61–115 

110TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–11 

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST 

DOPING IN SPORT 

JUNE 27, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany Treaty Doc. 110–14; EC 6772] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the 

International Convention Against Doping in Sport, adopted on October 19, 2005 (the ‘‘Convention’’) (Treaty Doc. 110–14; EC 6772), 

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with one understanding, one declaration, and one condition as indicated in the 

resolution of advice and consent, and recommends that the Senate 

give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as set forth in 

this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2 

III. Summary of Convention ................................................................................ 3 

IV. Entry Into Force ............................................................................................ 11 

V. Implementing Legislation ............................................................................. 11 

VI. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 11 

VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments .............................................. 11 

VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 13 

IX. Annex I.—2008 Prohibited List and Annex I to the Convention (EC 

6772) ............................................................................................................ 15 

X. Annex II.—Transcript of May 22, 2008 Hearing ......................................... 25 

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Convention, as provided for in Article 1, is to 

‘‘promote the prevention of and the fight against doping in sport, 

with a view to its elimination.’’ The Convention seeks to achieve 

this purpose by enhancing international cooperation in the fight 

against doping in sport and by building on the international community’s efforts to develop common standards for equitable doping 

control and enforcement. The Convention will help to protect the 

2 

1The Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport was adopted by the World Conference on 

Doping in Sport on February 4, 1999. The Declaration states that ‘‘[a]n independent International Anti-Doping Agency shall be established so as to be fully operational [by] 2000. This 

institution will have as its mandate, notably, to coordinate the various programmes necessary 

to realize the objectives that shall be defined jointly by all the parties concerned.’’ 2WADA’s total budget in 2008 was approximately $25 million. The United States contribution 

in 2008 was $1.7 million. 3The Director of ONDCP is authorized to serve as the U.S. representative on the WADA 

board pursuant to Executive Order 13165 (2000). 

integrity and spirit of sport by supporting efforts to ensure a fair 

and doping-free environment for athletes. 

II. BACKGROUND

In 1998, a number of prohibited medical substances were found 

by police in a raid during the Tour de France. The scandal led to 

a major reappraisal of the role of public authorities in the prevention of doping in sport and highlighted the need for international 

cooperation on this issue. In February 1999, the International 

Olympic Committee convened a World Conference on Doping in 

Sport, which was attended by both sports federations and governments, to determine what might be done to address the problem 

through international cooperation. The result was the establishment of an independent organization known as the World AntiDoping Agency (WADA) in November 1999.1 The United States 

played a leading role in the establishment of WADA, which is 

headquartered in Montreal, and has long been one of its strongest 

supporters.2

WADA is a unique hybrid organization that is governed and 

funded equally by both the Olympic Movement and governments. 

From the beginning, the United States has served as a governmental representative on the WADA Foundation Board. Pursuant 

to an Executive Order, the Director of the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (ONDCP) serves as the representative of the United 

States on the board.3 The organization’s basic purpose is to promote harmonized, coordinated, and effective anti-doping programs 

at the international and national level with regard to the detection, 

deterrence, and prevention of doping in international sport. 

One of WADA’s most significant achievements has been the development of a uniform set of anti-doping rules in the World AntiDoping Code, which was adopted by the WADA Foundation Board 

in March 2003. The Code provides the framework for harmonized 

anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations for sports federations 

and governments. The Code works in conjunction with four ‘‘International Standards’’ aimed at harmonizing the practice of national 

anti-doping organizations in several key areas: Standards for testing, standards for accredited laboratories that conduct testing on 

doping-control samples, a list of prohibited substances and methods, and a list of therapeutic use exemptions. The harmonization 

of standards in these areas is intended to address the problems 

that previously arose from uneven and uncoordinated anti-doping 

efforts around the world. 

National anti-doping organizations and sports federations are expected to be the main implementers of doping controls that are consistent with the Code, including the testing and sanctioning of athletes that commit anti-doping rule violations. In the United States, 

the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), headquartered in 

3 

Colorado Springs, is the national anti-doping agency. USADA is an 

independent anti-doping agency for Olympic-related sport in the 

United States and was originally created as the result of recommendations made by the United States Olympic Committee’s Select Task Force on Externalization to uphold the Olympic ideal of 

fair play, and to represent the interests of Olympic Games, Pan 

American Games, and Paralympic athletes. USADA works closely 

with WADA to implement the Code effectively with respect to athletes in the U.S. Olympic Movement. 

WADA’s role is to monitor anti-doping activities worldwide to ensure implementation of and compliance with the Code in cooperation with national anti-doping organizations, such as USADA. For 

example, WADA receives a certificate of analysis every time a 

WADA-accredited laboratory analyzes a doping-control sample collected from an athlete that shows the presence of a prohibited substance or method. As a result, WADA is able to follow up with the 

relevant national anti-doping organization to ensure that it is following the established rules and procedures set forth in the Code. 

In March 2003, 51 nations, including the United States, signed 

the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport. The Declaration, among other things, endorsed the Code and supported the negotiation of a Convention on Doping in Sport. This was the beginning of the process that led to the Convention, which was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) with significant 

United States Government involvement and support. The Convention builds on the international community’s efforts to develop a 

common approach and standards for equitable doping control and 

enforcement by providing a common instrument that countries can 

join to demonstrate their commitment to the Code as the basis for 

national anti-doping control and policy. The Convention goes beyond the Code and would harmonize and coordinate the activities 

of governments in a variety of areas that are essential to combating 

doping in sport, such as scientific and medical research, prevention 

and education, and doping-control rules regarding specific doping 

substances and methods. To date, 85 countries have ratified the 

Convention, including Australia, Canada, China, and almost every 

country in Europe. 

The Convention is not structured to secure changes to national 

law or regulation, but rather to secure commitments by States Parties to promote international collaboration, research, and education, and to support the principles of the Code and WADA’s role 

in implementing the Code. What follows is a discussion of several 

key provisions of the Convention. 

III. SUMMARY OF CONVENTION

A. MAJOR PROVISIONS

A detailed article-by-article analysis of the Convention may be 

found in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the 

President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 110–14. 

A summary of key provisions is set forth below. 

4 

Commitment to the World Anti-Doping Code and to the World AntiDoping Agency 

The Convention obligates States Parties to ‘‘adopt appropriate 

measures’’ that are ‘‘consistent with the principles of the Code’’ and 

‘‘foster international cooperation between States Parties and leading organizations in the fight against doping in sport, in particular 

with [WADA].’’ See Article 3. In addition, the Convention provides 

that States Parties ‘‘commit themselves to the principles of the 

Code’’ as the basis for measures undertaken to implement the Convention. See Articles 4 and 5. 

The Convention also reaffirms WADA’s role in implementing the 

Code and further provides WADA with an important role in the 

context of the Convention. For example, Article 14 states that 

‘‘States Parties undertake to support the important mission of the 

World Anti-Doping Agency in the international fight against 

doping’’; Article 16 provides for international cooperation with 

WADA in doping control efforts; Article 29 provides that WADA 

‘‘shall be invited as an advisory organization to the Conference of 

the Parties’’ of the Convention; and Article 32(2) provides that at 

the request of the parties, ‘‘the Director-General of UNESCO shall 

use to the fullest extent possible the services of the World AntiDoping Agency. . . .’’ 

Although it is somewhat unusual for a nongovernmental organization to have a formal role in assisting in the implementation of 

a treaty, it is not without precedent. For example, the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, to which the United States is a party, similarly provides a role for nongovernmental organizations in the implementation of the treaty. Moreover, in this particular circumstance, using 

WADA appears to be a cost-effective and efficient option. In response to the committee’s questions, the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy explained that ‘‘given WADA’s technical expertise 

and the unique nature of doping, it would be advantageous to utilize the existing resources available from WADA’’ rather than provide ‘‘additional funding to UNESCO . . . to hire additional staff 

and develop the capacity and expertise to provide anti-doping services.’’ Furthermore, in accordance with Article 32(2), WADA’s role 

is defined by the Conference of Parties. If States Parties have any 

concerns regarding WADA’s assistance, they have the option to 

substantially limit or terminate WADA’s role in implementing the 

Convention. 

Flexibility in Implementation 

A number of countries in Europe, such as France and Italy, address doping in sport through direct government regulation, which 

in some cases means legislation that requires compliance by the 

sports federations or individual athletes with anti-doping rules in 

those countries. In the United States, and in other countries such 

as Canada, Australia, and Japan, doping in sport is approached 

from a different perspective: instead of directly regulating antidoping in sports, the sports federations are provided with incentives to self-regulate. The Convention recognizes these different approaches in Article 5, which states that the measures used to implement the Convention ‘‘may include legislation, regulation, policies or administrative practices.’’ 

5 

4See Treaty Doc. 110–14 at X. 5 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. 6 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. 7See Treaty Doc. 110–14 at XI. 8Pub. L. 103–417. 

Prohibited Substances and Methods 

Article 8 supports Anti-Doping efforts by requiring states to take 

certain measures to restrict the availability of ‘‘Prohibited Substances and Methods’’ in order to restrict their use in sports by athletes unless the use is based on a ‘‘Therapeutic Use Exemption.’’ 

The ‘‘Prohibited Substances and Methods’’ and the ‘‘Therapeutic 

Use Exemptions’’ that are referred to in this Article are listed in 

the two Annexes to the Convention and originate from the Code. 

The administration notes in its submittal letter that this Article 

can be implemented by the United States without changing existing U.S. law or policy.4 The Prohibited Substances and Methods 

are mainly controlled substances whose production, movement, importation, distribution, and sale are controlled by the Controlled 

Substances Act.5 A number of the noncontrolled substances on the 

Prohibited List are subject to provisions of the Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act 6 that restrict their use to legitimate medical activities and prohibits trafficking of such substances. In addition, U.S. 

states have parallel laws that address the trafficking, possession, 

and use of many of the substances on the Prohibited List. Finally, 

an increasing number of U.S. states have implemented student 

drug testing programs and education initiatives to prevent the use 

of doping substances on the Prohibited List. 

Athlete Support Personnel 

Article 9 requires States Parties to take measures, or to encourage sports organizations and anti-doping organizations to take 

anti-doping measures, aimed at athlete support personnel. Athlete 

support personnel are defined in Article 2 to be a ‘‘coach, trainer, 

manager, agent, team staff, official, medical or paramedical personnel working with or treating athletes participating in or preparing for sports competition.’’ The United States satisfies this requirement through its support of USADA, which has policies and 

testing protocols that are consistent with the Code and which provide for specific sanctions and penalties for athlete support personnel if and when they violate the Code. 

Nutritional Supplements 

Article 10 requires States Parties to encourage producers and 

distributors of nutritional supplements to establish best practices 

in the marketing and distribution of nutritional supplements, including by providing information regarding their analytic composition. The administration notes in its submittal letter that this Article can be implemented by the United States without changing existing U.S. law or policy.7 The Dietary Supplement Health Education Act of 1994 8 requires that dietary supplement manufacturers ensure that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed, 

and that its product label information is truthful and not misleading. The law sets forth post-marketing requirements that include monitoring safety, such as adverse event reporting. In June 

2007, the Food and Drug Administration established regulations 

6 

requiring good manufacturing practices for dietary supplements 

that are designed to ensure that such supplements are produced in 

a quality manner, do not contain contaminants or impurities, and 

are accurately labeled. 

Facilitating Doping Controls for Sports Competitions 

Article 12 obligates States Parties to facilitate the anti-dopingcontrol activities of sports organizations and anti-doping organizations, such as the testing of athletes with no-advance notice by duly 

authorized doping-control teams and access to accredited doping 

laboratories for the purpose of doping-control analysis. The United 

States would meet these obligations through its support of cooperation among anti-doping organizations, such as the Association of 

National Anti-Doping Organizations and WADA’s Central American Regional Anti-Doping Organization, and the United States’ 

support of USADA, which works to facilitate the doping-control activities contemplated in this Article. 

International Cooperation 

Article 16 obligates States Parties to take certain steps to facilitate international cooperation in anti-doping testing and control. 

Parties are only obligated to take steps under this Article to the 

extent that such steps are ‘‘appropriate and in accordance with domestic law and procedures.’’ No changes in existing U.S. law or policy would be necessary to meet the obligations that would arise 

under this Article. The United States currently facilitates such 

international cooperation through its support of the activities of 

USADA, which actively engages in anti-doping testing cooperation 

with appropriate anti-doping organizations in other countries that 

are compliant with the Code. 

Education and Training 

Article 19 of the Convention obligates States Parties, within their 

means, to support, devise, or implement education and training 

programs on anti-doping. The United States currently funds a 

number of programs that would satisfy this requirement. For example, the United States supports two school-based steroid education programs: the ATLAS (Adolescents Training and Learning to 

Avoid Nutrition Alternatives) program and the ATHENA (Athletes 

Targeting Healthy Exercise and Nutrition Alternatives) program. 

In addition, the United States supports anti-doping education 

through its support of USADA, which traditionally directs more 

than ten percent of its annual budget toward education programs 

targeting schoolchildren, emerging elite athletes, coaches, and parents. The United States also provides federal grant funds to operate student drug testing programs and education initiatives, such 

as activities undertaken by the Department of Education’s Office of 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools. 

Voluntary Fund 

Article 17 establishes a Voluntary Fund, which can be used to assist States Parties with the implementation of their obligations 

under the Convention and for the functioning costs of the Convention, which includes the operational costs of the Secretariat. See 

Articles 18 and 32. 

7 

Research 

Many of the substances and methods used in doping can have a 

damaging impact on the health of athletes. As the executive branch 

explained in response to the committee’s questions, ‘‘[t]he dangers 

of anabolic steroids for nonmedical use, for example, are becoming 

increasingly well known. As science evolves and athletes turn to 

substances such as human growth hormone and gene doping, the 

health consequences are not only potentially grave, but often not 

fully known.’’ In order to understand the health risks involved and 

in order to be aware of the next generation of doping substances 

and methods, it is crucial that scientific research in this field be 

encouraged, conducted and shared. 

Articles 24–27 focus on research that is relevant to the fight 

against doping in sport. Article 24 requires States Parties ‘‘within 

their means’’ to encourage and promote anti-doping research in cooperation with sports and other relevant organizations on (a) prevention, detection methods, behavioral and social aspects, and the 

health consequences of doping; (b) ways and means of devising scientifically based physiological and psychological training programs; 

and (c) the use of emerging substances and methods arising from 

scientific developments. Article 25 requires, among other things, 

that States Parties ensure that such research complies with internationally recognized ethical practices and is undertaken with adequate precautions to prevent the results of the research from being 

used for doping purposes. Article 26 requires States Parties to 

share, where appropriate and subject to national and international 

law, the results of their research with other Parties and with 

WADA. Article 27 requires States Parties to encourage members of 

the scientific and medical communities to carry out sport science 

research in accordance with the principles of the Code and to encourage sports organizations and athlete support personnel within 

their jurisdiction to implement such research. 

The United States currently supports and promotes research on 

anti-doping consistent with the requirements laid out in these articles. For example, the United States already funds significant research related to anti-doping both directly and through USADA. 

The United States also supports anti-doping research activities 

through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is one 

of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The United States has also, through the Office of National Drug Control Policy, promoted the sharing of research results by coordinating research collaboration between 

WADA’s Science and Research Development and officials from 

NIH, NIDA, and the Food and Drug Administration. Finally, the 

United States encourages and directly supports sports science research by organizations such as the American College of Sports 

Medicine, the American Medical Association, and other medical 

and public health groups. 

Monitoring 

The monitoring mechanism for this Convention is minimal: 

States Parties are obligated to report to the Conference of Parties 

every two years on the measures taken by them to implement the 

Convention. The Conference of the Parties can expand the monitoring mechanism, but the Convention provides that ‘‘[a]ny moniVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
8 

toring mechanism or measure that goes beyond [the biennial report] shall be funded through the Voluntary Fund. . . .’’ As a result, it is unlikely that the monitoring mechanism will be expanded 

substantially beyond the reporting requirement described above. 

B. ANNEXES AND APPENDICES

The Convention consists of its main text, two annexes (The Prohibited List International Standards and the Therapeutic Use Exemptions), and three appendices (the World Anti-Doping Code, the 

International Standards for Laboratories, and International Standards for Testing). 

The two Annexes, the Prohibited List International Standards 

and the Therapeutic Use Exemptions, are technical documents that 

are an integral part of the Convention. There are two possible procedures through which the Annexes can be amended. States Parties may propose amendments through the standard amendment 

procedure set forth in Article 33 or WADA can, under certain circumstances, propose amendments to the Annexes through a fasttrack amendment procedure as set forth in Article 34. 

Fast-Track Procedure for Amending Annexes 

In accordance with Article 34, if WADA modifies its own Prohibited List or the Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions, it may inform the Director-General of UNESCO of the 

changes adopted by WADA and the Director-General would then 

circulate to States Parties the changes as proposed amendments to 

the relevant Annexes to the Convention. States Parties have 45 

days within which to object to the adoption of such an amendment. 

Unless two-thirds of the States Parties express their objection, the 

proposed amendment that was circulated by the Director-General, 

will be deemed adopted or ‘‘approved’’ by the Conference of Parties 

and the States Parties will be so notified by the Director-General. 

States Parties then have another 45 days to opt out of the amendment, by notifying the Director-General that they don’t accept the 

particular amendment. The amendment will enter into force at the 

end of the second 45-day period for every State Party that has not 

opted out. Although States Parties have only 90 days to decide 

whether to accept an amendment to the annexes under this procedure, the United States (along with other States that are members 

of WADA) will have significantly more notice of potential amendments to the annexes before they are formally proposed as amendments in accordance with Article 34. 

The executive branch has explained to the committee that the 

process utilized by WADA when amending the Prohibited List or 

the Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions is a 

lengthy one in which the United States plays an active role. In response to questions from the Committee, the U.S. Representative 

on the WADA Foundation Board described the process as follows: 

The Prohibited List is reviewed and updated annually by WADA through 

a year-long consultative process involving stakeholder feedback and input 

from groups of international scientific and anti-doping experts. A Prohibited 

List Working Group is specifically tasked with recommending changes to 

WADA’s Executive Committee and facilitating stakeholder input. A representative from the United States chairs the seven-member committee. In 

addition, a second member of the group is from the U.S. Food and Drug 

9 

Administration. The United States has one of 5 government votes on the 

Executive Committee to approve any changes to the List. 

