U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–165 PDF 2017

WAYS TO IMPROVE AND STRENGTHEN THE 

INTERNATIONAL ANTI-DOPING SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

Serial No. 115–9 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES

Adam Nelson, American Shot Putter and Olympic Gold Medalist ...................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Michael Phelps, American Swimmer and Olympic Gold Medalist ...................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer, United States Anti-Doping Agency . 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 179 

Rob Koehler, Deputy Director General, World Anti-Doping Agency ................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 186 

Richard Budgett, M.D., Medical and Scientific Director, International Olympic 

Committee ............................................................................................................. 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 199 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Subcommittee memorandum .................................................................................. 75 

Letter of February 23, 2017, from Christophe De Kepper, Director General, 

International Olympic Committee, to IOC Honorary President, et al., submitted by Ms. DeGette ......................................................................................... 83 

Statement of August 30, 2016, National Anti-Doping Organizations Summit, 

submitted by Mr. Murphy ................................................................................... 86 

List of National Anti-Doping Organizations Supporting the Copenhagen Declaration of August 30, 2016, submitted by Mr. Murphy ................................... 89 

Letter of December 8, 2014, from Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer, 

and Dr. Edwin Moses, Chairman of the Board, United States Anti-Doping 

Agency, to Sir Craig Reedie, President, and David Howman, Director General, World Anti-Doping Agency, submitted by Mr. Murphy ........................... 90 

Letter of December 9, 2015, from Cammile Adams, et al., USA Swimming 

National Team, to Cornel Marculescu, Executive Director, FINA, submitted 

by Mr. Murphy ..................................................................................................... 94 

Letter of March 11, 2016, from Beckie Scott, Chair, World Anti-Doping Agency Athlete Committee, to Sir Craig Reedie, President, World Anti-Doping 

Agency, submitted by Mr. Murphy ..................................................................... 96 

Letter of January 25, 2015, from Sarah Konrad, Chair, United States Olympic 

Committee Athletes’ Advisory Council, to Thomas Bach, President, International Olympic Committee, and Sir Craig Reedie, President, World AntiDoping Agency, submitted by Mr. Murphy ........................................................ 97 

Page

IV 

Article of August 15, 2015, ‘‘Russia could be let off the hook BEFORE end 

of investigation by British drug-buster and WADA president Sir Craig 

Reedie,’’ by Nick Harris, The Mail on Sunday, submitted by Mr. Murphy ..... 98 

Article of August 23, 2015, ‘‘WADA president Sir Craig Reedie’s ‘comfort’ 

email to Russia’s most senior drug-buster reveals toothless clampdown 

on doping,’’ by Nick Harris, The Mail on Sunday, submitted by Mr. Murphy ......................................................................................................................... 103 

Article of July 31, 2016, ‘‘Russia doping scandal: ‘When it mattered most, 

the IOC failed to lead,’’’ by National Anti-Doping Organizations, The 

Guardian, submitted by Mr. Murphy ................................................................. 108 

Article of August 4, 2016, ‘‘On Eve of Olympics, Top Investigator Details 

Secret Efforts to Undermine Russian Doping Probe’’ by David Epstein, 

ProPublica, submitted by Mr. Murphy ............................................................... 111 

Article of October 2, 2016, ‘‘UKAD to control Russia tests,’’ by PA Sport, 

Sky Sports, submitted by Mr. Murphy ............................................................... 122 

International Convention against Doping in Sport 2005, adopted October 

19, 2005, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 

submitted by Mr. Murphy ................................................................................... 125 

Financial Statements from ‘‘IOC Annual Report 2015: Credibility, Sustainability and Youth,’’ International Olympic Committee, submitted by Mr. 

Murphy .................................................................................................................. 137 

Report of the World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘‘Report of the Independent Observers: Games of the XXXI Olympiad, Rio de Janeiro 2016,’’1 submitted by 

Mr. Murphy 

Report of the International Olympic Committee, ‘‘IOC reanalysis programme: 

Beijing 2008 and London 2012,’’ submitted by Mr. Murphy ............................ 157 

Report of the World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘‘Contributions to WADA’s Budget 

2017,’’ February 8, 2017, submitted by Mr. Murphy ........................................ 165 

List, World Anti-Doping Agency Foundation Board Members, submitted by 

Mr. Murphy .......................................................................................................... 170 

Statement of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, ‘‘Conflict of Interest Policy,’’ submitted by Mr. Murphy ......................................................................................... 175 

Article of July 11, 2013, ‘‘Olympics: Tokyo pledges ‘model’ drug-free Games,’’ 

The Straits Times, submitted by Mr. Murphy ................................................... 177 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20170228/105613/HHRG-115- 

IF02-20170228-SD017.pdf. 

(1) 

WAYS TO IMPROVE AND STRENGTHEN THE 

INTERNATIONAL ANTI-DOPING SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Murphy (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Murphy, Griffith, Burgess, 

Brooks, Collins, Walberg, Walters, Costello, Carter, Walden (ex officio), DeGette, Schakowsky, Castor, Tonko, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, 

and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Jennifer Barblan, Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy 

Staff Director; Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Oversight and Investigations; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Jordan Davis, Director of Policy and External Affairs; Paige Decker, Executive Assistant and Committee Clerk; Blair Ellis, Press Secretary/Digital 

Coordinator; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; 

Brittany Havens, Professional Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Zach Hunter, Communications Director; Alex Miller, 

Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; John Ohly, Professional 

Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Dan Schneider, Press 

Secretary; Jennifer Sherman, Press Secretary; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor for External Affairs; Luke Wallwork, Staff Assistant; 

Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Waverly Gordon, Minority 

Counsel, Health; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

and Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor 

and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Christopher Knauer, 

Minority Oversight Staff Director; Una Lee, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Miles Lichtman, Minority Staff Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant; Jon Monger, Minority Counsel; Dino 

Papanastasiou, Minority GAO Detailee; Tim Robinson, Minority 

Chief Counsel; Matt Schumacher, Minority Press Assistant; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Member Services, and Outreach; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Good morning and welcome to this hearing of the 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on ‘‘Ways to Improve 

and Strengthen the International Anti-Doping System.’’ 

The subcommittee convenes to examine the current state of this 

system, the challenges it faces and areas for reform. 

On the heels of the Summer Games in Rio and less than a year 

away from the Winter Games in Pyeongchang, there is no better 

time to evaluate progress made thus far in reforming the international anti-doping system. How fitting that we are holding this 

hearing on February the 28th, as we have the greatest Olympic 

athlete of all time, who has won 28 medals, before us today. And 

I wasn’t referring to you, Mr. Griffith, I was referring to Michael 

Phelps. 

Every 2 years, nations are filled with excitement and pride as 

they cheer on their athletes of the Summer and Winter Games. It 

has been a longstanding tradition that should not be tarnished by 

those that choose to cheat. Ultimately, I hope that this hearing 

helps to highlight ways in which we can strengthen clean competition and restore public confidence in international sports. 

Within the anti-doping community there are concerns regarding 

organizational structure and how the current system creates an environment where individuals are both policing and promoting sport. 

Conflicts of interest stemming from the composition of the World 

Anti-Doping Agency’s, or WADA, senior leadership currently exists 

as anti-doping decision makers often simultaneously hold a policymaking position within a sports organization. Such conflicts can 

have both real and perceived effects on the rigorous investigations 

of possible violations as well as the enforcement of anti-doping 

measures. 

Several anti-doping experts have publicly stated that WADA 

lacks sufficient independence from sports itself. Recent proposals 

have suggested removing sports organizations from governance 

structures to improve independence and operations. Today we want 

to evaluate those concerns and discuss the proposed reforms. Further, there needs to be an established decision making process and 

body when it comes to investigations and sanctions. 

As we saw leading up to the Summer Games in Rio, the buck 

was passed multiple times between the International Olympic 

Committee, the national anti-doping organizations, and international sports federations as to who was in charge of making the 

decisions and whether or not athletes would be able to participate 

in the Summer Games. 

Sanctions and bans on athletes, coaches, NADOs, and antidoping laboratories vary from short term to lifetime, but there does 

not appear to be a clear set of guidelines to aid the appropriate organization in setting and imposing consistent penalties. We need to 

ensure that the system is fair, and that the punishment is appropriate, particularly when the athlete knowingly cheated. The general public depends on the governing bodies of international sports 

to ensure that cheating does not become the accepted norm, and 

this is a particularly important message for our youth. 

3 

Additionally, recent events highlight the need to examine potential improvements with respect to utilizing athletes as partners in 

the anti-doping effort as well as whistleblower protections. There 

will always be athletes and institutions that dope in an attempt to 

gain an unfair competitive advantage. 

Athletes and whistleblowers are oftentimes the first to see the 

problems at the ground level and are critical to anti-doping organizations’ ability to identify and investigate violations. Therefore, it 

bears questioning whether the current system does enough to encourage, embrace, and protect those fighting for clean sport. 

While many summits, conferences, and meetings have occurred 

since the Rio Games, challenges remain and progress towards 

meaningful reform remains unclear. This hearing provides an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and examine opportunities to 

move forward in a way that will improve the international antidoping system so that it is effective, fair, and nimble for the sake 

of athletes, clean sport, and integrity of the international competition, including the Olympic Games. 

Finally, some may ask why Congress is doing a hearing on sports 

rules and is it because it is a matter of the multibillion-dollar 

sports economy? Maybe. In part it may be that. But for the most 

part, I believe that it is very important that we send the right message to the youth and future athletes of the world that cheating is 

not acceptable on any level, whether it is in our economy, it is in 

trade, or it is in sports. 

We welcome our all-star panel of witnesses today. Your appearance before this subcommittee is vital for us to have an honest discussion with key decision makers. We are also excited to have Mr. 

Phelps and Mr. Nelson with us today to share the athletes’ perspective. These gentlemen have competed at the highest level and 

have invaluable insights into the problems and challenges that face 

the current system as well as a unique perspective on improvements that can be made. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing today and look 

forward to an informative discussion. 

[The statement of Mr. Murphy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY

The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine the current state of the 

international anti-doping system, the challenges it faces, and areas for reform. On 

the heels of the Summer Games in Rio, and less than a year away from the Winter 

Games in PyeongChang, there is no better time to evaluate progress made thus far 

in reforming the international anti-doping system. How fitting that we are holding 

this hearing on February 28, as we have the greatest Olympic athlete of all time, 

who has won 28 medals, before us today. 

Every 2 years, nations are filled with excitement and pride as they cheer on their 

athletes at the Summer and Winter Games. It has been a long-standing tradition 

that should not be tarnished by those that choose to cheat. Ultimately, I hope that 

this hearing helps to highlight ways in which we can strengthen clean competition 

and restore public confidence in international sports. 

Within the anti-doping community, there are concerns regarding organizational 

structure and how the current system creates an environment where individuals are 

both policing and promoting sport. Conflicts of interest stemming from the composition of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) senior leadership currently exist, 

as anti-doping decision makers often simultaneously hold a policymaking position 

within a sports organization. Such conflicts can have both real and perceived effects 

4 

on the rigorous investigations of possible violations as well as the enforcement of 

anti-doping measures. 

Several anti-doping experts have publicly stated that WADA lacks sufficient independence from sports itself. Recent proposals have suggested removing sports organizations from governance structures to improve independence and operations. 

Today, we want to evaluate these concerns and discuss the proposed reforms. 

Further, there needs to be an established decision-making process and body when 

it comes to investigations and sanctions. As we saw leading up to the Summer 

Games in Rio, the buck was passed multiple times between the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADO), and International Sports Federations (IF), as to who was in charge of making the decision 

as to whether or not athletes would be allowed to participate in the Summer Games. 

Sanctions and bans on athletes, coaches, NADOs, and anti-doping laboratories 

vary from short-term to lifetime, but there does not appear to be a clear set of guidelines to aid the appropriate organization in setting and imposing consistent penalties. We need to ensure that the system is fair and that the punishment is appropriate, particularly when the athlete knowingly cheated. The general public depends 

on the governing bodies of international sports to ensure that cheating does not become the accepted norm—this is a particularly important message for our youth. 

Additionally, recent events highlight the need to examine potential improvements 

with respect to utilizing athletes as partners in the anti-doping effort as well as 

whistleblower protections. There will always be athletes or institutions that dope in 

an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. Athletes and whistleblowers are often 

times the first to see the problems at the ground level and are critical to anti-doping 

organizations’ ability to identify and investigate violations. Therefore, it bears questioning whether the current system does enough to encourage, embrace, and protect 

those fighting for clean sport. 

While many summits, conferences, and meetings have occurred since the Rio 

Games, challenges, including but not limited to the ones I previously mentioned, remain and progress towards meaningful reform remains unclear. This hearing provides an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and examine opportunities to move 

forward in a way that will improve the international anti-doping system so that it 

is effective, fair, and nimble for the sake of athletes, clean sport, and the integrity 

of the international competition, including the Olympic Games. 

We welcome our all-star panel of witnesses today. Your appearance before the 

subcommittee is vital for us to have an honest discussion with key decision makers. 

We are also excited to have Mr. Phelps and Mr. Nelson with us today to share the 

athlete’s perspective. These gentlemen have competed at the highest level and have 

invaluable insight into the problems and challenges that face the current system as 

well as a unique perspective on improvements that can be made. I would like to 

thank our witnesses for appearing today, and look forward to an informative discussion. 

Mr. MURPHY. With that, I now yield 5 minutes to Ms. DeGette 

of Colorado. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Another 

doping scandal has now shaken the sporting world. This time it involves a wide-ranging Russian scheme to circumvent doping controls relied on by the global sports community to ensure clean 

sport. After unfortunate delays in investigating serious claims 

made by courageous whistleblowers, the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, eventually launched investigations into allegations 

that Russia was systematically involved in doping. 

In July and December of last year, Professor Richard McLaren, 

the person commissioned by WADA as the independent expert 

tasked with looking into these allegations, released his findings. 

What WADA’s independent investigations reported was a systematic effort by Russia to help its athletes both dope and circumvent 

doping controls. 

5 

The doping was widespread according to WADA’s report, implicating the London Olympic Games, the Sochi Olympic Games, the 

IAAF World Championships, and many other international events. 

Frankly, we will probably never know the full extent of the cheating and who benefited. As many as 1,000 Russian athletes across 

at least 30 sports might have benefited from this effort according 

to WADA’s investigation. 

WADA’s inquiry also found that the very agencies created to police sport from doping, including the Russian National Anti-Doping 

Agency, were itself helping to cheat. Even Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB, played a role. Russia’s behavior raises troubling questions about how the global sports community should 

sanction doping violators and whether they are actually committed 

to that fact. For example, because WADA’s investigative findings 

were made weeks before the start of Rio Games, confusion surfaced 

about whether Russia should collectively be banned from Rio. 

WADA recommended to the IOC that it prohibit the entire Russian 

delegation from participating. 

But rather than implement that recommendation, the IOC 

punted that decision to the international sports federations who 

were not all equipped to take on that sudden task. In the end, 

what ensued was a muddled process some viewed as sending a 

very, very weak message to the cheaters. Even today, I am frankly 

not sure whose job it was to hold Russia accountable for the events 

conveyed in WADA’s investigation. 

Just last month, for example, several national anti-doping organizations met in Dublin and petitioned that Russia be banned from 

hosting existing and future international sporting events until the 

country comes back into compliance with WADA’s recommendations. But what, if anything, will happen to those recommendations? I understand that the IOC has created two commissions to 

explore the findings of WADA’s independent investigation. 

While I support due process when it comes to athletes possibly 

implicated in the investigations, I believe there is enough evidence 

reported in WADA’s investigations to warrant a strong message 

from the IOC: If you cheat, you do not play. Of course, WADA’s 

findings also raised concerns about WADA itself. How did this 

cheating scheme persist for so long undetected, for example? Is 

WADA organized to catch cheating going forward? Does it have sufficient resources to police sport and prevent such a conspiracy from 

happening again? 

Following the Russian revelations, a number of national antidoping organizations met in Copenhagen late last year and put 

forth some recommendations that could enhance WADA’s ability to 

keep sports clean. These recommendations include addressing certain conflicts of interest within WADA and clarifying the Agency’s 

authority to investigate doping and sanction violators. It is unclear 

what has happened to these recommendations, but I do believe that 

they may be a possible blueprint and route moving forward. 

I also believe we have to examine whether WADA has the resources to do the job. As I said before, WADA’s entire budget is a 

mere $30 million and the U.S., which is the largest contributor, 

provides a mere $2 million. The McLaren investigation alone will 

cost $2 million, so clearly we need investigation into this. 

6 

I want to welcome our witnesses, in particular our two athletes 

who are here, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps. I think your perspective 

will really help us. I also think we should thank WADA itself, including Richard Pound and Richard McLaren for their work, and 

I especially want to commend Mr. Tygart and USADA for the tireless work in this investigation. It is an unfortunate set of events 

that has forced us into this room today, but ultimately I think this 

panel, this Congress, and the international sports community need 

to realize when dealing with Russia and its approach to ensuring 

clean international competitions the honor system is simply not 

going to be enough. And I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Greg Walden of Oregon, for 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome 

all of our witnesses and our Olympians. Thank you for being here 

to help us better understand what is going on in this situation. 

For centuries, athletes, cultures, nations have been brought together by the spirit of competition. From the slopes of Olympus to 

the stands of Autzen Stadium, home of the Oregon Ducks, people 

from all walks of life have gathered to pursue and celebrate athletic achievement. We relish with anticipation the possibility of witnessing the impossible. We celebrate the thrill of victory and agonize in defeat. 

Whether through your own pursuits or those of others, I suspect 

everyone in this room knows the emotion, collective experience, and 

beauty of sport. Nothing embodies the spirit and potential of sport 

more than the Olympic Games. It is the hallmark of international 

competition, uniting people from around the world regardless of social, political, or religious differences in celebration of our greatest 

athletes. It evokes national pride to the highest degree. It evokes 

a noble vision of sport rooted in participation over individual 

achievement. 

There is a lot of truth to that message, but we also cannot be 

blind to reality. Athletes and nations compete to win. They do not 

invest countless hours training to lose. They sacrifice for success 

and their victories are rewarded. This is why for centuries athletes 

have sought performance-enhancing substances to gain an advantage on the competition. In fact, Greek Olympians and Roman gladiators used herbs and wine and other products to get an edge on 

their opponents. 

In the early 1900s, mixtures of heroin, cocaine, and other substances became prevalent among athletes. Over time, especially following the introduction of anti-doping testing at the Olympics in 

the 1970s, the drugs have become more sophisticated and the 

cheaters more creative. Despite improvements in global anti-doping 

efforts at the turn of the century with the establishment of the 

World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA, the fight for clean sport remains an uphill battle. The temptation to cheat will always be 

present to those looking for a shortcut. 

7 

Recent events, however, revealed a far more startling and a difficult challenge. Thanks to the courage and tenacity of whistleblowers, of journalists, and others, we were exposed to a level of 

deception and cheating that felt more like a movie script than reality of international sport. It was not a case of individual athletes 

looking for an edge, this was a tale of nation-state-sponsored 

doping. 

Hundreds of athletes, knowingly or unknowingly, became part of 

a widespread campaign to enhance performance, alter test results, 

and evade detection by international anti-doping authorities. Despite these shocking allegations later bolstered by a series of independent commissions and reports, the response from the respective 

governing bodies of international sport has become a hodge-podge 

of indecisive and inconsistent actions. 

So what went wrong? It is one thing for an individual to beat the 

system, but how could such a massive program go undetected for 

so long and what has the response been? It has been a quagmire. 

Clearly, these events point to larger challenges in international 

anti-doping efforts. That is why we are here today, to learn from 

the past in pursuit of a better future for clean sport. 

There will always be those who seek to gain an advantage—the 

personal financial motivations are undeniable, the opportunities afforded by scientific innovation too tempting. The challenge is 

daunting and may never be totally solved, but that is not an excuse 

for inaction. We can and must do better, even if that requires some 

difficult and frankly some uncomfortable reforms. Success in sport 

is not achieved sitting on the sideline waiting for others to act. It 

requires leadership, teamwork, and most of all it requires dedication as our athletes have clearly shown. 

The millions of clean athletes around the world who push the 

limits of physical and mental exhaustion, who sacrifice so much, 

don’t they deserve a similar commitment from those responsible for 

protecting the integrity of their sport? I believe they do. That is 

why we are here today, to hear from all of you. 

Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

For centuries, athletes, cultures, and nations have been brought together by the 

spirit of competition. From the slopes of Olympus to the stands of Autzen Stadiumhome of the Oregon Ducks-people from all walks of life have gathered to pursue and 

celebrate athletic achievement. We relish the anticipation, the possibility of witnessing the impossible. We celebrate the thrill of victory and agonize in defeat. 

Whether through your own pursuits or those of others, I suspect everyone in this 

room knows the emotion, collective experience, and beauty of sport. 

Nothing embodies the spirit and potential of sport more than the Olympic Games. 

It is the hallmark of international competition, uniting people from around the 

world-regardless of social, political or religious differences-in celebration of our 

greatest athletes. It envelops national pride to the highest degree. It evokes a noble 

vision of sport rooted in participation over individual achievement. 

There is a lot of truth to that message but we also cannot be blind to reality. Athletes and nations compete to win. They do not invest countless hours training to 

lose. They sacrifice for success and their victories are rewarded. 

This is why, for centuries, athletes have sought performance enhancing substances - to gain an advantage on the competition. Greek Olympians and Roman 

Gladiators used herbs, wine, and other products to get an edge on their opponents. 

8 

In the early 1900s, mixtures of heroin, cocaine and other substances became prevalent among athletes. Over time, especially following the introduction of anti-doping 

testing at the Olympics in the 1970s, the drugs have become more sophisticated and 

the cheaters more creative. Despite improvements in global anti-doping efforts at 

the turn of the century with the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency 

(WADA), the fight for clean sport remains an uphill battle. The temptation to cheat 

will always be present to those looking for a short-cut. 

Recent events, however, revealed a far more startling and difficult challenge. 

Thanks to the courage and tenacity of whistleblowers, journalists, and others, we 

were exposed to a level of deception and cheating that felt more like a movie script 

than the reality of international sport. It was not a case of individual athletes looking for an edge. This was a tale of nation-state-sponsored doping. Hundreds of athletes—knowingly or unknowingly—became part of a widespread campaign to enhance performance, alter test results, and evade detection by international 

antidoping authorities. 

Despite these shocking allegations-later bolstered by a series of independent commissions and reports-the response from the respective governing bodies of international sport has become a hodge-podge of indecisive and inconsistent actions. 

So what went wrong? It is one thing for an individual to beat the system but how 

could such a massive program go undetected for so long? And what has the response 

been such a quagmire? Clearly, these events point to larger challenges in international anti-doping efforts. 

That is why we are here today—to learn from the past in pursuit of a better future for clean sport. There will always be those who seek to gain an advantage- the 

personal and financial motivations are undeniable and the opportunities afforded by 

scientific innovation too tempting. The challenge is daunting and may never be totally solved. But that is not an excuse for inaction. We can and must do better, even 

if that requires some difficult and uncomfortable reforms. 

Success in sport is not achieved sitting on the sideline, waiting for others to act. 

It requires leadership, teamwork and most of all dedication. The millions of clean 

athletes around the world, those who push the limits of physical and mental exhaustion, who sacrifice so much, deserve a similar commitment from those responsible 

for protecting the integrity of their sport. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the 

ranking member of the full committee, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by 

thanking our witnesses today for their ongoing commitment to the 

integrity of competitive sports, and I especially want to thank our 

Olympic athletes who have faced circumstances outside of their 

control when it comes to doping within their individual sport. And 

I would like to single out Travis Tygart and the United States 

Anti-Doping Agency who have aggressively fought for those athletes demanding drug-free competition. 

In July of last year, several of us on the committee sent a letter 

to the president of the International Olympic Committee expressing our strong interest in supporting efforts to ensure the integrity 

of sports. When we wrote that letter, the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, had begun releasing initial findings from its independent investigation into whether Russia had engaged in institutionalized doping. 

WADA’s investigation read like a Cold War novel. Tainted urine 

samples had secretly passed through a wall and were swapped for 

clean samples. Agencies responsible for policing sport had actually 

helped athletes dope. Even the Russian Federal Security Service, 

9 

or FSB, had played a role in this conspiracy according to WADA’s 

investigation. 

Upon the release of those findings, WADA recommended to the 

International Olympic Committee that it ban Russia and Russian 

athletes from participation in the 2016 Rio Games. However, the 

IOC delegated that decision to the international sports federations, 

organizations that may or may not have had the independence and 

resources to undertake such a task, and some critics believe the 

IOC’s lack of decisiveness affected the role and perceived authority 

of anti-doping agencies. 

So even today it remains unclear that what sanctions the IOC 

and other sports related organizations can or will take in response 

to WADA’s independent investigation. Collectively, these organizations must take decisive action. They must send an unambiguous 

message that they will punish doping and that cheaters will no 

longer be rewarded for creating an unfair advantage over clean 

athletes. 

I think we are at a crossroads now, Mr. Chairman, at how best 

to prevent and police doping in sport. WADA’s independent investigation raises serious concerns about the agencies responsible for 

policing doping, including their ability to sanction athletes, institutions, and even countries that conspire to violate the world antidoping code. 

Despite these challenges, there are some hopeful signs of reforming the anti-doping regulatory system. In particular, I am encouraged by the recommendation made by a group of national antidoping agencies, or NADOs, that will strengthen WADA’s role as 

a global regulator in the doping fight. The group wants to ensure 

that WADA has the authority to investigate suspected doping violations. They also want to provide WADA additional resources so it 

can develop better anti-doping monitoring systems. 

The group of agencies also recommended removing conflicts of interest in WADA’s governing structure and developing a program to 

protect whistleblowers who may wish to bring doping violations forward. And we all care about the international sport community, 

but the integrity of the international community will continue to be 

questioned until an effective anti-doping system is in place. 

So again I want to thank our witnesses for attending this hearing so we can identify what actions are needed moving forward to 

build a better anti-doping system, finding the underlying cause of 

what happened, and then making real changes to our anti-doping 

institutions based on those findings is something we must do for 

the athletes and the integrity of international sport. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our witnesses today for their ongoing 

commitment to the integrity of competitive sports. I especially want to thank our 

Olympic athletes, who have faced circumstances outside of their control when it 

comes to doping within their individual sport. I would like to single out Travis 

Tygart and the United States Anti-Doping Agency who has aggressively fought for 

those athletes demanding drug-free competition. 

10 

In July of last year, several of us on the committee sent a letter to the President 

of the International Olympic Committee expressing our strong interest in supporting efforts to ensure the integrity of sport. When we wrote that letter, the World 

Anti-doping Agency (WADA) had begun releasing initial findings from its independent investigation into whether Russia had engaged in institutionalized doping. 

WADA’s investigation read like a cold war novel. Tainted urine samples had secretly passed through a wall and were swapped for clean samples. Agencies responsible for policing sport had actually helped athletes dope. Even the Russian Federal 

Security Service, or FSB, had played a role in this conspiracy according to WADA’s 

investigation. 

Upon the release of those findings, WADA recommended to the International 

Olympic Committee (IOC) that it ban Russia and Russian athletes from participation in the 2016 Rio Games. 

However, the IOC delegated that decision to the international sports federations, 

organizations that may or may not have had the independence and resources to undertake such a task. Some critics believed the IOC’s lack of decisiveness affected the 

role and perceived authority of anti-doping agencies. 

Even today, it remains unclear what sanctions the IOC and other sports-related 

organizations can or will take in response to WADA’s independent investigation. 

Collectively, these organizations must take decisive action. They must send an unambiguous message that they will punish doping and that cheaters will no longer 

be rewarded for creating an unfair advantage over clean athletes. 

We are at a crossroads now at how best to prevent and police doping in sport. 

WADA’s independent investigation raises serious concerns about the agencies responsible for policing doping including their ability to sanction athletes, institutions, 

and even countries that conspire to violate the world anti-doping code. 

Despite these challenges, there are some hopeful signs of reforming the antidoping regulatory system. In particular, I am encouraged by the recommendations 

made by a group of National Anti-Doping Agencies (NADOs) that could strengthen 

WADA’s role as a global regulator in the doping fight. The group wants to ensure 

that WADA has the authority to investigate suspected doping violations. They also 

want to provide WADA additional resources so it can develop better anti-doping 

monitoring systems. The group of agencies also recommended removing conflicts of 

interest in WADA’s governance structure and developing a program to protect whistleblowers who may wish to bring doping violations forward. 

We all care about the international sport community, but the integrity of the 

international community will continue to be questioned until an effective antidoping system is in place. 

I want to thank our witnesses here today for attending this hearing so that we 

can identify what actions are needed moving forward to build a better anti-doping 

system. Finding the underlying cause of what happened and then making real 

changes to our anti-doping institutions based on those findings is something we 

must do for the athletes and the integrity of international sport. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous consent that the Members’ written opening statements be introduced 

into the record, and without objection, the dockets will be entered 

into the record. 

I would now like to introduce our all-star panel of witnesses for 

today’s hearing. First, we welcome Mr. Adam Nelson, American 

shot putter and Olympic gold medalist. Three-time Olympian and 

six-time world championship team member, Mr. Nelson is currently 

the president of the Track and Field Athletes Association. 

As many of us know, Mr. Nelson was never properly awarded his 

medal for his Olympic achievements. I would like to take a moment 

right now to congratulate Mr. Nelson on his Olympic gold medal 

and commend him for pursuing his achievements in the spirit of 

clean and fair sport. It is a shame it had to happen at a food court 

at an airport. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MURPHY. Next, we are honored to have with us today Mr. 

Michael Phelps. Mr. Phelps is the most decorated Olympian of all 

11 

time, winning a total of 28 medals including 23 gold medals over 

the course of five Olympic games. Both during and after his Olympic career, Mr. Phelps has been a strong and outspoken advocate 

for clean sport. 

Next, we want to welcome Mr. Travis Tygart who serves as the 

chief executive officer for the United States Anti-Doping Agency. 

With 15 years of experience working at USADA in various leadership roles, Mr. Tygart works closely with the USADA board of directors to carry out the organization’s mission of preserving the integrity of competition, inspiring true sport, and protecting the 

rights of U.S. athletes. 

Now we also welcome Rob Koehler, Deputy Director General of 

the World Anti-Doping Agency. Mr. Koehler comes to us with almost two decades of experience working in the anti-doping field at 

WADA and the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sports. In his role 

as Deputy Director General at WADA, Mr. Koehler is responsible 

for the oversight of all U.S. national anti-doping organizations as 

well as global anti-doping education initiatives. 

And lastly, we welcome Dr. Richard Budgett, medical and scientific director for the International Olympic Committee. In this 

capacity, Dr. Budgett is responsible for ensuring that the organizing committees of each edition of the Olympic Games delivers 

excellent medical and doping control services, working closely with 

the World Anti-Doping Agency. 

So thank you to all our witnesses for being here today and partaking in what we are hoping will be a very informative and insightful discussion on this important international issue. 

You are all aware that this committee is holding an investigative 

hearing and when doing so has had the practice of taking testimony under oath. Do any of you object to giving testimony under 

oath? Seeing no objections, the Chair then advises you that under 

the rules of the House and rules of the committee you are entitled 

to be advised by counsel. Do any of you desire to be advised by 

counsel during your testimony today? And seeing none, in that case 

will you all please rise, raise your right hand, and I will swear you 

in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. All our witnesses have answered in the 

affirmative and so you are now under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in Title 18 Section 1001 of the United States Code. 

I call upon you each to give a 5-minute statement. This timer is 

not like in the games, Mr. Nelson, so nothing bad is going to happen if it turns red on you, but we ask you to do 5 minutes only. 

Mr. Nelson. 

12 

STATEMENTS OF ADAM NELSON, AMERICAN SHOT PUTTER 

AND OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST; MICHAEL PHELPS, AMERICAN SWIMMER AND OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST; TRAVIS T. 

TYGART, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED STATES ANTI– 

DOPING AGENCY; ROB KOEHLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, WORLD ANTI–DOPING AGENCY; AND RICHARD 

BUDGETT, M.D., MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE 

STATEMENT OF ADAM NELSON 

Mr. NELSON. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

the members of this committee, for hosting this event and hopefully 

supporting clean sport. As a 9-year-old, I remember watching athletes like Mary Lou Retton and Edwin Moses represent the United 

States of America in the 1984 Olympic Games. Their performances 

inspired a generation of childhood dreamers like me, at least for a 

moment, to imagine what it would be like to compete at the greatest stage in the world culminating in an unforgettable medal ceremony accompanied by my flag and my national anthem. 

Twelve years later, I competed in my first Olympic trials as a 

shotputter, finishing last in an effort that fueled the dream for 4 

more years. ‘‘Four more years’’ has been a mantra for most of my 

adult life. The 2004 Olympic shotput competition was contested in 

the ancient Olympic Stadium in Olympia, Greece. More than 

20,000 spectators visited the competition venue for the first time 

in nearly 3,000 years. For 58 of 60 throws, I led that competition. 

On the 59th throw, the athlete from the Ukraine tied my best 

mark. As the leader going into the final rounds, I had the privilege 

to take the last and final throw of the competition. 

As a child, my imagination could have never dreamed of a moment quite like this, but these are the moments that make the 

Olympics great and I can remember everything about that moment. 

I remember the faces in the crowd, I remember the heat, the sun 

baking my skin, and I remember the mixture of cheers and boos 

for one American athlete as he was competing for the gold medal. 

These are the moments that change the trajectory of your life and 

make the struggle worthwhile. 

When I stepped into the ring for the last and final throw of the 

competition, the world went quiet. I felt the coolness of the shotput 

touch my neck, and then I felt a surge of adrenalin and watched 

as the shotput sailed farther and farther than any other throw of 

the day. I raised my hands and sure of victory, realizing that I had 

just won the Olympic gold medal, only to look left and see the red 

flag raised, indicating that I’d fouled. Then I saw as another athlete started his victory lap and listened as they played another national anthem and raised another flag, celebrating him and in his 

honor. 

For 8 years I lived with that result. Eight years later, I received 

a phone call from a reporter informing me that five athletes had 

tested positive in a retroactive drug testing from samples from 

2004. The last 8 years of my life had apparently been based on a 

falsehood. A month later, the same reporter called me to inform me 

that the IOC was meeting that day to discuss whether or not to 

vacate his position or reallocate those medals. 

13 

While on that call, the news hit the wires and the reporter informed me that I was now the Olympic gold medalist. A year later, 

I picked up my medal in the food court at the Atlanta airport. It 

came with a side of fries and a free toy, don’t worry about it. Look, 

it was an afterthought assigned to a USOC official who could swing 

through Atlanta on his way home 9 years after the moment had 

passed. 

The color and timing of a medal matter, folks. Silver does not 

hold the same value, and gold loses its shine over time. There’s no 

small bit of irony in me winning a medal in this fashion. As an athlete, I rejected the notion that you needed drugs to compete. I was 

vocal in my opinions about clean sport and often criticized by competitors or peers for my position. I was often told not to comment 

on the current state of anti-doping or doping in sport at major 

events for fear that it would be a distraction. 

See, doping in sports is seen by some as a distraction for the athletes and an obstacle for the business of sport. It’s a stain on an 

otherwise beautiful set of ideals that we know as the spirit of 

Olympism. As a result, we have a system that’s interested in seeing progress but not truly committed to achieving the outcome. 

My story illustrates only part of the damage caused by doping in 

sport, but I’m not here to invoke sympathy. Sympathy is a thought, 

an emotion devoid of action. I’m here today to ask you all to give 

meaning to my medal, this medal right here. I’m here today to ask 

for action on behalf of millions of dreamers like me who believe in 

fair play and aspire for gold medals to be won and celebrated in 

the moment after a clean and fair competition. 

Since 2012, I’ve become a student of international sports organizations. I’ve advocated for clean sports, I’ve spoken with athletes 

from around the world about this subject. I’ve heard their voices, 

the voices of the clean athletes. They ask for more, but those voices 

continue to fall on deaf ears, so they resort to social media. They 

wag fingers and they create a petition that has already garnered 

almost 500 athlete signatures in support of structural reform. 

Athletes want action, not words. Structural reform is only part 

of the solution. You cannot change a culture strictly by changing 

policy. You have to engage the athletes. So I ask as an athlete, an 

Olympic gold medalist, and as someone personally and financially 

impacted by doping in sport that you consider clean athletes as a 

shared owner in this all-important fight. We will stand with you 

as a partner if you empower us to do so. The time and the moment 

is now. Thank you very much for your time. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:] 

14 


My Olympic Moment 

As a 9-year-old I remember watching athletes like Mary Lou Retton and Edwin Moses represent 

the United States of America in the 1984 Olympic Games. Their performances inspired a 

generation of childhood dreamers like me- at least for a moment- to imagine what it would 

feel like to compete for your country at the largest sporting event in the world, culminating in 

an unforgettable medal ceremony accompanied by my flag and my national anthem. Twelve 

years later I competed at my first Olympic Trials as a shot putter finishing last in an effort that 

fueled the dream for four more years. Four more years has been my mantra for my adult life. 

The 2004 Olympic Shot Put competition was contested in the ancient Olympic Stadium in 

Olympia, Greece. More than 20,000 fans traveled to see the first competition in this venue in 

nearly 3,000 years. For 58 of 60 throws in the competition I was leading. On the 59" throw the 

athlete from the Ukraine tied my best mark. As the leader going into the final rounds, I had the 

privilege to take the final throw- the 60•" throw of the competition. As a child my imagination 

could have never dreamed of a moment like this one. These are the moments that make the 

Olympics great. 

I can remember everything about that moment: the faces in the crowd, the heat, the dust, the 

sun baking my skin, the mixture of cheers and boos for an American athlete. These are the 

moments that change the trajectory of your life. This was my moment that I'd earned through 

engaging in this life that Olympic athletes know as the struggle. This was my moment that I'd 

prepared for every day for the past seven years. As the shot put touched my neck, the world 

went quiet until it exploded back to life as the shot put left my hand sailing farther than any 

other throw of the day. I raised my hands in victory, only to see the red flag raised indicating 

that I'd fouled. Then, I watched another athlete take his victory lap, listened as they played 

another national anthem and raised another flag in his honor. For eight years I lived with that 

result. 

Shortly before the 2012 Olympic Games I received a phone call from a reporter. She told me 

that the athlete that had been awarded the gold in 2004 had tested positive in a retroactive 

drug testing of samples from the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. A month later she called to 

inform me that the IOC was meeting to discuss whether or not to vacate his position or 

reallocate the medals. During that call, the news hit the wire. She told me I was the Olympic 

Gold Medalist. 

Pierre de Coubertin stressed the importance of the journey over the outcome, because he 

knew that in any competition there would only be one winner- but every athlete would 

experience personal victories along the way. The spirit of Olympism is about committing to a 

process of self-improvement and living life to the fullest regardless of the outcomes as there 

are no guarantees. But I earned a medal in a competition that continued long after my last 

throw. I did not learn of the true outcome until a reporter informed me of it and a year later I 

picked up my medal at the food court in the Atlanta Airport. I can joke about it now. But the 

childhood dreams of a 9-year old winning an Olympic Gold on behalf of his country never 
15 


included a side of fries and a free toy. Though maybe the 9-year old would have appreciated 

those too. 

My story illustrates only part of the damage caused by doping in sport. But I'm not here today 

to invoke sympathy. Sympathy is a thought, an emotion devoid of action. I'm here today to ask 

you all to give meaning to my medal. I'm here today to ask for action on behalf of the millions 

of dreamers like me, who believe in fair play and aspire for their gold medals to be won and 

celebrated in the moment after a clean and fair competition. 

Since 2012 I've become a student of international sports organizations. I've studied the WADA 

code and read the Mclaren Reports as well as the Copenhagen Reform Proposal. In discussions 

with athletes from the US, Germany, Japan, UK, Australia, New Zealand and other countries 

over the past five years, I've heard the voices of the clean athletes ask for more, but those 

voices continue to fall on deaf ears. So they resort to social media; they wag fingers; and they 

create a petition that has garnered more than 500 athlete signatures in support of the 

Copenhagen Reforms since January of this year. 

Adopting the Copenhagen reforms would go a long way towards building a system that rebuilds 

the trust of athletes, but it's only part of the solution. You cannot change a culture from the 

top down only. You have to engage the athletes. I ask as an athlete, an Olympic Gold Medalist, 

and as someone personally and financially impacted by doping in sport that you consider clean 

athletes as a shared owner in this all important fight. We will stand with you as a partner if you 

empower us to do so. The time, the moment is now. Thank you. 

