UK Athletics (UKA) has today announced the commissioning of an Independent Review (Independent Review) following Alberto Salazar’s 4-year ban from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for violations of safe practices through his managing and running coaching programmes at the Nike Oregon Project (NOP).

In a press release UKA state they acknowledge the seriousness of the decision by USADA. It has now commissioned the Independent Review to review the processes under which the issues concerning the NOP were investigated in 2015 and 2017 and the subsequent related decisions made by the UKA Board at those respective times. The Independent Review will also set out any recommendations to assist UKA ensure its future governance and assurance framework is robust.

The Independent Review will be undertaken by John Mehrzad, the recognised leading sports law barrister with significant experience of conducting independent reviews in sport. He was the only legal member of the independent review panel that looked into the climate and culture of the world-class programme in British Cycling. He then chaired the independent review concerning governance issues within the British Equestrian Federation. He has also written and presented extensively on good practice for independent reviews and investigations within a sporting context.

The Independent Review will address the following questions:

UKA commissioned a review of the issues raised by the BBC Panorama programme ‘Catch me if you can’, broadcast in June 2015:
1) Were the terms of reference for that review reasonable given the nature of the allegations?

2) Were that review’s findings and conclusions presented in a reasonable way to enable the UKA Board to make informed decisions?

3) Were the subsequent decisions and recommendations made by the UKA Board reasonable with regard to the evidence available at the time?

Did the UKA Board give reasonable consideration to the ‘Fancy Bears’ leaking of the draft USADA report in 2017? Were the subsequent actions of the UKA Board reasonable with regard to the evidence available at the time?
Did UKA seek advice from UK Sport, UKAD and USADA in relation to the above issues in 2015 and 2017 respectively and, if so, did any of those bodies provide any formal response or guidance to the UKA in either 2015 or 2017?
Were the recommendations in the 2015 review reasonably actioned, tracked and documented by UKA in a manner which minimised future risk?
What lessons can be learnt from the above matters that can assist with the future governance of UKA?

UKA will aim to publish the findings from the Review in or around Spring 2020 and agrees to implement any recommendations made by that Review, to ensure its future governance and assurance framework is robust.

Chair of UK Athletics Performance Oversight Committee and of the 2015 NOP review, Sarah Rowell said:

“There has been much written about what the Oregon Project review looked into, found or concluded in 2015, and I therefore welcome this review as an opportunity to establish the full facts and for those facts to be published for all to see.”

UK Athletics Chair Chris Clark said:

“The UKA Board recognises the seriousness of the USADA decision released at the start of October. It has unanimously agreed that an independent review should now be carried out with the aim that findings and recommendations are published in or around Spring 2020.

“Our staff, athletes and coaches show immense dedication to this sport and are proud to be associated with British Athletics. We need to ensure we have a clear way forward that gives us confidence in the integrity of our coaching efforts. If there are lessons to be learnt, we plan to implement any recommendations into a future focused, transparent and accountable way of working.”

Are you a fan of Fast Running? Then please support us and become a patron. For as little as the price of a monthly magazine you can support Fast Running – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

The post UKA review on it’s handling of Nike Oregon Project appeared first on Fast Running.

The decision by the IAAF and Diamond League to cull a broad range of events from their 2020 fixtures seems to have been met with almost universal dismay, at least amongst athletes and many coaches.

The basis of the decision appears to be to allow meetings to be more easily delivered in line with a 90 minute TV schedule. Whether you agree with this or not (I don’t clearly) the reaction of athletes to the decision raises questions around whether athlete’s voices are ever really considered by those organisations who ultimately control the fate of their careers.

The decision comes on the back of a contentious World Championships in Doha which despite some fabulous performances and events has also been widely criticised. There is also recent decision to move the marathon and race walking events at the Tokyo Olympics to a different venue which has raised questions around consultation with athletes.

Whose interests really count?

My feeling is that if a international governing body is so disconnected with the values and feelings of athletes and fans that they need poorly conducted social media ‘research’ to help them make decisions we are in trouble.