The International Standards for Granting Therapeutics (ISTUE) is [structured] to ensure that the process of granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions 

(a process to allow athletes to take medicines on WADA’s Prohibited List 

to treat an athlete’s illness or medical condition) is harmonized across 

sports and countries. The ISTUE came into force in January 2004. Concurrent to the revision of the Code, WADA launched a process in 2006 for updating the ISTUE to build upon the experience gained by WADA and its 

stakeholders and to improve the protocols and processes. 

The [last] review process for updating the ISTUE involved three formal 

rounds of consultation. Based on stakeholder feedback and consultations 

with the legal and scientific committees, a draft was circulated in 2007. 

After a period of public comment and a series of meetings a second draft 

was released. Subsequently, WADA’s Executive Committee unanimously 

voted to approve the revised ISTUE at its May 2008 meeting. The United 

States, as a member of the Executive Committee, voted to approve the 

ISTUE. Comments from USADA regarding the technical revisions were accepted by WADA and incorporated into the revised ISTUE. 

Since the Convention entered into force on February 1, 2007, 

Annex I has been amended. Most recently, on January 1, 2008, a 

new Annex I entered into force, which was transmitted to the Senate through an Executive Communication (EC 6772) and is to be 

considered in place of the now outdated Annex I included in Treaty 

Document 110–14. See Annex I of this Report. Annex II has not yet 

been amended; however, it is expected that the recently adopted revision by WADA of its International Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions discussed above, will be accepted by States 

Parties and ultimately enter into force as a revised Annex II to the 

Convention on January 1, 2009. 

Appendices 

The Appendices are not an integral part of the Convention, but 

because of the unique relationship that this Convention has with 

the Code and the two standards that are included in the Appendices, it was deemed important to include them for informational 

purposes. By including the Code in the Appendix, it provides the 

context for, and clarifies the meaning of, provisions such as Article 

4, which commit States Parties to the ‘‘principles of the Code’’ as 

the basis for measures undertaken to implement the Convention. 

Moreover, the Code can be changed by WADA, without the consent 

of the States Parties, and thus by defining the Code in Article 2 

for purposes of the Convention as the Code that was adopted on 

March 5, 2003, it is clear that any subsequent changes to the Code 

by WADA have no affect on States Parties’ rights or obligations 

under the Convention. 

C. SCOPE

The scope of the Convention’s application is effectively established through two key definitions of terms used throughout the 

Convention: the definition of ‘‘athlete’’ and the definition of ‘‘sports 

organization.’’ Both terms are defined in Article 2 and are, according to the chapeau of Article 2, ‘‘to be understood within the context of the World Anti-Doping Code.’’ 

Athletes 

Article 2(4) contains two definitions of ‘‘athlete.’’ The first is for 

doping-control purposes and states as follows: ‘‘Athlete means . . . 

10 

any person who participates in sport at the international or national level as defined by each national anti-doping organization 

and accepted by States Parties and any additional person who participates in a sport or event at a lower level accepted by States Parties.’’ For the United States, USADA is the national anti-doping organization and thus, the term ‘‘athlete’’ for purposes of doping control in the United States means any athlete who is determined by 

USADA to be subject to or to have accepted the World Anti-Doping 

Code. This definition would not, for example, generally include athletes participating in U.S. professional leagues, unless the athlete 

in question has accepted the Code. 

The second, broader definition of athlete contained in Article 2(4) 

of the Convention is for purposes of education and training programs and includes ‘‘any person who participates in sport under 

the authority of a sports organization.’’ According to the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy, this second definition of athlete can 

include athletes of all ages and was drafted with the intent of 

‘‘educat[ing] a larger number of participants [in sports] on the dangers of doping before they . . . reach the point where they may be 

competing nationally or internationally.’’ 

Sports Organizations 

The term ‘‘Sports Organization’’ is defined in Article 2(20) as 

‘‘any organization that serves as the ruling body for an event for 

one or several sports.’’ An organization is a ruling body for an 

event if so determined by the relevant national Olympic Committee 

or the International Olympic Committee for each sport on the national and international level, respectively. The Committee has 

been assured by the Executive that this understanding is universally recognized and accepted by States and the international sport 

community. Moreover, Sports Organizations referred to in the Convention are ones that have accepted the Code. A Sports Organization indicates its acceptance of the Code through a formal written 

procedure to WADA and every sports organization that has done 

so, is listed on WADA’s Web site at www.wada-ama.org. 

D. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Article 6 of the Convention clarifies the relationship between this 

Convention and other international instruments to which States 

might be a party. The first sentence of Article 6 is akin to a savings 

clause and provides that ‘‘[t]his Convention shall not alter the 

rights and obligations of States Parties which arise from other 

agreements previously concluded and consistent with the object 

and purpose of this Convention.’’ As a result, States Parties to this 

Convention that are also a party to, for example, the Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping Convention, may apply the earlier concluded 

Council of Europe Convention as amongst themselves, even if doing 

so would be a violation of this Convention. The second sentence of 

Article 6, however, limits the effect of the first sentence, by providing that States Parties can apply another instrument amongst 

themselves only insofar as doing so does not affect the enjoyment 

by third parties of their rights or the performance of their obligations under this Convention. Thus, as explained to the Committee 

by the Executive Branch, ‘‘Article 6 would permit States that are 

a party to both this Convention and the Council of Europe’s AntiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
11 

Doping Convention to apply the Council of Europe’s Convention 

among themselves, but only insofar as that application does not affect the other States Parties’ enjoyment of their rights and obligations under the UNESCO Convention.’’ 

IV. ENTRY INTO FORCE

In accordance with Article 38, the Convention will enter into 

force for the United States on the first day of the month following 

the expiration of one month after the date on which the United 

States deposits its instrument of ratification with the Director-General of UNESCO. 

V. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

As noted in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State 

to the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 

110–14, U.S. ratification of the Convention would not require any 

changes to U.S. law, because the Convention’s provisions are consistent with current U.S. law and practice, including the Controlled 

Substances Act, the Dietary Health Education Act of 1994, and the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. As a result, no additional 

implementing legislation will be necessary, should the United 

States become a party to the Convention. 

VI. COMMITTEE ACTION

The committee held a public hearing on the Convention on May 

22, 2008. Testimony was received by Mr. Scott M. Burns, Deputy 

Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Ms. Joan 

Donoghue, Principal Deputy Legal Adviser at the Department of 

State; Mr. Jair K. Lynch, former U.S. Olympic athlete and Board 

Member on the U.S. Olympic Committee; and Mr. Travis Tygart, 

Executive Director of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. See Annex II 

of this Report. 

On June 24, 2008, the committee considered the Convention, and 

ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a quorum present 

and without objection. 

VII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND COMMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Relations views the purpose of the 

Convention as crucial in protecting the integrity and spirit of sport 

by supporting efforts to ensure a fair and doping-free environment 

for athletes. U.S. ratification is also important for a practical reason: The International Olympic Committee has stated that it will 

only award the Olympic Games to countries that are party to the 

Convention. The city of Chicago is among the finalists to host the 

2016 Summer Olympics, but it would likely not be awarded the 

Games if the Convention is not ratified by the United States. Accordingly, the Committee urges the Senate to act promptly to give 

advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, as set forth in 

this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. 

The committee has taken note, however, of certain issues raised by 

the Convention, which are addressed below. 

12 

A. TACIT AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

As discussed previously, Article 34 of the Convention provides a 

fast-track procedure by which the Annexes to the Convention can 

be amended and, unless two-thirds of the States Parties to the 

Convention express their objection to a particular amendment proposed pursuant to this procedure, that amendment will enter into 

force for a State Party even absent its explicit consent if that State 

Party has not notified the Director-General that it does not accept 

the amendment at issue. 

The committee recognizes that such a tacit amendment procedure for the Annexes is sensible given that it is reserved for 

amendments that have already been subject to the modification 

process in place at WADA, even prior to their arrival as formal proposals to amend the Annexes to the Convention. Moreover, the 

committee recognizes that this fast-track amendment procedure 

makes it possible for the Convention to evolve in step with scientific developments that have occurred and are being implemented by WADA through the Code. Thus, in the committee’s view, 

an amendment to the Annexes done in accordance with Article 34 

does not require the advice and consent of the Senate. Nevertheless, the committee has included a condition in the resolution of advice and consent to ratification, which requires the Secretary of 

State to transmit to this committee, and to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, the text of an amendment to either Annex done in accordance with Article 34 no later than 60 days after its entry into 

force. An amendment done in accordance with Article 33 would, of 

course, require the advice and consent of the Senate. 

B. RESOLUTION

The committee has included in the resolution of advice and consent an understanding, a declaration, and a condition. 

Understanding 

The proposed understanding makes clear that although the Convention obligates States Parties to support WADA’s mission and 

the principal of equal funding for WADA as between the Olympic 

Movement and governments, the Convention does not commit the 

United States to make a financial contribution to WADA. 

Declaration 

The proposed declaration clarifies that the United States definition of ‘‘athlete’’ for purposes of doping control in the Convention, 

is any athlete determined by USADA to be subject to or to have 

accepted the Code. This declaration is consistent with the chapeau 

of Article 2, which states that every definition is ‘‘to be understood 

within the context of the World Anti-Doping Code’’ and will be included in the U.S. instrument of ratification in order to alert other 

States Parties to the definition used by the United States. 

Condition 

As noted in relation to the tacit amendment procedure in Article 

34, the Committee has included a reporting requirement regarding 

amendments to the Annexes of the Convention that are concluded 

through the Article 34 procedure. 

13 

VIII. TEXT OF RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO

RATIFICATION

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO AN UNDERSTANDING, A DECLARATION, AND A CONDITION 

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport (the ‘‘Convention’’), 

adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization on October 19, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 110–14; EC 

6772), subject to the understanding of section 2, the declaration of 

section 3, and the condition of section 4. 

SECTION. 2. UNDERSTANDING 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following understanding, which shall be included in the 

United States instrument of ratification: 

It is the understanding of the United States of America 

that nothing in this Convention obligates the United 

States to provide funding to the World Anti-Doping 

Agency. 

SECTION. 3. DECLARATION 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declaration, which shall be included in the United 

States instrument of ratification: 

Pursuant to Article 2(4), which defines ‘‘Athlete’’ for purposes of doping control as ‘‘any person who participates in 

sport at the international or national level as defined by 

each national anti-doping organization and accepted by 

States Parties and any additional person who participates 

in a sport or event at a lower level accepted by States Parties’’, the United States of America declares that ‘‘Athlete’’ 

for purposes of doping control means any athlete determined by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to be subject to or 

to have accepted the World Anti-Doping Code. 

SECTION. 4. CONDITION 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following condition: 

Not later than 60 days after an amendment to either of 

the Annexes that was concluded in accordance with the 

specific amendment procedure in Article 34 enters into 

force for the United States, the Secretary of State shall 

transmit the text of the amended Annex to the Committee 

on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary 

of the Senate. 

15 

IX. ANNEX I.—2008 PROHIBITED LIST AND ANNEX I TO THE

CONVENTION (EC 6772) 


av1.eps
16 


av2.eps
17 


av3.eps
18 


av4.eps
19 


av5.eps
20 


av6.eps
21 


av7.eps
22 


av8.eps
23 


av9.eps
24 


av10.eps
(25) 

X. ANNEX II.—TRANSCRIPT OF MAY 22, 2008 HEARING

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST 

DOPING IN SPORT (TREATY DOC. 110–14) 

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:22 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Biden and Lugar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., 

U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Let me begin 

by welcoming our witnesses. Today the committee examines 

whether the United States should join the International Convention Against Doping in Sport. Throughout history, as our witnesses 

clearly know, athletes have always tried to improve their competitive advantage in their performance on the playing field, and 

there’s always been a history of some use of improper substances 

to be able to do that. 

In the 20th century, governments even got into the act, such as 

when East Germany tried to build an Olympic powerhouse by the 

use of doping. As many as 2,000 former East German athletes are 

now suffering, we are told, from significant health problems associated with steroid use, including heart disease and other diseases. 

Today we continue to struggle with the problem of doping in 

sports. American athletes in both Olympic and professional sports, 

as well as college and high school at all levels, are not immune 

from the temptation to abuse steroids and other substances and the 

pressure, particularly at the very highest level, to be able to maintain your slot on the team and your job has increased exponentially 

when you look across the locker room and see somebody who has 

put on 20 extra pounds of muscle over the summer and you say: 

Well, wait a minute; it’s my job or he or she gets the job. 

It’s a giant problem. Profound medical advances have resulted in 

the development of a wide variety of drugs, some of which can be 

abused, that artificially advance muscle growth and rejuvenation 

on a level previously unimagined. A quick review of the World 

Anti-Doping Agency’s list of prohibited substances indicates the 

26 

breadth of performance-enhancing drugs: hormones, steroids, oxygen enhancements, beta blockers, even gene doping. 

While many of these drugs can be used for legitimate purposes, 

they can also be abused by athletes seeking to achieve a competitive advantage. I just call it flat cheating. It’s a simple, basic proposition: It’s cheating. For the last two decades, the United States 

and the world community have responded to these developments 

with an increasing commitment to curb doping in sport. Along with 

others, with many others, I’ve been closely involved in this effort. 

In 1990, I was the author, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

of the first Anabolic Steroid Control Act, which added anabolic 

steroids to Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances Act, and began 

to list a host of substances falling within that definition. 

In 2004 I updated the law—I proposed legislation to update the 

law—and added THG as well as Andro and other chemical cousins 

to the list of anabolic steroids. The reason for these changes 

was simple. These substances not only pose great health risks, but 

they threaten the fundamental integrity of sport and send the 

wrong message to a kid that cheating—cheating to get ahead—is 

acceptable, no matter what the cost, as long as the ends had great 

promise. 

So I’ve worked hard, along with Senator Lugar and many others 

in the Senate, to ban these substances, educate our youth and professional athletes, and reduce this wrongful behavior in American 

sport. 

In the late 1990s, the international community came together 

and established the World Anti-Doping Agency to promote and coordinate the fight against doping in international sports competition. The United States at that time played a leading role in the 

establishment of the Agency and has long been one of its strongest 

supporters. One of the Agency’s most significant achievements was 

the development of a uniform set of antidoping rules in what is 

known as the World Anti-Doping Code. 

The International Convention Against Doping in Sport, which 

commits parties to the principles of the Code and reaffirms the 

World Anti-Doping Agency’s role in implementing the Code, is the 

next logical step in promoting harmonized, coordinated, and effective antidoping programs in international sport competition. On the 

eve of the Beijing Olympics, it’s timely for the Senate to consider 

this issue of doping in sports. 

When I was leaving I told my wife that I was doing—we were 

having this hearing, and she said: You know, you do that in Judiciary; why are you doing this in the Foreign Relations Committee? 

How is that? Because most people would wonder why we, in the 

Foreign Relations Committee, are dealing with this. But the fact of 

the matter is that we’re expediting the convention here for a very 

practical reason. The International Olympic Committee has made 

clear that nations seeking to host Olympic games must be parties 

to this convention and we are not. The city of Chicago is bidding 

to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. So we are acting promptly on 

this convention, just a few months after it was submitted to the 

Senate, at the request of our colleagues not only from the administration, but from Illinois and the mayor of the city of Chicago, 

Mayor Daley, and the Olympic Committee. 

27 

We have two panels today. By the way, I might add, I have an 

ulterior motive for wanting to bring this—give this issue as much 

attention as we can. I believe that we should have the same code 

for all sports in America. It should be as tough as the Olympic 

standards, and it is not, whether it’s professional sports or amateur 

sports. I think it should be a national standard as well. 

I’ve been a broken record on that. That’s not why we’re here, but 

I want full disclosure. I’m going to do all I can in my capacity in 

that other committee to try to get us to the point where this becomes the national standard as well as our standard when we compete in international competition. 

We have two very distinguished panels today. First we’re going 

to hear from the Honorable Scott M. Burns and Ms. Joan 

Donoghue. Mr. Burns has served as Deputy Director of the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy since December 2007 and is doing 

a good job, I might add, in my view. He has also worked extensively for the World Anti-Doping Agency, including as U.S. representative to the Agency in 2003 and as the regional representative for the Americas on the Agency’s Executive Committee. 

Ms. Donoghue is the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser to the 

Department of State. She previously served as the Deputy General 

Counsel for the Department of the Treasury. 

On the second panel we’ll have Mr. Lynch and Mr. Tygart. Am 

I pronouncing ‘‘Tygart’’ correctly? 

Mr. TYGART. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. If not, you can call me ‘‘Bidden.’’ 

Mr. Lynch is a board member of the United States Olympic Committee and a two-time United States Olympic gymnast, and he has 

won the silver medal on the parallel bars, which I still cannot fathom anyone being able to do. I thought myself an athlete in high 

school and college, but I don’t know how—you have to explain to 

me a little bit about how the hell you ever got into that, because 

it looks to me to be absolutely beyond physical—anyway, Mr. 

Lynch won a silver medal for the parallel bars in the Summer 

Olympics held in Atlanta in 1996. 

Mr. Tygart is the chief executive officer of the United States 

Anti-Doping Agency and has been with the Agency since 2002 and 

served as the director of legal affairs before becoming the counsel 

general in 2004. 

Before we move to our witnesses, I yield to Chairman Lugar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Really, emboldened by your mention of Mayor Daley and Chicago, 

I would just mention that I’m celebrating with Mayor Ballard of Indianapolis the award of the Superbowl to Indianapolis in 2012, and 

your thought that this ought to cover all sports is one that I cherish likewise. 

I appreciated particularly your leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, because the legislation and the hearings you 

had really were significant. But there is a good reason for our having this hearing here today, because of the action that you and the 

committee are trying to expedite. 

28 

Therefore, I join you in welcoming our witnesses to this hearing 

on the International Convention Against Doping in Sport. The convention was negotiated with significant United States participation 

and thus far 85 nations have ratified it. The Foreign Relations 

Committee has been called on to evaluate this treaty and the impact of United States ratification on international and American 

antidoping efforts. 