# # # 

Anti-doping Associations (ADAs) operate opposite of our United States Jaw enforcement. Every 

athlete is guilty until proven innocent and cleared by a drug test. Yet, the testing is far from 

perfect as the science of detection still lags far behind the science of cheating. In recognition of 

this, the ADAs have increased the statute of limitations on retroactive drug-testing from eight 

years to ten years. But this doesn't the change the math on cheating, it only allows the ADAs a 

window to allow their researchers time to close the gap on the cheaters OR hopefully allow for 

someone involved in the cheating to step forward. 

Changing the math requires a different approach as it requires aligning the culture of sport with 

the policies and standards we wish to support. This starts at the top. The IOC needs to fully 

fund WADA. WADA needs to hold every country to the same standard to which they hold the 

athlete. Failure to comply at the national federation or Olympic committee level should be 

treated with a similar set of sanctions as those for non-compliant athletes. And finally, we have 

to align the compensation structure of all parties to support the objectives of clean sport. 
16 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Phelps, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PHELPS 

Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good 

morning. My name is Michael Phelps. I’m a retired professional 

swimmer and an Olympian. I want to thank the committee for the 

opportunity to appear here before you today. It’s a privilege to be 

here to share my thoughts and perspective on the issue of clean 

sport, which is important to so many athletes and to sport in general. 

I competed internationally for over 15 years and had the tremendous honor to represent the United States in five Olympic Games 

and six world championships. Without question, many of my proudest moments have been representing my country in international 

competition. There’s no greater feeling than standing on top of the 

podium watching the Stars and Stripes rise as the national anthem 

plays. 

The Rio Olympics were special for me because it gave me the opportunity to end my career on my terms and to do it with my wife 

Nicole and son Boomer watching. Rio was also unique because of 

increased doping concerns. I watched how this affected my teammates and fellow competitors. We all felt frustration. Looking back 

over my career and knowing how difficult it is to get to the highest 

levels of sport, I can’t help but wonder how the next generation of 

athletes will be able to do it if this uncertainty continues. 

As a child I found school difficult. I had ADHD, which probably 

contributed to my restlessness. I’ll never forget being told by one 

of my teachers that I’d never amount to anything. It was swimming 

that enabled me to see past those challenges and not be defined by 

them. My mom put my sisters and me in the pool so we’d be water 

safe. At first, like many children, I was afraid to put my head 

under the water, but by overcoming that fear I got my first taste 

of self-confidence. 

As it turned out, I was pretty good in the water and I quickly 

realized the harder I worked the quicker I improved. I found a 

focus and a purpose I had never felt before. I would set goals for 

myself and work like crazy until I accomplished them. Dreams 

would just pop into my head whenever I got into the pool. I 

dreamed about becoming a gold medalist, a world record holder. I 

wanted to be the best. I talked with my coach so we could come 

up with a plan, not just for what I was doing in the pool but also 

how I could better myself away from the pool. 

I made my mind to do everything I could to make my dream a 

reality. In school I had friends but I wasn’t that social. I focused 

on swimming. At times I was made fun of for what I was doing because it was different. I was in love with challenging myself to become the best athlete that I could be. I felt that every single day 

was an opportunity for me to do something special when I went to 

the pool. I always felt that the kids who worked the hardest got 

the best results, that’s why I pushed myself as hard as I could. 

Over a 5-year period I trained every single day without a day off. 

I figured by training on holidays I’d be able to get that extra edge. 

As my hard work and sacrifice began to pay off, my confidence 

17 

grew and I began to feel that if I could dream something and gave 

everything I had that anything was possible. The strength of that 

belief drove me to set goals that others might have thought were 

unrealistic. 

That’s one amazing thing about competitive sport, it demands 

that you believe in yourself. This isn’t always easy. There were so 

many times I could have quit and walked away. Sticking with it 

required me to dig deep, especially knowing that after all the work 

and sacrifice success might be determined by just a hundredth of 

a second. In those critical moments that you really test your commitment and that can ultimately define your career, you need to 

believe that if you push on you’ll get the opportunity to measure 

yourself, your preparation, your desire, your talent against others 

who have prepared themselves in the same exact way. 

Throughout my career I’ve thought that some athletes were 

cheating and in some cases those suspicions were confirmed. Given 

all the testing I and so many others have been through, I have a 

hard time understanding this. In addition to the tests in the competitions, I had to notify USADA as to where I was every day so 

they would be able to conduct random tests outside of competition. 

This whole process takes a toll, but it’s absolutely worth it to 

keep the sport clean and fair. I can’t describe how frustrating it is 

to see other athletes break through performance barriers in unrealistic time frames knowing what I had to do to go through that. I 

watched how this affected my teammates as well. 

Even the suspicion of doping is disillusioning for clean athletes. 

To believe in yourself through sport you need to be able to believe 

in the system that safeguards clean sport and fair play. All athletes 

must be held to the same standards, which need to be implemented 

and enforced with consistency and independence. 

For years now I’ve worked closely with kids. Most of these kids 

aren’t swimmers but they’re eager to sit down and talk with me 

and they’re always full of questions. It’s when I talk about being 

a kid like them and how this all started with a dream you see their 

eyes lighten up. We talk about how I did it and I tell them that 

they can do it too. To look into a child’s eyes and tell them if they 

dare to dream and do the work they can succeed, the power to believe in yourself and inspire others through sport depends upon fair 

play. 

Now that I’m retired I’m frequently asked if I think anybody will 

ever win more medals than me in my lifetime. My answer to that 

question is I hope so. I’d like to think there’s some little boy or girl 

out there now with an even bigger dream and even stronger drive 

to work harder than I ever did to do something that’s never been 

done before. But for that to happen, he or she must believe they 

will get a fair opportunity to compete. 

If we allow our confidence in fair play to erode, we will undermine the power of sport and the goals and dreams of future generations. The time to act is now. We must do what is necessary to ensure the system is fair and reliable so we all can believe in it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Phelps follows:] 

18 


February 28, 2017 House Hearing 

Conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations 

Testimony of Michael Phelps 

Retired Swimmer and Olympian 

1 
19 


Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good morning. My name is 

Michael Phelps. I am a retired professional swimmer and an Olympian. I want to 

thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is a 

privilege to be here to share my thoughts and perspective on the issue of clean 

sport, which is so important to all athletes, and to sport in general. 

I competed internationally for over 15 years and had the tremendous honor 

to represent the United States in five Olympic Games and six World Championships. 

Without question, many of the proudest moments of my life have been representing 

my country in international competition. There is no greater feeling than standing 

up on the podium and watching the Stars and Stripes rise as our national anthem 

plays. 

The Rio Olympics were special for me because it gave me the opportunity to 

end my career on my terms, and to do it with my wife Nicole and son Boomer 

watching. Rio was also unique because of increased doping concerns. In the year 

leading up to the Games, there was uncertainty and suspicion; I, along with a 

number of other athletes, signed a petition requesting that all athletes be tested in 

the months prior to the Games. Unfortunately, the uncertainty remained, even 

through the Games, and I watched how this affected my teammates and fellow 

competitors. We all felt the frustration, which undermines so much of the belief and 

confidence we work so hard to build up to prepare for the Olympics. Looking back 

over my career, and knowing how difficult it is to get to the highest levels of the 

sport, and to try to stay there, I can't help but wonder how the current and next 

generation of younger athletes of today will be able to do it, if this uncertainty 

persists. 

As a child, I found school difficult. I had ADHD, which probably contributed 

to my restlessness. I'll never forget being told by one of my teachers that I'd never 

amount to anything. It was swimming that enabled me to see past those challenges, 

and not be defined by them. My mom put my sisters and me in the pool so we'd be 

water safe. At first, like many children, I was afraid to put my head under the water, 

but by overcoming that fear I got my first taste of self-confidence. As it turned out, I 

was pretty good in the water, and I quickly realized that the harder I worked, the 

quicker I improved. I found a focus and purpose I had never felt before. I would set 

goals for myself, and work like crazy until I accomplished them. Dreams would just 

pop into my head whenever I got into the water. I'd dream about becoming a gold 

medalist, a world record holder. I wanted to be the best. I talked with my coach so 

we could come up with a plan, not just for what I could do in the pool, but also what 

I could do away from the pool to make myself better. I made up my mind to do 

everything I could to make my dream a reality. 

In school, I had friends, but I wasn't all that social. I was focused on 

swimming. At times, I was made fun of for what I was doing, because it was 

2 
20 


"different," but I was in love with challenging myself to be the best athlete I could be. 

I felt that every single day was an opportunity for me to do something special when I 

went to the pool or to workout. I always felt it was the kids who worked harder that 

got the best results, so I pushed myself in every way I could. 

Over a 5-year period, I trained every single day without a day off. My 

competitors were also training hard, but I figured some of them might not train on 

holidays, so I'd get an edge if I did. I made sure I was sleeping and eating right, and 

getting the rest I needed between workouts. As my hard work and sacrifice began 

to pay off, my confidence grew and I began to feel that if 1 could dream it, and gave 

everything I had, anything was possible. The strength of that belief drove me to set 

goals that others might have thought unrealistic. 

That's one of the amazing things about competitive sport: it demands that 

you believe in yourself. This isn't always easy. There were so many times 1 could 

have quit and walked away. Sticking with it required me to dig deep, especially 

knowing that even after all the work and sacrifice, success may be determined by 

just a hundredth of a second. In those critical moments that really test your 

commitment, and that can ultimately define your career, you need to believe that if 

you push on, you'll get the opportunity to measure yourself (your preparation, your 

desire, your talent) against others who have had to prepare themselves in the same 

way. 

Throughout my career, I have suspected that some athletes were cheating, 

and in some cases those suspicions were confirmed. Given all the testing 1, and so 

many others, have been through I have a hard time understanding this. In addition 

to all the tests during competitions, I had to notify USADA as to where 1 would be 

every day, so they would be able to conduct random tests outside of competition. 

This whole process takes a toll, but it's absolutely worth it to keep sport clean and 

fair. I can't adequately describe how frustrating it is to see another athlete break 

through performance barriers in unrealistic timeframes, knowing what I had to go 

through to do it. I watched how this affected my teammates too. Even the suspicion 

of doping is disillusioning for clean athletes. To believe in yourself through sport, 

you need to be able to believe in the system that safeguards clean sport and fair 

play. All athletes must be held to the same standards, which need to be 

implemented and enforced with consistency and independence. 

For years now, I have worked closely with kids. I've regularly visited Boys & 

Girls Clubs all over the U.S., often just to sit down and speak with the kids. After the 

Beijing Games, !launched my Foundation, which provides water safety and learn-toswim programming in the clubs. Most of these kids aren't swimmers, but they're 

eager to sit down and talk with me, and they're full of questions. It's when I talk 

about being a kid like them, and how it all started with a dream, that I see their eyes 

light up. We talk about how I did it, and I tell them they can do it too. To look into a 

child's eyes and tell them that if they dare to dream, and do the work, they can 

3 
21 


succeed, requires conviction that can't be faked. The power to believe in yourself 

and inspire others through sport depends upon fair play. 

Now that I'm retired, I'm frequently asked if I think anyone will win more 

medals than me in my lifetime. My answer to that question is I hope so. I'd like to 

think that there's some boy or girl somewhere now, with an even bigger dream, and 

even stronger drive to work even harder than I did to do something that's never 

been done before. But for that to happen, he must believe he or she will get a fair 

opportunity to compete. If we allow our confidence in fair play to erode, we will 

undermine the power of sport, and the goals and dreams of future generations. The 

time to act is now. We must do what is necessary to ensure the system is fair and 

reliable, so we can all believe in it. 

4 
22 

Mr. MURPHY. We rarely have applause after testimony, so I 

thank both of you. 

Mr. Tygart, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TRAVIS T. TYGART 

Mr. TYGART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

other members of the committee. I’m Travis Tygart from the U.S. 

Anti-Doping Agency, and really appreciate the invitation to be here 

today to discuss this very important topic. 

We find ourselves at a critical juncture for the soul of sport. Fairness and integrity in athletic competition, two principles at the 

very heart of why we play sports, hang in the balance. You just 

heard powerful testimony from Adam Nelson and Michael Phelps 

on why this matters. We view clean athletes and their powerful 

stories as our guiding light, our North Star. Their stories give us 

hope, they provide us the fuel to continue to advocate for their 

right to clean and fair competition. 

In order to do this today I think we must understand how and 

why the system is under threat. There’s no timelier example than 

the uncovering of Russia’s widespread state-supported doping system. Over a thousand Russian athletes from over 30 sports have 

been implicated in this drug program that was proven to have been 

orchestrated by Russian officials. At least two Olympic Games were 

corrupted, and at the Rio Games this past August scores of Russian 

athletes competed despite not being subject to credible anti-doping 

programs. 

When the moment came, despite mountains of evidence and vocal 

opposition from anti-doping leaders and clean athletes from around 

the world, the IOC chose to welcome the Russian Olympic Committee to Rio and did not enforce any meaningful sanctions against 

the Russian Olympic Committee. The IOC missed or ignored a defining moment to confront in the clearest way possible this win-atall-costs culture of doping in global sport. It was a chance to draw 

an unambiguous line in the sand to stand up for clean athletes of 

the world. 

Despite this, however, two silver linings have emerged. The first, 

more than ever before, as you’ve heard today, athletes are mobilizing, voicing their opinions, and fighting more than ever before 

for a level playing field. And second, we all have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to disrupt entrenched positions for the good of 

sport to make sure that the kind of state-supported doping is never 

allowed to rear its ugly head again. 

To get there, the road to reform starts and ends with independence. We have long advocated in front of this Congress for a clear 

separation between those who promote sport and those who police 

sport, because to do so otherwise is to have the fox guarding the 

henhouse. You cannot both promote and police your own sport. 

We, along with 22 other national anti-doping agencies that were 

referenced earlier from around the world, support a strong and 

independent WADA. But we also agree that WADA needs reform 

to become a truly independent global regulator, not merely the 

sport service organization that many hope it remains. The good 

news, Mr. Chairman, is that WADA’s conflicted governance model 

could be easily solved by removing sport leaders from the WADA 

23 

board. Let’s take the blindfolds off, let’s take the handcuffs off and 

let WADA do the job that clean athletes deserve. 

I read the testimony of both Richard and Rob prior to coming 

today, and let me just preface this by saying that we know both 

of them well and have great respect on a personal level for their 

efforts to fight within the system for change. But, unfortunately. 

today they are simply to some extent just carrying out the instructions from their sport bosses who aren’t here, unfortunately. But in 

regard to their positions, we agree with much of it. 

In fact, that’s why national anti-doping agencies, including us 

here in the U.S., have implemented many of the same strategies 

years ago, but unfortunately, their submissions are silent on the 

crux of the real reform solution, which is to remove the fox from 

guarding the henhouse. In our world we hear that term a lot, fox 

in the henhouse. You’ll see quite clearly that while the IOC and 

WADA may be advocating to deputize the fox, to educate the fox, 

and even equip the fox with the appropriate resources to do the job, 

it’s still the fox. There is still a conflict of interest, and clean athletes around the world are still being let down by sports control of 

these critical anti-doping functions. 

What’s also so frustrating for us, and you’ve heard our athletes’ 

frustration in the athletes that we serve, is that the solutions are 

relatively easy but the determination to implement them is lacking, 

yet we remain optimistic. National anti-doping agencies from 

around the world as it’s been cited today have come together and 

put forth the Copenhagen reform declaration that number one, remove sports’ control of anti-doping; number two, strengthen WADA 

through improved independence and increased investment; number 

three, increase and make clear WADA’s ability to investigate, monitor compliance, and impose sanctions; number four, provide meaningful athletes who have been robbed the recognition they deserve. 

If we were involved with Adam’s situation, not a chance that 

medal gets handed to him in a food court. But sport, it’s an obstacle. They don’t want to care about it. Let it be done right and let’s 

have swift reallocation of any medals that have been stolen. Five, 

increased support for whistleblowers around the world. 

Mr. Chairman, and those of you on the committee who value this 

clean sport, this is our moment. Importantly, this is not just about 

elite Olympic athletes, but about every child on a playground who 

has a dream and asks themselves what does it take to have this 

dream come true. The truth is, if we don’t push, if we don’t win, 

we will likely find ourselves right back in this same situation years 

from now, staring at another state-supported doping system in the 

face that has abused its own athletes, that has robbed other athletes from around the world, and we’ll all be wondering why we 

didn’t do more. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of 

the committee. 

[The prepared statement Mr. Tygart follows:] 

24 


February 28,2017 House Hearing 

Conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations 

Testimony of Travis T. Tygart 

Chief Executive Officer 

United States Anti-Doping Agency 
25 


Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Travis T. Tygart, 

and I am the Chief Executive Officer (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 how we can better protect the rights of athletes and the 

integrity of competition. 

It is an honor for me to be here representing the USADA Board. our small but talented 

professional staff, and clean athletes from across the United States for whom we advocate every 

day. It is also an honor for USADA, a 50l(c)(3). not-for-profit, incorporated in Colorado, to be a 

part of such an important discussion. We also greatly appreciate the ongoing support of Congress 

and the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy in our efforts to protect the health, 

safety and rights of clean athletes and the integrity of competition. 

We have arrived at a critical juncture for the soul of sport a moment of truth, if you 

will. And today, I want to speak to the Committee about not only the significant and urgent 

threats facing clean athletes and fair play. but also about the very feasible solutions to these 

problems. 

First, the challenges: The truth is, fairness and integrity in athletic competition -two 

principles at the very heart of why we play sports- hang in the balance. They arc under attack. 

And, if we don't act soon to enact reforms necessary to protect the rights of clean athletes and to 

preserve a level playing field --both here in the United States and around the world- we will be 

committing an unacceptable injustice to today's athletes, fans, broadcasters and sponsors who 

believe in, and invest in, fair and clean competition; and equally intolerable, we risk shattering 

the dreams of tens of millions of young people from around the world. 

You will hear from Adam Nelson, the American shot putter who, nine years after the 

2004 Summer Olympics, was awarded a gold medal atier the athlete originally declared the gold 

medalist tested positive for doping. You will hear Adam's sad and tragic "podium" story- how 

he received his delayed gold medal in an airport food court. And, you will also hear li·om 

Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian in history, who despite his unprecedented success 

2 
26 


still questions whether on the international stage he ever truly competed on a level playing 

tleld. 

i\s an independent anti-doping organization, we view these athletes- and their powerful 

stories-- as our guiding light, our North Star. Their stories give us hope, they remind us of our 

purpose, and they provide us the fuel to continue to fight for their right to clean and fair 

competition. 

But. we need to ask ourselves something. And we need to be honest. How many more 

Adam Nelsons? How many more podium moments stolen? How many more medals will be 

handed over in a food court- nearly a decade after a competition-- before we finally 

understand the importance of enforcing clean sport and fair competition? !\dam Nelson ... 

.\1ichael Phelps ... and millions of other clean athletes from around the world who can't be here 

today ... they are why this matters. 

Now, in order to effectively protect the integrity of competition, we must first understand 

how and why the system is under threat. 1\nd there is no more topical example than the recent 

discovery of Russia's widespread, state-supported doping system. The astounding lengths to 

which Russia's doping system went to deceive the world, anti-doping officials and other athletes, 

was in many ways, a nightmare realized. 

By now you've probably read and heard the facts: Shadow laboratories, tampering by 

Russian intelligence officers, samples swapped and passed through a hole in a wall under the 

cover of darkness, male DNA in female samples, and emails to and from the Russian Ministry of 

Sport determining which doped athletes the system would protect, and which ones it would 

sacrifice. 

i\s I speak to you today, over I ,000 Russian athletes have been implicated in this doping 

program proven to have been orchestrated and supported by officials within the state-and-sportrun-system. The scandal spread across more than 30 sports, lasting from at least 20 II to 2015. The 

evidence clearly shows at least. two Olympics Games were corrupted, failing to fully deliver on 
27 


their promise, and at the Rio Olympic Games this past summer, scores of athletes competed despite 

not having been subject to credible anti-doping programs. 

Consider this: Of the 82 medals Team Russia took home from London 20 !2, at least 15 of 

those medal winners were later found to have used prohibited performance-enhancing drugs. How 

many clean athletes were robbed? How many podium moments stolen? How many dreams 

shattered? 

