the rise commercialization of sport has brought about the availability of great financial rewards for those that win (Waddington, 2000, 126).

The aspect of anti-doping policy is a recent policy that is prevalent in several countries. There are though a limited number of social science studies in regard to monitoring with the monitoring and assessment of policy partly due to anti-doping policies that are unreliable. In the past, the issues relating to doping was common in a few sports and countries. This brought about the fear of getting involved extensively and getting the answers to issues that may be hard to manage. The attitude of governments towards this issue contrasted to great levels. Subversive governments, a good example the Soviet Union, supported doping practices and others set up state-backed doping programs for their sports men and women (Waddington, 2009, 178). These programs received financial support to undertake their activities. There are those governments that did nothing about doping, also known as inactive governments. This is attributed to their low involvement in sports or due to limited resources that would be directed to manage doping or since they opt to neglect it. Those governments that are more active like France and Belgium have noted doping as an issue of public concern and put in place policies to eradicate or control it since the 60s.

4. Implementation of the Anti-Doping Policy

The Council of Europe took part in a great role in modeling the early anti-doping policy. In the 1978, it created recommendation on doping designed to give way to local anti-doping policy. This early stage of policy making was keen on the aspects of doping that were precisely on certain sports, nations or occasions. Additionally, the aspects solely depended on resources that could not be touched, that were managed by individual actors. Considering that relation with the varied actors at this level was informal, there came the need for more cooperation. This was fuelled by major elements like an increase in the size of doping cases at the start of 90s (Bloyce, and Smith, 2009, 12; King, 2009, 32). An awareness that led to setting up of anti-doping programmes that cooperated with global bodies. This however led to doubts on the reliability of testing procedures and the desire of sports men and women to challenges the decisions of these bodies in court.

Hence, the current stage of policy making is keen on the desire of harmonizing the policy on well knitted cooperation between the government and the sport organs. This has led to these bodies and governments to be aware of the global and variation of the matter at hand. Elements like a change in balance between subversive, inactive and active governments have helped in these strategies. Initially, subversive and inactive bodies started to take steps to manage this issue. There has been a rise in the size of platforms where policy players are able to assemble and talk about doping-related issues and share knowledge (Hill, 2013, 43). The sport policy on doping of 1989 was remade to focus on the integration of anti-doping strategies in all nations and sports as well as focus on the significance of supporting it financially, administrative-wise an legally.

While other bodies like the IAAF focused on the significance of taking part of scientists in the anti-doping agencies, there are a number of bilateral and multilateral consensus between nations that took place in the 80s, like the International Anti-doping Agreement. The impact of the advancement of these consensus was to offer, in the 90s, a substantive infrastructure that supported the debate of harmonization. Similarly, this offered a base for the implementation of the policies.

In the United Kingdom, the anti-doping policy has been modelled by the parallel practice of the British Sports Council and the bodies related to sports. At the end of 1970s, the British Sports Council started to be useful in the advancement of policy. It took part in the financing, research and enhancement of testing processes (Ryvkin, 2013, 256). Additionally, it was important in the acquisition of an agreement with IOC list of substances and tendencies that ought to be prohibited. By the end of 80s, major governing bodies had acquired this list of prohibited products or had changed its adaptations.

The United Kingdom governing bodies attempted to make sure that the progression of domestic policy advancement is in line with policy growth. Hence, they tried to look for national policy objectives using global bodies (Hoye, Nicholson, and Houlihan, 2010, 53). The implementation of this policy has similarly had chequered past. Most of the bodies had acquired the anti-doping policy by the end of 80s, though it was due to pressure that the Sport Council had effective testing processes used.

Most of the policy changes took place at the start of the 90s where the Council set up a Doping Control Service that would offer details, education and testing. It is here that random testing was introduced. Hence an extensive policy agreement was starting to take shape just as the complicated inter-company model for implementation, involving varied bodies both local and foreign (Lindsey, and Houlihan, 2013, 21). Though there are a certain issues like getting the relevant size of tests, applying tests on foreign sports men and women that took part in games in the UK, a slow process in getting positive test outcome and the desire by athletes to challenge the outcome in courts.