The United States is passionate about athletics at every level, 

from the most elite professionals to our sons and daughters playing 

on school teams. We’re hopeful that athletic competition is fair and, 

even more importantly, safe. Performance-enhancing drugs undercut fair competition and introduce a destructive element into endeavors that should be promoting good health and physical fitness. 

Athletes who use steroids or other drugs are placing their own 

health at serious risk and setting a damaging example for the millions of younger athletes who look up to them. 

For many young people participation in sports is a fundamental 

element of personal expression, social status, and self-worth. In 

some cases sports are a pathway to college, another means of personal advancement. In this context, the temptation of drugs that 

offer the prospect of improved performance can be very powerful, 

particularly when the safety and efficacy of that temptation seems 

to be validated by elite athletes. 

The Office of National Drug Control Policy found in 2006 that 1.6 

percent—1.6 percent of eighth grade students, and 2.7 percent of 

12th grade students reported using steroids at least once. 

The convention before us is not a panacea for that problem. 

Rather, it seeks to improve international coordination in preventing and responding to doping in sports generally. It requires 

commitments by parties to collaborate on research, education, and 

rules related to antidoping efforts. 

The executive branch has determined that U.S. laws and practice 

are already consistent with the convention. Thus, no further implementing legislation would be necessary for the United States to become a party. 

I look forward to this opportunity to study the convention in 

greater depth today, to hear the testimony of our witnesses about 

why it is needed and how it might be beneficial to United States 

interests. 

I thank you again for calling this hearing in such a timely way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Burns, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT M. BURNS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BURNS. Chairman Biden, Ranking Member Lugar, it’s my 

pleasure to appear before you this morning, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and testify in strong support of the 

International Convention Against Doping in Sport. As you know, 

the convention was transmitted by the President on February 6 of 

this year and advances the interests of the United States in the 

fight against drug use and doping in sport. 

29 

The convention develops a common approach and harmonizes, as 

you have outlined, standard for equitable antidoping measures in 

international competition. The convention is not structured to 

change national law or regulation, but will continue commitments 

by parties to promote international collaboration on antidoping research, education, and drug testing protocols. 

I join the President in urging timely ratification of the instrument. Doping poses significant risks to the health and well-being 

of athletes, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, as evidenced by your 

leadership on the steroid issue for many, many yours. The use of 

performance-enhancing drugs undermines the ideal of sport and 

devalues and debases the rewards of competition. The health and 

ethical consequences of doping particularly impact young people, 

who often emulate the behaviors of elite athletes. 

Governments from around the globe and the international Olympic movement recognize the importance of the international cooperation needed, as you have pointed out, by creating the World 

Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, in 1999. It is the international 

independent organization designed to promote, coordinate, and 

monitor the fight against doping in sport in all of its forms. The 

agency is composed and funded equally by the Olympic movement 

and the governments of the world. 

The United States was a driving force in the inception of development of WADA and has increasingly played, I believe, a leadership 

role in the agency’s governance. The most important achievement 

of WADA has been the drafting, acceptance, and implementation of 

a consistent set of antidoping rules for Olympic sport organization 

and international competitions, the World Anti-Doping Code. 

Prior to the creation of the code, there was myriad inconsistent, 

and at times contradictory, doping rules across nations and across 

sport. The code’s development was the result of an unprecedented 

collaboration between governments and the Olympic movement and 

culminated when the document entered into force on January 1, 

2004. To date more than 570 sport organizations have become signatories and adopted the code. 

Governments, including the United States, however, possess no 

legal ability to become signatories to a nongovernmental private 

legal instrument such as the code. Therefore, and consistent with 

the ideals upon which WADA was established, governments agreed 

to include a provision in the code whereby their antidoping commitment would be demonstrated by the signing of a nonbinding political declaration, to be followed by the development of an international convention. Thus the reason for us being here. 

Ratification of the convention, Mr. Chairman, as you’ve stated, is 

a priority. While the convention does not alter the manner in which 

sports operate and are regulated in the United States, ratification 

does send a clear message domestically and abroad about our commitment to eliminate doping in sport. The instrument was drafted 

with the clear recognition and included specific language to ensure 

that regulation of sport remains within the purview of national law 

and national policy. The convention respects and retains the various ways in which nations regulate sport. 

No provision in the convention requires any change to existing 

United States law, regulation, or policy. Moreover, no impleVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
30 

menting legislation would be required and upon ratification of the 

convention the United States would be compliant as a party. 

Ratification of the convention will not impact the manner in 

which the United States professional sports are regulated. Consistent with its purpose, the definitions contained in the convention 

create obligations solely with respect to those individuals and entities engaged in internationally regulated competition. 

Ratification of the convention will not impact existing antidoping 

policies in the United States. The United States Anti-Doping 

Agency, or USADA, will remain the independent nongovernmental 

organization responsible for administering the antidoping program 

for Olympic and Pan American sport in the United States. Ratifying the convention will not change the relationship between the 

United States Government and USADA. 

As you have pointed out, in addition to this policy rationale, 

practical reasons exist to support the convention. The International 

Olympic Committee has mandated that in order to host the Olympic Games a nation must have ratified the UNESCO Anti-Doping 

Convention. As you are aware, the city of Chicago is one of the 

seven cities to have submitted an official bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Each of the other bidding nations has already ratified the convention and ratification of the convention is a critical 

step toward bringing the Olympic Games back to the United 

States. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s been an honor to have represented the United 

States Government on WADA’s governing executive committee and 

foundation board since 2004. I’m pleased to report that the efforts 

of the United States have resulted in a dramatic and positive 

change in international perception of our commitment to combatting drugs in sport. Congress deserves a significant amount of 

credit for its leadership, commitment, and vision. Congress has 

been invaluable as a partner in raising the awareness of this public 

health issue, providing the resources to the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy and the United States Anti-Doping Agency to pursue 

the issue vigorously and amending the Controlled Substances Act 

to ensure that the law evolves with science and technology. 

The efforts to combat doping in the United States truly have 

been a team effort. While much progress has been made, additional 

actions are necessary. The next step in our shared fight to protect 

the public health and integrity of sport is the ratification of the 

Convention Against Doping in Sport. Becoming a party to this instrument is in our national interest. It will further demonstrate 

our commitment to working in the international arena to reduce 

the incidence of drug use in sport. 

I strongly urge the committee to give prompt and favorable consideration to the convention, and I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT M. BURNS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NA- TIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASH- INGTON, DC 

I. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Biden, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the committee, it is my 

pleasure to appear this morning before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

and testify in strong support of the International Convention Against Doping in 

31 

Sport (Treaty Doc. 110–4). The Convention transmitted by President Bush to the 

Senate on February 6, 2008, advances the interests of the United States in the fight 

against drug use and doping in sport. The Convention develops a common approach 

and harmonizes standards for equitable antidoping controls in international competition. The Convention is not structured to change national law or regulation, but 

will continue commitments by parties to promote international collaboration on 

antidoping research, education, and drug testing protocols. On behalf of John 

Walters, Director, National Drug Control Policy, I join the President in urging the 

timely ratification of this instrument. 

II. DISCUSSION

a. Doping in Sport 

Doping is the use of a substance or method that artificially enhances athletic performance. Doping often poses a significant risk to the health and well-being of athletes. The use of performance enhancing drugs undermines the ideals of sport and 

devalues and debases the rewards of competition. The health and ethical consequences of doping particularly impact young people who often emulate the behaviors of elite athletes. As a result, the President highlighted the importance athletics 

play in our society and the pernicious nature of doping in his 2004 State of the 

Union Address. He observed that doping is dangerous and sends the wrong message 

to children that performance is more important than character. 

Neither the United States, nor any other single nation, can adequately confront 

and tackle the multifaceted challenges posed by doping alone. Sport continues to 

grow increasingly international in nature. Athletes and coaches compete and train 

internationally and are impacted by global trends. Recent high-profile steroid trafficking prosecutions in the United States confirm that the trafficking of performance-enhancing drugs is international in scope as well. The source of the steroids 

and the drug trafficking organizations involved in these prosecutions demonstrates 

the international nature of this problem. As a result, the 2008 National Drug Control Strategy identified international cooperation and partnership as a core element 

of the United States efforts in combating doping in sport. 

b. The creation of an International Body to Combat Doping 

Governments from around the globe and the International Olympic Movement 

recognized the importance of international cooperation by creating the World AntiDoping Agency (WADA) in 1999. WADA is the international, independent organization created to promote, coordinate, and monitor the fight against doping in sport 

in all its forms. The agency is composed and funded equally by the Olympic 

Movement and governments of the world. Its key activities include scientific research, education, out-of-competition drug testing, and development of antidoping 

capacities. 

The United States was a driving force in the conception and development of 

WADA. Per Executive Orders 13165 (August 9, 2000) and 13286 (February 28, 

2003), the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) serves as the United 

States representative to WADA. The United States has increasingly played a leadership role in the agency’s governance. The United States has served as one of 18 nations on the agency’s governing Foundation Board since WADA’s inception. In 2004, 

the United States was elected to serve as one of five nations worldwide on WADA’s 

executive committee. Moreover, a number of United States officials serve on various 

expert committees and technical working groups. 

c. The World Anti-Doping Code 

The immediate challenge WADA faced following its creation was the myriad inconsistent and contradictory doping rules across nations and sport. Indeed, prior to 

2000, antidoping rules and regulations, to the extent they even existed, commonly 

varied or contradicted each other. Often these rules were inconsistently applied and 

enforced. Thus, depending on the sport or nationality of an athlete, the antidoping 

framework varied. 

The most important achievement of WADA has been the drafting, acceptance, and 

implementation of a consistent set of antidoping rules—the World Anti-Doping Code 

(Code). The Code is the core document that provides the basis for harmonized 

antidoping rules and regulations within Olympic sport organizations and among 

governments. The Code also addresses the problems that previously arose from the 

disjointed and uncoordinated efforts in areas such as testing, adjudications, sanctions, antidoping prevention and education. 

The Code’s development was the result of an unprecedented collaboration between 

governments and the Olympic Movement. The drafting and consultations lasted 

nearly 2 years. In fact, the United States and more than 80 governments actively 

32 

participated in the World Conference on Doping in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2003 

during which the Code was approved. The process culminated when the document 

entered into force on January 1, 2004. 

To date, more than 570 sport organizations have become signatories and adopted 

the Code. All the sport entities in the United States Olympic Movement, including 

United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), have signed the Code. Governments, including the United States, however, possess no legal ability to become signatories to a nongovernmental, private 

legal instrument such as the Code. 

Therefore, consistent with the ideals upon which WADA was established, governments agreed to include a provision in the Code whereby their commitment to the 

Code would be demonstrated by the signing of a nonbinding political declaration. 

Thereafter, governments would pursue the development of an international antidoping convention to be implemented as appropriate to the constitutional and regulatory contexts of each government. The purpose of the Convention was to enable 

governments to align their domestic legislation and policies, to the extent possible, 

with the Code in order to harmonize sport rules and public law in the fight against 

doping in sport. 

Remarkably, 192 nations have signed the political statement (the so-called ‘‘Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport’’) expressing support for the principles contained in the Code. Governments subsequently concluded that the United 

Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)—the U.N. 

agency with technical competence and responsibility in the areas of social and 

human science in addition to physical education and sport—was the most appropriate international organization to host such a convention. In January 2004, drafting of the international convention under the auspices of UNESCO was commenced. 

d. The Drafting and Development of the International Convention 

The United States Government played an active leadership role throughout the 

development of the Convention. The drafting process afforded the United States 

with an extremely fair opportunity to shape the contents and format of the instrument. Our government was represented by senior officials from the Department of 

State and ONDCP at each of the drafting sessions and intergovernmental meetings. 

In addition, the United States was selected to serve on UNESCO’s expert drafting 

group and chaired UNESCO’s International Conference of Ministers and Senior 

Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport during which senior governmental officials from nearly 100 nations discussed the guiding principles of the 

Convention. 

During the drafting process, the State Department and ONDCP regularly conferred with senior officials from a wide range of Federal agencies with technical experience on issues contained in the Convention, such as the Departments of Justice, 

Education, and Health and Human Services. ONDCP was also in close contact with 

USADA and the USOC regarding the Convention’s development. Moreover, in April 

2004, a consultation letter, along with a copy of the draft Convention, was sent by 

ONDCP to nearly 100 potentially impacted nonfederal stakeholders. Not a single objection to a substantive provision of the Convention was received. The United States 

was pleased to support the Convention’s unanimous adoption by the UNESCO General Assembly in October 2005. 

Consistent with UNESCO protocol, 30 countries were required to ratify the document prior to it entering into legal force. The requisite number was reached in February 2007. At present, 83 nations have become parties to the Convention. 

Ratification of the Convention remains an administration priority. As highlighted 

in the 2008 National Drug Control Strategy, while the Convention does not alter 

the manner in which sports operate and are regulated in the United States, ratification sends a clear message domestically and abroad about our commitment to 

eliminate doping in sport. To that end, we vigorously pursued the Department of 

State-led process to widely circulate the Convention for analysis on the document’s 

potential impact, any changes in law or policy that may be required by ratification, 

as well as any unintended consequences that may result following ratification by the 

United States. 

The vetting process was complete in January 2008, at which time Secretary of 

State Rice forwarded the Convention to the President. On February 6, 2008, the 

President transmitted the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent to 

ratification. That same day, the White House issued a public statement noting the 

administration’s ongoing commitment to fighting the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in sport and urging speedy ratification of the Convention. 

33 

While I would be pleased to discuss any particular provision of the Convention 

in greater detail, I would like to highlight a number of its most fundamental 

concepts. 

e. Noteworthy Aspects of the Convention 

i. No change to U.S. law, regulation, or policy required 

The purpose of the Convention was to harmonize the international antidoping 

framework in order to promote public health and protect the integrity of sport. The 

instrument was drafted with a clear recognition, and included specific language, to 

ensure that regulation of sport remains within the purview of national law and policy. The Convention is careful to place obligations on particular governments only 

‘‘where appropriate’’ in order to respect and retain the various ways in which nations regulate sport. The Convention’s goal is to secure international commitments 

and collaboration on antidoping subjects such as drug-related research, education, 

and testing. The Code is included as an appendix to the Convention for information 

purposes, but does not create any binding legal obligations on governments. 

No provisions in the Convention require any change to existing United States law, 

regulation, or policy. Moreover, no implementing legislation would be required. 

Upon ratification of the Convention, the United States would be compliant with our 

obligations as a party. 

The Convention provides for minimum standards in order for nations to combat 

drug use in sport. While the Convention will not require changes in the United 

States, many other nations with less advanced and sophisticated antidoping regimes 

will be required to enact and amend laws and regulations to become compliant with 

the Convention. An important result of the Convention, therefore, will be a global 

framework that provides more equitable treatment of U.S. athletes competing internationally. United States athletes will compete on a more level playing field as athletes from around the world become subject to more consistent and stringent doping 

rules. 

ii. Professional sport leagues not within the Convention’s scope 

Ratification of the Convention will not impact the manner in which U.S. professional sports are regulated or athletes participating in professional leagues are 

tested or sanctioned. Consistent with its purpose, the definitions contained in the 

Convention create obligations solely with respect to those individuals and entities 

engaged in internationally regulated competition. We intend to apply the Convention accordingly. 

By its explicit terms, the Convention defines which ‘‘athletes’’ fall under the instrument’s jurisdiction. For the purposes of doping control, ‘‘athlete’’ is defined as 

a person who participates in sport at the international or national level as defined 

by the relevant national antidoping organization. Therefore, only athletes under 

USADA’s testing program would be impacted by the Convention’s doping control 

provisions. USADA has no authority to include athletes competing in non-Olympic 

professional sports without the consent and authorization of the professional player. 

Further, the Convention only governs the antidoping frameworks of ‘‘sport organizations’’ which are specifically defined as the ‘‘ruling body’’ for a particular event 

or sport. According to that term of art, leagues such as the National Football 

League, National Basketball League, National Hockey League and Major League 

Baseball would not be within the Convention’s scope. This limitation was intentionally included in the Convention. 

iii. No change in the relationship between the Government and USADA or 

USOC 

Ratification of the Convention will not impact existing antidoping policies in the 

United States. At present, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 2001, USADA is the independent, 

nongovernmental organization responsible for administering the antidoping program 

for Olympic and Pan American sport in the United States. USADA is a signatory 

to the Code and fully compliant with its provisions. Ratifying this Convention will 

not change the relationship between the United States Government and USADA. 

To the contrary, the Convention explicitly allows governments to utilize the efforts 

of antidoping organization (such as USADA) or other sports authorities and organizations (such as the USOC) to meet any obligations under the Convention. This will 

avoid any duplication of effort by the Government and private stakeholders. In fact, 

the Convention will likely have the positive impact of serving to further synergize 

and coordinate the drug prevention, education, and antidoping research efforts. 

34 

iv. Financing and compliance monitoring mechanisms 

Two administrative aspects of the Convention are worthy of note. First, the Convention does not impose any new financial obligations on the United States. Any 

costs incurred by UNESCO in the administration of the Convention will be derived 

from that organization’s existing operational budget. Further, we do not anticipate 

any additional costs to the United States Government as a result of ratification. 

Second, compliance by parties to the Convention is monitored via a self-reporting 

mechanism. Nations provide a report to the Convention’s Conference of Parties 

every 2 years. The United States has already concluded that we are in compliance 

with all obligations in the Convention. In any event, the Convention does not set 

forth any formal action or sanctions that may be taken by UNESCO or the Convention’s Conference of Parties as a result of the compliance reports. 

v. Practical considerations favoring ratification 

In addition to the aforementioned policy rationale, practical reasons exist to support the Convention. Pursuant to the terms of the Code, only representatives from 

sport organizations that are Code compliant and from national governments that 

have ratified the Convention by 2009 may continue to serve in WADA leadership 

positions. Consequently, failure to ratify the Convention jeopardizes our leadership 

standing internationally. 