At the end of the day, despite mountains of evidence and vocal opposition from anti-doping 

groups - ourselves included - the IOC chose not stand up for clean athletes and against 

institutionalized doping. Instead, the IOC welcomed the Russian Olympic Committee to the Rio 

Games and punted the question of the eligibility of Russian athletes to international sport 

federations who ·- with few exceptions had neither the time nor expertise to deal effectively 

with the fallout from this sporting fraud. This decision received sharp criticism by athletes, the 

public, the media and was described as "creating massive confusion amongst international 

federations". 

On behalf of those we serve along with anti-doping leaders from around the world, we have 

been consistent and firm, the IOC missed- or ignored ·--·a defining moment to confront, in the 

clearest way possible, the win-at-all-costs culture of doping in global sport. It was an opportunity 

to draw an unambiguous line in the sand; a chance to stand up for clean athletes a chance to 

show clean athletes they cared. to send a message, loud and clear, that this type of criminal 

behavior will not be tolerated in Olympic sport. Yet, when the decisive moment arrived, when the 

lights were shining brightest. the IOC failed to lead. 

Certainly, history will not judge that decision kindly. 

However, out of the Russian doping scandal, two silver linings have emerged. The first: 

More than ever before athletes are mobilizing, voicing their opinions and fighting for a level 

playing field. And second: We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to break through entrenched 

positions for the good of clean athletes and the future of sport. We have the chance to implement 

4 
28 


the reforms necessary to make sure the kind of state-supported doping we saw in Russia- and East 

Germany before it - is never again allowed to abuse athletes by forcing them to endanger their 

health and safety to usc dangerous drugs for a sport and government system's bad purpose. 

To get there ... the road to reform starts with independence. I've had the privilege to speak 

to Congress before about the ""matrix of effectiveness'' for anti-doping programs, about the 

elements of an e!Tective anti-doping program- one armed not just to say there is "drug testing" 

for sport brand value purposes but to actually win the battle for clean athletes. In the U.S. and in 

many countries around the globe, these key elements such as, ensuring year-round, no-notice, outof-competition testing for both blood and urine and conducting robust intelligence gathering and 

investigations, have been implemented and proved successful. 

Y ct, the problems which currently plague the global anti-doping system arc even more 

basic. The most vital principle of an effective anti-doping system is that it must be free from the 

influence of sport governing bodies. It must be independent. 

Since our founding in 2000, we at USADA have advocated for a clear separation between 

those who promote sport and those who police it. To do so otherwise, we believe, is to encourage 

the fox to guard the henhouse. No matter how well intended it might begin, it simply docs not 

work. The conflict of interest is too great and clean athletes will always lose out. 

This matter of independence is without question the most important issue facing global 

anti-doping eff01ts today. In fact, it's likely the entire Russian state-supported doping scandal 

would have been exposed much sooner by the many good men and women staffed at the global 

oversight body for anti-doping in sport- the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)- had its 

governance not been hamstrung by its own lack of true independence. 

Clean athletes need and we, along with, 22 other National Anti-Doping Agencies (NADOs) 

from around the world including those from England, Japan, France, Norway, Ireland, Germany, 

Canada. Singapore, support a strong and independent WADA. But, we all also agree we need 

WADA reformed from the current status quo to become a truly independent, global regulator, not 

5 
29 


merely the sport service organization many in international sport hope it remains. 

As it stands, half of WAD A's 38-member Foundation Board and its 12-person Executive 

Committee is selected by the Olympic sports movement. These sport members are not mere 

figureheads but are lifetime sport executives with strong incentive to influence W ADA decisions 

to advance their own sport interests. One IOC leader who simultaneously sat on WADA's Board 

for years until this year, expressed his position on clean sport to The New York Times in November 

2016 by stating, "We need to stop pretending sport is clean. It's a noble principle but in practice? 

Its entertainment. Its drama." While surprisingly open and candid, not exactly the type of 

independent leadership clean athletes can or should depend on to protect their rights. 

WADA's current President is also an IOC member and served as an IOC Executive Board 

member through the Rio Olympic Games. The lack of a clear contlict of interest policy or term 

limits perpetuates the ability of sport interested decisions to take precedence over the right 

decisions for clean athletes. Additionally, the IOC is by far the single largest funder of WADA 

providing WADA $14.8M in2017. And, while this number is paltry compared to the IOC's annual 

revenue according to its 2015 Annual Report of$1.5 Billion or compared to its $3.9 Billion total 

assets including a $1.4 Billion fund balance, it is significantly larger than the next single W ADA 

contributor. the U.S. government which contributes $2.1 M in 2017. 

Unfortunately, WADA's governance structure, lacking any meaningful contlict of 

interest policy to separate sport interests from WADA governance, combined with this funding 

disparity has repeatedly undermined confidence in WADA, as when it dragged its feet in the early 

phases of its investigatory efforts into Russia. 

We know now that WADA and the IOC had compelling evidence, from whistleblowers, 

about systematic Russian cheating for several years prior to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic 

Games. Yet, action to protect clean athletes only happened after the whistle blowers- frustrated, 

they said, by inaction took their story to the media. Even then, however, it took persistent 

lobbying by clean sport advocates including some within WADA's own internal staff to finally 

convince its leaders to open up the initial Russian investigation which began in January 2015. 

6 
30 


The initial Independent Commission Report released in November of20 15, prompted calls 

for W ADA leaders to expand its investigations outside of just Track and Field from athletes from 

around the world including W ADA Athletes Committee Chair, Beckie Scott, which was 

undoubtedly the right thing to do but WADA President resisted expanding the investigation. 

Months later, again in response to media investigations by both 60-Minutcs and the New York 

Times, W ADA leadership finally embraced these calls to conduct the comprehensive investigation 

that had long been demanded. Only after a growing chorus of clean athletes, whistleblowers, 

journalists and independent anti-doping experts came together to demand a truly independent 

investigation did WADA finally do the right thing and appoint the esteemed sport judge, Professor 

Richard McLaren to lead an expanded investigation. 

By all accounts and as evidenced in his exhaustive report, Professor McLaren did an 

outstanding job, and his investigation showed beyond a reasonable doubt, what many already knew 

to be true: that the Russian state-and-sport-run doping system had corrupted international 

competition on a massive scale for years, including at least two Olympic Games, leaving countless 

stolen dreams and broken promises to athletes, fans, and sponsors in its wake. 

Ultimately, on the heels of the McLaren investigation, WADA acted in the best interests 

of athletes and recommended to the IOC that the Russian delegation be banned from the summer 

Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. However, the IOC rejected W ADA's response to Russian 

doping. As a result, hundreds of Russian athletes competed in Rio who had not been adequately 

tested under a reliable anti-doping program. 

The good news is that WADA 's conflicted governance model could be easily solved by 

removing sport leaders from the W ADA governance and implementing a proper conflict-ofinterest policy which prohibits governing members from simultaneously holding a governing role 

within a sports organization under WADA's jurisdiction. 

The fix for the IOC- which has experienced significant backlash from clean athletes in the 

wake of its inaction- is just as simple. In fact, we've said publicly on numerous occasions that if 

the lOC really wanted to put clean athletes and fair play tirst, they could. We believe that. They 

7 
31 


could do it today. 

I fthe IOC made the decision to remove itself and other sports organizations from critical 

anti-doping functions and to properly finance efforts to keep performance-enhancing drugs out of 

sport- the anti-doping landscape would be exponentially stronger, more fair and clean athletes 

would trust the global system and be much better protected. Sport involvement in these critical 

anti-doping functions is a glaring conflict of interest, and we know from experience that ifs too 

much to expect any organization to effectively promote and police itself 

That's what is so frustrating for us at USADA and for the athletes we serve. The solutions 

arc relatively easy, but the will to implement what should be uncontroversial solutions bas been 

absent from those claiming to have zero tolerance for doping in sport. 

With a truly independent W ADA and an JOC which did not fear relinquishing the power 

to police sport and supported those who dare to stand up for clean sport- the future could be bright. 

As I have said, the solutions are relatively simple. But if we continue down the road we are on ... 

if we do nothing or take only cosmetic steps and merely wait for the headlines to pass ... or worse 

yet if we react to criticism by seeking to retaliate against those who are advocating reform ... we 

risk inflicting irreparable damage to all the good things for clean athletes gained by WADA and 

NADOs over the past decade and completely lose the confidence of clean athletes and thus, the 

future viability and promise of sport. 

Over the past few months, National Anti-Doping Organizations from around the world, 

with the support of athletes, coaches, National Federations and others have put forth a series of 

specific proposals designed to reform and strengthen the global anti-doping model. 

The path forward is outlined in what has been called the ''Copenhagen Reform 

Declaration." The reforms are simple: 

Remove the fundamental conflict of interest that exists when anti-doping decisions are 

controlled by sport organizations. 

Strengthen W ADA through improved independence, transparency, and increased 

8 
32 


investment. 

Increase and make clear WADA's ability to investigate, monitor compliance and impose 

sanctions, so that countries and organizations which engage in state-supported doping are 

held accountable. 

Provide the opportunity for athletes who have been robbed by doping to have significant 

and meaningful recognition and celebration, including the swift reallocation of any medals. 

Increase support and protection for whistleblowers around the world. 

In support of these reforms, athletes from the United States have embraeed these proposals. 

But make no mistake, it's not just athletes in the United States that are growing more vocal on 

these issues. Athletes around the world have taken up this cause. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for those of us who value the rights of clean 

athletes and the preservation of a fair, safe and healthy playing field -this is our moment. The 

solutions are here - right in front of us. The governance issues which continue to cast a shadow 

over the Olympic flame could be resolved today. As a global community that deeply cares about 

athletes' rights and health, we must merely find the resolve and the courage, and sport must be 

selfless. Sport must put clean athletes first and relinquish its desire to control anti-doping. 

The personal well-being of the next generation of clean athletes hangs in the balance. This 

is not just about elite Olympic athletes -- this is about every kid on a playground who has an 

Olympic dream and asks ''what do [ have to do to make my dreams come true?" And the truth is, 

if we don't push, if we don't win, we will likely find ourselves back in this same position, years 

from now, staring another state-supported doping system in the face - one that has abused its 

athletes, and robbed another generation of clean athletes in the process. 

And, we will all be wondering why we didn't do more when we had the chance. 

9 
33 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Tygart. 

Mr. Koehler, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROB KOEHLER 

Mr. KOEHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Rob Koehler, Deputy Director of the World 

Anti-Doping Agency. First of all, thank you for inviting me to testify today about anti-doping issues in sport, an issue that I and my 

organization are passionate about. 

The World Anti-Doping Agency was established in 1999 to promote, coordinate, and monitor the fight against doping in sport. 

WADA is an independent agency responsible for the development 

and implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code. The Code harmonizes anti-doping policies in all sports in all countries. WADA 

both oversees and works with cooperation and a network of stakeholders in governments and in sports movements. Each has its own 

specific roles and responsibility. 

WADA is funded by the sports movement and the governments 

of the world. We heard today that the United States is the largest 

national contributor to WADA who funds WADA on an annual 

basis at $2.15 million of our $27.5 million annual budget. WADA 

has come a long way in 18 years on very modest resources. The 

World Anti-Doping Code is in its third iteration. The Code has introduced consistencies to the anti-doping rules and processes where 

previously there was disparity. One should not look past the importance of consistent rules and procedures, as without them antidoping efforts are merely unstructured aspirations. 

WADA has also introduced a U.N. treaty called the UNESCO 

International Convention Against Doping in Sport. This treaty was 

ratified in record time by 183 states of 195. Relationships are also 

crucial to run effectively as a small organization. For example, 

we’ve established lasting relationships with INTERPOL, with the 

world’s custom organizations, and our relationships with the pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline are 

also very helpful in terms of our research initiatives. 

While WADA has come a long way in its inception, the past 2 

years have placed the Agency in uncharted waters, the Agency and 

the broader anti-doping community. The widespread anti-doping, or 

doping conspiracy in Russia as described in the Pound Report and 

subsequent McLaren Report, both funded and sponsored by WADA, 

forced a global period of reflection on how better to fight doping in 

sport. WADA has listened to a series of proposals made by its 

stakeholders in the wake of the Russian doping conspiracy. 

WADA’s board as you know is comprised of representatives from 

the sport movement and from governments. Our board in its November meeting took action on a set of recommendations that we 

believe will both enhance WADA’s role and capacity to help foster 

clean sport and to help protect the rights of clean athletes worldwide. We’re moving forward in three main priorities. 

One, we recognize the need to enhance WADA’s investigations 

and intelligence gathering capacity. This work has already begun 

with the arrival of our new chief investigative officer whose team 

will and is entirely independent from WADA’s management. Second, WADA’s new whistleblower policy—we’ve named it Speak 

34 

Up—has been approved and will be launched in the coming days. 

As the last couple of years have shown, informants and whistleblowers are invaluable to the fight against doping in sport. 

Third, and perhaps the most important, is WADA’s new compliance monitoring which will be the most thorough review of our 

stakeholders’ anti-doping programs that has ever taken place in 

the anti-doping movement. It will raise the standards of the entire 

clean sport community. We recognize, however, that this compliance monitoring program will only be effective if supported by 

meaningful, predictable, and proportionate sanctions for those organizations that subvert anti-doping rules. 

Our Foundation Board endorsed principled, new graded sanction 

framework moving forward to ensure that people are made accountable for making mistakes. WADA is focused on these three 

priorities. We are all conscious that these new strategic undertakings will require a significant level of funding if we are to realize our mission to protect the clean athlete. We will present to our 

board a clean slate draft of our 2018 budget to reflect this new 

level of work. Simply put, to increase our capacity in the broader 

anti-doping community we’ll need additional funding from both 

sport and government to be more successful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koehler follows:] 

35 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

Written Testimony of Mr. Rob Koehler, Deputy Director General of the 

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), delivered before the United 

States Congress on Tuesday 28 February 2017 

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 to promote, 

coordinate, and monitor at the international level the fight against doping in 

sport. WADA is an international, independent agency that is responsible for 

the development and implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), 

the document that harmonizes anti-doping policies in all sports in all 

countries. WADA oversees and works in cooperation with a network of 

stakeholders in government and in the sports movement, each of which has 

its own specific set of roles and responsibilities. Our key activities include 

scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, 

monitoring of the Code, and, more recently, investigations. WADA is 

composed and funded equally by the sports movement and the governments 

of the world, and it is worth noting that the United States is the largest 

contributor to WADA of any country worldwide, and in 2016 contributed USD 

$2.15m of WADA's total USD $27.5m annual budget. WADA has indeed 

enjoyed a constructive and supportive relationship with the United States 

government since the Agency's inception. 

WADA has come a long way in 18 years and on modest means. Amongst our 

successes, we can count: the introduction of three iterations of the World 

Anti-Doping Code, which has introduced consistency to anti-doping rules and 

processes, where previously there was disparity; the introduction and 

ratification in record time of an international UN treaty called 'The UNESCO 

International Convention against Doping in Sport' (this has now been ratified 

by 183 of 195 states worldwide); the establishment of lasting relationships 

with the likes of INTERPOL and the World Customs Organization in the law 

enforcement industry, and with pharmaceutical giants, Pfizer, Roche and 

GlaxoSmithKiine; and, as is well known by now, the initiation of groundbreaking, independent investigations that uncovered institutionalized doping 

in Russia which have transformed today's sporting landscape. 

As is evident, WADA has come a long way in its relatively short 18-year 

history. It is the past two years, however, that have placed the Agency - and 

the broader anti-doping movement- in unchartered waters. In light of, 

initially, the findings of the Pound Report 9 (into widespread doping in 

Russian athletics), and then subsequently, the findings of the Mclaren Report 

Part I (into the institutionalized doping conspiracy and manipulation of the 

doping control process in Russia), the anti-doping community was faced with 

Stock Exchange Tower, 800 Place Victoria (Suite 1700), PO Box 120- Montreal (Quebec) H4Z 187 Canada 

Tel: + 1 514 904 9232 o Fax:+ I 514 904 8650 

www.wada-ama.org 
36 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

an unprecedented situation, and subsequently entered a period of reflection 

to ensure that the collective effort to fight doping would be strengthened, 

and to ensure that WADA, as the international leader of the clean sport 

movement, would be fit to face the challenges of the future. 

WADA listened to a series of proposals made by its stakeholders in the 

second half of 2016, and then in Glasgow, Scotland on 20 November, during 

WADA's Foundation Board meeting, the Board- which is comprised of the 

sport movement and government- reached a consensus on a number of 

recommendations that would strengthen and empower WADA to enhance its 

leadership role, and help protect the rights of clean athletes worldwide. At 

the heart of this new way forward were three main priorities: 

1. First, the need to enhance WADA's investigations and intelligencegathering capability. This work has already begun, with the arrival of a 

new Chief Investigative Officer, Gunter Younger who had 30 years' 

experience in law enforcement with Europol and Interpol, before 

serving on the Pound Commission. Mr. Younger's department- which 

runs entirely independently of WADA Management- has plans to grow 

from two to six people, and when at full strength, will help the Agency 

make significant headway in detecting and deterring doping. The 

investigative work commissioned by the Agency over the past two 

years has proven how effective investigative work can be to the 

protection of clean sport. 

2. Second, WADA's new Whistleblower Program ('Speak Up!') has been 

approved and will launch in the coming days. As the last couple of 

years have shown, informants and whistleblowers are invaluable to 

anti-doping, and so WADA deemed it important to formalize their role 

(in the anti-doping process) through the introduction of a Program and 

supporting Policy. We recognize that speaking up against doping is a 

courageous and bold act, and so by introducing the Program, we hope 

to encourage informants and whistleblowers to come forward with 

information regarding doping. The Whistleblower Program will be 

underpinned with the necessary legal framework to guarantee 

whistleblowers' confidentiality and safety, and will demonstrate how 

highly we value their information and intelligence. And whilst WADA 

does not possess the legal powers [of a law enforcement agency] to 

compel individuals to speak about doping practices, we have struck 

important partnerships with the likes of Interpol and the World 

Customs Organization so that we can share significant information on 

doping practices, and so that those organizations can use their legal 

powers as it relates to criminal practices. Furthermore, using the same 

network, we can ensure that before the name of a whistleblower is 

-- -- - ----- ---- -----------·--··-------------- ------ ___ _. ·---·---·-·------ Stock Exchange Tower, 800 Place V!ctor'1a (Suite 1700), PO Box 120 Montreal (Quebec) H4Z 187 Canada 

Tel: + 1 514 904 9232 o Fax: + 1 514 904 8650 

www.wada-ama.org 
37 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

revealed (at his or her demand), the relevant law enforcement agency 

is aware and ready to ensure protection if necessary. 

3. Third, and perhaps most important, is WADA's ISO-certified World 

Anti-Doping Code Compliance Monitoring Program, which will be the 

most thorough review of our stakeholders' anti-doping programs that 

has ever taken place. It will raise the standards of the entire clean 

sport community, and in turn, reinforce athlete and public confidence 

into the standards of anti-doping work. As part of this program, we 

have issued a Code Compliance Questionnaire to all our Signatories 

that will help us better evaluate the current state of their anti-doping 

programs, and we have also launched a rigorous Audit Program into at 

least 10 National Anti-Doping Organizations or International Sport 

Federations in 2017. This Audit Program will be conducted by trained 

individuals from WADA and external experts in anti-doping. 

We recognize that this new Compliance Monitoring Program will only 

be effective if supported by meaningful, predictable and proportionate 

sanctions for those organizations that subvert anti-doping rules. And 

that is why our Foundation Board endorsed in principle a new Graded 

Sanctioning Framework that would clearly, consistently and predictably 

set out the consequences for non-compliance by one of WADA's 

signatories; and, as a result, would deter organizations from becoming 

non-compliant. Once it would enter into force, the system would be a 

game-changer for the clean sport movement. Crucially, this new 

system has the backing of the clean athlete community worldwide. 

WADA is resolutely focussed on these three priorities, amongst its numerous 

other activities, however we are also conscious that these new strategic 

undertakings will require a significant new level of funding if we are to realize 

our mission to protect the clean athlete. That is why the Agency, along with 

its Finance Committee, is in the process of developing a 'clean slate' draft 

2018 budget to reflect this new level of work. This budget will be presented 

at WADA's next Foundation Board meeting in Montreal just a couple of 

months from now, and will be a very interesting indication of the financial 

resources required for WADA to continue to expand its role. 

Twelve months ago, we spoke of being at a 'crossroads' in the fight against 

doping, but today I can stand before you and clearly state that the antidoping movement has chosen its path, and is well underway on the journey 

of building on its accomplishments, with a strengthened, empowered and 

independent WADA at the helm. 