The reality is the Diamond League decision felt less about the ‘research’ and more about the who’s interests really count – athletes or TV? Sponsors or those creating the product being sponsored?

In the end in Doha the fabulous performances by athletes dug the sport out of a hole it had made for itself. However that should not detract from the fact that the decision to take the games to Doha to start off with was hugely controversial and the stated aim to spread the sport to other parts of the world seemed to be a failure given the mostly empty stadium – I can’t see the consideration for athletes in these decisions.

A collective voice

What a difficult position for those athlete’s whose events have not been cut – a signficant part of their livlihoods can continue but what about their friends and training partners who will no longer be attending? This is the point in having a collective voice. Athletes look out for the needs of each other more than they do the needs of television or the governing body.

Does it mean that things never change? Of course not. However the ‘spectacle’ of athletics is a product packaged and sold by people in suits, don’t blame athletes if those people don’t do their jobs effectively. If TV wants to make athletics more engaging how about having more engaging voices to explain the details and intricacies of our wonderful sport?

The reductionist approach of dumbing down meetings based upon internet click throughs and ‘research’ that left huge sections of the athletics community out (Africa for example!) to me just encapsulates the hegemonic approach of world athletics governance at the moment. Has the gap between athletes and athletic governance ever been so great? Something needs to change to redress that balance.

Glorious amateurism

The amateur history if our sport affords the opportunity for athletes to be put in a subservient position. Regardless of whether athletes are full time or working other jobs to support their careers they are all professionals.

Invoking terms like ‘for the good of the sport’ or ‘to grow the sport’ is to me little different from a Victorian mill owner invoking the guilt of a puritanical work ethic. We celebrate the glorious amateur, rightly of course, but money is being made in our sport make no doubt about it just rarely by athletes beyond a select few at the very top.

“Bringing the sport into the 21st century” and “innovation” – under this IAAF administration I read in the same way as businesses using terms like “streamlining and efficiency savings” it’s a proxy for cutting the quality of the product or the money to the people who create that product, or both.

Of course we are all passionate about the sport, and sport for sport’s sake, but that should not be used as a way of supressing voices who are asking for a better lot for athletes.

Power and control

Of course power and control doesn’t just rest in the hands of governing bodies. It also rests in the hands of brands, sponsors and race directors, coaches and selectors.

Whilst we await more details of the scandal that seems to emerging from NOP for me it goes way beyond the use of PEDs. The bigger scandal is where the power and control of coaches, and of brands, leads to a broad spectrum of unethical practice that impacts on the mental and physical wellbeing of athletes. This was brought into stark relief by the powerful piece by Mary Cain in the New York Times, it’s a difficult read and watch as a coach or anyone who is in sport because they fundamentally care about people.

Where do athletes turn when they are a part of this? Why is it only months and years down the line (if at all) a few brave voices can feel ready to speak out? Where do athlete’s turn if they feel that selection decisions are not in line with policies or indeed to challenge the polices themselves? Of course we have individual governing bodies in our own countries most of whom will have codes of conduct and policies in place to safeguard the welfare of athletes.

I think it would be fair to say though that athlete’s don’t often know about these and also that it is a tricky position when the governing bodies still have a significant role in the career of an individual athlete and where some of the coaches, decision makers or brands involved already have a role or link to home nation governing bodies.

Whilst not a traditional ‘trade union’ others sports do have stronger representation for athletes such as the PFA. In athletics of course it’s harder than football. The line between professional and non professional athletes is a grey one, the number and disparate interests of athletes is greater but that’s not a reason to not try.

Politics is everywhere

If the term trade union sounds a bit political then so be it. To me every part of our lives involves socio-political acts. Sport has never been separate from politics and right now the IAAF is led by a former politician with a specific political outlook. Many will disagree with me but I believe this impacts on the decisions made and direction the sport seems to be going in.

In order to influence decisions athlete’s need a stronger political (with a small p) voice. As long as power sits at the top with a governing body and brands that they work with decisions like this will always be taken and the manipulation of athletes for the gain of others will continue.