The United States currently serves on WADA’s governing executive committee 

and foundation board. By virtue of these posts, the United States has been at the 

forefront in shaping global antidoping policy and ensuring that our national interests are represented by this international agency. We have achieved a number of 

results that have positively impacted our efforts to reduce drug use in sport and ensure that our athletes compete on a level playing field in international competitions. 

For example, we have fought vigorously to ensure global balance exists in WADA’s 

governance. We were pleased that the Honorable John Fahey of Australia was 

elected the new President of WADA beginning in January 2008. Mr. Fahey, the 

former Australian Finance Minister, has consistently and publicly recognized that 

the contributions the United States Government and our nongovernmental stakeholders have made in the global fight against doping. Mr. Fahey brings a sound understanding and appreciation of the manner in which sport is regulated in our 

country. 

In addition, our leadership positions have enabled us to successfully resist calls 

from some entities to weaken international drug control efforts by removing controlled illicit substances such as marijuana and MDMA from WADA’s list of prohibited substances. Finally, the United States, consistent with the direction received 

from the appropriations committees, has also worked tirelessly to ensure that 

WADA utilized its funds in a prudent manner and increases to its operating budget 

are minimal. 

In addition, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has mandated that in 

order to host the Olympic Games, a nation must have ratified the UNESCO AntiDoping Convention and the country’s National Olympic Committee and national 

anti-doping organization must be Code compliant. As you are aware, the city of Chicago is one of seven cities to have submitted an official bid to the IOC to host the 

2016 Summer Olympics. Each of the other bidding nations (Azerbaijan, Brazil, 

Czech Republic, Japan, Qatar, and Spain) has already ratified the Convention. As 

President Bush stated in January 2008 during his visit with the Chicago 2016 Bid 

Committee and USOC leaders, the country strongly supports Chicago’s bid to bring 

the Olympic Games to the United States. Ratification of the Convention will be a 

positive step toward achieving that goal. 

III. CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to have represented the United State Government on the WADA executive committee and foundation board since 2004. I am 

pleased to report that the efforts of our Government have resulted in a dramatic 

and positive change in international perception of our commitment to combating 

drugs in sport. Previously, some in the international community were skeptical of 

the intensity of our resolve to confront this issue. In recent years, however, we have 

gained the respect of governments worldwide and the International Olympic Movement based on an unwavering commitment to address doping in sport. 

Our government has assumed an unprecedented leadership role in WADA and in 

the international community. The President has highlighted the dangers of doping 

on several high profile occasions. USADA, with the enthusiastic support and partnership of the USOC, has developed into one of the world’s most respected national 

antidoping doping agencies. Federal law enforcement agencies have successfully conVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
35 

ducted criminal investigations into the illegal trafficking of steroids and other performance enhancing controlled substances. Operation Gear Grinder, Raw Deal, and 

BALCO are now part of the U.S. vernacular and symbolize our collective determination to combat steroid abuse and protect young people from the deleterious effects 

of these drugs. 

Congress also deserves a significant amount of credit for its leadership, commitment, and vision. Congress has been an invaluable partner in raising the awareness 

of this public health issue, providing the resources to ONDCP and USADA to pursue 

the issue vigorously, and amending the Controlled Substance Act to ensure the law 

evolves with science and technology. 

The efforts to combat doping in the United States truly have been a team effort. 

While much progress has been made, additional actions are necessary. The next 

step in our shared fight to protect the public health and integrity of sport is the 

ratification of the Convention Against Doping in Sport. Becoming a party to this instrument is in the U.S. national interest. It will further demonstrate our commitment to working in the international arena to reduce the incidence of drug use in 

sport. It will also enable the United States to continue to play a defining role within 

WADA and permit Chicago and the USOC the ability pursue its outstanding bid to 

bring the Summer Olympics back to our Nation for the first time since Atlanta 

hosted the Games in 1996. 

I urge the committee to take favorable action with respect to the Convention as 

soon as practical. ONDCP greatly appreciates the committee’s interest in this topic. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Donoghue. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN DONOGHUE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY LEGAL 

ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. DONOGHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Director 

Burns has given you a good summary of the reasons for the widespread support for this convention in the United States. I won’t 

repeat those, but on behalf of the State Department and as the 

mother of a high school athlete and someone with family ties to 

Chicago, I am pleased to join with Mr. Burns in encouraging the 

Senate’s prompt provision of advice and consent to ratification of 

this convention, and we thank you for expediting your consideration of the convention. 

I’ll just briefly touch on a couple of legal and institutional dimensions of the convention that raise issues that I know have been of 

interest to the committee in its consideration of treaties over the 

years. 

First, as Mr. Burns indicated, this convention is entirely consistent with U.S. laws and regulations and, as you indicated, Senator Lugar, it doesn’t require any new legislation, and it specifically recognizes our federalism concerns, and addresses those 

appropriately. Also and unusually, it expressly recognizes that the 

parties may implement their responsibilities under the convention 

through nongovernmental entities. That’s the way we do it now, 

that’s the way we want to continue doing it, and the convention 

won’t require us to change that, which is important. 

Next, the convention maintains the present structure and the administration of the World Anti-Doping Association. It doesn’t interfere with that in any way. It ensures that WADA will maintain its 

ability to equitably address and oversee international antidoping 

issues. UNESCO will not have a role in WADA’s structure or functions and the convention will not change the relationship between 

WADA and the individual national antidoping agencies. 

36 

Finally, funding: The convention places no additional funding requirements on the United States. It doesn’t change WADA’s budgetary processes and there will be no need for additional appropriations as a consequence of ratification. Similarly, the ratification 

will not result in any mandatory increase in UNESCO’s funding. 

Any required UNESCO resources will come out of a voluntary 

fund. 

As a result of these considerations and those you heard about 

from Mr. Burns, ratification will demonstrate the continuing partnership between the executive branch and the Congress in the fight 

against drug use in international sport, and therefore the State 

Department and the administration strongly support the timely 

ratification of the convention. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Donoghue follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOAN DONOGHUE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY LEGAL

ADVISER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear along with my colleague from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy to testify in support of the International Convention against Doping in 

Sport. The Department of State and the administration strongly support the Senate’s prompt provision of advice and consent to ratification of this Convention. 

As a tool in protecting the integrity of international sport, this Convention will 

advance international cooperation on doping-control efforts and will foster a fair and 

doping-free environment for athletes. The United States has been an active participant in and supporter of the development of this Convention from its inception. 

BACKGROUND

This Convention builds on the longstanding efforts of the international community 

to jointly develop an equitable approach to antidoping control and enforcement 

measures in international competition. These efforts resulted in the creation of the 

World Anti-Doping Agency (‘‘WADA’’) in 1999, and, with the strong support of the 

United States, WADA’s development of the World Anti-Doping Code in 2003. 

The Anti-Doping Code was adopted by WADA’s Foundation Board, and accepted 

worldwide, at the World Conference on Doping in Sport, held in Copenhagen in 

March 2003. The United States played an active role in the conference with the goal 

of further supporting WADA and international sport by encouraging parties to adopt 

and implement the Code’s provisions within their own governments. 

At the conclusion of the conference, the participating governments adopted the 

Copenhagen Declaration, a political document whereby the participants demonstrate 

their commitment to WADA and the implementation of the Code in their countries. 

The Copenhagen Declaration further solidified the commitment of all participants 

to develop an international Convention that would legally obligate its parties to implement the Code and to support the efforts of WADA internationally. 

The United States was one of over 80 countries to sign the Copenhagen Declaration at the World Conference; and as of December 2007, the Declaration has been 

signed by 192 governments. After signing the Copenhagen Declaration, the United 

States and other governments decided to utilize the forum and resources of the 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (‘‘UNESCO’’) to 

begin negotiating the proposed Anti-Doping Convention. 

IMPORTANT FACTORS

This Convention represents the successful outcome of the United States intensive 

participation in both the development of the Convention and in the world antidoping 

community generally. The final text of this Convention accomplishes every negotiating goal that the United States hoped to achieve, and it avoids the possible pitfalls 

that the U.S. negotiators had identified. Additionally, by embodying U.S. undertakings in an advice and consent treaty, ratification of this Convention will demonstrate broad-based support by both the legislative and executive branches of the 

37 

Federal Government for the national and international application of the principles 

of the World Anti-Doping Code. 

In supporting the World Anti-Doping Code, the Convention obligates each party 

to adopt appropriate measures at the national and international levels to implement 

the principles embodied in the code. Some of the United States primary objectives 

in participating in the negotiation of this Convention, beyond the substantive goal 

of promoting the purpose and principles of the World Anti-Doping Code, included: 

(1) Ensuring that the Convention did not alter the existing substance or 

structure of sport or antidoping laws in the United States, especially in light 

of any federalism implications of national antidoping regulation; 

(2) Maintaining the status of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as an 

independent and free-standing entity with primary responsibility to oversee and 

monitor international antidoping issues; and 

(3) Ensuring that there was no expansion of funding requirements for the 

United States as a direct result of this Convention. 

The negotiations met all of these objectives. 

The Convention is entirely consistent with U.S. antidoping laws and regulations. 

The Convention is not structured to secure changes to national law or regulation, 

but rather to secure commitments by parties to promote international collaboration, 

research, education, and their own national efforts and awareness of antidoping-control efforts. In other words, no new legislation will be required to implement this 

Convention. Importantly, Article 35 of the Convention specifically recognizes federalism limitations within certain parties’ national legal structures, and allows 

those parties, such as the United States, to address implementation of the Convention in a manner consistent with those concerns. 

The Convention also maintains the present structure and administration of 

WADA. There was some concern at the negotiations that the Convention would enable UNESCO or other outside influences to have a role in WADA’s funding and 

decisionmaking processes. However, the final text ensures that WADA maintains its 

present ability to equitably address and oversee international antidoping issues. 

UNESCO will have no role or oversight capacity in WADA’s structure or functions. 

The Convention also does not change the relationship between WADA and individual national antidoping agencies. 

Finally, the Convention places no additional funding requirements on the United 

States. The WADA budgetary process will remain the same for all participating governments. There will be no need for additional appropriations for our participation 

in WADA as a result of ratification of this Convention. Similarly, U.S. ratification 

of the Convention will not result in any mandatory increase in UNESCO’s funding. 

Any required UNESCO resources will come out of a voluntary fund. 

In sum, the United States achieved all of its objectives in the final text of the 

Anti-Doping Convention. The Convention provides strong, worldwide support for the 

antidoping code and for a fair and drug-free environment for athletes. 

The Convention was adopted by UNESCO on October 19, 2005, and it entered 

into force on February 1, 2007. As of May 2008, 85 countries have ratified, accepted, 

approved, or acceded to the Convention. 

Ratification by the United States of the Anti-Doping Convention will affirm the 

United States longstanding dedication to the development of international 

antidoping controls and its commitment to apply and facilitate the application of 

these controls both internationally and within the United States. Timely ratification 

will also ensure that the United States will continue to remain eligible to host important upcoming international competitions. 

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, the State Department and the administration 

strongly support early ratification of this treaty. The Department of State urges that 

the committee give prompt and favorable consideration to this Convention. 

Senator LUGAR [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you very much, 

both of you, for your testimony. 

Let me just begin the questioning by asking, what is the role 

that the World Anti-Doping Agency has in implementing this convention? What kind of responsibilities do they have? 

Mr. BURNS. The World Anti-Doping Agency, Senator Lugar, is 

the vehicle that brings together all of the parties. 

Senator LUGAR. This is 85 parties that have ratified, plus others, 

like ourselves, that are about to do that? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

38 

Senator LUGAR. Do they have regular meetings, or can you describe the mechanism of how all this works? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. There is a foundation board, where—it’s 

broken up into five regions of the world, and we are the North, 

South, Central, and Caribbean region. I’m privileged to represent 

42 nations from that region on the executive committee, and there 

are five government people on the executive committee, and then 

there are five people from the International Olympic Committee on 

the executive committee. So everything is 50–50. 

Below that is a foundation board, kind of like, I would suppose, 

the House of Representatives, with about 32 members, representing again equally government and sport. The WADA’s sole 

goal is to bring together some 182 nations together to oversee 

doping in sport. 

Senator LUGAR. What level of confidence—you’ve been serving, as 

you pointed out, in this group. What level of confidence do we have 

as to how well other nations are administering the general doctrine? In other words, as our athletes approach the Olympics and 

the general public watches, do we have confidence that country X 

is adopting the same standards, the same degree of rigor, that we 

have in mind? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that’s one of the reasons it’s so important 

that we adopt this convention and tell the world that we’re on 

board. Frankly—— 

Senator LUGAR. They’re asking that of us currently. 

Mr. BURNS. They’re currently asking that of us. One of the benefits to us is that it requires those countries that do not have the 

rigorous standards that we have. I would tell you that USADA, the 

United States Anti-Doping Agency, is the gold standard. We are, 

and have become, the best in the world, not only from a testing 

standpoint, but from coordinating with law enforcement in the 

United States and worldwide to catch cheaters. 

Senator LUGAR. So already we’ve begun to establish a very sound 

record in this respect, even prior to this convention being adopted. 

But nevertheless, this is—the timeliness of this obviously is prior 

to the Olympic competition, to be on record having at least the 

United States as a member of this. 

Mr. BURNS. That’s absolutely correct, and we want to make a 

statement to the world that we don’t condone cheating, that we are 

serious about this, and through USADA and also through the 

White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in coordination with the State Department, who have been a great partner, 

that word has gone out, Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. This is speculative, but what do you anticipate 

will be the impact of this action on professional sports in the 

United States? Congress has been involved recently about baseball, 

for example. The question arises in other situations. Granted, that 

is not a part of the Olympic movement, but it is a part of our own 

ethos, I would gather a reason why you have served and why our 

governmental officials feel this is important. 

Can you describe speculatively what impact this may have on 

sports in general, including professional sports in our country? 

Mr. BURNS. As you know, we are unique. When I meet with 

sports ministers from around the world, I tell them that I am not 

39 

a sports minister. I act in that capacity because our government 

doesn’t oversee sport. They have Cabinet-level people that show up 

at these meetings and speak for and represent the government. 

I can tell you, however, that with FIFA, world soccer, having recently signed onto the code, it sent a loud message to every corner 

of the globe with respect to how serious they were about coming 

into compliance and not tolerating doping in sports. I believe that 

the professional leagues are listening. I believe that they understand that you and Senator Biden have been vocal and passionate 

about this issue, and I can’t help but think that this will help. 

Senator LUGAR. I thank you very much. 

I yield to the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Let me begin with you, Mr. Burns. I have several questions and 

I may, with your permission, submit to each of you a few in 

writing. 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. 

The CHAIRMAN. The convention has an Article 19 and it requires 

State Parties to, ‘‘support, devise, or implement education and 

training,’’ on antidoping for athletes. How is the United States 

going to meet that requirement, that obligation? Will our efforts be 

expanded if the United States becomes a party to this convention? 

In other words, talk about the mechanics of how this works. So 

you sign onto the convention, it requires the United States then to 

support, devise, and implement education and training. Is it going 

to be limited to those who are on the Olympic team or is there 

training—is this an obligation to have a broader program to get to 

athletes who are aspirants, Olympic aspirants? What does it mean? 

Mr. BURNS. I would tell you, my interpretation of that, frankly, 

is a message to other countries around the world that do absolutely 

no education and no training of athletes. The United States is not 

only in full compliance, but we are leaders in the world. USADA 

pays for and implements a broad education program, not only with 

Olympic athletes, but with young people. 

You were present and spoke with the Atlas and Athena Program. 

I remember you were highlighted by Sports Illustrated and others. 

I was privileged to be there with you. That is something that is 

highlighted and supportive of what we do. 

Frankly, all of the training and the testing and the education 

programs that Congress funds also meets the requirement. 

The CHAIRMAN. So there’s not likely to be any—there’s no additional obligation that would be thrust on us that we’re not already 

doing? I wouldn’t mind additional, but we’re in compliance now, 

even before ratifying the convention, correct? Is that what you’re 

saying? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The second question is, I’d like you to talk 

about—help me understand the decisionmaking process at the 

World Anti-Doping Agency, and describe for me the extent to which 

the United States has control over decisions to amend the World 

Anti-Doping Code? What role will we play in that? So as we move 

down the road, there are a lot of synthetic substances. How do we 

play in that game? 

40 

Mr. BURNS. We’re at the table. There are five regions of the 

world represented by one person on the executive committee. The 

United States, and I’m privileged to hold that position, represents 

one of the five regions of the world, 42 countries. That executive 

committee has partners, five people from the IOC, and the decisions that are made by WADA come from that board and from recommendations by the foundation board, which represents a lot 

more countries. 

The code provides, Senator—and people in this room were adamant and vocal about that in the drafting process, and I will tell 

you we were there at every meeting, whether it was in Greece or 

it was in Paris or Copenhagen. Wherever they met, the United 

States was there—there early and there loud—to provide for a 

safety valve, which is what you spoke about, similar to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The second question I should know the answer 

to: Right now the United States has a seat at the table representing 42 nations in the region. Is that a permanent seat or 

does that get voted by the 42 nations in the region? 

Mr. BURNS. Have to have the support of the 42 countries. People 

run for that position and if you have their trust and confidence 

you’re selected. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Donoghue, I have a lot of questions for you, but I’ll just limit 

it to one, or several parts of one question. Under the convention the 

World Anti-Doping Agency has obviously a leading role, and the 

countries that join the convention commit to the principles of the 

World Anti-Doping Code. This is a little unusual. We have a treaty 

that gives a significant role to a nongovernmental organization, 

which writes the code and which proposes amendments and annexes to the treaty, including the prohibited list of substances. 

Is there any reason—because I’m sure some will raise this—is 

there any reason we should be concerned about this structure and 

in having such an authority vested in a nongovernmental agency 

or a nongovernment organization, I should say? Could you speak 

to that from a legal perspective? 

Ms. DONOGHUE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It’s a very interesting question and it’s one that we have looked at within the Office of the 

Legal Adviser. What makes the convention unusual is the fact that 

it specifies that the parties can implement it through these nongovernmental organizations. Normally, a convention in the technical area is implemented through legislation, regulations, etc. 