--,--~~~- ~-"~~---~-- ----.-- -----·-----------~----·----

Stock Exchange Tower, 800 Place Victona (Suite 1700), PO Box 120- Montreal {Quebec) H4Z 1B7 Canada 

Tel: + 1 514 904 9232 o Fax: + 1 514 904 8650 

www.wada-ama.org 
38 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

Thank you. 

Stock Exchange Tower, 800 Place Victona (Suite 1700), PO Box 120 - Montreal (Quebec) H4Z 187 Canada 

Tel: + 1 514 904 9232 o Fax: + 1 514 904 8650 

www .wada-ama .org 
39 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Koehler. 

Dr. Budgett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BUDGETT 

Dr. BUDGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the subcommittee. My name is Richard Budgett. I’m the 

medical and scientific director of the IOC, and I’m very pleased to 

have the opportunity to present to you on behalf of the IOC on 

strengthening the international anti-doping system. Clearly, the cooperation between sport and government is extremely important. 

The protection of clean athletes has been an absolute priority for 

the IOC. 

Primarily, we are responsible for anti-doping at the Games, but 

our responsibility is broader than that across the whole Olympic 

family. And perhaps the most important thing the IOC ever did in 

the field of anti-doping was to found WADA in 1999. For the first 

2 years it was totally funded by the IOC, and then as you’ve heard 

it became a partnership 50/50 between government and sport. 

And now the IOC fund WADA to the tune of 14 million a year, 

and of course the sporting community as a whole spends hundreds 

of millions of dollars a year on anti-doping. Now more recently with 

Agenda 2020, the importance of protecting the clean athlete was 

really put central within the IOC’s strategy and since then there 

have been two Olympic Summits which have called for an increase 

in independence, increased harmonization, and increased transparency. 

Now my own personal and professional commitment to this really 

began in 1984 when as a rowing athlete I won an Olympic gold 

medal in Los Angeles. Since then I’ve been a sport medicine doctor 

and looked after Olympic athletes all around the world for more 

than 25 years. And that’s given me a passionate commitment that 

we have to do everything we possibly can to ensure that Olympic 

athletes like the two fantastic Olympic athletes we have with us 

today can be as sure as possible that they are competing on a level 

playing field. 

Now in 2012 I became chief medical officer for the London Olympics, and then since 2012 I’ve been the IOC medical and scientific 

director responsible for the prevention of injuries and illness in 

athletes, for education research, and of course for anti-doping 

which of course is a threat to health. 

As we’ve heard, there’s a small silver lining in the recent scandals, which is this acceptance amongst the anti-doping community 

that we have to strengthen the world anti-doping system. And I 

really appreciate you calling this hearing and giving the platform 

for us to make changes and for the support of WADA from the U.S. 

For the IOC’s part, we strongly support the regulatory role of 

WADA, standards, compliance as you’ve heard, and assessment of 

anti-doping organizations. But this will only succeed if it’s seen as 

fair. So there must be respect for individual justice and we mustn’t 

sanction or punish athletes for the failure of others. 

As part of governance, the IOC have called for leaders of WADA 

to be independent, so we’re in agreement on that—independent 

from sport and government—and we’ve called for further independence through the whole system, separating legislation from policing 

40 

and from sanctioning so you don’t have the same body setting the 

rules, enforcing the rules, and actually determining the punishment. 

In order to avoid conflict of interest or any perception of conflict 

of interest, the IOC have called for anti-doping testing to be independent all around the world. And as a result, the independent 

testing authority could do everything from the testing and analysis 

through to the storing of samples for up to 10 years and the reanalysis through to the prosecution of cases in the same way as the 

IOC did in Rio, where it made that independent from the IOC 

through a CAS arbitration panel. This way, with an independent 

testing authority, athletes can be confident that their peers 

throughout the world are also being tested to a similar standard. 

As regards to the McLaren Report, this was a shocking institutional conspiracy. The IOC have taken it extremely seriously. As 

you’ve heard, there were two commissions, an inquiry commission 

under Samuel Schmid, past President of Switzerland, looking at 

the whole, and a disciplinary commission under Denis Oswald looking at individual cases. As Professor McLaren has acknowledged, 

there are challenges there because the evidence he gathered is not 

designed to be used to prosecute individual cases. 

But we’re working hard with further forensic analysis, further 

reanalysis, and gathering of evidence so these cases can be pursued 

with the cooperation of WADA, of the independent person and his 

team, and also the international federations. These commissions 

are ongoing and should finish in time for the Pyongchang Games. 

They must finish by then. 

Ultimately, the goal of the IOC is the protection of the clean athlete, and we are fully determined to work with all those involved 

in this fight as WADA, the international federations, the athletes 

and their entourage, and with governments. So thank you for this 

opportunity to address you, and I’m ready to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Budgett follows:] 

41 


Confidential 

Testimony of Dr Richard Budgett 

Medical and Scientific Director 

International Olympic Committee 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Hearing on 

"Ways to Improve and Strengthen the International Anti-Doping System" 

28 February 2017 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with 

you, on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), about the ways to improve and strengthen the 

international anti-doping system. Thank you for convening this hearing and for your interest in this important 

topic. The IOC has long recognised that cooperation between sport organisations and government 

authorities is essential for success in protecting clean athletes. 

The protection of clean athletes is an absolute priority for the International Olympic Committee, and the IOC 

has been at the forefront of this effort for more than 50 years. Protecting the integrity of sport against those 

who seek unfair advantage requires constant vigilance and proactive improvements in methods of education, 

prevention and detection. The IOC's direct responsibility for anti-doping measures is limited to the Olympic 

and Youth Olympic Games. but our commitment to protecting clean athletes is much broader. 

This is why the IOC founded, in 1999, the World Anti-Doping Agency fYVADA) and financed it for the first two 

years. Since 2001, the IOC has provided half of WADA's budget with the other coming from governments. In 

2016, the IOC contributed more than USD 14 million to WADA. In addition to this direct support to WADA 

from the IOC, the worldwide sporting movement invests an estimated USD 300 million a year on anti-doping 

activity. 

For all these reasons, the IOC, more than any other stakeholder, has a deep and abiding interest in having a 

well-functioning WADA. 
42 


Confidentiel 

The IOC strongly reaffirmed its commitment to protecting clean athletes in 2014 with the adoption of Olympic 

Agenda 2020, which also established a 20 million dollar "Protection of Clean Athletes" fund and extended the 

period for post-Games re-analysis to 10 years. Since then, the IOC has convened two Olympic Summits with 

stakeholders from throughout the world of sport to promote greater independence, harmonisation and 

transparency within the world-wide fight against doping in sport. 

My own commitment to this issue is both personal and professional. 

As a former athlete and Olympic Champion in Rowing in 1984, I have very strong feelings about attempts to 

undermine fair competition. As a Doctor in Sport and Exercise Medicine, I have had an opportunity to do 

something about it. I have devoted a large part of my career to the fight against doping in sport. Athletes like 

the two great Olympians with us today, should be confident that they can compete on a level playing field. 

In my capacity as the IOC's Medical and Scientific Director, I am responsible for ensuring the health and 

safety of athletes at all editions of the Olympic and Youth Olympic Games. I also oversee all of the IOC's 

medical and scientific programs, including injury and illness prevention, education, research and the 

promotion of the health legacy from the Games. 

Before joining the IOC in October 2012, I was the Chief Medical Officer and oversaw Doping Control and 

Medical Services at the Olympic Games in London. I have also served as team doctor for British Olympic 

Teams. I have been a member of the World-Anti-Doping-Agency's Prohibit List Expert Group, which 

identifies substances that should be prohibited in sport, since 2005, and have served on several national and 

international substance review panels. My publications related to Olympic sport include works focused on 

anti-doping issues. 

From my perspective, doping is not just a threat to the integrity of sport; it is a threat to the health and safety 

of the athletes that I have an obligation to protect Clean sport promotes health. Doping can destroy it 

The recent scandals around doping and sports manipulation have confirmed the need to strengthen the 

world-wide anti-doping system. In order to do so, it is necessary that WADA be confirmed as the regulatory 

body, setting the standards for compliance, and carrying out the assessment of all anti-doping organisations. 

The IOC strongly supports WADA in the lead to fight doping in sport and to protect clean athletes. The 

current review of the world anti-doping system must result in a stronger and more efficient WADA, with more 

authority over Anti-Doping Organisations (ADOs). It is crucial that WADA can ensure that NADOs, all around 
43 


Confidentiel 

the world, are carrying out more testing on visiting athletes. In addition, sports organisations at all levelsincluding the professional leagues in the United States - should be signatories of the World Anti-Doping 

Code and commit to be Code Compliant. 

Compliance monitoring, conducted by WADA, is also an important process which needs to be enhanced to 

ensure the protection of clean athletes. The IOC supports WADA's initiative to strengthen its compliance 

programme, including for sports organisations. 

A compliance programme can only be effective if it is viewed as fair to all parties. Individual justice must be 

respected and guaranteed with a compliance framework designed to ensure that sanctions target only those 

responsible for non-compliance. In accordance with the principles of individual justice, clean athletes should 

not be sanctioned or punished for the failures of others. 

Further in the interest of the athletes and for a greater independence of the anti-doping system, the IOC has 

offered a number of proposals to strengthen WADA's governance, including stricter guidelines on conflict of 

interest, and a clear separation between WADA's legislative, policing and sanctioning roles. The same 

organisation should not be empowered to make the rules, enforce the rules and determine the punishment 

for violating the rules. 

The IOC has also proposed eliminating the current system of rotating appointments for WADA's senior 

leadership and has suggested that WADA's future leaders should be independent, without ties to sports 

organisations or governments. Fundamental fairness requires that the decision on the level and type of 

sanctions be independent and separated from the investigation "policing" role carried out by WAD A. 

To avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, the IOC has proposed, with the support of the 51

h 

Olympic Summit, that anti-doping testing be independent from sports organisations and national interests. 

The Olympic Summit also called for the establishment, coordinated by WADA, of an Independent Testing 

Authority (ITA). The ITA will ensure equal treatment for all athletes around the world by establishing a 

harmonised standard for anti-doping testing. ITA will also provide a full doping control service that includes: 

Organising in and out of competition anti-doping controls using NADOs and private 

sample collection agencies; all analysis are exclusively conducted in WADA accredited/approved 

laboratories; 
44 


Confidentiel 

Establishing test distribution plans as well as the selection and number of athletes in the 

RTP; 

Collecting whereabouts and dealing with filing failures and missed tests; 

Managing the Athlete Biological Passport programme; 

Conducting the Results Management of cases; 

Prosecuting cases before an independent first instance body; 

Managing Therapeutic Use Exemptions; 

Collecting intelligence and conducting investigations in close partnership with actors in 

the field (WADA, NADOs and others); 

Managing storage of samples and analytical raw-data; 

Managing reanalysis; 

Setting-up a network of DCOs able to test worldwide in addition to using current 

providers. 

WADA has responded to this call by establishing a Steering Group, with representatives from the Olympic 

Movement and public authorities, to recommend the best way to establish the ITA, and this ahead of the 

Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 in February. The IOC is convinced that the ITA is a great 

opportunity towards ensuring the protection of clean athletes and that its success will come through a strong 

cooperation between WADA, the sports organisations and the governments. 

During the Olympic Games Rio 2016, the IOC went even further by separating its sanctioning powers. An 

Ad-Hoc chamber of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was given sanctioning authority, with no change 

in the right of appeal to the CAS appeal chamber. By the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018, the 

IOC will also establish an independent investigation procedure and has proposed that sports organisations 

adopt similar measures. 

With regards to the findings of the Independent Person Report, also referred to as the Mclaren Report and 

mandated by WADA, on doping and manipulation in Russia, the IOC has established two Commissions, an 

Inquiry Commission and a Disciplinary Commission, to follow up on the allegations raised in the report. 
45 


Confidentiel 

These two Commissions started their work last year, even before the publication of the full and final report by 

Professor Richard Mclaren in December. 

The Inquiry Commission, chaired by the former President of Switzerland, Samuel Schmid, is 

addressing systemic issues. It is looking into evidence of an "institutional conspiracy across 

summer and winter sports athletes who participated with Russian officials within the Ministry of 

Sport and its infrastructure, such as RUSADA, CSP and the Moscow Laboratory along with the 

FSB", in particular with regard to the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. 

The Disciplinary Commission, chaired by IOC Member Denis Oswald, is addressing issues at the 

individual level. It is looking into evidence of doping and manipulation of samples involving the 

Russian athletes who participated in the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. In the context of this 

Disciplinary Commission, all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi are 

being re-analysed. The re-analysis will be to establish whether there was doping or whether the 

samples themselves were manipulated. 

The work of the two Commissions is ongoing and they continue to closely cooperate with Professor 

Mclaren, WADA and the International Federations. Gathering reliable evidence has been a significant 

challenge, as some IFs have already experienced; some IFs have had to lift provisional suspensions or 

postpone disciplinary procedures due to a lack of consistent evidence. 

In closing, let me reiterate that the IOC's ultimate goal is the protection of clean athletes and that we are fully 

determined to cooperate with all the actors engaged in the fight against doping in sport, this not only includes 

WADA, the International Federations and the athletes, with their entourage, but also the Governments. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here this morning, and I look forward to your questions. 

To further detail the above testimony, please find enclosed: 

4" Olympic Summit Declaration : 

5 
46 


Confidentiel 

https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Conferences Forums and Events/2015-0iympicSummit/2015 10-17 Communique Olympic Summit-English.pdf 

5'" Olympic Summit Declaration : 

https://stillm ed.olympic.orglmedia/Document%20Ubrary/Oiympic0rg/News/201611 0/2016-1 0-08-

Declaration-Oiympic-Summit.pdf 

IOC Press release, dated 9 December 2016, on the Final Independent Person Report: 

https://www.olympic.org/news/statement-of-the-ioc-regarding-the-independent-person-report 

6 
47 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you to all of our witnesses today. I will recognize myself for 5 minute of questions. 

So recently, nearly two dozen national anti-doping agencies have 

voiced support for a number of reforms they believe are necessary 

to strengthen international anti-doping oversight and enforcement. 

Central to these reforms is the removal of sports organizations 

from the governance of anti-doping organizations including WADA. 

This would eliminate what many view as a glaring conflict of interest, in Mr. Tygart’s words, the fox guarding the henhouse. 

So Mr. Koehler, based on your experience at WADA, would the 

removal of sports organizations from your governance structure improve your independence and operations? 

Mr. KOEHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the first thing I 

want to draw back is we hear the word, WADA is broken, WADA 

needs to be fixed. And we’re here today for the simple reason that 

WADA did a lot to expose doping in Russia and it brought to the 

forefront the major issues. 

Mr. MURPHY. Right, but would removal of sports organizations 

from your governance structure improve your independence and operations? Would it improve it? 

Mr. KOEHLER. I’m not sure if it will improve it. I think there’s 

a process going on right now where we’re doing a complete governance review on how we can strengthen the organization and we are 

open to any suggestions on the way forward. 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, Dr. Budgett, do you and the IOC support this 

type of reform? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Yes, we do support this reform and we—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Are you taking steps to invoke this change? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Yes. So and in fact WADA, to be honest, have 

taken steps to invoke that change with this governance review 

which has independent experts as well as representatives from 

sport and from government to look at the total governance of 

WADA, and particularly the executive board should be independent 

of both sport and government. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Tygart, do you have anything to add to those 

comments? 

Mr. TYGART. I would just say if in fact that’s now the position 

that’s wonderful. We’ll see if it happens. We’ve had 2-plus years for 

that move to be made and athletes are still waiting for some 

change and that sport today, frankly, could remove themselves 

from the governance of WADA, but we haven’t seen it. We’ve heard 

discussion of separation of powers and we certainly agree with that 

basic principle. 

And you can have sport involved in the legislative branch, but 

when it comes time to the most important functions to protecting 

clean athletes is to have an executive function that is free of the 

fox attempting to guard itself and not conflicted by that. And we’ve 

yet to have a definitive statement or position by the IOC to remove 

themselves from that. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. TYGART. So if that’s the position, we fully agree and we’re 

thrilled. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. TYGART. If that’s now the position. 

48 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Phelps, in your testimony you write that—it is 

an important quote—‘‘To believe in yourself through sport, you 

need to be able to believe in the system that safeguards clean sport 

and fair play. All athletes must be held to the same standards, 

which need to be implemented and enforced with consistency and 

independence.’’ 

So given these recent events, what effect does a doping scheme 

of this magnitude have upon you as an athlete? 

Mr. PHELPS. I mean, one of the kind of craziest things and biggest things that comes to my mind when I think of international 

sports is—and I’ve said this to Travis—I don’t believe that I’ve 

stood up at an international competition and the rest of the field 

has been clean. I don’t believe that. I don’t think I’ve ever felt that. 

And I know that when I do stand up in the U.S., I know we’re 

all clean because we’re going through the same thing. We’re going 

through the whereabouts, we’re going through the out of competition tests, we’re doing all of that stuff. So I think for me in terms 

of internationally, I think there has to be something done, and like 

I said it has to be done now. 

Mr. MURPHY. And Mr. Nelson, how about you? And what effect 

does this have on our youth, especially those that also have dreams 

about being the best and competing on Olympic level? 

Mr. NELSON. This notion of trust is really important. As athletes 

we trust that these organizations that are looking out for our best 

interests, our competitive interests, our integrity, are doing their 

jobs to the best of their abilities and being open and honest and 

transparent with how things are going. 

Last year, or 2015, I think there was a major violation in that 

trust and things that we used to as athletes maybe not pay as close 

attention to or say someone else is looking after it. Now I think we 

see a change in the culture of athletes that says they’re not doing 

their job appropriately yet, we have to do it for them. And I think 

that that’s a big shift in the culture of athletics going on right now. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I am just going to recognize Ms. 

DeGette now for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tygart, I found 

your written and also your oral testimony to be refreshingly honest, 

and I want to talk about a few of the findings that you made. You 

referred in your written testimony to the Russian cheating scheme 

as shockingly pervasive and noted that it, quote, spread across 

more than 30 sports from at least 2011 to 2015; is that correct? 

Mr. TYGART. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And you also said, quote, Russia’s methods of 

cheating went from abhorrent to something out of a spy novel. 

Samples passed through walls, government intelligence officers, 

male DNA in female samples, and emails to the Russian Ministry 

of Sport looking for guidance on which doped athletes to protect 

and which to satisfy; is that correct? 

Mr. TYGART. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now also in your testimony you describe this as 

a, quote, nightmare realized, and you point out that whistleblowers 

and journalists played a major role in unearthing this scheme. Now 

Mr. Tygart, some of these whistleblowers feared for their own safety; is that correct? 

49 

Mr. TYGART. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. In fact some of those folks are still in hiding in 

the United States; is that right? 

Mr. TYGART. That’s right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Also WADA’s independent investigation determined that the Russian Security Service, also known as the FSB, 

took part in this cheating scheme; is that correct? 

Mr. TYGART. That’s right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now WADA’s independent investigation found 

that over 1,000 Russian athletes might have benefited from the 

Russian doping scheme; is that correct? 

Mr. TYGART. Yes, it is. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And you also said in your testimony that, quote, 

despite mountains of evidence, the IOC chose not to stand up for 

clean athletes and against institutionalized doping. You said that 

the IOC’s decision not to ban Russia was, quote, defining moment 

and, quote, the IOC failed to lead. Finally, you said, history will 

not judge the IOC’s decision kindly. Is that an accurate—— 

Mr. TYGART. It is. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So I want to ask you, Mr. Tygart, what should the 

IOC and the anti-doping community be doing now to address the 

findings of WADA’s independent investigation? 

Mr. TYGART. I think outside of the reform proposals that we’ve 

put forward, which we think are critically important and the 22- 

plus NADOs from around the world have agreed, you have to, the 

silver bullet if there is one to curing this is removing the fox from 

guarding the henhouse. 

Now while it wasn’t in the IOC’s prepared remarks that were 

submitted yesterday, I think I heard that that is something they’re 

prepared to do, remove sport leaders from the WADA governance 

board, and if that’s the case that goes a long way in solving the 

concerns. They also have to finish the investigation and ensure 

that the individual cases are followed up on and any athletes from 

around the world that were robbed get their rightful place on the 

podium and are given a meaningful celebration. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And just to ask, are you familiar with this letter 

that the Director General of the IOC sent on February 23rd, 2017? 