Tokenism vs a seat at the table

Many years ago I did a bit of work with the GMB. It was interesting to see how ‘staff forums’ were often used as a proxy for supressing real dissenting voices and placating staff who felt disenfranchised by presenting too narrow a view.

Athlete commissions and forums of course have a role, and have already had some impact, but the weight of a broader union or federation of athletes, particularly if harnessing a global reach would be a real force to influence decisions. It might be that athlete commissions or panels provide a starting point but for me it’s all to easy to ignore unless there is a sense of collective action from a much bigger base of athletes (and even separately coaches).

I don’t know how it could work. I can see huge practical difficulties with a potentially unwieldy organisation representing athletes whose interests may not always align. But something needs to change. It might be that others have a much better solution but I can’t see it right now.

I don’t pretend to be objective and I know many reading this will hold different socio-political views to me but for me athletics IS the athletes who through their physical and psychological acts inspire and entertain. Governing bodies should tremble at the thought of the power their collective voice could bring.

Idealistic perhaps but it seems to me that there is a fundamental lack of ideals in some of the highest international power structures in athletics, we need more, not less ideals.

Are you a fan of Fast Running? Then please support us and become a patron. For as little as the price of a monthly magazine you can support Fast Running – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

The post Is it time for a trade union for athletes? appeared first on Fast Running.

The former coach of Mo Farah, as well as a whole host of athletes currently competing at the World Athletics Championships in Doha, was banned alongside endocrinologist Dr. Jeffrey Brown, who also worked with the Nike Oregon Project.

USADA announced that the panels “found that Salazar and Brown trafficked testosterone, a banned performance-enhancing substance, administered a prohibited IV infusion, and engaged in tampering to attempt to prevent relevant information about their conduct from being learned by USADA.”

Full USADA statement here.

The specific rules violations for Salazar were:

1. Administration of a Prohibited Method (with respect to an infusion in excess of the applicable limit),
2. Tampering and/or attempted tampering with the doping control process, and
3. Trafficking of testosterone through involvement in a testosterone testing program in violation of the rules.

Dr. Brown violated anti-doping rules by:

1. Tampering with patient records
2. Administration of an over-limit L-carnitine infusion
3. Complicity in Salazar’s trafficking of testosterone

Still coaching world class athletes

Salazar is still working with a whole host of world class athletes such as Galen Rupp, Shannon Rowbury, Yomif Kejelcha and Konstanze Klosterhalfen.

It must be unsettling for Sifan Hassan, who has just decided to attempt an unprecedented 10,000m/1500m double in Doha, following her astounding finish of a 3:59 1500m to win the 10,000m gold medal.

Great Britain’s Mo Farah stopped working with in 2017 and has since been working with Gary Lough as his coach. At the time Farah denied that the split from Salazar had anything to do with the USADA investigation into his old coach and stated that it was more about moving back to the UK with his family.

Salazar released a statement on the NOP website stating:

“I am shocked by the outcome today. Throughout this six-year investigation my athletes and I have endured unjust, unethical and highly damaging treatment from USADA. This is demonstrated by the misleading statement released by Travis Tygart stating that we put winning ahead of athlete safety. This is completely false and contrary to the findings of the arbitrators, who even wrote about the care I took in complying with the World Anti-Doping code:

“The Panel notes that the Respondent does not appear to have been motivated by any bad intention to commit the violations the Panel found. In fact, the Panel was struck by the amount of care generally taken by Respondent to ensure that whatever new technique or method or substance he was going to try was lawful under the World Anti-Doping Code, with USADA’s witness characterizing him as the coach they heard from the most with respect to trying to ensure that he was complying with his obligations.”

I have always ensured the WADA code is strictly followed. The Oregon Project has never and will never permit doping. I will appeal and look forward to this unfair and protracted process reaching the conclusion I know to be true. I will not be commenting further at this time.”

“Winning more important than health”

The comment that Salazar is responding to by USADA’s Chief Executive Officer Travis Tygart was that “The athletes in these cases found the courage to speak out and ultimately exposed the truth.