Here, however, we have a situation where we are doing what we’re 

doing now with a little bit of government help, but largely through 

nongovernment bodies, and we want to continue to do that in the 

future. 

As a technical legal matter, this works because the amendments 

to the annex, for example, which would be changes to ‘‘The Prohibited List’’ as referenced in the WADA code, are amendments that 

as a technical treaty matter the United States can opt out of. If we 

don’t want to be bound with respect to a substance that’s added in 

the future, we don’t need to be as a legal matter. 

But at the same time, as we’ve heard, in many respects the action in this area is really not in the governmental bodies, but 

rather domestically and internationally on the nongovernmental 

41 

side, and we’ll be able to continue to exercise our influence there, 

while at the same time preserving our legal flexibility on the more 

technical legal convention side. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you think of any other treaty where we have 

done something like this? Is there any analogous treaty? ‘‘Like 

this’’ meaning a nongovernmental organization that can write the 

regs, in effect, propose legislative implementation language. 

Ms. DONOGHUE. There are a variety of ways in technical areas 

in which scientific and other experts interact formally with the parties. For example, with respect to the Antarctic treaty there’s the 

Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, which is very actively 

engaged in shaping the activities of that body because scientific research is so important there. 

The RAMSAR convention on wetlands specifically refers to the 

role for the International Union on the Conservation of Nature, an 

NGO based in Switzerland. Its role is specified there. 

So there are examples that are similar to this, and again the 

amendment process does still preserve the role for governments to 

opt out. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think we’re going to need much help on 

this in the Senate, but it may be that we come back to you to expand on those examples for us so we have them available to our 

colleagues who may raise a legal issue relating to the nature of the 

treaty and the nongovernmental organization. 

Ms. DONOGHUE. And we’ll be happy to help in any way we can. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don’t have any further questions. Do you, 

Senator? 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, just on that point while it’s in 

front of us. Isn’t one of the purposes of having the nongovernmental organization involved as really an audit on the government 

in some cases? Without getting into any accusations, sometimes 

governments, states, promote certain aspects of their national sovereignty or however they look at it. So apparently what you have 

devised, or those who are involved, is a situation in which there is 

somebody outside the government that could blow the whistle on 

people who become very excited in a nationalistic way and are prepared really to take steps, even at the expense of their athletes’ 

health, so that they win. 

That would be the case, is it not, in the United States? Not that 

our Government is going to propose that people start using steroids 

in order to bulk up for the Olympics. But even if they were to think 

of such a thing, this is an outside group of people interested in 

health, integrity, and so forth who blow the whistle. And that’s one 

reason why it’s important to have this thing outside of government 

perhaps. 

Is that too much of an extrapolation of your own views? 

Mr. BURNS. I think you’ve summarized it very well, Senator. 

That’s not only the intent, but I can tell you that in the 4 years 

that I’ve been there that’s how it works. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

We thank the panel and we appreciate your hard work. With a 

little bit of luck, we’ll be able to move this. Thank you. 

42 

Our next panel, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Tygart, please come forward. 

Gentlemen, welcome. We truly appreciate your taking the time and 

having the concern to be here. Mr. Lynch, I invite you to make an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JAIR K. LYNCH, BOARD MEMBER, U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, AND FORMER OLYMPIC MEDALIST, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LYNCH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before 

this committee. My name is Jair Lynch and I’m a member of the 

United States Olympic Committee’s Board of Directors. I’m also a 

two-time Olympian and have won a silver medal in gymnastics in 

1996 in the Olympic Games in Atlanta. As such, I bring to this 

hearing a dual perspective, that of an Olympic policymaker as well 

as that of an athlete who has the tremendous honor of representing 

our country in the Olympic Games. 

I also bring to this hearing a profound appreciation for the 

privilege and responsibility of being associated with the Olympic 

movement. The Olympic Games are more than just a quadrennial 

gathering of athletes. The Olympic Games are the very manifestation of a movement that is rooted in the values of fair play, fundamental ethical principles, and the educational value of good 

example. 

By adhering to these values, the Olympic movement serves as an 

inspiration to millions throughout the world, particularly youth, 

who are influenced by the accomplishments of the athletes and by 

the manner in which their accomplishments are achieved. 

In Olympic competition it is not just the winning of the competition that is important. The manner in which the medal is won is 

equally important. Quite simply, the world expects a victory in the 

Olympic Games to be entirely the result of an individual’s natural 

effort, rather than through manipulation or violation of the rules, 

whether they are rules of play or rules prohibiting performance enhancement through the use of illegal or banned substances or 

methods. 

I’m here this morning to speak briefly about the International 

Convention Against Doping in Sport, the expeditious ratification of 

which is important for a number of reasons. Among them is that 

such action will signal to the world the U.S. Government’s continuing commitment to leadership and support in addressing the 

issue of doping in international sport. 

In addition, having governments affirmatively support the principles underlying the World Anti-Doping Code demonstrates the 

international cooperation necessary to make greater progress in the 

fight against doping in international sport. International cooperation is something that the USOC recognizes and embraces through 

many of its activities. as sport can serve as an ideal vehicle to enhance international diplomacy. 

When the United States decides to enter into an international 

treaty, concern is often raised that the United States will have to 

submit to international rules or obligations that are inconsistent 

with our own practices and values. That is not the case in this 

situation. 

43 

Nearly a decade ago, the USOC created the United States AntiDoping Agency, USADA, an independent antidoping testing and 

adjudication entity that helps protect the health and well-being of 

athletes and the integrity of sport by administering one of the most 

rigorous testing programs in the world. The success of an externalized antidoping program and the progress made by USADA over 

the years has been significant. USADA has been recognized by the 

World Anti-Doping Agency as a leader in the fight against doping 

in international sport. 

One of the main reasons for the success of our antidoping program is the close partnership that was developed and the USOC, 

U.S. Congress, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and 

the full cooperation every step of the way. This relationship stands 

as a positive example of how the public and private sectors can and 

should work together in combatting a problem of national, indeed 

international, significance. 

With the opening of the 2008 Olympic Games fast approaching, 

Senate confirmation of this convention will represent an affirmation of the progress that is being made by USADA and the commitment the USOC and our Nation’s Government has made to uphold 

the values of clean competition. 

Another important reason for the expeditious ratification of this 

convention has to do with the ability for cities from our Nation to 

host future Olympic and Paralympic Games. The IOC has mandated that in order to host the Olympic Games a nation must have 

ratified, accepted, and approved or acceded to the International 

Convention Against Doping in Sport. Specifically and more immediate is our Nation’s bid from the city of Chicago to host the 2016 

games. In addition to Chicago, there are six international cities 

vying for this honor. Each of the nations of each of these cities have 

already ratified and accepted the convention. 

Chicago has put forth what the USOC believes is a very strong 

bid to host the 2016 games. But without congressional ratification 

of the convention, the IOC will not accept a bid from the United 

States. Needless to say, prompt action enhances the prospects of 

America’s bid. 

On behalf of the USOC and America’s Olympic and Paralympic 

athletes who will be participating in the 2008 games this summer, 

I thank you for your attention and consideration to this important 

convention. I respectfully ask that you take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the convention is ratified at the earliest possible 

date. In doing so, you will be confirming our country’s commitment 

to clean and drug-free competition and you will be protecting Chicago’s bid for the privilege of hosting the 2016 Olympic and 

Paralympic Games. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAIR LYNCH, BOARD MEMBER, U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, 

FORMER OLYMPIC MEDALIST, WASHINGTON, DC 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this committee. 

My name is Jair Lynch and I am a member of the United States Olympic Committee’s Board of Directors. I am also a two-time Olympian, having won a silver 

medal in gymnastics at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. As such, I bring to this 

44 

hearing a dual perspective: That of an Olympic policymaker as well as that of an 

athlete who had the tremendous honor of representing our country in the Olympic 

Games. I also bring to this hearing a profound appreciation for the privilege and 

responsibility of being associated with the Olympic Movement. 

The Olympic Games are more than just a quadrennial gathering of elite athletes. 

The Olympic Games are the very manifestation of a movement that is rooted in the 

values of fair play, fundamental ethical principles, and the educational value of good 

example. By adhering to these values, the Olympic Movement serves as an inspiration to millions throughout the world, particularly youth, who are influenced both 

by the accomplishments of the athletes, and by the manner in which their accomplishments are achieved. In Olympic competition, it is not just winning the competition that is important; the manner in which the medal is won is equally important. 

Quite simply, the world expects a victory in the Olympic Games to be entirely the 

result of an individual’s natural effort rather than through manipulation or violation 

of the rules, whether they are rules of play or rules prohibiting performance enhancement through the use of illegal or banned substances or methods. 

I am here this morning to speak briefly about the International Convention 

Against Doping in Sport, the expeditious ratification of which is important for a 

number of reasons. Among them is that such action will signal to the world the U.S. 

Government’s continuing commitment, leadership, and support in addressing the 

issue of doping in international sport. In addition, having governments affirmatively 

support the principles underlying the World Anti-Doping Code demonstrates the 

international cooperation necessary to make greater progress in the fight against 

doping in international sport. International cooperation is something that the USOC 

recognizes and embraces through many of its activities—as sport can serve as an 

ideal vehicle to enhance international diplomacy. 

When the United States decides to enter into an international treaty, concern is 

often raised that the United States will have to submit to international rules or obligations that are inconsistent with our own practices or values. That is not the case 

in this situation. Nearly a decade ago, the USOC created the United States AntiDoping Agency (‘‘USADA’’), an independent antidoping testing and adjudication entity that helps protect the health and well-being of athletes and the integrity of 

sport by administering one of the most rigorous testing programs in the world. The 

success of an externalized antidoping program and the progress made by USADA 

over the years has been significant, and USADA has been recognized by the World 

Anti-Doping Agency as a leader in the fight against doping in international sport. 

One of the main reasons for the success of our antidoping program is the close partnership that was developed between the USOC, the U.S. Congress, and the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy, and their full cooperation every step of the way. 

This relationship stands as a positive example of how the public and private sectors 

can and should work together in combating a problem of national, indeed, international significance. 

With the opening of the 2008 Olympic Games fast approaching, Senate confirmation of this Convention will represent an affirmation of the progress that is being 

made by USADA and the commitment the USOC and our Nation’s Government has 

made to uphold the values of clean competition. 

Another important reason for the expeditious ratification of this Convention has 

to do with the ability for cities from our Nation to host future Olympic and 

Paralympic Games. The International Olympic Committee has mandated that in 

order to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, a nation must have ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to the International Convention Against Doping in 

Sport. 

Specifically and more immediate is our Nation’s bid from the city of Chicago to 

host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. In addition to Chicago, there are six 

international cities vying for the honor of hosting the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic 

Games which are: Baku (Azerbaijan), Doha (Qatar), Madrid (Spain), Prague (Czech 

Republic), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and Tokyo (Japan). Each of the nations for each 

of these cities have already ratified, accepted, or acceded the Convention. 

Chicago has put forth what the USOC believes is a very strong bid to host the 

2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. But without congressional ratification of the 

Convention, the IOC will not accept a bid from the United States. Needless to say, 

prompt action enhances the prospects of America’s bid. 

On behalf of the United States Olympic Committee and America’s Olympic and 

Paralympic athletes who will be participating in the 2008 Games this summer, I 

thank you for your attention and consideration of this important Convention. I respectfully ask that you take whatever steps are necessary to ensure this Convention 

is ratified at the earliest possible date. In so doing you will be confirming our counVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
45 

try’s commitment to clean and drug-free competition, and you will be protecting Chicago’s bid for the privilege of hosting the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tygart. 

STATEMENT OF TRAVIS TYGART, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

U.S. ANTI-DOPING AGENCY, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 

Mr. TYGART. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. My name is Travis Tygart and I’m the CEO 

of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. I want to thank this committee for its interest in clean sport and for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.N. Scientific and Cultural 

Organization’s International Convention Against Doping in Sport, 

or the convention. 

In its purest form, as we know, sport builds character and promotes the virtues of selfless teamwork, honest dedication, and commitment to a greater cause. The use of performance-enhancing 

drugs eats away at these important attributes and compromises 

everything valuable about sport. 

USADA’s interest in this discussion is driven by a motive to not 

only protect the rights of today’s Olympic athletes to play drugfree, but, just as important, to protect America’s next generation of 

athletes. Doping is an ethical and a public health problem that 

reaches right to the core of our collective values and our future. 

Put simply, doping is dangerous cheating that can only be truly 

eradicated through the collective efforts of both government and 

sport organizations. 

Accordingly, we welcome and appreciate the committee’s leadership on this topic and strongly support the convention and its passage. With the commencement of the 2008 Olympic Games in 

Beijing, China, only a few months away, quick action will further 

demonstrate the United States Government’s commitment to a 

strong antidoping policy in this area. 

Governments of the world play a critical role alongside and in cooperation with sports organizations to ensure a level playing field 

for all athletes. The U.S. Congress along with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, other Federal agencies, deserve a significant amount of credit and praise for being at the forefront of 

the antidoping efforts since the late 1990s. There are many important instances of the U.S. Government’s support for antidoping 

efforts and the following highlight a few of those. 

In 1998 the Senate Commerce Committee spearheaded the 

antidoping movement in Congress by holding hearings questioning 

the prevalence of anabolic steroid use and their precursors in 

Olympic sport. In February 1999, as you’ve heard already this 

morning, the United States participated in the first World Conference on Doping in Sport. The U.S. has continued to play a leadership role in the formation of the World Anti-Doping Agency and, 

most importantly, with formulating and passing its uniform global 

code that applies to all athletes in the Olympic movement. 

In 2000, the United States Anti-Doping Agency was formed to remove the conflict of interest that was faced by the international 

governing bodies within the United States. Congress determined 

and recognized USADA as the independent national antidoping 

46 

agency for Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan American sports. The creation of USADA, frankly, triggered a radical transformation in the 

world’s perception of the United States effort in the antidoping 

arena. Because of this, the U.S. is now viewed as the world leader 

in Olympic antidoping policy. 

With the leadership of Senator Biden, Senator McCain, and 

Senator Stevens, Congress again demonstrated its commitment in 

this area by passing the 2004 Anabolic Steroid Control Act that 

amended the Controlled Substances Act to place certain prohibited 

substances, like tetrahydrogestrinone, norbolethone, and androstenedione, on the Schedule III along with penalties appropriate for 

use of those drugs. 

In May 2004 the Senate exhibited one of its strongest acts of support for clean sport when by unanimous consent the Senate agreed 

to provide to USADA approximately 9,300 pages of documentary 

evidence seized by U.S. law enforcement at the BALCO raid and 

provided it to USADA in order to aid our investigation of the 

BALCO doping conspiracy. Our investigation resulted in the uncovering of one of the most sophisticated international performanceenhancing drug conspiracies and to date has led to the successful 

discipline of 16 people, including Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery, for cheating their sport through doping. Today all of the 

U.S. efforts in BALCO are viewed by the world as a model for success in best antidoping operation. 

The U.S. has made great strides in the arena of Olympic competition. Our athletic successes have been reinforced by our success 

in leading the world in doping intolerance. Congress deserves its 

recognition as an integral piece of this puzzle. However, we cannot 

let complacency dull the sharp edges of the doping problem. If the 

convention is not ratified, it is plausible that the U.S. may look as 

though it no longer takes the antidoping issue seriously. In order 

for the U.S. to maintain its reputation as a world leader, it must 

also ratify the convention. This treaty in our opinion does not place 

a burden on the Nation that does not already exist. It simply solidifies the principle, still followed by millions of our kids on playgrounds around the country, that cheaters never win. 

The convention encourages the implementation of the basic elements of the most effective antidoping programs. The tenets of an 

effective program have been in place in the U.S. Olympic movement since late 2000 when USADA took over and is now codified 

in the WADA code and in the USADA Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing. Interestingly, you saw them well vetted in the 

Mitchell report that recently came out. 

In addition to true independence and transparency, these elements include: 

Effective out of season and out of competition, no advanced notice 

testing; 

A full list of prohibited substances and methods that would capture new designer drugs such as THG as they become available; 

Implementation of best legal and scientific policies and practices 

as they evolve; 

Investments into education to truly change the hearts and minds 

of would-be cheaters and to teach the lessons of life that we all can 

learn from ethical competition; 

47 

Investments into scientific research for the detection of new 

doping substances and techniques for the pursuit of scientific excellence into antidoping; 

And most importantly, partnerships with government, particularly law enforcement, to ensure that, in addition to holding athletes accountable, those who illegally manufacture, traffic, and distribute these dangerous drugs and who are typically outside of 

sports jurisdiction are also held accountable for their illegal behavior. 

It is the success of this very cooperation, seen here in the U.S. 

through the BALCO investigation and others like it such as Gear 

Grinder and Operation Raw Deal, that has demonstrated to the 

world the importance of sport and government partnership in fighting doping. 

The U.S. Olympic movement is fortunate to have a strong group 

of athletes who recognize the importance of this issue and are looking for ways to become even more involved. Our Olympic athletes 

support our efforts, including passage of this convention, because 

they want us to protect their right to compete clean and they want 

American sports fans to be able to once again believe in our Olympic heroes. Ultimately this is a fight for the soul of sport and this 

fight most directly impacts our clean athletes. 

I want to thank this committee for its time and its interest in 

this important ethical and public health issue and for inviting me 

to share USADA’s experiences and perspectives. We strongly support your passage of the international convention and remain willing to assist you in any way possible in moving forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tygart follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRAVIS T. TYGART, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED

STATES ANTI-DOPING AGENCY, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. My name is Travis 

Tygart and I am the CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). I 

want to thank this committee for its interest in clean sport and for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the United Nations Education, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization International Convention Against Doping in Sport (Convention). 

In its purest form, sport builds character and promotes the virtues of selfless 

teamwork, honest dedication and commitment to a greater cause. The use of performance enhancing drugs eats away at these important attributes and compromises 

everything valuable about sport. USADA’s interest in this discussion is driven by 

a motive to not only protect the rights of today’s Olympic athletes to play drug free 

but just as important to protect America’s next generation of athletes. Doping is an 

ethical and public health problem that reaches right to the core of our collective values and our future. 

