International Water Ski Federation
Dr. Ross Outerbridge
303 - 321 Nicola Street
Kamloops, British Columbia
CANADA, V2C 6G6
Tel: 250 374 1615
Fax: 250 374-9232
This report is solely to do with the issue of Doping Control.
A. World Games:
This issue was finally concluded last Fall after many letters between myself and the vice President of the Games. They finally accepted our position that the athlete in question receive a warning but not lose his medal from the Games. Documentation regarding this issue can be passed on if required.
B. 1997 World Championships:
There were 18 tests conducted. The testing at the tournament went very smoothly and we must thank Dr. Ortiz from Medellin for helping run these tests so well. During the tournament we were told that the tests would be sent to an IOC accredited lab in Barcelona but this did not happen. The tests were conducted in Bogota at a lab without IOC accreditation. Obtaining accurate test results was slow and difficult. When finally they were obtained (@4 months after the event concluded) it was found that the two reported "positive" tests were in fact not within threshold ranges or were for "medically prescribed" medications that the Medical Commission had received prior notification of. Therefore there were no Doping Infractions. The collection methods and sample containers were rather old fashioned, an issue which we will have to correct once the new Policy is in place.
C. 1998 Junior World Championships:
I just received a report from the doping control tests conducted at the recent Junior world Championships in France. 6 tests were conducted and all were negative.
D. New Anti-Doping Policy:
As you know the Medical Commission prepared a revised and updated Anti-Doping Policy for the IWSF which was presented at the Executive Board meeting in Medellin last fall. It has taken a lot longer to circulate the new policy and get feedback on it than I had anticipated. Attached is Draft #3 of the new policy which I am happy with for now. The world of sport changes rapidly and we will have to continuously re-evaluate this policy to keep it current. For now I think that this policy addresses the important questions that the initial IWSF Anti-Doping Policy failed to address.
I have circulated this policy to the other members of the Medical Commission and an athlete representative for feedback as well. I am not anticipating major changes. I think that this policy is ready to implement. Prior to doing so the Executive Board should be
aware of the implications of some of the new ideas that have been incorporated into this new policy
1. Out of Competition Testing: This means that the IWSF will contract with an independent agency to conduct theses tests. The rationale is that some countries have good short notice or no-notice testing programs and others do not. By doing this it enables the IWSF to create a more equitable testing program for athletes on the ranking list. It will also, of course, cost something to do this. Tests run in the range of $300 to $500 US each. We do not have to do many, just enough to send the message to our athletes that this is taken seriously by the IWSF. This will require a budget from the medical commission as well as the money allowing these tests to be conducted.
2. Expanded testing: All IWSF "events" are now subject to Doping Control testing, not just the World Championships. This means that hosting guidelines for IWSF events will have to be changed to include this. Due to the expanded testing and the new Policy an IWSF Medical Commission representative will have to be "appointed" to oversee the tests at each event much like the selection of officials. Expenses for that "official" will also have to be factored into hosting guidelines for major events. This is also an item that will have to be budgeted for by the IWSF.
3. Communication: This has been a problem this year in getting results from events and dealing with those results. The IWSF must establish firm support for this policy if it is to be taken seriously by countries hosting major events. We must certainly also do some work in creating more rapid communication amongst the commission members.
I would ask that the Executive Board provide any comments or feedback on this new policy and itís implications before we put it into effect.
Ross Outerbridge, Chair