Mr. TYGART. I am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And in that letter he says, ‘‘The Schmid Commission, which has to address the substantial allegations about the potential systematic manipulation of the anti-doping samples, is also 

continuing its work.’’ And then it says they are talking about a, 

quote, state-sponsored system, whilst in the final full report in December they talked about an ‘‘institutional conspiracy.’’ And they 

said now they are going to have to, quote, consider what this 

change means and what individuals, organizations, or government 

authorities may have been involved. Do you have any idea what 

they are talking about there? 

Mr. TYGART. I’m not exactly sure. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Because this is what I am concerned about. You 

know, this committee, we did an investigation many years ago 

around the Salt Lake City Olympics, and this is the same kind of 

gobbledygook we got from the IOC then. They have these unending 

investigations. They are looking at angels dancing on the head of 

50 

a pin. I don’t even know what they are talking about, but you are 

saying you don’t, either. 

Mr. TYGART. I’m not sure. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. I want to ask you, Mr. Phelps, and you, Mr. 

Nelson, just briefly, what structural changes need to be made to 

the global anti-doping system to prevent this kind of activity from 

happening again? 

Mr. PHELPS. For me, I can say from spending and working a lot 

of time with USADA, look at the independence that they have. I 

think that’s something that’s so powerful, that us as American athletes know that we’re doing the right thing and they’re doing the 

right thing as well. So I mean, I think if you could change something like that I think it would be great. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. NELSON. I think the first change has to be holding all the 

different stakeholders in this mess to the same level of accountability that they hold the athletes to. If you strictly enforce the 

rules for compliance at a national level or a federation level, you’ll 

see people hop in line very quickly, because they will lose the opportunity to compete and their athletes will lose the opportunity to 

compete. 

The second thing is also transparency in reporting. As an athlete, 

I’ve always struggled to figure out how well this group is doing because the information’s not necessarily readily available. Now 

there’s been some steps I think in the last few years to help with 

that, but the number of adverse findings given the number of samples that are actually collected each year suggest that either the 

problem is not as pervasive as they think or that the testing isn’t 

quite there yet. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put this February 23rd letter from the IOC into the record. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Without objection, that will happen. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MURPHY. I now recognize Mr. Walden for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again 

thanks to all of our witnesses, your testimony has been most helpful in our work. And I want to just ask our Olympians again to 

make this clear, you don’t think you have ever competed in a clean 

Olympics; is that right? 

Mr. PHELPS. Internationally, whether it’s world championships or 

the Olympic Games, I don’t feel that. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Now Dr. Budgett, I have a question for you. 

I just want to clarify to make sure we all heard this the same way 

that your organization now would support removing sport leaders 

from the WADA board; is that true? 

Dr. BUDGETT. That’s absolutely correct, obviously within a structure of governance that will be developed through this governance 

working part that the WADA have put together. It should happen 

within the year. 

Mr. WALDEN. Within the year, OK, so I want to go back. Here 

is why I think a lot of us are concerned. There are whistleblowers 

51 

as far back as 2010 who probably risked more than just their ability to compete to come forward and share with the organization 

what was going on. And it strikes me that it wasn’t until there 

were investigative press reports that anything happened. And so 

the question is do you have a process that we can trust that whistleblowers who take great risk could trust to come forward and actually have some action taken on what they share? Because clearly 

people are at great risk when they come forward and they are not 

going to do it if they think they are just going to get blown off. And 

so I mean, you have got to convince us that something is going to 

really change here. 

Dr. BUDGETT. Yes. I mean that is why WADA is in place, so I 

would refer that question to my colleague on my right. But just to 

reiterate that the IOC is in the process of removing the fox from 

the henhouse, and I think it’s a good analogy. So we are actually 

in the process, we’re relinquishing all control over anti-doping. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Dr. BUDGETT. And I’m going to pass it to this independent testing authority. 

Mr. WALDEN. Because, you know, I have a degree in journalism. 

I was in the radio business—sources matter. Sources matter, it is 

how organizations and the press can do their job effectively, but if 

they are ignored they go away and we lose out. 

Mr. Koehler, whistle—— 

Mr. KOEHLER. I fully agree—sorry. 

Mr. WALDEN. Go ahead. 

Mr. KOEHLER. Thank you. It is so important to protect the whistleblowers, and I think it’s the right time to recognize two very 

brave whistleblowers, the Stepanovas, who came forward in early 

2010. Yes, we didn’t have the power to investigate it, but what I 

can tell you during that time is that when the Stepanovas came 

forward our ultimate goal was to protect their safety. We had information from them that came from the IAAF about corruption, from 

Russia about corruption. We didn’t know who to hand it to, so we 

were in a difficult position and we had no power to investigate. 

There’s no question when the Stepanovas came forward. 

Mr. WALDEN. So who had the power to investigate? 

Mr. KOEHLER. Nobody except the national federations, so the 

Government or the International Athletics Federation, and it 

wasn’t until 2015 that the Code changed and gave us that power 

to investigate. 

Mr. WALDEN. What a broken system. What a broken system up 

to that point. I mean how else can you look at this? Now you have 

got these new reports. You have the—thank God for the investigative journalists that blew the doors open on this. So now you have 

got the reports, now you are going to give us confidence that you 

are going to reorganize this operation and get to the point where 

we don’t have conflicts of interest and where our athletes, especially U.S. athletes that play by the rules, can compete against 

other athletes that play by the rules, right? 

Mr. KOEHLER. I can tell you that, categorically, that any whistleblower that comes forward to this day as of 2015, that our numberone priority is to protect them, to protect their rights. Even when 

52 

we didn’t have the investigative power we took it upon ourselves 

to protect the Stepanovas to make sure they were safe. 

Mr. WALDEN. So are you aware of any whistleblowers who have 

come forth recently and made additional allegations? 

Mr. KOEHLER. We are, yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. And are those allegations being investigated in any 

manner, or do you still lack that authority? 

Mr. KOEHLER. Absolutely, all are being investigated. 

Mr. WALDEN. So what happens, I mean once you complete your 

investigation? Who rules, walk me through that part. 

Mr. KOEHLER. Any time there’s a whistleblower that comes forward our investigative team which again is going to be six people, 

not nearly enough for a global organization. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. KOEHLER. They have an independent role to bring forward 

and to research and investigate anti-doping rule violations. Should 

they have evidence, then they will bring it forward to the WADA 

management and to the WADA committees and to the WADA 

Foundation Board to report and determine what sanctions should 

be required. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Tygart is shaking his head. 

Mr. TYGART. I’m sorry. 

Mr. WALDEN. Go ahead. 

Mr. TYGART. I just think there’s a really important point here 

and it’s what I said in my oral testimony about deputizing the fox. 

If the WADA Foundation Board that is making determinations and 

overseeing investigations or testing, and Dr. Budgett talked about 

removing sport from the WADA Governance Board and not just 

from a testing organization, that is a critical point because if you 

continue to have sport overseeing investigations, determining compliance, acting as a global regulator of itself, it’s no different than 

the current status quo which is the fox guarding the henhouse. 

And so we have to, it would be great to have a definitive conclusion if the IOC’s position today is at the WADA governance level, 

the global regulator, they are going to remove themselves from that 

board which they could do today. It doesn’t take another Summit 

to do that. They could do it today. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses. 

Mr. MURPHY. I now recognize Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to discuss the 

role of the athletes in addressing the challenges we face with 

doping. And Mr. Tygart, in an article you wrote called The Athletes 

Voice: A Force For Change you say, and I quote, At the end of the 

day, it’s the athletes, not the suits, who billions of people around 

the world tune in to watch. It’s the athletes who leave us holding 

our breath. Without them, there is no sport. And without them, 

there is no true and lasting change, unquote. 

So you say in your testimony that now more than ever athletes 

are mobilizing and voicing their opinions. My question is what role 

should athletes play in terms of policing their own sports specifically and the anti-doping structure more broadly? 

Mr. TYGART. Well, it starts with the athletes. I mean they own 

the culture of sport and it’s wonderful. It’s sad it took this scandal 

53 

to mobilize them in the way that it has, but it’s wonderful that 

they’re now mobilizing and realizing how important this right is to 

them. But they also have to have confidence in the system, should 

have a clear voice in the system, but just like the sports organizations they can’t play a role as active athletes in testing themselves. 

That would be like the fox guarding the henhouse. 

There has to be an independent organization that does it on behalf of those athletes, but them protecting that field that they exist 

in is absolutely critical. And we won’t ultimately be successful 

without their buy-in to the program, faith and trust in the system, 

and willingness to do everything possible to win, but do it by playing by the rules. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thanks. I am going to ask Mr. Phelps the same 

question. What is the role that athletes should be playing in terms 

of ensuring their sports are free from doping? 

Mr. PHELPS. For me, as an athlete I have always made sure that 

I take care of myself and prepare myself the best way possible. 

That’s what I’ve always done. I’ve never voiced opinions. I’ve always kept in, I’ve stayed in my lane, so to say, all the time. Because it’s, you know, for me it takes away what I’m doing. You 

know, it takes away what I’m trying to accomplish, and I think 

that’s just one thing for me that I never did. I never voiced opinions, really, before this year. 

And, you know, obviously, as an athlete who’s been around for 

a couple of Olympics and seen a lot of things happen, it gets frustrating. And we want to be, you know, for me I would like to stand 

up on the block in an international competition and know that the 

other seven competitors that I’m racing against prepared just like 

I did. They went through the exact same hard work that I did. 

They dedicated themselves to doing what nobody has done before, 

or, you know, to accomplishing their goal. And that would be a 

dream for me, and I hope to be able to see that one day. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thanks. 

Mr. Nelson, should athletes be more vocal going forward and demand reform so that we can better ensure the systems in place will 

guarantee clean play? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, I believe they should be more vocal. But more 

than just using their words, I think they need to be integrated into 

the solution, as well. Right now, the way athletes’ voices are integrated into the solution of Olympic sports is through the internal 

athletes’ advisory committees. Those committees very rarely have 

the power to influence, to do anything other than influence policy 

with people coming to them by asking questions. It’s a reactive 

force, not a proactive force. 

With this particular issue, considering that it invades on so 

many athletes, it invades on the privacy of so many athletes, it’s 

a huge burden that these athletes bear, we accept this burden with 

open arms but we have no input into it. So if you really are about 

building trust for the athletes and changing the culture, you have 

to find a way to insert their voice into the leadership and the actual structure of the solution. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thanks. I am just going to go back to Mr. 

Tygart for one more question. Given the findings of WADA’s independent investigation regarding widespread cheating, it was my 

54 

understanding that the athletes were prepared to boycott the international bobsled and skeleton championship that were set to take 

place in Sochi this month. In your testimony you state that athletes around the world have taken up this cause. 

So my question is, What can you tell us about the potential athlete boycott of that event? Are we going to see more instances of 

that, where athletes put their feet down and, you know, participate 

in boycotts? 

Mr. TYGART. I hope not. And I say that because I know—and I’ve 

talked to athletes about that very issue and talked with many of 

those bobsled athletes about it—that’s an untenable position to put 

an athlete, that your sports organization is not going to enforce the 

decision it made to bar events from Russia, you’re concerned about 

your own sample security in the testing regime to go to Russia, or 

you decide to boycott. That’s not fair to those athletes, and we 

should not put athletes in those positions to even have to make 

that decision. 

And we don’t have to, because sport and the anti-doping system 

can determine to enforce the decisions that have been made, not 

have events in Russia until they clean up their act, become WADA 

Code-compliant, and then you alleviate that concern from athletes’ 

minds. But I don’t for a second hope that any athletes have to boycott. That said, they’re frustrated, and I think that’s a very good 

example, when they’re willing to even consider that option, that 

they’re frustrated and they want change and they want change 

now. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Well, thank you. I am out of time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I will recognize the vice chairman of 

the subcommittee, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

all of you all for being here. I know that the folks assembled here 

today are the good guys. We are just trying to figure out how we 

get it where it is right. So with that being said, I think I am hearing some meeting of the minds going on. So Dr. Budgett, am I 

hearing you say that the IOC is prepared to not only relinquish the 

Governance Board or the direct contact with the Governance 

Board, but also investigations in testing, or have I gone a bridge 

too far? 

Dr. BUDGETT. You’re actually correct about the investigation testing and that is something the IOC have called for since the Olympic Summit and it’s very important. We certainly want to do it for 

sport and I think actually there’s a conflict of interest with government as well, because actually that’s what was happening in Russia. So we need to look across the whole of anti-doping. And when 

it comes to the governance of WADA, I think that has to go 

through due process. 

And so I don’t know exactly what structure will come out, what 

representation there will be from sport, whether it will be a minority representation so there’s some link, but that is for the people 

in charge of governance to sort out. But certainly on the actual 

testing and the whole structure around that, that will be completely independent. 

55 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And then the Governance Board is in question, but 

you anticipate some reforms before the end of this year? 

Dr. BUDGETT. I certainly hope so. The first meeting’s in a week 

or so. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right, I appreciate that. Let me ask you this 

question as long as I have got you, and it may be what Mr. Koehler 

touched on earlier. Mr. Nelson showed us his medal earlier and, 

you know, that was really a special moment, but a food court in 

Atlanta is not appropriate. I would just say as somebody who tries 

to problem solve, and I know a lot of us up here do that. Even 

when we have disagreements we try to problem solve. 

Why not weave in any medals that are given late, because somebody cheated, at the opening ceremonies of the next Olympics for 

that particular sport? It seems to me that would make Mr. Nelson’s 

experience much more special. I wasn’t going to ask you if you 

thought that was good, but do you think that sounds like a better 

way than getting it with a Happy Meal? 

Mr. NELSON. It was a really cool toy. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, I think that’s a big step forward and would 

certainly recognize the issue and not sort of try to sweep it under 

the rug, which I think is important as well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. Mr. Phelps, I think the entire American 

swimming team brought this up maybe accidentally, but with Lilly 

King and others talking about this openly at the Olympics last 

summer it became an issue that most Americans are now aware of 

and probably millions more around the world. I appreciate you all 

doing that and appreciate you being here today and taking out 

your time to join us. Is there anything that you want to touch on 

that you haven’t had an opportunity to speak on thus far? 

Mr. PHELPS. I mean, not today. I mean, I will say I agree with 

what you’re saying about going to the next Olympics. You know, for 

me, as I said in my testimony, there’s nothing better than watching 

your flag rise, listening to the national anthem. You know, for me 

that’s one of the greatest things that I will miss the most. And to 

be able to represent your country and have that moment, that special moment, I feel he deserves that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I completely agree. I will take you back in 

time a little bit. How long did it take you when you started complaining about the long swimming suits before the IOC changed 

those? Because we have been working on drugs for 30, 40 years, 

didn’t it only take swimming, the swimming suits got changed in 

a couple years? 

Mr. PHELPS. It wasn’t long. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Mr. PHELPS. I know, I think the larger suits probably came out 

in ’07-ish, and by world championships of ’09 that was the last 

chance that anyone had the opportunity to swim in them. And like 

I said then, that took away from the actual sport. That wasn’t the 

sport, it was swimming manufacturers trying to come up with a 

suit that they think is the fastest, and some of them were different 

than others. 

56 

And you can go into a lot of technical parts there but—and quickly we got that removed, so hopefully we can get this resolved, as 

well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, and I hope so too. 

Mr. Tygart, I know you have indicated some frustration, but 

what you are hearing today does that give you some hope that we 

are in fact on the right path to getting this situation—look, there 

is always going to be cheaters, but getting it to a point where we 

are actually governing? 

Mr. TYGART. Our position along with 22 other national antidoping organizations around the world is crystal clear that we have 

to remove the fox from the governance. So if WADA’s governing 

board still determines the consequence, for example, of an investigation and still determines what testing plans are acceptable, still 

is responsible ultimately for determining who is in compliance with 

the rules, who is not, that’s no different than what we currently 

have. 

And so we’re not in agreement with that and we’ll continue to 

push because we recognize the solution is to remove the fox from 

guarding the henhouse because you can’t effectively promote and 

police. And athletes can’t believe in a system when sport still determines what’s in its best interest and controls the material aspects 

of anti-doping. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And just quickly going back to Mr. Nelson’s situation, don’t you think we can do this a little faster than 8 years in 

finding out who the cheaters are? 

Mr. TYGART. We should prevent them from coming to begin with. 

And in Rio there were 1,913 athletes—1,913 athletes out of the 

11,000 athletes in Rio—from 10 high-risk sports that had no tests 

of record prior to the Rio Games. Ten high-risk sports, how unacceptable is that? That’s what happens when sport—and it’s the 

IOC’s responsibility for the Games—that’s what happens when 

sport attempts to protect it and police itself. And the announcement following that report was that the integrity of the Games was 

upheld. I’m not sure it was, but at the end of the day we need to 

stop that from happening, to ensure that we prevent dopers from 

going to the Games to begin with. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And my time is up, so I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Phelps, were you going to—— 

Mr. PHELPS. Travis, what did we say the number was for six 

months leading into the Games that I was tested, was it a baker’s 

dozen? 

Mr. TYGART. It was a baker’s dozen. 

Mr. PHELPS. It was a baker’s dozen. So you’re saying there were 

over 1,900 athletes in the top 10 sports that weren’t tested? 

Mr. MURPHY. And you were tested a dozen times. 

Mr. PHELPS. Thirteen, yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Baker’s dozen. Thank you. 

Ms. Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I really want to thank the witnesses and actually the athletes. I find it so shocking that you both 

said that in the Olympic Games and in international competitions 

you can’t feel confident, that you don’t feel confident that someone 

hasn’t been doped. 

57 

And so I am hopeful that in this very bipartisan hearing today 

that we are having that we are going to be able to contribute to 

alleviating that lack of confidence so that when the kids that you 

work with now have their dreams that they can believe. And I 

want to thank you too, Mr. Tygart, and hopefully all of you for restoring that confidence to Americans. 

I did want to requote. Congresswoman DeGette quoted you, Mr. 

Tygart, saying that despite mountains of evidence and vocal opposition from anti-doping groups, the IOC chose not to stand up for 

clean athletes and against institutionalized doping. And that you 

pointed out that the IOC, quote, punted, unquote, the decision to 

the international sports federations, and they missed an opportunity to stand for clean athletes and send a clear message. 

So how should the IOC at the time have held Russia accountable 

for its deception as described in WADA’s independent investigation? 

Mr. TYGART. And thank you for the question. And we were very 

clear along with 13 other national anti-doping organizations, literally from around the world, who sent a letter to the IOC after 

the McLaren Report and it exposed Russia, institutionalized doping 

was established, and said listen, you can’t reward the Olympic committee whose responsibility it is as a member of the IOC who was 

complicit in it, according to some of the evidence, as well as has 

responsibility in their own country to ensure nothing like that ever 

happens. This is the antithesis of the Olympic movement and the 

values, so don’t allow them to come. 

They’ve done it in other circumstances, not on doping but Apartheid, for example, wouldn’t let the South African NOC come because of actions by the state and things that were going on, so they 

have the power to do it. They chose not to do it. Our recommendation was don’t let the Russian Olympic Committee there, but have 

a uniform and consistent application by individual athletes who 

might not have been part of the system, if there are any, and who 

weren’t tainted by that system. But don’t just hand it off to 38 different sport federations who don’t have the time, the money, the 

resources, the expertise and days before Rio—it’s a mess. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So do you believe that Russia has been sufficiently held accountable for this corruption? 

Mr. TYGART. We don’t. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I understand that the IOC has formed these 

two committees to look further into the evidence presented in 

WADA’s independent investigation. Do you have confidence in 

those two committees? 

Mr. TYGART. Again without beating my drum too much, it’s the 

fox guarding the henhouse. You have a sport-run investigation 

who’s going to make determinations at this point in the ball game, 

and you can’t have trust in the outcomes of those investigations unfortunately because the perception is what we all know that you 

can’t both promote and police your sport particularly on the heels 

of allowing the athletes to go and the Russia Olympic Committee 

to go. 

So there is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, right, that you don’t 

want to be successful in those cases to justify your decision to let 

them in to begin with. And I’m not saying they’re going to do that. 

58 

I’m just saying that’s the perception that is out there that we hear 

from athletes all the time who are concerned about that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Based on what you heard today at this hearing and if those promises are implemented would you then have 

confidence? 