Put simply, doping is dangerous cheating that can only be truly eradicated 

through the collective efforts of both government and sport organizations. 

Accordingly, we welcome and appreciate this committee’s leadership on this topic 

and strongly support the Convention. USADA strongly urges the committee to vote 

this treaty out as expeditiously as possible. With the commencement of the 2008 

Olympic Games in Beijing, China, only a few months away, quick action will further 

demonstrate the U.S. Government’s commitment to a strong antidoping policy. 

Governments of the world play a critical role alongside and in cooperation with 

sport organizations to ensure a level playing field for all athletes. This treaty will 

help ensure cooperation among nations, and help ensure that international sporting 

events are played without the use of performance enhancing drugs. 

The U.S Congress along with the Office of National Drug Control Policy and other 

Federal agencies deserve a significant amount of credit for being at the forefront of 

the antidoping efforts since the late 1990s. There are many important instances of 

48 

the U.S. Government’s support for antidoping efforts and the following highlight a 

few of them. 

• In 1998 the Senate Commerce Committee spearheaded the antidoping movement in Congress by holding hearings questioning the prevalence of anabolic 

steroids and their precursors in Olympic sport. The hearing concluded that the 

National Governing Bodies of Olympic sport, such as USA Track and Field and 

USA Weighlifting, had the impossible task of both promoting their sport and 

policing their sport. 

• In February 1999 the United States participated in the first World Conference 

on Doping in Sport. The United States played a leadership role in the formation 

of the World Anti-Doping Agency, a world-level antidoping organization tasked 

with promoting and coordinating a uniform global approach to fighting doping 

in sport. As a member of WADA’s executive committee, the United States continues to have a strong influence in WADA’s governance and policy-setting including the WADA Code, the uniform set of antidoping rules that has applied 

to the global Olympic sports movement since August 2004. 

• In October 2000, the United States Anti-Doping Agency was formed to remove 

the conflict of interest that was faced by the NGBs within the United States. 

Congress determined and recognized USADA as the independent, national 

antidoping agency for Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan American sport in the 

United States. The creation of USADA triggered a radical transformation in the 

world’s perception of antidoping efforts by the United States. USADA subjects 

our athletes to the most rigorous antidoping programs in the world. Because of 

this, the United States is now viewed as the world leader in Olympic 

antidoping, drawing other national antidoping agencies—such as Russia and 

Australia—to the United States in order to learn from our policies and programs. 

• In 2003, with the leadership of Senator Biden, Senator McCain, and Senator 

Stevens, Congress again demonstrated its commitment in this arena by passing 

the 2004 Anabolic Steroid Control Act that amended the Controlled Substances 

Act to schedule many pro hormones and other dangerous steroids such as 

androstenedione, norbolethone and THG as Schedule III drugs. 

• In May 2004 the Senate exhibited one of its strongest acts of support for clean 

sport when, by unanimous consent, it agreed to provide approximately 9,300 

pages of documentary evidence seized at BALCO by U.S. law enforcement to 

USADA in order to aid in its investigation of the BALCO doping conspiracy. 

This investigation resulted in the uncovering of one of the most sophisticated 

international performance enhancing drug conspiracies and to date has led to 

the successful discipline of 16 people including Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery for cheating their sport through doping. Today, all of the U.S.’s efforts 

in BALCO are viewed by the world as the model for success in best antidoping 

operation. 

The United States has made great strides in the arena of Olympic competition. 

Our athletic successes have been reinforced by our success in leading the world in 

doping intolerance. Congress deserves its recognition as an integral piece of this 

puzzle. However, we cannot now let complacency dull the sharp edges of the doping 

problem. If the Convention is not ratified it is plausible that the United States may 

look as though it no longer takes the antidoping issue seriously. In order for the 

United States to maintain its reputation as a world leader, it must also ratify the 

Convention. This treaty does not place a burden on the nation that does not already 

exist; it simply solidifies the principle still followed by millions of kids on today’s 

playgrounds that winners never cheat and cheaters never win. 

The Convention encourages the implementation of the basic elements of the most 

effective antidoping programs. The tenets of an effective program have been in place 

in the U.S. Olympic movement since late 2000 and are now codified into the WADA 

Code and the USADA Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing. In addition to true 

independence and transparency, these elements include: 

• Effective out of season and out of competition, no advanced notice testing; 

• A full list of prohibited substances and methods that would capture new, designer drugs such as THG as they are developed; 

• Implementation of the best legal and scientific policies and practices as they 

evolve which must include adequate sanctions and due process protections for 

those accused of doping violations; 

• Investments into education to truly change the hearts and minds of would-be 

cheaters and to teach the lessons of life that can be learned only from ethical 

competition; 

49 

• Investments into scientific research for the detection of new doping substances 

and techniques and for the pursuit of scientific excellence into antidoping; • And most importantly, partnerships with law enforcement to ensure that in addition to holding athletes accountable, those who illegally manufacture, traffic, 

and distribute these dangerous drugs and who are typically outside of sports jurisdiction are also held accountable for their illegal behavior. It is the success 

of this very cooperation seen here in the United States through the BALCO investigation and others like it such as Gear Grinder and Operation Raw Deal 

that has demonstrated to the world the importance of sport and government 

partnership in fighting doping. 

The U.S. Olympic movement is fortunate to have a strong group of athletes who 

recognize the importance of this issue and are looking for ways to become even more 

involved. Our Olympic athletes support all of our efforts including passage of the 

Convention because they want us to protect their right to compete clean and they 

want American sports fans to be able to once again believe in their Olympic heroes. 

Ultimately, this is a fight for the soul of sport and this fight most directly impacts 

the clean athletes. 

I would like to thank this committee for its time and its interest in this important 

ethical and public health issue and for inviting me to share USADA’s experience 

and perspectives. We strongly support your passage of the International Convention 

Against Doping in Sport and remain willing to assist you in this effort in any manner possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me begin by thanking you both 

for being here and for the work you’ve done. 

I will say in advance—I’ve discussed this with the chairman—I’m 

going to have to go to the Judiciary Committee. I have a child 

pornography piece of legislation that we’re about to vote on in a 

few minutes. So after I finish my questioning, I apologize, my leaving is not out of a lack of interest. And I thank the chairman for 

staying. 

I have a question for you, Mr. Lynch. Way back in the 1990s 

when I started this thing about dealing with steroids, quite frankly, it was because I was angry. I was angry—and I am nothing like 

a world class athlete, but as an athlete who tried to compete in 

high school and college—I was angry that in the sports that I was 

playing—baseball and football—that someone like me would be put 

at a disadvantage by someone who maybe had no more talent than 

I had, but was literally able to in a matter of months add on 20 

pounds of muscle. I particularly thought about it in terms of playing football. I was 6–1, 155 pounds, and they’d lie on the program 

because they’d weigh me with my uniform on, literally, and say I 

was 175. 

But it used to be thought, back 100 years ago when I was playing, that raw talent was enough—it used to be it’s not the size of 

the dog, it’s the fight, it’s the amount of the fight in the dog, et 

cetera, and all those expressions from my generation. And it just 

really frustrated me to see all of a sudden—imagining lining up on 

the flank, looking at a linebacker that was 240 pounds, knowing 

that probably 35 of those pounds were because he was—it wasn’t 

illegal then—was using steroids. So it was prompted just from 

almost gut reaction, just anger. 

I’d like you to talk with me for just a second about when you 

were competing, whether or not you, or friends of yours, would literally look at a competitor and wonder, in order for me to make 

this team—I’m not asking for any names or anything, and I’m just 

talking about international competitions. When I spoke to some 

professional ball players, baseball players, off the record, a couple 

pointed out that their ticket out of poverty and out of particularly, 

50 

the Dominican Republic, very poor Latin American countries, was 

baseball, that was their ticket; and that when they were picked in 

a farm club they’d look around and say: Wait a minute; if I don’t 

want to do this, but if I don’t do what these other guys are doing— 

I go home. My ticket is gone. 

So the pressure—I’d like you to talk to me about the pressure, 

if it is, the pressure that exists on the part of someone who wants 

to stay clean, does not want to pollute his or her body, wants to 

stay clean, but looks at it and says: Wait a minute; this simply isn’t 

fair. If I don’t engage in enhancements, I’m going to lose my job, 

I’m not going to make the team. 

Can you talk to me about that? Is that a conscious thing that 

athletes talk about? And I’m not suggesting those who raise that 

question then go ahead and dope. I don’t mean that. I mean, talk 

to us about the pressures so average people understand what goes 

on when you’re at the level of world competition like you were and 

did so well? 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion 

of the values that were placed upon me, not only by my parents, 

but by this country and by the USOC when I was growing up. That 

was about clean sport, that was about integrity and hard work. I 

felt that if I stayed close to those values the temptations of rapid 

ascension through the sport through illegal means, circumventing 

what hard work teaches you, circumventing what trial and error 

and perseverance teaches you, really is moving away from your 

value structure. 

I was never willing to move away from our value structure. I was 

never willing to move away from those ideals that we embody in 

the Olympic movement. Once I was able to do that, I was able to 

put to bed any desire to step out, to move faster, to circumvent the 

process. I used my talent, I used my hard work, I used my perseverance, and if that took me to the top then I was very satisfied. 

If that didn’t take me to the top—— 

The CHAIRMAN. What about people who have the talent and work 

hard and say, you know, but, two people of equal talent, equal 

dedication to hard work, equal dedication to trial and error, the one 

using the performance drug is going to beat the one not using the 

performance drug, assuming they both have equal talent. 

So what I’m trying to get at is, were there days in international 

competitions when you looked across at someone else who was putting the chalk on their hands there, you look and say, geez, that 

guy, that ain’t real? How am I going to—this is more colloquial, I 

apologize, than anything else. But I’m just curious about the attitudes of competitors at your level because, although we have been 

leading the world since the late 1990s and I would argue before 

that, we know the history of how prevalent. I gave the East German example, which wasn’t the only example. 

Our athletes must have sat there and said: Wait a minute; this 

game’s rigged; the only way I can win is to get engaged. That’s 

what I’m trying to get at. And I don’t doubt for a minute what you 

said, that you had this value set, you stuck to the value set, and 

you were rewarded for having stuck to the value set. But I just 

wondered what is the kind of discussion among your colleagues 

that you’d have in the locker room. Or maybe you never looked at 

51 

anybody and said, hey, I think they’re using enhancement drugs; 

I’ve never competed with anybody I thought was using enhancement drugs. 

Mr. LYNCH. I think you described a fire, a fire in your belly, and 

by all means I had that fire in the belly, not only about competing 

but about what I saw with things that could be questionable. The 

difference was that that fire in the belly always got me back to 

working harder and not to be obsessed about the code and what 

people were taking. I left that to the leaders inside the U.S. Olympic Committee, and that’s one of the reasons I’ve now come back 

to work on the U.S. Olympic Committee, to be able to take that off 

the shoulders of the current athletes, so they can keep their fire 

focused on the sport and the work that they’re doing, while we take 

the responsibility of making sure that we can put a clean team on 

the field. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I’m glad you’re doing that. 

Mr. Tygart, thank you for your work, for real. You’ve made a 

great contribution. I’d like you to—I’m just going to ask you one 

question. You talked about HGH. You mentioned it, the human 

growth hormone, which is increasingly, there are reports, being 

used by athletes, not necessarily by Olympic athletes, by athletes, 

to gain competitive advantage, in part because it’s more difficult to 

test for and to, in turn, detect than more traditional steroids. 

Could you describe briefly the current availability of commercial 

testing capabilities for HGH and how it’s being tested for the 

Olympic, and whether you think regular testing for HGH would reduce the use in professional sports here in the United States? 

Mr. TYGART. Yes, sir, and thank you for that question. The HGH 

test is a blood-based test and it is available and it has been used. 

It was used in the 2004 Athens games, used in the 2006 Torino 

games. All expectations are that it will be used in the 2008 Beijing 

games. 

It is not yet available worldwide, because there is a kit that goes 

along with that test in order for the laboratory once the blood is 

received to run that test. It’s an immunoassay kit. And those kits 

unfortunately had delayed production and there was a limited supply of those kits that were originally made used at the games. 

Our expectation is those kits will be available in the coming 

weeks. Our lab at Salt Lake just went through its training and it’s 

got preparations to have the test in place as soon as those kits are 

available and our hope, as I said, is to have that test available 

prior to sending our team off to the Olympic Games. And then once 

it’s there and the test is validated within the lab, it’ll be used 

throughout our efforts and then will be available to other entities, 

whether it’s a professional sports league here in the U.S. or others 

around the world, to utilize that test. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that would be good. The reason I ask the 

question is I’ve done a lot of work in DNA testing relating to violence against women and these. We now provide to most police departments through Federal subsidies these kits for police officers at 

the scene of an alleged rape to be able to gather information and 

that allows for testing. But we have well over 80,000 of them sitting on a shelf somewhere because we don’t have a sufficient number of laboratories. 

52 

Now, the technology is not quite what you need for HGH, 

although it is complicated. So what we’ve been trying to push is the 

accreditation of, and the establishment of, additional laboratories 

for forensic purposes in this case. 

So you’re confident—or are you confident that here in the United 

States there’s enough ability for the kits to be available, as you indicated, but that the reading of the results from the kit that is 

used to employ the test, that there is sufficient confidence there’s 

enough of them and that it’s reliable? 

Mr. TYGART. I am, once it’s in the lab and validated. And then, 

your second point, the capacity of the lab will not be a problem, 

given the nature of the test. 

As an aside, a strategy for deterring and ultimately detecting 

HGH, one element of it is the testing aspect. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. TYGART. There’s other elements to it, such as a nonanalytical 

positive, where you can bring discipline against an athlete. We’ve 

disciplined athletes for HGH use. It hasn’t been through a test result, but it’s been through other evidence that indicates clearly 

their use and possession of human growth hormone. So you have 

to approach it from a broader perspective than just the narrow 

testing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again I apologize for going over, Mr. Chairman. 

The reason I raise that as well, as I told you, an ulterior motive 

I have in addition to the necessity and the efficacy and the ethical 

requirement to us to sign onto this convention, is I hope it sets the 

tone, as George Mitchell did in his report, that this becomes the 

gold standard. As you well know, it’s highly unlikely in professional 

sports that those objective but subjective tests of whether human 

growth hormone is being used would be ever agreed to by the athletes, the unions, or the owners of these teams. So I think we’re 

going to end up with HGH needing, ‘‘the blood test,’’ because you 

have more latitude under your regulations that we’ve signed onto 

to discipline Olympic athletes, unless I’m misunderstanding. 

Mr. TYGART. No; I think you’re absolutely right, with one exception, in that 12 months before the Olympic Games all of the professional athletes in, let’s say NBA for example, do fall under our 

jurisdiction. And we’ve heard no complaints about any of the strict 

standards that they are held to 12 months before those games. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that’s good stuff. That’s good stuff. I want 

more professional athletes. I used to be opposed to professional athletes competing in the Olympics, to reveal my total bias and prejudice, but I’ve changed my mind if it puts them into the testing 

regime. 

At any rate, I thank you both. I thank all the witnesses, and I 

particularly thank you, Senator Lugar, for allowing me to head off. 

I just got a note, my amendment is up in the other committee. 

Thank you, gentlemen. We’ll move as rapidly as we can. 

Senator LUGAR. I wish you the best of luck in Judiciary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator LUGAR [presiding]. And that you do as well as here. 

Let me continue the questioning by asking you, Mr. Tygart, how 

many countries have independent antidoping entities? Is this comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
53 

mon practice in the other countries we’ve been discussing today or 

are there major exceptions to that rule? 

Mr. TYGART. There are certainly exceptions, but U.K., for example, Australia, Canada. The trend, as the world now knows and 

again reflected in Senator Mitchell’s report, is that true independence is the most successful and effective way to handle this problem of doping in sport. Really, that was the model under which 

WADA took over, as an independent agency outside of the International Olympic Committee, to fully separate the obligations of 

sport to both promote and police itself, because it’s awfully difficult 

to do both. When you have a direct financial interest in the performance of athletes’ performances, it becomes very difficult in certain situations when you’re also asked to police and potentially 

bring discipline against those players that directly impact your bottom line. 

Senator LUGAR. Has there been publication of a list or lists of 

those countries that have independent antidoping agencies? 

Mr. TYGART. We can provide that for you. 

Senator LUGAR. As opposed to those who do not. 

Mr. TYGART. Yes. We’ll do some research and can provide that 

for you, Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. That would be helpful for our record. 

Mr. TYGART. We will do that. 

[The written information supplied by Mr. Tygart follows:] 

Below is a recent list from the World Anti-Doping Agency of all the National AntiDoping Organizations that have signed the WADA Code. I understand this is a list 

of those entities independent from sport that handle antidoping matters in that 

country. These may or may not be government entities and/or receive government 

funding. 