While acting in connection with the Nike Oregon Project, Mr. Salazar and Dr. Brown demonstrated that winning was more important than the health and wellbeing of the athletes they were sworn to protect.”

Are you a fan of Fast Running? Then please support us and become a patron. For as little as the price of a monthly magazine you can support Fast Running – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

The post Alberto Salazar banned from coaching for four years by USADA appeared first on Fast Running.

Steve Jones is pleased Mo Farah has distanced himself from former coach Alberto Salazar as he embarks on his new career over 26 miles at the Virgin Money London Marathon this Sunday.

The four-time Olympic track champion parted company with the controversial American coach last year after his farewell track appearance and teamed up with Gary Lough, husband of Paula Radcliffe, as he bids to make a mark on the marathon.

Jones, who has said he is sure Farah will break his 33-year-old British record on Sunday and maybe the world record eventually, said the lead coach of the Nike Oregon Project, who is under investigation, “had pushed the limits morally”.

The Welshman, now based in Boulder, Colorado, said: “It’s good to see he’s [Mo Farah] distanced himself from that group. I’ve known Salazar a long time. He’s more nuts and raisins than most of us are as distance runners and coaches.

“He’s always pushed things to the nth degree and I think that’s what he’s done in this case.

“Would I say he [Salazar] has done anything illegal? I don’t know and I would hope not but he’s certainly pushed the limits morally as much as anything else and ethically.”

Jones made it clear that he was not alleging Farah did anything illegal and said in a separate interview earlier on Thursday: “This is a little unfair to be talking about all this when we’re talking about Mo. I’m not trying to say this is the avenue Mo is taking, or anything, but there is a little taint there. It is guilt by association, I suppose, which is very unfair.”

Meanwhile, Jones believes he will no longer be the UK record-holder for the marathon after Sunday and expects the six-time world champion to break his 2:07:13 mark. Farah ran 2:08:21 in his first completed marathon in London 2014.

Photo: Bob Martin/Virgin Money London Marathon

Jones said: “Without a doubt. It’s a matter of how much as opposed to if. He has all the pedigree, he has all the tools, his track records speak for themselves, and he’s a 2:08:21 guy. It’s not like he’s stepping into the unknown. He’s got the endurance, the race experience – physically and psychologically.”

While some may like to see Callum Hawkins or Dewi Griffiths break Jones’ British record, given the pair’s links to British clubs, Jones was quick to suggest such a view is “a discourtesy to Farah”.

He said: “He’s done the time, he’s put the effort in, he’s made himself the hero that most people see him as, and I’m not saying he deserves to be British record-holder until he actually breaks it, but he’s the guy racing on Sunday going for it.

“Dewi and Callum aren’t. They’re both capable of running 2:07 marathons at some point in their careers, but Mo’s the guy on the start line on Sunday.

“Whether secretly or emotionally you want one of the other two to get it, it’s a little unfair on Mo.”

Pacemakers

Many will hail Eliud Kipchoge, the Olympic champion who has dominated the event for several years, as the greatest ever if he breaks Kimetto’s global mark on Sunday, but Jones was more circumspect, referring to his views on the pacing strategy employed by London and others.

Photo: Bob Martin/Virgin Money London Marathon

He said: “I have a dislike how we do it here, which is sad as we’re the purists of the sport – it’s our event, I suppose – that we have pacemakers.

“I think where records are set off pacemakers, whether it’s on the track or on the road, is iffy in my mind, being someone who broke the world record on the road.

“If you look at Chicago and New York and they don’t have pacemakers and you look at the times that are run there – 2:09, 2:07 – we’re back where we were in the Eighties, mainly because people don’t know how to run without a pacemaker anymore.

“I am a purist – I like to see man-to-man competition, not six guys leading one guy to 30-35km and letting them get on with it.

“I don’t know – is he the best ever if he’s running under those conditions? I would say no.”

The post Steve Jones pleased Mo Farah has distanced himself from Alberto Salazar appeared first on Fast Running.