Mr. TYGART. Still the governance piece is still troubling and will 

not allow it, the full independence free from that promoting and policing aspect that it needs to regain the confidence in the way that 

it could. And that model has worked in other parts of the country, 

and there’s no good reason not to other than to control the outcomes. Why wouldn’t you let go of the governance if you know athletes will have more confidence in it, national anti-doping agencies 

will have more confidence in it? The only reason is so you can continue to control it. There’s no other good reason. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And all the fans and all the people who are 

inspired by it would have more confidence. Let me just ask you finally, how did the Russian situation go undetected for so long? 

What failed? 

Mr. TYGART. And I disagree with Mr. Koehler on WADA’s ability 

to investigate going back to 2010. Many of us believe they have the 

power to do it. But what’s unquestioned ,and I don’t think he would 

disagree with, is that they did have the clear powers to hold organizations compliant. And this issue of countries and sports, whether they were compliant with the rules or not frequently came to 

their board, and it was determined they weren’t going to make decisions on compliance. 

And that is the fox saying we’re not going to hold ourselves accountable because of the bad PR that would result if we said these 

organizations aren’t accountable. So we have to remove that fox to 

ensure the authority they have clearly now to investigate we think 

they had in the past, and what they had in the past and clearly 

have today to do compliance is actually done in a way that’s free 

of the sport influence and for the good of clean athletes and for no 

other reason. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I recognize Mrs. Brooks of Indiana for 

5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all so 

very much for being here and sharing with us, educating us all on 

the challenges that you face. 

Mr. Tygart, besides removing the fox, the sports organizations 

from the governance of anti-doping organizations, what are some of 

the other reforms that you believe are necessary that have been advocated by other NADOs to enhance WADA’s authorities and to enhance maybe even their resources to investigate? 

Mr. TYGART. I think it’s improved independence and transparency, board limits, clear process for how board members are appointed and voted and of course increased investment. We think 

they have and have had the authority to investigate, but if there’s 

any question about that and their position is different on it make 

that absolutely clear. Actually do the job of monitoring compliance 

and have a clear plan for how you’re going to do that. 

59 

Mrs. BROOKS. And do you believe then that based on those types 

of reforms it could actually address an issue as large as nationstate-sponsored doping? 

Mr. TYGART. I do. I think you can have—it all came back to whistleblowers. The media put it out there. If we had the same will and 

determination free of any conflict not to do the right thing, it’s not 

holding governments accountable. What it’s doing is investigating 

sport and holding sport accountable. And the IOC through its 

Olympic charter then can hold national Olympic committees accountable and that easily can be done, I think, if the process is determined to make sure clean athletes around the world happen and 

that these types of institutional doping situations don’t ever happen again. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Mr. Koehler, can you please, if you would please 

respond to what Mr. Tygart’s suggestions are, particularly with respect to WADA’s view of its authority to hold nation-states responsible, and have you ever done so? 

Mr. KOEHLER. Well, I’d first like to clarify that it’s fact that prior 

to 2015 WADA did not have the powers to investigate and that 

didn’t come into force until the World Anti-Doping Code was established with the revision. We are—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. Just out of curiosity, you have been in existence 

though since 1999? 

Mr. KOEHLER. That’s correct. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And so how and why is it that you did not get investigative authority until 2015? 

Mr. KOEHLER. The first Code came into force in 2003 and there’s 

been three iterations since. The Code is not WADA’s code. The 

Code has been developed by stakeholder consultation and everybody feeds into it. It was an evolving system. And to be honest, the 

reason the investigation came in was we saw the power of the 

whistleblowers coming forward and they needed an independent 

body to investigate. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So when WADA was created in 1999—forgive me, 

I don’t know all the history—it was never intended to be an investigative authority when it has to do with the anti-doping? 

Mr. KOEHLER. That’s correct. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And so it wasn’t until then ’03 all the different 

codes come to be, but then so what is it besides educating and besides testing, what is it that you would attribute as WADA’s successes, what is it you have done if you weren’t able to investigate 

until 2015? 

Mr. KOEHLER. There’s been evolution in the anti-doping system. 

We’ve done a lot in fact. The first thing we did was harmonize antidoping rules. Prior to the Code, an athlete in Russia and an athlete 

in the United States could potentially have different sanctions, so 

one could have 2 years and one could have 4 years. And different 

sports had different sanctions, so we harmonized that process. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Excuse me, but how do you then have 1,900 athletes out of 11,000 not being subject to doping testing at all? 

Mr. KOEHLER. I fully agree with Mr. Tygart’s comment. This 

should not happen, this cannot happen, and there needs to be a 

further investment in anti-doping to ensure it doesn’t happen. One 

thing I raised earlier was we are now moving into a system of nonVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:03 May 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X9ANTIDOPINGASKOK050417\115X9ANTIDOPINGPENDING W
60 

compliance and compliance review. In the past it hasn’t been as 

rigorous as it should have been. Now there’s a call by athletes, by 

the anti-doping community, to go in and audit, to go in and make 

people accountable, and if they are not doing it we have appointed 

an independent compliance review committee to make a call on 

countries, on sports that are deemed not doing the work to make 

them compliant. It’s time to change and those countries that are 

not doing the amount of testing they need to be made accountable. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And would it be your request that maybe six investigators to investigate the world of athletes might not be sufficient, 

and what percentage of your budget is allocated towards investigations? 

Mr. KOEHLER. It’s an understatement. Six is definitely not 

enough, but we’re working on it a very minimal budget. As was 

mentioned for the two reports, the independent reports that we’ve 

covered, we spent over $2 1A1⁄2 million just on two reports. So out 

of a $27.5 million budget we simply do not have enough to continue 

to really react to the needs of the athletes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. But maybe the budget should be reallocated to increase the amount of funds on investigations relative to your other 

duties. With that I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. I recognize Ms. Castor for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. International sports’ anti-doping enforcement 

is flawed and it is clear that the tools to enforce sanctions on athletes and countries who cheat have to be strengthened. Look no 

further than July 2016, the World Anti-Doping Agency executive 

committee recommended to the IOC that it ban Russian athletes 

from the 2016 Games, and despite that recommendation the IOC 

decided to allow Russian athletes to participate in the Rio Games. 

If the Russian Sports Federation carried out an analysis on their 

own and looked at the individuals’ anti-doping records then they 

could, Russia could approve them to participate. But then at the 

end of the year there were press reports. The Acting Director General of Russia’s national anti-doping agency said no, actually what 

has been going on in Russia for a long time is an institutional conspiracy, years’ worth of cheating schemes, while emphasizing that 

the Government’s top officials were not involved. 

But the New York Times reported a lab director tampered with 

urine samples at the Olympics and provided cocktails of performance-enhancing drugs, corrupting some of the world’s most prestigious competitions. Members of the Federal Security Services, a 

successor to the Russian KGB, broke into sample bottles holding 

urine, and a deputy sports minister, for years, ordered coverups of 

top athletes’ use of banned substances. Now I want everyone to 

know the Russians have kind of disputed this in the following 

weeks. 

But Mr. Phelps, Mr. Nelson, how frustrating is it for athletes? 

What did you all, what is the feeling like for, as you go into these 

competitions can you screen all of this out when you are going in 

to compete and you know that other countries are sanctioning this 

type of cheating? 

Mr. PHELPS. For me, I think, you know, as I said earlier, for me 

having the chance to represent my country was a tremendous 

61 

honor. And you can’t do anything about, you know, I can’t really 

go at that point and do anything about any other athletes. The only 

person I can take care of is myself. So at that point it’s, you know, 

we try to stick together as a team and we know that we’re going 

to get up on the block and fight as hard as we can. 

Ms. CASTOR. And meanwhile, what kind of testing are you going 

through and American athletes? 

Mr. PHELPS. I can tell you with some of the things that I’ve gone 

through with filling out paperwork of my whereabouts of every single day of where I am so USADA can do out-of-comp tests. I mean 

I’ve done it for 16 years. I’ve filled out these forms quarterly, right, 

quarterly. I mean there’s stacks of paper, and now it’s online. 

Ms. CASTOR. What kind of physical tests? 

Mr. PHELPS. Blood tests, urine tests, whenever, I mean it’s all 

the time. I mean it was monthly, multiple times a month for me 

and especially when I’m in the U.S. And I mean even when I’m 

overseas. I mean if you go Olympic Games where, I mean, I guess 

the last four I was tested almost every day. So are there people 

going through the same things that I’m going through? 

Ms. CASTOR. Apparently not. 

Mr. PHELPS. I hope so. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, apparently not. There are 1,900 athletes who 

competed in the Rio Games that were never tested at all. 

So Mr. Tygart, you have heard Mr. Budgett say that some 

changes are in process to actually take IOC influence out of the enforcement side of anti-doping. What does that mean, really? Get 

specific. What has to happen in process to take the fox out of the 

henhouse at this point over the coming months? 

Mr. TYGART. We’ll see how it gets fleshed out. It’s good that we’re 

finally seeing it on Friday and in the testimony at that level of detail. 

Ms. CASTOR. Is this is the governance structure of the IOC itself 

or in the—— 

Mr. TYGART. I think the model is just what we know as the principle of separation of powers. You’ve got a legislative body that 

makes the rules, and athletes, even active athletes, should play a 

huge part in that. Sport, governments should do that. NADOs 

should do that. That legislative body ought to establish the law and 

then it should come time to, and totally independent, free of sport 

influence, to have an executive branch that then enforces the law. 

And then of course we have to have a judicial branch. 

And the executive branch should have no sport member on it and 

no active athlete because they would be subject to the laws that 

they’re supposed to be enforcing. And it should make the determination of who’s compliant, investigate, ensure that testing at national levels by us here at USADA is done in the same fashion in 

the same level of integrity and in compliance with the same rules. 

We will volunteer to be the first one audited under that new compliance program as long as everyone else is also being audited and 

held accountable under that new program. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you for having the intestinal fortitude 

to stand up for our athletes and clean competition around the 

world. I yield back my time. 

62 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Collins of New 

York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the 

witnesses and especially Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps. Just curious, 

Mr. Nelson, did the fourth place winner in the shot put, was he 

awarded then the bronze medal? As somebody who didn’t even 

have a medal, did he get one? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, he was. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that is good to hear. I hope it—was it too in 

a food court in Atlanta, or was he even American? 

Mr. NELSON. He was an American, but I don’t know where the 

medal was actually given to him. 

Mr. COLLINS. OK. I am still trying to get my head around what 

you went through. I mean at least you were on a platform getting 

the silver medal, but we all do tend to focus on the winner of the 

gold medal, the winner of the Super Bowl and so forth, just amazing. 

So, you know, it is a great hearing. So I am kind of curious, Dr. 

Budgett, as we look at the IOC and I have at least read where you 

are looking at an independent testing agency. Overall, you know, 

I am assuming then that would mean the U.S., the U.K., Japan, 

Canada, some nations that I think, and I will ask the athletes, are 

actually doing the job, would they then be replaced with this independent testing? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Yes. I think I’d like to say that obviously at the 

Olympic Games there’s more testing than at any other event in the 

world. But we all recognize that far more important than that is 

the testing that goes on in the lead-up to the Games and we’ve 

heard how that’s not adequate everywhere. That’s a function of 

both NADOs like USADA and the international federations. So 

we’re working very hard with WADA and a group of NADOs including USADA to actually put in place a program of testing leading up to the next Games that will be comprehensive, targeted, intelligent, all the things we talk about now. So that’s one aspect. 

The other aspect is to say as we’ve talked about is the independent testing authority which would certainly do all the testing 

that sport’s currently doing, and ultimately we have to talk to our 

NADO colleagues, could do the testing for the national anti-doping 

organizations because they have an equal conflict of interest when 

it comes to national interest. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, I am just concerned on the budgetary piece, 

you know, it would appear there are nations the U.S., U.K., Japan, 

and Canada that I would ask maybe Mr. Phelps, are actually doing 

the job. Would you think that those five national testing agencies 

are serious? 

Mr. PHELPS. I don’t know specifics of what country is following 

the same exact method as we are here in the U.S., and I know 

Travis could answer that a lot better. But, you know, I do believe 

there are countries out there that are going through the same process that we are. And, you know, for me, we all should be fair and 

we all should play on the same field. 

And for me as a father now, like I said in my presentation, you 

know, I don’t know what I, or how I would even talk to my son 

about doping in sports. Like I would hope to never have that conVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:03 May 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X9ANTIDOPINGASKOK050417\115X9ANTIDOPINGPENDING W
63 

versation and I hope we can get it clear and cleaned up by then. 

You know, for me going through everything I’ve done and, you 

know, that’s probably a question that I could get asked from him 

and I don’t know how I would answer it. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, it is the win at any cost and certainly we are 

seeing, you know, the health, what is happening to the health of 

athletes who did cheat, you know, and even in football, while it 

wasn’t cheating, the concussions and what that leads to later in 

life. 

So Mr. Koehler, on WADA do you have concerns about the national anti-doping in certain countries, again like the U.S., Canada? 

Mr. KOEHLER. I wouldn’t say we have concerns with the U.S. and 

Canada, but we do have concerns. And I wanted to step back if you 

allow me, Mr. Collins. We can have all the governance review in 

the world, which we welcome and we want. I have been in this 

business for 20 years and it’s time for change. It’s time to put investment into this business. If I look globally, amount of money 

being put into national anti-dope organizations, simply insufficient, 

and there’s the crux of the issue that more investment needs to be 

put. This is to protect sport, to protect clean athletes. It is so important, and we need to start putting that investment in and not 

just saying it but doing it, and until that happens, we’ll never see 

change. 

Mr. COLLINS. So on the sanctions piece, let me ask the athletes. 

You know, right now we are talking about somebody is caught 

cheating and they are given a 2-year suspension or a 4-year suspension. Do you think that is adequate, or should we be as draconian as a lifetime ban, one-and-done? It would just show that, you 

know, trying to skirt the rules, one-and-done. What do you think? 

Mr. NELSON. That’s a very good question, sir. To answer it I 

think that you have to have some ability for the athletes to protect 

their own rights in the process as well. And so if you’re going to 

increase the level of the penalties associated with it, you have to 

increase the investment and their ability to protect themselves as 

well. A lot of athletes, we’re the lowest common denominator in 

this whole big pyramid, right, but we’re also trusted to make the 

most critical part of the decision making process. We’re also the 

least informed and often the least prepared to make it. 

So I’m OK with increasing the penalties and doing something 

like a one-and-done provided there’s a provision for some—there is 

a gray area here, unfortunately. Emergency therapeutic use exemption forms, medical conditions, sometimes require certain actions. 

But I’m OK with a one-and-done. I’m OK with financial penalties 

associated with it. This is a business. We treat it a little bit differently because it’s Olympic sports, but at the end of the day it 

is a business, so you can hold them to the same standard that you 

might hold people in other traditional businesses. 

Mr. COLLINS. I appreciate that. I know my time is expired and 

I yield back. Thank you very much, all of you, for your testimony. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Tonko of New York 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our panelists. 

And before I begin I would like to offer my welcome to Travis 

Tygart, as we have done a lot of work together in addressing the 

64 

issue of doping, in this case in the sport of horse racing. This is 

a critically important issue for both the health of the equine athlete 

and the integrity of the sport, which contributes approximately $4 

billion to the New York State economy each year and supports 

some 380,000 domestic jobs nationwide. 

If this committee is truly interested in supporting anti-doping efforts across the board, I would encourage us to schedule a hearing 

on doping in horse racing and the legislation I have introduced 

with my colleague, Representative Andy Barr, which would restore 

integrity back to the sport of kings. So back to this particular focus. 

Today we have heard about investigations that revealed Russia’s 

efforts to manipulate drug-doping controls. The former chief investigator for WADA, Jack Robertson, who was a former special agent 

for our United States Drug Enforcement Agency, helped investigate 

some of the allegations involving Russian doping. On August 4th 

of 2016, Pro Publica ran a story quoting Mr. Robertson about his 

time at WADA. In the piece, Mr. Robertson implied that the Agency lacked adequate resources to investigate doping allegations and 

he said, and I quote, this cannot be Jack versus Russia. I need 

manpower. When money became available, WADA beefed up every 

department, but never investigations. I was working 11 hours a 

day, sometimes 18 hours. 

So Mr. Tygart, you are a seasoned investigator. Does WADA 

have what it needs to investigate doping allegations when they 

arise, particularly when they involve complex cases such as Russia 

and allegations of state-sponsored or state-supported doping? 

Mr. TYGART. Clearly, resources is a question. I think the resources there in the budget could be better utilized to ensure investigations are done in the manner that they ought to, to get to the 

bottom of them and then hold those entities or organizations that 

cheat accountable under the rules. 

Mr. TONKO. And I am informed that WADA operates on a roughly $30 million budget, half of which is from the Olympic movement 

and half of which is from nations and states. So Mr. Tygart, again 

based on your expertise, is a $30 million budget enough to police 

the world anti-doping Code and should the U.S. be contributing 

more? 

Mr. TYGART. You know, I don’t know the answer. Clearly, there’s 

enough money in sport, at least. You saw in my testimony the 

funds the IOC has: a $1.4 billion fund, total assets of $3.9 billion 

2015. The money’s there, I think, whether it’s sport, whether it’s 

government. The question is, is protecting the integrity of the property that we put out to the marketplace important enough to spend 

more than, you know, one or two percent on? And I think absolutely it is, and we ought to ensure that WADA has those resources 

to do the job that they need to do however it ultimately is supported, whether directly through sport or additional funds from 

government. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And Mr. Koehler, do you believe you 

have enough money to do your job? 

Mr. KOEHLER. No, I don’t. And to give an exact figure today, I 

would be remiss to do that. What I can say is that in my opening 

remarks that we are developing a clean-slate budget based on the 

new reforms, based on the new capacities that we have to identify 

65 

where and how much funding is needed. I will, however, say that 

we talk about WADA increased funding, but I think more importantly, or equally as important, is the injection of funds into the 

national anti-doping organizations. The national anti-doping organizations are the ones in the field day to day carrying out the business. And if they’re not equipped to protect the clean athletes, then 

we’re so far behind we’ll never win this game. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And according to news reports, the Inter- national Olympic Committee has a $1.4 billion fund, so out of a 

$1.4 billion fund the IOC currently provides WADA about $15 million a year. Mr. Phelps, given the extensive evidence we have 

heard today detailing state-sponsored doping control and manipulation, should the IOC provide more resources to WADA? 

Mr. PHELPS. I mean, in my opinion, I think this is something 

that needs to be handled today and I think we need to find whatever way to take care of this issue we need to figure out and if 

that’s more money, it’s more money. You know, I mean, I think for 

me growing up in sports, I always looked at the greats and how 

they did it and that was my dream to be one of the best. 

And, you know, it is through hard work and dedication and it’s 

sad to see that there are other athletes that choose to take different routes to get there. And they not only will sometimes test 

positive once, but multiple times, and they’re still allowed to compete at an international level. And I don’t think that’s fair to the 

other athletes who are going in, then going to the grind every single day to try to make sure we accomplish our goals and dreams 

that we have. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I see my time is over. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. I now recognize Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Budgett, I understand the IOC established a commission to 

reanalyze all samples of Russian athletes from the 2014 Winter 

Olympics. Can you explain what testing is being conducted on 

these samples and does it include testing on both A and B samples? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Yes. The reanalysis program has been a huge success if you want to look at it that way. And as you know, before 

Rio we had over 100 adverse analytical findings from London and 

Beijing. As regards to the samples from Sochi, all the samples from 

the Russian athletes have been reanalyzed and the results of those 

are in case management at the moment. Also—and that was the 

A sample being reanalyzed. 

Also, all the samples are in the process of being forensically examined to look for evidence of manipulation. Some of that was done 

by McLaren. This is being done on a much more comprehensive 

and recordable way that can be used to bring an anti-doping rule 

violation to those individual athletes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And you may have answered that within this answer, but if you didn’t, does the testing include a forensic analysis 

of the sample bottles to identify any scratches or marks that suggest they may have been tampered with? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Exactly. That’s one of the, and to document that 

very exactly so that it can be used in a case. 

66 

Mr. COSTELLO. Question for all panelists, thank you for your 

time. I particularly want to thank the athletes for your testimony. 

I think that it is a great way to raise awareness about the need 

for even more integrity in the testing process, and certainly you are 

both American heroes and we recognize you as such and I think it 

is very worthy that you both took the time to prepare and be here 

today. 

Having said that I will ask you both first, but then I would like 

to open it up to all panelists, what would you deem to be appropriate progress 1 year from now or 2 years from now, you pick a 

time in the future, toward achieving a more independent and honest system? 

Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps and then whomever else would like 

to answer. 