Albania (ALB)—Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports of Albania 

Algeria (ALG)—Algeria Anti-Doping Agency 

Argentina (ARG)—Comisio ́n Nacional Antidoping 

Australia (AUS)—Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority 

Austria (AUT)—Austrian Anti-Doping Committee 

Bahamas (BAH)—Bahamas National Anti-Doping Committee 

Bahrain (BRN)—General Organization for Youth and Sports 

Barbados (BAR)—National Anti-Doping Commission 

Bermuda (BER)—Bermuda Council for Drug-Free Sport 

Brazil (BRA)—Brazilian Agency for Doping Control—Brazilian Olympic Committee 

Bulgaria (BUL)—National Anti-Doping Commission 

Cameroon (CMR)—Organisation for the Fight Against Doping in Sports 

Canada (CAN)—Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport 

Chile (CHI)—Comisio ́n Nacional de Control de Dopaje 

China (CHN)—Chinese Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Commission 

Chinese Taipei (TPE)—Anti-Doping Commission of NOC 

Colombia (COL)—COLDEPORTES 

Congo-Brazzaville (CGO)—National Anti-Doping Committee 

Congo, Dem. Republic of (COD)—Comite ́ national antidopage congolais 

Cook Islands (COK)—Medical and Anti-Doping Committee 

Comoros (COM)—National Anti-Doping Organization 

Costa Rica (CRC)—Instituto Costarricense del Deporte y la Recreacio ́n 

Croatia (CRO)—Croatian Anti-Doping Agency 

Cyprus (CYP)—Cyprus National Anti Doping Committee 

Czech Republic (CZE)—Anti-Doping Committee 

Denmark (DEN)—Anti-Doping Denmark 

Ecuador (ECU)—Comisio ́n Nacional de Control Antidopaje del Ecuador (CONCADE) 

El Salvador (ESA)—Instituto Nacional de los Deportes 

Estonia (EST)—Estonian Anti-Doping Agency 

Fiji (FIJ)—Fiji Sports Drug Agency 

Finland (FIN)—Finnish Antidoping Agency 

France (FRA)—French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) 

54 

Georgia (GEO)—Georgian National Anti-Doping Agency 

Germany (GER)—National Anti-Doping Agency 

Great Britain (GBR)—UK Sport 

Greece (GRE)—Hellenic National Council for Combating Doping 

Guatemala (GUA)—Agencia Nacional Antidopaje de Guatemala 

Guinea (GUI)—National Committee for the Fight Against Doping 

Hungary (HUN)—Hungarian Antidoping Coordination Body 

Iceland (ISL)—National Olympic and Sports Association 

India (IND)—National Anti Doping Agency, India 

Indonesia (INA)—Indonesian Antidoping Agency 

Iran (IRI)—Iran Anti-Doping Agency 

Ireland (IRL)—Irish Sports Council 

Israel (ISR)—Anti Doping Committee Israel NOC 

Italy (ITA)—Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) 

Ivory Coast (CIV)—Comite ́ National Lutte Antidopage 

Jamaica (JAM)—Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) 

Japan (JPN)—Japan Anti-Doping Agency 

Jordan (JOR)—Jordan Anti-Doping Organization 

Kenya (KEN)—Kenya Anti-Doping Agency 

Korea (KOR)—Korea Anti-Doping Agency 

Latvia (LAT)—Ministry of Health, Republic of Latvia 

Lithuania (LTU)—Anti-Doping Agency of Lithuania 

Luxembourg (LUX)—National Anti-Doping Agency 

Macedonia (MKD)—National Anti-Doping Commission—Macedonia 

Malaysia (MAS)—Anti-Doping Agency of Malaysia (ADAMAS) 

Mali (MLI)—National Anti-Doping Commission 

Mauritius (MRI)—Ministry of Youth & Sports Anti-Doping Unit 

Mexico (MEX)—Comite ́ nacional antidopaje de Me ́xico 

Monaco (MON)—Anti-Doping Committee 

Mongolia (MGL)—Mongolian National Anti-Doping Organization 

Netherlands (NED)—Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands 

New Zealand (NZL)—Drug Free Sport New Zealand 

Nicaragua (NCA)—Instituto Nicaragu ̈ ense de Deportes (I.N.D.) 

Nigeria (NGR)—Anti-Doping Unit, Federal Ministry of Sports and Social Development 

Norway (NOR)—Anti-Doping Norway 

Pakistan (PAK)—Anti-Doping Organization of Pakistan (ADOP) 

Panama (PAN)—Instituto Panamen ̃ o de Deportes 

Papua New Guinea (PNG)—Papua New Guinea Sports Anti-Doping Organization 

Peru (PER)—Comisio ́n Nacional Antidopaje del Peru 

Philippines (PHI)—Philippine Sports Commission 

Poland (POL)—Polish Commission Against Doping in Sport 

Portugal (POR)—National Anti-Doping Council 

Puerto Rico (PUR)—Puerto Rico Anti-Doping Commission 

Qatar (QAT)—Qatar National Anti-Doping Commission 

Romania (ROM)—National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania 

Russia (RUS)—National Anti-Doping Organization ‘‘RUSADA’’ 

Samoa (SAM)—Samoa Antidoping Agency 

San Marino (SMR)—San Marino Anti-Doping Committee 

Senegal (SEN)—National Anti-Doping Commission 

Serbia (SRB)—Antidoping Agency of Serbia (ADAS) 

Seychelles (SEY)—Seychelles Anti-Doping Commission 

Singapore (SIN)—Singapore National Olympic Anti-Doping in Sports Commission 

Slovakia (SVK)—Slovakian Anti-Doping Committee 

Slovenia (SLO)—National Antidoping Commission 

South Africa (RSA)—South African Inst. for Drug-Free Sport 

Spain (ESP)—Spanish National Anti-Doping Commission 

Sri Lanka (SRI)—NADO Sri Lanka 

Sudan (SUD)—Sudanese Anti-Doping Agency 

Sweden (SWE)—Swedish Sports Confederation 

Switzerland (SUI)—Swiss Olympic Committee 

Tunisia (TUN)—Anti-Doping Organization of Tunisia 

Turkey (TUR)—Turkish Doping Control Center 

Ukraine (UKR)—National Anti-Doping Organization of Ukraine 

Uganda (UGA)—Uganda National Anti-Doping Organization 

United Arab Emirates (UAE)—UAE Anti-Doping Committee 

United States of America (USA)—US Anti-Doping Agency 

Uruguay (URU)—Direccio ́n Nacional de Deporte—Ministerio de Turı ́smo y Deporte 

55 

Venezuela (VEN)—Comisio ́n antidopaje de la Repu ́ blica Bolivariana de Venezuela 

Senator LUGAR. What, Mr. Tygart, is the process for drug testing 

at the Olympic Games, or maybe I should expand the question on 

the basis of what you have mentioned, that the NBA basketball 

athletes would come under the regime the year before the Olympic? 

So describe what is the testing regime or procedure for Olympic 

athletes? 

Mr. TYGART. Well, we’ve got several initiatives leading into the 

Beijing Olympic Games that you might find of interest. One is 

what we call our 120-day testing program, where all athletes who 

will be representing the United States in the Olympic Games will 

be tested and have declared negative tests, so if there’s any 

positives they will be resolved. 

Senator LUGAR. Across all sports? 

Mr. TYGART. All sports—— 

Senator LUGAR. Professional, amateur, whoever? 

Mr. TYGART. Anyone who will represent the U.S. in the Olympic 

Games. 

Second, the 12-month rule I mentioned. All athletes who are candidates for the Olympic team, including professional sports, NBA 

players going into the Summer Games, but similarly the NHL players going into the Winter Games, are encompassed and fall under 

our jurisdiction. That means they’re providing us their whereabouts for no advance notice, out of competition testing, out of season testing, things that they’re not normally used to under their 

own regimes. 

Senator LUGAR. Does a person declare himself or herself candidates some 12 months out? In other words, this is sort of an interesting concept because the actual representatives of our country 

are determined in various trials or tests for track and field or for 

swimming or what have you at various stages. So for instance, people who are interested in running the 400-meter dash, 12 months 

out, do they declare this so that they come under your jurisdiction? 

Mr. TYGART. They do. There’s a good faith effort. I mean, my 6- 

year-old wouldn’t be named as a potential Olympic candidate. So 

there is a good faith effort to name only those that most likely are 

going to be successful when those trials come up. But the goal is 

to have all of those athletes in the pool. And we’ve had situations 

where a true dark horse comes out of nowhere and ends up being 

on the team, but they have been subject to that 120-day testing 

policy that I’ve mentioned. 

Senator LUGAR. Finally, the chairman asked about the human 

growth hormone, HGH, situation. Philosophically or medically, is 

there a case to be made as to why human growth hormone might 

be helpful to a human being, let’s say outside the realm of athletics, although today we are concentrating in athletics because of 

the competitive elements, the integrity of the sport? I’m not that 

familiar with human growth hormone and its effects or what the 

medical findings are. But is this prescribed on occasion by physicians to patients for purposes of their own longevity or vitality? 

Mr. TYGART. There is. Human growth hormone is a prescription 

drug. It falls under the Food, Drug, Cosmetics Act. There’s really 

three—unlike other drugs, there is no ability to use it, as I understand it, off-label, but there are three primary areas where it can 

56 

be prescribed. One is for short stature disease, so dwarfism essentially. Another is wasting disease, which can be caused by HIV and 

AIDS. Another is suppression of human growth hormone. 

Importantly, there’s no off-label use for it and whether that occurs in the future is just something that will have to be studied. 

But those are the three areas where it can be legitimately prescribed for those diagnosed diseases. 

Senator LUGAR. So the dilemma for not only the Olympic athletes, but then the growing discussion among all professional athletes, is one in which I gather we would say in common sense the 

three conditions you have suggested are not a part of professional 

athletics or Olympic athletics and therefore the human growth hormone would not only be inappropriate, but we might even move to 

say illegal. 

Can you sort of describe this process as it’s evolving legally in 

our country? 

Mr. TYGART. I think that’s absolutely right. Importantly, we do 

have a process by which athletes who have a legitimate medical 

problem can get permission through an independent review process 

to use a legitimate medication. We obviously want our athletes to 

be able to do that. But I absolutely agree with you that it is illegal. 

Senator LUGAR. That would be a transparent process, through 

this request by the athlete? 

Mr. TYGART. Absolutely. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me just follow along, Mr. Lynch, Senator 

Biden’s questioning, because from your experience as an athlete 

and now one working continuously with athletes in your capacity 

with the Olympic Committee, what is the challenge that the 

antidoping commission or anyone else faces with athletes? Senator 

Biden has indicated obviously somebody might want to grow 

stronger, heavier, so forth. But is this a more subtle and complex 

process? 

In other words, if you were working, as both of you are, to eradicate doping, how do you progress on this, given your knowledge of 

the psychology of athletes at the very highest level and the sorts 

of pressures, temptations, motivations that they may face? 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, as Travis indicated, the approach is broad. The 

approach is broad. The approach begins with layering, with education. 

Senator LUGAR. What do you mean by that? What do you mean 

by ‘‘education’’? 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, Travis can get into the specific educational 

policies that are in USADA’s court. But as a benchmark, there is 

always an explanation of the Olympic process in terms of the responsibilities of the athletes as not only competitors during the 

competition, but also as role models for the country. And that layers in the sense of responsibility for the athlete to recognize that 

they not only should be very proud to represent our country, but 

they have a strong responsibility to do so in a clean fashion. 

Senator LUGAR. Can you describe any further the education 

process? 

Mr. TYGART. Yes; we can. We see it as really twofold. One, we’re 

going to do our best to change the hearts and minds of the elitelevel athletes who are competing and representing this country in 

57 

international competition; and it’s giving them more tools. If we tell 

them not to use steroids to get bigger, we have to give them the 

practical tools as to how to get bigger and better and more competitive, that’s fair under the rules and that all competitors are 

allowed. 

Senator LUGAR. You have to give alternatives. 

Mr. TYGART. That’s right, to give alternatives, and certainly 

testimonials, to try to change the hearts and minds, because at the 

end of the day our experience has been, whether it’s Marion Jones 

or Kelly White, they just don’t feel good about their cheating. And 

this still is a value issue, that if we can tap into that core of the 

ethos and the moral reasoning we feel like we can change those 

hearts and minds to cause cheaters not to want to cheat any more. 

Second, we have to approach it from a community level, because 

we all acknowledge our youth of today are our Olympians of tomorrow and we have to give them the same message of making good 

ethical decisions, healthy lifestyle, and staying away from these 

dangerous drugs. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, we thank you both for coming, and likewise our previous panel of witnesses. I think we have established 

a good committee record in preparation for our full committee consideration of this. I know the chairman’s intent is to move promptly 

and this is the reason he called the hearing today and has asked 

you to come to it, and we appreciate your being with us. 

Having given this appreciation to you, I will adjourn the hearing 

and look forward to the Olympics. 

Mr. TYGART. Thank you. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF PRINCIPAL DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER JOAN DONOGHUE TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN

Question. Article 6 of the Convention clarifies the relationship between the Convention and other international instruments. Can you confirm that the second sentence of this article limits the impact of the first sentence? In other words, if there 

were a conflict as between this Convention and the Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping 

Convention, is it correct to assume that article 6 would permit States that are party 

to both instruments to apply the Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping Convention among 

themselves, but only insofar as doing so does not affect the enjoyment by third parties (that are not parties to the Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping Convention) of their 

rights or the performance of their obligations under the UNESCO Convention? 

Answer. Yes. Article 6 would permit States that are party to both this Convention 

and the Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping Convention to apply the Council of Europe’s Convention among themselves, but only insofar as that application does not 

affect the other States Parties’ enjoyment of their rights and obligations under the 

UNESCO Convention. The United States is a party to several agreements with similar provisions. For example, Article 44(1) of the Agreement for the Implementation 

of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish 

Stocks and highly Migratory Fish Stocks (S. Treaty Doc. 104–24); Article 39 of the 

2000 Convention Concerning Migratory Fish Stock in the Pacific Ocean (S. Treaty 

Doc. 109–1); and Article 39(2) of the Convention on Cybercrime (S. Treaty Doc. 108– 

11). 

Question. Article 14 of the Convention states that parties ‘‘undertake to support 

the important mission of the World Anti-Doping Agency . . .’’ Article 15 states that 

parties ‘‘support the principle of equal funding of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s 

58 

1See part 3 of the Copenhagen Declaration, at http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?page 

Category.id=272: 

Each Participant: 

3.1. Recognises the role of, and supports, WADA; 

3.2. Subject to modification through appropriate intergovernmental cooperation, declares its intention to continue the practices public authorities have followed in the governance and financing of WADA and, within this framework: 

3.2.1. Supports the following allocation of public authority delegates to the WADA Foundation Board according to Olympic regions: 

4 representatives from the Americas; 

3 representatives from Africa; 

5 representatives from Europe; 

4 representatives from Asia; 

2 representatives from Oceania.

3.2.2. Supports the co-funding of WADA by public authorities and the Olympic movement 

as follows: 

3.2.2.1. Public authorities contribute collectively 50 percent of the approved WADA 

annual core budget; 

3.2.2.2. Public authority payments to WADA according to Olympic regions: 

Africa: 0.50 percent; Americas: 29 percent; Asia: 20.46 percent; Europe: 47.5 

percent; Oceania: 2.54 percent 

approved annual core budget by public authorities and the Olympic Movement.’’ 

Does the Department view either of these articles as committing the United States 

to make a financial contribution to WADA? 

Answer. No. The Convention does not commit the United States to make a financial contribution to WADA. The Convention was drafted in part to solidify governmental support for WADA. It recognizes the existing financial structure and important mission of WADA. However, nothing in the Convention legally obligates the 

United States to provide funding or other resources to WADA. 

Question. Article 17(3) states that ‘‘[c]ontributions to the Voluntary Fund [established in the Convention] by States Parties shall not be considered to be a replacement for States Parties’ commitment to pay their share of the World Anti-Doping 

Agency’s annual budget.’’ To what commitment is this provision referring? 

Answer. The commitment to which article 17(3) is referring is the political commitment of the States Parties as embodied in the Copenhagen Declaration, adopted 

by the World Conference on Doping in Sport in 2003. In that Declaration, the participants reaffirmed their commitment to continue funding and supporting WADA. 

Part three of the Declaration 1 specifically provides for a 50-percent split of WADA’s 

funding between the governments and the World Olympic Movement. Through this 

political document, the participants endorsed a particular approach to the funding 

for WADA. Article 17(3) of the Convention confirms that any additional resources 

the States Parties voluntarily contribute under the Convention would in no way off 

set their portion of funding for WADA. 

Question. Article 32(2) of the Convention states that at the request of the Conference of Parties, the Director-General of UNESCO ‘‘shall use to the fullest extent 

possible the services of the World Anti-Doping Agency . . .’’ This is a bit unusual. 

Do you have any examples of other treaties to which the United States is a party, 

in which it is explicitly stated that a nongovernmental organization can, or should, 

be employed in implementing the treaty? 

Answer. Yes. Article 14(2) of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of 

the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (T.I.A.S. 8226), to which the United States 

is a party, uses very similar language to Article 32(2) of the Anti-Doping Convention. Article 14(2) of the 1972 Convention provides: ‘‘The Director-General of the 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, utilizing to the 

fullest extent possible the services of the International Centre for the Study of the 

Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (the Rome Centre), the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Union 

for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in their respective areas 

of competence and capability, shall prepare the committee’s documentation and the 

agenda of its meetings and shall have the responsibility for the implementation of 

its decisions.’’ This article relies on several nongovernmental bodies to assist the 

Secretariat in preparing for meetings and in implementing decisions ‘‘to the fullest 

extent possible.’’ 

There are other treaties that operate with support from nongovernmental bodies 

or scientific and technical organizations. As mentioned at the hearing and as further 

discussed in the answer to the sixth Question for the Record, both the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, esVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
59 

pecially as Waterfowl Habitat, provide good examples of the importance of such expert bodies in treaty regimes. 

Question. Since the Convention was adopted in 2005, there have been changes 

made to the World Anti-Doping Code. 

• a. Given the unique relationship this Convention has with WADA and the Code, 

do changes made to the Code by WADA affect States Parties rights or obligations under the Convention? • b. Have any of the current States Parties proposed amending Appendix 1 of the 

Convention to reflect the changes made to the Code by WADA? • c. Is it the intent of the United States to propose amending Appendix I of the 

Convention to reflect the changes that have been made to the Code? Please explain your answer. 

Answer. The Convention does have a unique relationship with the Code in several 

respects. Most notably, while the Convention was negotiated in large part to support 

the principles and spirit of the Code, the Code itself is not an integral part of the 

Convention. There is no specific provision for amending the appendices to the Convention, including the Code, as these are included for informational purposes only. 

In answer to your specific questions: 

a. The Convention does not make the Code legally enforceable against the States 

Parties to the Convention. Accordingly, changes made to the Code by WADA do not 

affect States Parties’ rights or obligations under the Convention. 

b. None of the current States Parties have proposed amending Appendix 1 to the 

Convention. The most recent changes made by WADA will not come into force until 

2009, but even when that event occurs, there will be no change with respect to the 

rights and obligations of the States Parties under the Convention. 

c. It is not the intent of the United States to propose any amendments to the appendices. As explained, the Code is not an integral part of the Convention; rather 

it is included as an appendix for informational purposes only. The Convention supports the principles and spirit of the Code, but any changes or amendments to the 

Code itself will not change the States Parties’ rights or obligations under the Convention. Accordingly, even if WADA amends the Code further, there is no need for 

the United States to propose an amendment to Appendix 1. The objectives and purposes of the Convention remain unchanged and will still be accomplished even if the 

version of the Code in Appendix 1 is not the most up-to-date version. 

