Eman
Master
BY REBECCA R. RUIZ
JULY 8, 2016
The global regulator of doping in sports, responding to questions about why it did not respond more aggressively to whistle-blowers’ accusations of a government-run doping program in Russia, has told United States lawmakers that it did not have the authority to investigate such claims.
In a letter sent on July 5, the World Anti-Doping Agency — which is partly funded by United States taxpayers — replied to questions that Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, had posed on behalf of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over sports and of which Mr. Thune is chairman.
The antidoping agency insisted that competing interests within the organization had not contributed to what senators called a years-long delay in investigating Russian sports.
The agency repeated its explanation for not taking action for at least four years, after multiple whistle-blowers from within Russia had contacted the agency and offered to cooperate. Two of them turned to the news media to make their story public before WADA initiated an independent inquiry in 2015.
“There was no clear authority vested in us to undertake investigations,” Craig Reedie, president of WADA, wrote in the five-page letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Reedie told The Times last month that he saw the agency as a passive coordinator of national antidoping efforts rather than an active policing authority. “We’re not going to turn to people and say: ‘These are the rules; obey them,’ ” he said.
Writing to Mr. Reedie last month, Mr. Thune disputed that WADA had been powerless to act, citing the agency’s “broad authority to investigate” since 2004, six years before it received the first known whistle-blower tip.
In its reply, WADA referred to a single initial whistle-blower, Vitaly Stepanov, who lived in Moscow and whom the agency wanted to protect. “The initial data, which can be revealed by the exchange of emails, was from one individual,” Mr. Reedie wrote.
Mr. Stepanov, an employee of Russia’s antidoping agency at the time, provided WADA with his own perspective and that of his wife, Yuliya Stepanova, a Russian runner who said she had taken performance-enhancing drugs at the direction of sports officials.
“To forward any information that had been provided by him to the Russian authorities, as WADA would have done in other circumstances, would have been a grave lack of judgment on our behalf,” the WADA letter said.
But a Times investigation found that Mr. Stepanov was not the only early whistle-blower, and that on another occasion the agency routed similar allegations to Russian authorities.
In late 2012, WADA received an appeal from a Russian Olympic medalist, Darya Pishchalnikova, who confessed to cheating, pleaded for help and offered to cooperate with the agency. WADA forwarded Ms. Pishchalnikova’s email to Russian sports officials — the very people she said were running a doping program.
Mr. Reedie acknowledged to Mr. Thune that WADA needed to improve its processes going forward. “WADA is in the process of developing a whistle-blower policy to clarify what it can and cannot do,” he wrote. He said the agency planned to approve such a policy at a November board meeting.
WADA, which is headquartered in Montreal but legally incorporated in Switzerland, has also said in recent weeks that it plans to bolster the agency’s investigative capabilities. Last month, it hired a director of intelligence and investigations, Günter Younger, who formerly led the cybercrime unit in a division of the German criminal police.
Meanwhile, Mr. Reedie himself has come under scrutiny for his dual leadership roles in WADA and the International Olympic Committee, of which he is a vice president.
Mr. Thune raised concerns about the conflicts of interest such overlapping positions presented, with Olympics officials possibly less inclined to root out drug violations that could tarnish the Olympic brand and affect revenue streams.
The president of the I.O.C., Thomas Bach, last month tacitly acknowledged those conflicts, calling the current antidoping system deficient and noting that officials needed to explore how to make WADA more independent.
Responding to Mr. Thune’s specific questions, Mr. Reedie said that top WADA officials had signed a conflict of interest policy, and he pointed to the fact that he was not the first I.O.C. executive to act as head of WADA; the organization’s first and longest-serving president, Richard W. Pound, had the same ties.
“At no time during his presidency was there any suggestion that he had a conflict of interest, perceived or real,” Mr. Reedie wrote.
At WADA’s inception, in 1999, United States government officials loudly objected to Mr. Pound’s leadership, questioning his competing role as head of the I.O.C.’s marketing committee in charge of negotiating contracts for television rights. Mr. Pound defended his independence in an open letter published by the I.O.C.
Mr. Reedie also expressed appreciation for the more than $25 million the United States had contributed to WADA over the last 14 years. “The agency has been very grateful for the support given to us by the United States,” Mr. Reedie said.
WADA is jointly funded by sports organizations and national governments. After the I.O.C., the United States government is the largest single contributor to WADA.
Still, not all of the committee’s requests were answered this week. Writing last month, Mr. Thune asked that WADA brief his staff, beyond replying in writing. That request has not yet been fulfilled, a committee spokesman said.