Hence the UK Sports statement in regard to the policy aims to offer an extensive and gradual model that puts out the duties of those that take part in the anti-doping practice. It safeguards the sports men and women in terms of their rights to take part in a drug free sport and similarly encourage the backing of medical experts and administrators as well as making it to be publicly accountable for their procedures and results (Houlihan, 2008, 32). This policy has made the UK to be at par with all stages of the International Standard for Doping Control.

5. Analysis of the Anti-Doping Policy

When one focusses on Lowi’s grouping of public sport policy, one can immediately that the UK Sport Statement of Anti-Doping Policy can be stated as one that can be controlled. The policy enables the management of behaviour of the community at large as well as state the processes that will be used so as to acquire the aspects of the policy. This involves models that would punish those that are found guilty of going against the policy. Boundaries are well detailed, like it offers an extensive list of prohibited substances, as well as offer a detailed description of the process the policy takes.

The Anti-doping policy can to a great level be noticed to acquire the tenets of ‘Third Way’ political ideology. The aspects for advancing equality and fairness, as a primary focus of the policy may reverberate the tenets of social democracy. Though the notion of ‘no rights without responsibilities’ is similarly noted here. The policy makes sure that the right to equal involvement by stating extensively what are the duties of sport men and women with regard to doping. The aspect of the Third World Political idea goes on to be of focus due to the limited role the country has with regard to active involvement of the policy (Hoye, Nicholson, and Houlihan 2010, 61). A good example is independent reviews, investigation and analysis of blood samples among others that are placed on the National Governing bodies. The Sports body in UK works with the Government and other related bodies. However, the UK Sports authority is tasked by the government and UK Sports to report to the national body that is charged with making the policy. Additionally, the Sports bodies are charged with education about doping.

The ‘issued approach’ to policy may have been applied. The anti-doping policy is due to keen thought and consideration. Its principles are available and its priorities have been evaluated. Surely this policy has gone through all of the relevant aspects related to this matter. However, another opinion states the significance of the ‘network’ aspect (Houlihan, 2008, 62). There seems to be a diffusion of powers in the players of the policy though variations have to be considered. This is since the bodies share interest and resources but have a similar value model of safeguarding the application of performance-enhancing drugs. The policy applied a process of strategic control. It is keen on future objectives like autonomy from the nuisance of these drugs.

6. Conclusion

The policy is seen to have a number of rationales. The first one is health advancement, this as has been stated above is a major basis for the prohibition of performance-enhancing drugs. Health and other issues that arise from it are of great concern today in sports while sports is seen as a way to elevate the health of an individual. Secondly, the policy has come out from the desire to advance, offer and safeguard fair competition since it is a way of cheating. The aspect of fairness is based in the aspect that all competitors ought to be on the same level of winning. The third aspect for the anti-doping policy is that doping harms the image that sports tries to create. All of these aspects have been well talked about in the paper as well as the process that related bodies are taking to make sure that doping is eradicated in the sporting sector. This, as has been shown, calls for all bodies to play a role in this. The future appears bright if all of the aspects of this anti-doping policy are applied.

Bibliography

Bloyce, D., and Smith, A. 2009. Sport Policy and Development. London: Routledge.

Hill, M. 2013. The Public Policy Process. 6^thed. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Hoye, R., Nicholson, M. and Houlihan B. 2010. Sport and Policy, issues and analysis, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Houlihan, B. 2008. Sport and Society 2^nd ed., London: Sage Publications.

King, N. 2009. Sport Policy and Governance: Local Perspectives, Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Lindsey, I., and Houlihan, B. 2013. Sport Policy in Britain. London: Routledge.

Ryvkin, D. 2013. Contests with Doping. Journal of Sports Economics 14: 253–275

Stewart, B. and Smith, A. 2008. Drug Use in Sport Implications for Public Policy. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, vol. 32(3), p. 278-298.

Waddington, I. 2000. Sport, Health and Drugs: A Critical Sociological Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Waddington, I. 2009. “Sport, health and drugs: a critical re-examination of some key issues and problems”. Perspectives in Public Health, 129 (4), p. 174-182.

Latest Assignments