Question. In your testimony, you mentioned two examples of treaties in which scientific and other experts interact formally with the States Parties and the intergovernmental bodies established in those treaties. Can you expand on those two examples or others, if you think they are more relevant? 

Answer. In my testimony, I mentioned the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, done at Ramsar, Iran, February 2, 1971 (‘‘Ramsar Convention’’). TIAS 11084. I also mentioned the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. TIAS 4780. These two treaties utilize the resources and expertise of 

nongovernmental scientific bodies as important participants in the treaty implementation regime. 

Specifically, Article 8 of the Ramsar Convention provides that the International 

Union for Conservation and Natural Resources shall be responsible for, among other 

things, maintaining a list of internationally important wetlands and convening and 

organizing Conferences under the Treaty. Both of these tasks are of great significance to the Treaty’s implementation. Article 8 of that Convention states: 

1. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

shall perform the continuing bureau duties under this Convention until such 

time as another organization or government is appointed by a majority of twothirds of all Contracting Parties. 

2. The continuing bureau duties shall be, inter alia: 

a. to assist in the convening and organizing of Conferences specified in 

Article 6; 

b. to maintain the List of Wetlands of International Importance and to 

be informed by the Contracting Parties of any additions, extensions, deletions or restrictions concerning wetlands included in the List provided in 

accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2; 

c. to be informed by the Contracting Parties of any changes in the ecological character of wetlands included in the List provided in accordance with 

paragraph 2 of Article 3; 

d. to forward notification of any alterations to the List, or changes in 

character of wetlands included therein, to all Contracting Parties and to arrange for these matters to be discussed at the next Conference; 

60 

e. to make known to the Contracting Party concerned, the recommendations of the Conferences in respect of such alterations to the List or of 

changes in the character of wetlands included therein. 

The Parties to the Antarctic Treaty and its 1991 Environmental Protocol (S. 

Treaty Doc. 102–22) also actively engage with scientific bodies in the implementation of those instruments. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), 

a subentity of the International Council for Science (ICSU), is an observer at Antarctic Treaty and Environmental Protocol meetings and provides independent scientific advice as requested in a variety of fields, particularly on environmental and 

conservation matters. SCAR is able to play an active and crucial role in the scientific collaboration between government and private organizations to implement 

the Antarctic Treaty. 

In addition, Annex V, Articles 5 and 6, to the Environmental Protocol specifically 

grants SCAR a formal role in the designation and review of specially protected and 

managed areas. The Protocol also specifically grants SCAR observer status. 

RESPONSES OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR SCOTT M. BURNS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

Question. Do you believe that there should be one national antidoping standard 

for all professional sports? Will this Convention contribute to the establishment of 

a uniform standard for professional sports despite the fact that the doping-control 

provisions do not apply to professional sports in the United States? If so, how? 

Answer. The antidoping policies of the professional sport leagues in the United 

States are not regulated by the Federal Government. As private sector enterprises, 

the leagues are responsible for establishing policies to combat and deter drug use 

among players. Consequently, the Convention does not apply to professional sport 

leagues in the United States. 

Nevertheless, the administration has clearly stated that drug use among professional athletes in the United States is a serious issue and the leagues have an obligation, particularly to young people, to make efforts to curb drug use in sport. Further, the administration has consistently indicated that the World Anti-Doping Code 

and the principles articulated in the Convention represent the ‘‘gold standard’’ in 

combating drug use in sport. The professional leagues are encouraged to adopt the 

balanced principles set forth in the Code and Convention. 

As an increasing number of sport organizations and governments around the 

world agree to harmonize antidoping standards, the professional leagues in the 

United States may be inclined to adopt the standard that is currently accepted by 

nearly 600 sport organizations worldwide, including all the Olympic and Pan American Sports in the United States. Hence, we believe the Convention does contribute 

to establishing uniform standards for professional sports. 

Questions. Article 2(4) of the Convention defines Athlete for education and training programs to be ‘‘any person who participates in sport under the authority of a 

sports organization.’’ The term ‘‘Sports Organization’’ is then defined in Article 2(20) 

as ‘‘any organization that serves as the ruling body for an event for one or several 

sports.’’ 

a. Can you explain what this means? Please explain how one evaluates 

whether an organization is a ruling body or not. 

Answer. The national Olympic Committee (e.g., United States Olympic Committee) or International Olympic Committee determines what entity is the ruling organization for each sport on the national and international level, respectively. 

b. Do other countries share this understanding of what a ‘‘ruling body’’ is? 

Answer. Yes, this is a universally recognized and accepted decision in the 

international sport community. 

c. Could this definition include, for example, high school athletes? 

Answer. Yes. 

d. Is it correct that this definition of athlete (i.e., for education and training 

programs) is intended to be broader than the definition of athlete that also appears in Article 2(4), which is for the purposes of doping control? If so, explain 

which athletes are covered in the broader definition of athlete (i.e., for education 

and training programs), which are not covered in the definition of athlete for 

purposes of doping control. 

61 

1See, e.g., Michael A. Hiltzik, ‘‘Athletes’ Unbeatable Foe,’’ Los Angeles Times, December 10, 

2006, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sp-doping10dec10.0.262 

7563.full.story?coll-la-home-headlines. 

Answer. Yes. The definitions were drafted so that a larger pool of participants 

receives antidoping education and training. This approach will help educate a 

larger number of participants on the dangers of doping before they potentially 

reach the point where they may be competing nationally or internationally. 

In the United States, for example, the Government is not responsible for drug 

testing athletes or providing antidoping training. Consistent with Article 7 of 

the Convention, we intend to utilize the efforts of a nongovernmental agency, 

the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), to meet such obligations. 

Under USADA protocols, only athletes that are likely to compete at the national 

or international level of competition are placed in a USADA registered testing 

pool and subject to drug testing. However, the scope of athletes that receive 

antidoping education is far broader and includes participants who compete in 

sport events or programs sponsored by a sport authority. Thus, for example, 

amateur athletes competing in USA Wrestling-sponsored tournaments may receive antidoping education. However, unless the athletes have been identified 

as national or international-level competitors, they would not be subject to 

USADA’s doping controls. 

Question. Appendix I of the World Anti-Doping Code defines a variety of terms 

including ‘‘Athlete.’’ In relevant part this definition states that ‘‘for purposes of 

antidoping information and education, any Person who participates in sport under 

the authority of any Signatory, government, or other sports organization accepting 

the Code is an Athlete. How does a sports organization formally accept the Code? 

Answer. A sports organization commits in writing to the World Anti-Doping 

Agency that it has accepted the Code and agrees to implement the applicable provisions of the Code in its policies, statutes, rules, and regulations. A copy of a draft 

‘‘acceptance’’ form is attached hereto. 

Question. Is there a list of sports organizations that have accepted the Code? If 

so, who manages this list and is this list readily available? 

Answer. Yes, the list is managed by WADA and available on the agency’s Web 

site: www.wada-ama.org. A copy of the list of the nearly 600 organizations that have 

accepted the Code to date is attached. 

Question. When the term ‘‘sports organization’’ is used in the Convention, is it understood that the term is only referring to sports organizations that have accepted 

the Code? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Article 3 of the Convention obligates States Parties to ‘‘adopt appropriate measures’’ that are ‘‘consistent with the principles of the Code.’’ Article 16 

provides that parties ‘‘undertake to support the important mission of the World 

Anti-Doping Agency.’’ Yet, there are critics of WADA and the Code, who argue that 

the Code imposes excessively stringent punishments, including potentially careerending suspensions that offer little distinction between intentional doping and the 

detection of trace levels of prohibited substances originating from the consumption 

of contaminated or mislabelled nutritional supplements.1 What is your response to 

these criticisms? 

Answer. The United States Government, as well as the United States Olympic 

Movement, played a significant role in drafting the first version of the Code which 

came into force on January 1, 2004, and the second version which was adopted in 

November 2007 and will come into force on January 1, 2009. We believe that the 

Code is tough on drug cheats, but equally importantly, the Code’s principles are fair. 

Some stakeholders argue that the Code’s sanctions and the measures required of 

signatories are too weak and do not go far enough to deter and combat doping in 

sport. Still others maintain that the Code is too harsh and is excessively stringent. 

We believe that the Code strikes a careful and appropriate balance. Further, 

ONDCP has served in leadership roles in WADA since the agency was created and 

has closely observed the manner in which the Code has been applied. We do not 

share these criticisms regarding the excessive nature of punishments being dispensed as a result of the Code. 

It is also important to note that the revised version of the Code that the WADA 

Foundation Board unanimously adopted in November 2007 at the Third International Conference on Doping in Sport includes a greater flexibility as it relates 

to sanctions. This added flexibility is designed to further promote fairness. For exVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Jun 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\ANTID.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
62 

ample, cases involving aggravated circumstances (large doping scheme, multiple 

prohibited substances, athlete engaged in obstructive conduct) are now subject to 

enhanced sanctions. Lessened sanctions are now possible where an athlete can establish that the substance involved was not intended to enhance performance. Furthermore, the revised Code states that the ‘‘Prohibited List’’ may identify specified 

substances which are particularly susceptible to unintentional antidoping violations 

because of their general availability in medicinal and other products or which are 

less likely to be successfully used as doping agents. Where an athlete establishes 

that use of such a specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance, a doping violation may result in a reduced sanction (at a minimum a warning 

and reprimand and no period of ineligibility, and at a maximum a 1-year ban). The 

United States Government supports this increased flexibility. 

Question. Given WADA’s role in implementing the Convention it is important that 

WADA be seen as sufficiently independent and transparent in its decisionmaking. 

Is it your view that there is sufficient independence and transparency in WADA’s 

decisionmaking? 

Answer. Yes. The decisionmaking process at WADA is balanced, deliberative, and 

transparent. The United States believes that it has been fairly included in the decisionmaking process and fully expects that independence and transparency will only 

increase during the 6-year term of recently elected WADA President John Fahey, 

of Australia. 

Question. What was the U.S. contribution to WADA for calendar years 2005, 2006, 

and 2007? What is the U.S. contribution to WADA for calendar year 2008? Do you 

expect a significant increase in the U.S. assessed contribution to WADA in future 

years, because of the entry into force of the Convention? 

Answer. The United States Government has made the following contributions to 

WADA: CY 2005—$1,450,179; CY 2006—$1,620,821; CY 2007—$1,669,446; CY 

2008—$1,700,000. 

The WADA budget process is separate from the UNESCO budgetary process. 

WADA’s annual budget is approved by the agency’s Executive Committee and Foundation Board. The Convention entered into force in 2007. Since that time, the 

WADA budget has not significantly increased. We do not expect significant increases 

in the future. Much of WADA’s role involving the Convention is ongoing and already 

funded within WADA’s budget. The United States would use its leadership positions 

on the Finance Committee, Executive Committee, and Foundation Board to resist 

and oppose any unnecessary and reckless budget increases. 

Questions. Article 34 of the Convention sets forth a fast-track amendment procedure for the two annexes to the Convention—Annex I is the Prohibited List and 

Annex II is the Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions. The World 

Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) also has a ‘‘Prohibited List’’ and a list of ‘‘Standards 

for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions.’’ Paragraph 1 of Article 34 states that 

if WADA modifies either of these lists for its purposes, it may inform the Director 

General of UNESCO, who in turn will propose to the States Parties amendments 

to the annexes of the Convention that reflect the modifications made by WADA. A 

State Party then has 90 days within which to inform the Director General that it 

does not accept an amendment or it will enter into force for that State Party, if the 

amendment has not been obiected to by two-thirds of the States Parties. 

a. Please explain in detail the process by which the lists maintained by 

WADA are modified. In your explanation, be sure to include how long this process generally takes and to what extent the United States participates in the 

process. 

Answer. The International Standards are aimed at bringing harmonization 

among antidoping organizations responsible for specific technical and operational parts of antidoping programs. 

The Prohibited List is reviewed and updated annually by WADA through a 

year-long consultative process involving stakeholder feedback and input from 

groups of international scientific and antidoping experts. A Prohibited List 

Working Group is specifically tasked with recommending changes to WADA’s 

Executive Committee and facilitating stakeholder input. A representative from 

the United States chairs the seven-member committee. In addition, a second 

member of the group is from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The 

United States has one of five government votes on the Executive Committee to 

approve any changes to the List. 

The International Standards for Granting Therapeutic Exemptions (ISTUE) 

is to ensure that the process of granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions (a process 

63 

to alloy athletes to take medicines on WADA’s Prohibited List to treat an athlete’s illnesses or medical condition) is harmonized across sports and countries. 

The ISTUE came into force in January 2004. Concurrent to the revision of the 

Code, WADA launched a process in 2006 for updating the ISTUE to build upon 

the experience gained by WADA and its stakeholders and to improve the protocols and processes. 

The review process for updating the ISTUE involved three formal rounds of 

consultation. Based on stakeholder feedback and consultations with the legal 

and scientific committees, a draft was circulated in 2007. After a period of public comment and a series of meetings a second draft was released. Subsequently, 

WADA’s Executive Committee unanimously voted to approve the revised ISTUE 

at its May 2008 meeting. The United States, as a member of the Executive 

Committee, voted to approve the ISTUE. Comments from USADA regarding the 

technical revisions were accepted by WADA and incorporated into the revised 

ISTUE. 

The revised standard will come into force on January 1, 2009. WADA has no 

plans to revise the ISTUE in the next several years. 

b. Given the short time period for rejecting proposed amenndments to the annexes that have been proposed pursuant to the procedure in Article 34, what 

is the process that the U.S. Government intends to follow in responding to such 

proposed amendments? 

Answer. The U.S. Government believes 45 days will be sufficient to coordinate 

with relevant Federal agencies and assess amendments to the annexes. Nevertheless, given the U.S. Government’s active participation in WADA, we will receive notice of any potential amendment many months in advance of when the 

45-day clock will begin to toll. Given the number and diversity of WADA’s 

stakeholders, WADA procedures provide several months of consultations prior 

to any proposal and enactment of any amendments to the documents contained 

in the annex. 

c. Have the lists maintained by WADA been modified since the Convention 

was initially adopted in 2005? 

Answer. The Prohibited List is updated annually. The World Anti-Doping 

Code, International Standards for Laboratories, and the International Standards for Testing have not been modified since coming into force on January 1, 

2004. Each of these documents was updated during a year-long process in 2007 

and revised versions will take effect on January 1, 2009. No plans exist to modify these standards in the next several years. 

d. Have the two annexes to the Convention been amended since the Convention entered into force? 

Answer. The International Standards for Therapeutic Exemptions has not 

been modified since coming into force on January 1, 2004. A revised ISTUE will 

come into force on January 1, 2009. As previously described, the Prohibited List 

is updated annually. 

e. If the annexes to the Convention have been amended: 

i. How many times have the annexes been amended? 

Answer. The International Standards for Therapeutic Exemptions has not 

been modified since coming into force on January 1, 2004. A revised ISTUE 

will come into force on January 1, 2009. As previously described, the Prohibited List is updated annually. 

ii. Were the amendments done in accordance with Article 34? 

Answer. Yes. 

iii. Are the two annexes that were transmitted to the Senate the current 

version of the annexes in force for States Parties to the Convention? 

Answer. The version of the International Standards for Therapeutic Exemptions provided to the Senate is currently in force for States Parties. 

The version of the Prohibited List provided to the Senate was the version 

in force for States Parties at the time it was transmitted. Subsequently, a 

2008 version came into force on January 1, 2008. The current version of the 

list is attached hereto. [See Annex I of the Report.] 

Question. Article 32(2) of the Convention states that at the request of the Conference of Parties, the Director General of UNESCO ‘‘shall use to the fullest extent 

possible the services of the World Anti-Doping Agency. . . .’’ It is not common for 

64 

a nongovernmental organization to play such a crucial role in implementing a 

treaty. Please explain why this arrangement is advantageous. 

Answer. Governments, including the United States, pressed for the creation of a 

world antidoping organization because they believed that the best opportunity to 

combat drug use in sport involved governments and the sport movement combining 

their expertise and resources and working collaboratively and cooperatively. Governments and the Olympic Movement govern and fund WADA on an equal basis. The 

current WADA President is a government representative, and all working committees are comprised of 50 percent membership from the governments. 

Governments, in drafting the Convention, believed that given WADA’s technical 

expertise and the unique nature of doping, it would he advantageous to utilize the 

existing resources available from WADA. Governments believed that utilizing 

WADA was more effective and efficient than providing additional funding to 

UNESCO for that agency to hire additional staff and develop the capacity and expertise to provide antidoping services. It is important to note that the nature and 

scope of WADA’s involvement is at the request of the Conference of Parties to the 

Convention. WADA has no independent authority relating to the Convention. 

Question. As medical advances have been made and more performance-enhancing 

substances have emerged, how have the potential health risks associated with 

doping in sport changed, if at all? 

Answer. Many doping substances have pernicious health effects on athletes. The 

dangers of anabolic steroids for nonmedical use, for example, are becoming increasingly well known. As science evolves and athletes turn to substances such as human 

growth hormone and gene doping, the health consequences are not only potentially 

grave, but often not fully known. 

As a result, Articles 24, 25, and 26 of the Convention address antidoping research. 

In order to learn about the potential health risks, innovative research is essential. 

The Convention calls upon Parties to share research results among governments, 

where appropriate. 

The United States fully supports vigorous research activities as part of a balanced 

antidoping program. Government funds to support WADA and USADA are directed 

to support research activities of both those organizations. In addition, the National 

Institute on Drug Abuse also expends significant resources on research involving 

doping substances. 

65 

ATTACHMENT A 


dope1.eps
66 

ATTACHMENT B 


B1.eps
67 


B2.eps
68 


B3.eps
69 


B4.eps
70 


B5.eps
71 


B6.eps
72 


B7.eps
73 


B8.eps B9.eps
74 


B10.eps
75 

Æ 


B11.eps