WADA, meanwhile, is anticipating the results of another independent investigation by July 15. That inquiry, initiated in May, is exploring claims ofgovernment-supported cheating by Russia at the 2014 Sochi Olympics.[/B]
JULY 8, 2016
The global regulator of doping in sports, responding to questions about why it did not respond more aggressively to whistle-blowers’ accusations of a government-run doping program in Russia, has told United States lawmakers that it did not have the authority to investigate such claims.
In a letter sent on July 5, the World Anti-Doping Agency — which is partly funded by United States taxpayers — replied to questions that Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, had posed on behalf of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over sports and of which Mr. Thune is chairman.
The antidoping agency insisted that competing interests within the organization had not contributed to what senators called a years-long delay in investigating Russian sports.
The agency repeated its explanation for not taking action for at least four years, after multiple whistle-blowers from within Russia had contacted the agency and offered to cooperate. Two of them turned to the news media to make their story public before WADA initiated an independent inquiry in 2015.
“There was no clear authority vested in us to undertake investigations,” Craig Reedie, president of WADA, wrote in the five-page letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Reedie told The Times last month that he saw the agency as a passive coordinator of national antidoping efforts rather than an active policing authority. “We’re not going to turn to people and say: ‘These are the rules; obey them,’ ” he said.
Writing to Mr. Reedie last month, Mr. Thune disputed that WADA had been powerless to act, citing the agency’s “broad authority to investigate” since 2004, six years before it received the first known whistle-blower tip.
In its reply, WADA referred to a single initial whistle-blower, Vitaly Stepanov, who lived in Moscow and whom the agency wanted to protect. “The initial data, which can be revealed by the exchange of emails, was from one individual,” Mr. Reedie wrote.
Mr. Stepanov, an employee of Russia’s antidoping agency at the time, provided WADA with his own perspective and that of his wife, Yuliya Stepanova, a Russian runner who said she had taken performance-enhancing drugs at the direction of sports officials.
“To forward any information that had been provided by him to the Russian authorities, as WADA would have done in other circumstances, would have been a grave lack of judgment on our behalf,” the WADA letter said.
But a Times investigation found that Mr. Stepanov was not the only early whistle-blower, and that on another occasion the agency routed similar allegations to Russian authorities.
In late 2012, WADA received an appeal from a Russian Olympic medalist, Darya Pishchalnikova, who confessed to cheating, pleaded for help and offered to cooperate with the agency. WADA forwarded Ms. Pishchalnikova’s email to Russian sports officials — the very people she said were running a doping program.
Mr. Reedie acknowledged to Mr. Thune that WADA needed to improve its processes going forward. “WADA is in the process of developing a whistle-blower policy to clarify what it can and cannot do,” he wrote. He said the agency planned to approve such a policy at a November board meeting.
WADA, which is headquartered in Montreal but legally incorporated in Switzerland, has also said in recent weeks that it plans to bolster the agency’s investigative capabilities. Last month, it hired a director of intelligence and investigations, Günter Younger, who formerly led the cybercrime unit in a division of the German criminal police.
Meanwhile, Mr. Reedie himself has come under scrutiny for his dual leadership roles in WADA and the International Olympic Committee, of which he is a vice president.
Mr. Thune raised concerns about the conflicts of interest such overlapping positions presented, with Olympics officials possibly less inclined to root out drug violations that could tarnish the Olympic brand and affect revenue streams.
The president of the I.O.C., Thomas Bach, last month tacitly acknowledged those conflicts, calling the current antidoping system deficient and noting that officials needed to explore how to make WADA more independent.
Responding to Mr. Thune’s specific questions, Mr. Reedie said that top WADA officials had signed a conflict of interest policy, and he pointed to the fact that he was not the first I.O.C. executive to act as head of WADA; the organization’s first and longest-serving president, Richard W. Pound, had the same ties.
“At no time during his presidency was there any suggestion that he had a conflict of interest, perceived or real,” Mr. Reedie wrote.
At WADA’s inception, in 1999, United States government officials loudly objected to Mr. Pound’s leadership, questioning his competing role as head of the I.O.C.’s marketing committee in charge of negotiating contracts for television rights. Mr. Pound defended his independence in an open letter published by the I.O.C.
Mr. Reedie also expressed appreciation for the more than $25 million the United States had contributed to WADA over the last 14 years. “The agency has been very grateful for the support given to us by the United States,” Mr. Reedie said.
WADA is jointly funded by sports organizations and national governments. After the I.O.C., the United States government is the largest single contributor to WADA.
Still, not all of the committee’s requests were answered this week. Writing last month, Mr. Thune asked that WADA brief his staff, beyond replying in writing. That request has not yet been fulfilled, a committee spokesman said.
WADA, meanwhile, is anticipating the results of another independent investigation by July 15. That inquiry, initiated in May, is exploring claims ofgovernment-supported cheating by Russia at the 2014 Sochi Olympics.[/B]
