The trouble with Ostarine: Jimmy Wallhead’s
16th March 2018
Features
Letter of response from Sir Craig Reedie, WADA President
Dear Mr Legeay,
Thank you for your open letter to me.
Let me be clear from the outset, as President of WADA, I fully intend to lead the anti- doping movement until the end of my second term next year. That is the extent of my mandate and at that stage I will be happy to pass on the leadership of the organization to my successor on 31 December 2019, full in the knowledge that it is stronger and more effective now than it has ever been throughout its 20-year existence.
You mention certain substances and the Prohibited List. In this area, WADA will always be led by credible, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that is available. As you know, tramadol is a partial opioid agonist and a useful therapeutic agent. There is not currently any consensus among WADA’s Prohibited List Expert Group – which is composed of experts who are independent from WADA – that tramadol meets the criteria for inclusion on the List and so it remains non-prohibited.
That said, the Expert Group will continue to evaluate this medication and class of drug as new studies (including some funded by WADA) become available and, in the meanwhile, we are supportive of the UCI’s initiative to control the useof tramadol in cycling, primarily for health reasons. We maintain an ongoing dialogue with UCI and continue to make every effort to explore options for the UCI in this matter. We also monitor closely scientific research in relation to corticoids and maintain an ongoing dialogue with UCI on this matter.
As regards the Operacion Puerto case, WADA has been very proactive in this case, invested significant resources since the case emerged in 2006 and has done everything possible to date from a legal standpoint and in every other way, to conclude that sorry episode in a way that secures justice for clean athletes. To criticise WADA in this case demonstrates an astonishing lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened to date.
When it comes to the Russia question, the democratic decision made by the WADA Executive Committee to reinstate the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), under strict conditions, has resulted in some dissenting voices. WADA respects that everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, but we remain firmly of the view that it was the right decision for clean sport and that WADA is in a stronger position because of it.
The decision was taken, following a recommendation of our independent Compliance Review Committee, by a clear majority of the Executive Committee (9-2 with one abstention). There was a majority from both the sports movement and government representatives, who compose WADA’s Executive Committee in equal parts. WADA’s focusnow is on finalising the process for accessing all the data from the Moscow laboratory, which is the missing piece of the puzzle, by the end of the year, allowing us to catch more cheats and exonerate clean athletes.
In fact, as WADA’s Director General Olivier Niggli has stated this week it is a win-win situation. Either we get our hands on the data so that our investigators can do what they do so well and go after the cheats or we will be in a position to make RUSADA non- compliant again, this time under harsher terms than before thanks to the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories, which came into force on 1 April 2018.
You criticize what you call a lack of independence in WADA. It is true that we are essentially comprised and entirely funded – in equal parts – by the sports movement and governments of the world. However, while nominated by the sports movement, I have always acted in an independent fashion, as my record would show.
In addition, WADA launched last year a governance review process that this week made some recommendations to our Foundation Board that will be considered at its meeting next month. Among the proposals of the multi-stakeholder working group are that there should be more independent members on our Executive Committee and that the positions of President and Vice- President should also be independent along with a long list of other proposed measures. This process has clearly shown WADA’s willingness to adapt and that it wants to ensure ithas the right governance structure in place to be fit for purpose in the years to come.
As regards Christopher Froome, WADA remains convinced that the UCI reached the correct and fair outcome in what was a very complex case. Your efforts to over-simplify it, without having knowledge of the voluminous file of the case and both the scientific and legal challenges it raised, demonstrate an unfortunate attempt to cast a shadow on WADA’s credibility and an obvious refusal to accept the reality of what happened.
Finally, I would like to point out that your letter was received on 24 October, ironically the same day as WADA won a significant victory for clean cycling in securing enhanced bans for three of your sport’s most notorious cheats. The decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to uphold our appeal, which was supported by the UCI, USADA and everyone who cares about clean sport, has certainly undermined your assertion that WADA is not upholding the rights of clean athletes. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth – in everything we do, WADA is keeping the athletes to the fore.
Yours sincerely,
Sir Craig Reedie
President, WADA
• This letter was sent as a reply to an Open Letter published by Roger Legeay, President of the Mouvement Pour un Cyclisme Crédible (MPCC) on 24 October 2018, calling for the resignation of Sir Craig Reedie, President of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). You can view the original, sent by Reedie on 26 October 2018, by clicking here.