Mr. NELSON. I think the first thing that has to happen is to hold 

all the stakeholders to the same level of accountability that you 

hold the athletes to. If we can accomplish that I think that will go 

a long way towards cleaning up sport. The second thing is I think 

you actually really do need to find a way to change the culture that 

allows this. We’ve talked about the differences between this area 

of the world and some other areas of the world. I still know for a 

fact that there are certain areas of the world where doping is just 

part of the culture. 

So you have to find out, there has to be some education and reeducation of the key players in those areas. So to me, if I could see 

those two changes, education and then the structural reforms that 

would implement the compliance, that would be a huge change. 

Mr. PHELPS. I agree completely with everything he said. And for 

me it’s kind of hard to, I think that we were talking earlier, somebody said it was 20 years to get to this point. It took us this long 

to get here, who knows how long it’s going to take us to get forward. That’s what’s frustrating to me, you know, as an athlete 

who’s spent over 20 years in the pool. This is something that needs 

to happen now and I’m glad people are actually starting to take us 

seriously and take this in a serious matter, because it is crushing 

sports for our youth and for everybody else around the world. So 

I mean, can you put a time limit on a year, can you put a time 

frame on a year? I don’t know. It’s hard hearing what I’m hearing 

and trying to put a time frame on it, I just have no clue. 

Mr. TYGART. I would say—and thank you for your question—it 

doesn’t take a year. These allegations first came out in December 

of 2014. We’ve had well over 2 years to deal with them. Today is 

the day. What could happen today is, WADA governance structure 

could happen. Remove sport from the executive functions because 

you can’t promote and police. The IOC could take 500 million of its 

$1.4 billion fund, set it in a blind trust to fund WADA in its efforts 

moving forward. That could be done today. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, and if I could just add, I think all three of 

those answers are spot on both in terms of exposing the frustration 

that athletes feel as well as what can technically be done to show 

a measurable impact. 

The final point that I just want to say is I do find it to be extremely important to note how a system that lacks the integrity, 

or a system that can be improved but yet has not yet been imVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:03 May 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X9ANTIDOPINGASKOK050417\115X9ANTIDOPINGPENDING W
67 

proved, what that does in terms of disillusionment to our athletes 

and what decisions athletes may be confronted with when they realize the reality of this situation. And certainly as an American we 

want to make sure that we are encouraging those in youth sports 

to conduct themselves in an ethical way and also to make sure that 

they aren’t doing anything to their body that could cause them 

long-term health impacts. And to not have a system that reinforces 

that should be a cause for concern for every parent and every coach 

and every athletic trainer, and I don’t think that we want to put 

our children in that sort of position or that conundrum. So I will 

thank you all for your time. I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Now Ms. Clarke is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panelists, in particular Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps, for putting a face to 

the athletic advocacy and demonstrating the courage to call out the 

unethical, disgraceful conduct of those who permit doping to continue to plague and to cheat the integrity of our international competitions. I truly appreciate, we truly appreciate your testimony 

here today. 

Mr. Chairman, the scope and scale of the allegations of doping 

against Russia presented in WADA’s independent investigations 

are extremely troubling, and I would like to understand what sanctions Russia will face as a result of the findings. Subsequent to the 

release of Mr. McLaren’s investigation in July of last year, WADA’s 

executive committee recommended to the IOC that it decline entry 

for Rio 2016 of all athletes submitted by the Russian Olympic Committee and the Russia Paralympic Committee. 

Mr. Koehler, why did WADA recommend to the IOC that it decline all Russian entries for these two events? 

Mr. KOEHLER. I can’t speak on behalf of our executive committee, 

however I can tell you that they reviewed the McLaren Report and 

deemed it appropriate to make those recommendations based on a 

call for the clean athletes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Tygart, as you know the IOC did not order a 

collective ban of the Russian team, instead it deferred to the international sports federations to determine which athletes should or 

should not compete. In your piece, The Athletes Voice: A Force for 

Change, you stated, quote, at the Summer Games in Rio in 2016, 

scores of athletes competed despite not having been subject to credible anti-doping programs, end quote. 

You also pointed out in your testimony that the sports federations with few exceptions had neither the time nor expertise to deal 

effectively with the fallout from WADA’s independent investigation. 

Mr. Tygart, can you elaborate on why moving this decision to the 

international sports federations may not have resulted in the credible deliberative process where only clean athletes were allowed to 

compete? 

Mr. TYGART. I’m not sure why it was done. The justification for 

not banning and following WADA’s recommendation, the Russian 

Olympic Committee, was some justification on collective justice 

versus individual responsibility which really makes no sense, I 

don’t think, when if that’s your reasoning to then hand the decision 

68 

on individual justice to 38 different sports organizations, that’s not 

going to result in a consistent application in individual cases. 

So I think the justification that’s been given doesn’t hold up once 

it’s scrutinized, and I think it ultimately resulted in shaking the 

system like it’s never been shaken before. If the IOC would have 

done what the International Paralympic Committee did and what 

the IAAF, the international track and field did, to ban those athletes and the Russian federations from their games, we’re not here 

today, quite frankly. 

Ms. CLARKE. So my final question is for Dr. Budgett, but Mr. 

Koehler and Mr. Tygart please feel free to answer as well if either 

of you can speak to this. Dr. Budgett, can you describe for us any 

jurisdictional overlap at the IOC whether direct or indirect between 

those tasked with imposing sanctions for doping charges and those 

with a vote in determining future Olympic host cities? 

Dr. BUDGETT. I’m not sure I completely understand your question. 

Ms. CLARKE. OK, let me repeat it again. Can you describe for us 

any jurisdictional overlap at the IOC whether direct or indirect between those tasked with imposing sanctions for doping charges and 

those with a vote in determining future Olympic host cities? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Yes, thank you. I think that’s beyond my jurisdiction to answer. But to say at Rio as I mentioned, the jurisdiction 

over the sanctions was handed over to the Court of Arbitration of 

Sport so it was not within the IOC. And so the IOC have started 

the process of this independent testing authority by handing over 

the actual sanctioning process to an independent body and so it 

should be independent from any other function. 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Tygart, do you have a sense of whether there 

are personnel in common in both entities? 

Mr. TYGART. Absolutely there is. In fact, WADA recommended to 

ban the Russians. There were members of that executive decision 

that also sit on the IOC that when the decision came to the IOC 

voted opposite of how they voted on the WADA decision. They wear 

two hats. They made two different outcomes on the determination. 

And then yes, it’s the IOC that ultimately votes for who is awarded 

the Olympic Games. 

Mr. MURPHY. I now recognize Mr. Carter of Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. CLARKE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for 

being here. It is commendable that you would take time out to be 

with us. And I especially want to thank you, Mr. Nelson. I am a 

fellow Georgian, so welcome. We are glad to have you here. What 

the people here don’t recognize or don’t realize I don’t think is that 

we have got some really nice food courts in Georgia, but certainly 

not nice enough to warrant you being awarded a medal on that 

food court and I am very sorry that you had to receive it that way. 

Did I understand? I was reading and researching a little bit that 

you first heard about this through a reporter? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. I had no official contact from the IOC or 

any other movement within the Olympic movement. 

Mr. CARTER. Dr. Budgett, I mean—— 

69 

Dr. BUDGETT. What I can say is that the process is an awful lot 

better now and there’s been some fantastic medal ceremonies for 

athletes who have been re-awarded medals as a result of reanalysis. 

Mr. CARTER. OK, and I am glad to hear that. But what about notifying them? Do you notify them before you notify the press? 

Dr. BUDGETT. The notification should come through the National 

Olympic Committee. 

Mr. CARTER. OK, before the press is notified you would have notified the individual? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Of course. 

Mr. CARTER. OK, thank you. I am glad we got that straight, Mr. 

Nelson. Mr. Nelson, you impress me and I have read your resume. 

I mean you are kind of the traditional Olympian. You just worked 

jobs and trained and just like I think most Olympians have, so I 

feel like I can relate to you. I will be quite honest with you and 

full disclosure here, I wanted to be an Olympian too. I did. And I 

will say more about that in just a minute, but unfortunately I 

ended up being not only short but slow, but nevertheless I had 

those same dreams. 

But my question is this. You seem to be as I said the traditional 

Olympian, the drug testing that you had to go through I am sure 

it was quite laborious and that it really impacted your personal life 

a lot. 

Mr. NELSON. I think Michael has probably had more tests than 

I’ve experienced in my lifetime, but I can tell you they show up at 

the most inopportune moments without apologies. Over time you 

build relationships with your collection officers and it’s important 

because they learn a lot about you in the process. But yes, it’s extraordinarily invasive, absolutely. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Phelps, do you want to share some stories with 

us on that as well? 

Mr. PHELPS. I mean, I’ll agree it’s the wildest times. I mean for 

me I would have, you know, training trips to Colorado Springs to 

train at altitude and I would have a morning off, but I would be 

woken up at 6:05 by the drug testers and I wouldn’t be able to go 

back to sleep. So it’s like, you know, those are the things that we’re 

doing as athletes to make sure the sport’s clean and I wish I could 

say that about everybody else. 

Mr. CARTER. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? I am sure you 

have interacted with your competitors and your international competitors. What kind of experiences have they had? Do they have 

similar experiences or—— 

Mr. PHELPS. They don’t bring it up. They don’t talk about it. 

Mr. CARTER. They don’t talk about it. 

Mr. PHELPS. No. 

Mr. CARTER. But I suspect they aren’t being woken up at, at 

least some of them maybe. I would like to think that some are. 

Mr. PHELPS. Right. I mean you’d like to think that there’s a 

number of the top ten, whatever it might be, top 20, top hundred 

in the world might be. I think, what is it, the IT, the International 

Testing Pool has a number of athletes who are usually under the 

same standards that, that we’re all held under the same standards. 

And I mean for me it would be, I mean, I literally have to fill out 

70 

every single day exactly where I am at that time. And if I leave, 

I mean now it’s easy enough to where I can just get on the phone 

or get on the app and say my whereabouts are changing, this is 

where I’m going. You have to say what plane you’re on, what hotel 

you’re staying in, what your room is under, everything yada yada 

yada. So that’s what we’ve gone through, I’ve gone through for 15, 

16 years. 

Mr. CARTER. Right. You want to see time fly, you ought to get 

up here and wait for 5 minutes, and it flies. But nevertheless, Mr. 

Koehler, you mentioned something about working with the pharmaceutical manufacturers and being notified when, and working 

with them to figure out what drugs it is that you should be looking 

for. Can you just elaborate on that very quickly? 

Mr. KOEHLER. Very quickly, we have an arrangement with them, 

an agreement in a memorandum of understanding where they’ll 

share information on preclinical trial substances so we can find a 

way to detect methods of when athletes or should they be taking 

them. 

Mr. CARTER. Great. I am encouraged to hear that. I am a pharmacist by profession so that is important to me. I have just got a 

couple more seconds and I want to say this, and I am not trying 

to be dramatic here, but I think it is important. Obviously you have 

two world class athletes here who we are very proud of and are 

doing more than just competing. They are here testifying about a 

problem and trying to fix it, and thank you for doing that. This is 

important that it is fair to them, being world class athletes, but it 

is important to a lot of kids around the world. It was important to 

me. 

There was a time when the three of us were the same. We were 

all in the backyard. We were dreaming. I was standing on that cinder block and I was looking down at Michael Phelps and I was 

looking down at Adam Nelson and I was the Olympic champion. 

And we owe it to those kids, we owe it to those dreamers to make 

sure it is fair, to make sure they have the opportunity to compete. 

Thank you both. Thank you all for being here. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Ruiz for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the panelists. The testimony that I have heard today is disturbing on a number of levels. I am outraged that Russian officials cheated, broken 

the rules, attacked the integrity of the Olympics to influence the 

outcome of the Olympics for their benefits. Kind of sounds familiar, 

doesn’t it? 

Russia’s widespread doping endangered the health of their own 

athletes. Not only did they put their own athletes at risk, but they 

also cheated the millions of athletes across the globe that work 

hard and play clean. It also violates the trust between nations who 

put their faith in a system and work toward the same goal, which 

is an even playing field for all athletes. We must have the proper 

checks and balances in place to ensure that no one athlete or one 

country cheats to have an unfair advantage. 

I am a physician. Dr. Budgett, we know that doping is the use 

of hormones, whether natural hormones or synthetic or blood 

transfusions, in order to increase the capacity to carry oxygen, 

meaning increasing the red blood cells which could cause an inVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:03 May 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X9ANTIDOPINGASKOK050417\115X9ANTIDOPINGPENDING W
71 

crease in viscosity, high risk for strokes, pulmonary emboli, and 

other serious, life-threatening health problems, and we are seeing 

this in the emergency departments with young athletes. 

What are the symptoms that you can tell a parent or a coach, 

somebody out there in the community to watch for in case a youth 

is using these type of performance-enhancing drugs? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Thank you. As I said in my statement this is a 

health attack on athletes and so often they are the victims. And it 

often goes from supplements then through, and there’s a widespread abuse of supplements in sport, and then on through the use 

of prohibitive substances. 

Mr. RUIZ. So what are the signs and symptoms for parents and 

coaches to look out for? 

Dr. BUDGETT. Well, there can be also the side effects particularly 

from anabolic steroids of masculinization in females is the most obvious sign, but also severe acne. And then those hidden signs that 

you wouldn’t see, cardiac, liver disease, and other things like that. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. Since I am halfway through my time I am 

going to direct my questions to our Nation’s heroes, Mr. Nelson and 

Mr. Phelps. You are a recent father, Boomer. I am a recent father, 

twin daughters Sky and Sage. You know, I just can’t wait until 

they identify what their dreams are. And I know that there are a 

lot of kids out there who look up to you, who in my district who 

want to accomplish greatness, their greatness. 

What do you tell them when they are pressured to use drugs that 

will enhance their performance, Mr. Phelps? Look at them now and 

speak to them on camera. 

Mr. PHELPS. My biggest thing is my whole journey started with 

a dream. That was it. And as I said earlier, my coach and I decided 

that we were going to come up with a plan and we were going to 

train on holidays. We were going to train every day of the year. 

You know, we were never going to take a day off for an extended 

period of time and get those 52 extra days for Sundays, for example, because nobody trained on Sunday. We’d get those 52 extra 

days than anybody else would, so we’d have that one step ahead 

of everybody. And I think that’s like, you know, if you want to be 

great you have to do things that other people aren’t willing to do. 

And for me, yes, it wasn’t always fun getting up at 7 o’clock on 

a Sunday and going to swim, but you know what, I wanted to accomplish my goal bad enough that nothing’s going to stand in my 

way. And I think that, you know, like I said in the end, like I hope 

somebody breaks my record. I hope I have the chance to see that 

because it shows you that kids are truly, they’re going to attack 

their dreams and their goals and they’re going to go through hard 

times of course, we all do. But they’re not going to give up. 

And that was something that I did in my career, I never, ever, 

ever gave up no matter how hard it got, and it got pretty hard at 

times. It got challenging for me. And for me, I would just love to 

see that in kids and the future of sport to be able to have that 

power that you can get from your mind and not being afraid to 

dream. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, what would you tell the kids 

that are being pressured or are flirting with the idea of use doping 

to enhance their performance? 

72 

Mr. NELSON. Well, the first thing I would say to the parents is 

that it’s OK to have this conversation. My dad sat down with me 

when I was 16 years old because I was a big guy and I was already 

lifting weights at the time, and he said, quite honestly he said, ‘‘I’m 

going to disown you if you ever do this.’’ That was enough for me. 

We had a conversation about it. So set their expectations early. 

The second piece is to talk about what the spirit of an Olympian 

really is. So we focus on the medals, but the medals are a reward 

for the work to get there. Most of what happens as an Olympic athlete happens when nobody else is watching. You have to have a 

gold medal process, and those processes must be based on principles. That’s up to the parents. That’s up to the people to decide 

what those principles are. If you allow for this to come into your 

life at any level, you’re promoting this particular issue in a negative light. So that’s what I would say. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Walberg of Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

panel for being here. I appreciate this discussion. 

Mr. Koehler, how does WADA evaluate the role of other individuals in the anti-doping violations, for example, a coach, when it is 

found out that an athlete has tested positive and then ultimately 

find out it was a coach that encouraged him or her to dope, what 

happens? What is the punishment for the coach? 

Mr. KOEHLER. That’s the responsibility of the national antidoping organizations and the international federations. But when 

an athlete does test positive and is sanctioned, there is a requirement for the national anti-doping organizations, the international 

sport federations to look at and investigate the entourage and to 

see if there was an influence. Is it being done comprehensively 

now? I don’t believe so. Should it be done more? Absolutely. 

Mr. WALBERG. So if we find out there was really no punishment 

following up this, we know then the coaches have the potential of 

going on and training other athletes the same way. I mean are we 

doing something to get at that? 

Mr. KOEHLER. If a coach is found to be complicit in assisting an 

athlete they will be sanctioned, but there has to be the mechanisms 

to explore that. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Tygart, do you want to respond? 

Mr. TYGART. I would just say it’s critically important to break 

down the systems in place that as we heard earlier abuse their own 

athletes like in Russia. And let’s be clear, those athletes had no, 

they had very little choice, if any choice, but to participate in this 

sport system and state system to dope, that’s abuse of those Russian athlete, and we ought to do everything possible to stop the 

abuse by systems of individual athletes. And it’s exactly why we 

were so frustrated that the IOC refused to take any meaningful 

sanctions against the system that abused their own athletes in this 

process. 

Mr. WALBERG. And that is where it has to stand from the world 

community to do that and ultimately sanctions have to be sure and 

complete or otherwise, Mr. Budgett, there will be more and more 

people like me that refuse to watch the figure skating going on, 

73 

just sensing something is wrong there. But I wish you well on that 

Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps. 

And Mr. Phelps, Go Blue. Got to get that in. I was a wrestler 

in high school and college and I don’t think doping would have 

changed my outcomes in any way, shape or form from my opponent 

or myself. But I never, I never will forget watching Dan Gable who 

was a contemporary of mine. I never wrestled him and there were 

many reasons why I never did. But at the NCAA finals watching 

him, 1970–71, against the guy he had defeated before from Washington and coming to the last seconds of the final period and Gable 

lost by one point as the result of a reversal. 

And knowing that Dan Gable had never lost high school or college ever, and this was the first loss in his career, and spent the 

next time before the Olympics beating his body into submission 

and he won a gold in the Olympics, and that is the sport. That is 

the thrill you were talking about that only most of us will ever experience by watching it, someone else do it. And Mr. Nelson, you 

have given me hope that that final second reversal that I had 

against Chicago Vocational, maybe I will get that point and win it. 

But let me ask the two of you, in your opinion what motivates 

athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs beyond just to win? 

What motivates them? 

Mr. PHELPS. I don’t know. I mean, that’s the only thing I can say. 

I mean, as somebody who has competed clean for over 20 years, I 

have no clue why somebody would do that. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. NELSON. So I’m a little older, so I can remember having conversations with some of the older athletes back in the ’90s. And one 

of the things that was very common then at that time, and I can 

remember having a conversation with one specific athlete, he said 

you can’t throw 20 meters clean. They had a prejudgment on what 

they could do by themselves. They never gave themselves enough 

time to develop the skill sets necessary to do that. My response to 

them was, no, you can’t throw 20 meters clean. 

Mr. WALBERG. But you could. 

Mr. NELSON. What’s that? 

Mr. WALBERG. But you could. 

Mr. NELSON. I believed so, and I did. 

Mr. WALBERG. Yes. 

Mr. NELSON. Not at the time, but I believed I could. So to answer 

the question specifically, I think it’s a combination of insecurity 

and at some level the culture that they surround themselves in 

that says this is the answer, this is the way forward. 

Mr. WALBERG. So until we find the answer to that question and 

able to deal with the athletes to a conclusion, we have to have 

sanctioning bodies that are resolute in doing whatever it takes to 

go above that evil nature as it were and make it fair for guys who 

will not do that at any cost. Thank you for being part of this panel. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Ms. 

DeGette for a wrap-up, 30 seconds if you could. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want 

to again thank everybody for coming today and illuminating this. 

74 

1The Report of the World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘‘Report of the Independent Observers: Games 

of the XXXI Olympiad, Rio de Janeiro 2016,’’ has been retained in committee files and also is 

available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20170228/105613/HHRG-115-IF02- 

20170228-SD017.pdf. 

I was really encouraged both Mr. Koehler and Dr. Budgett to hear 

you say that your organizations are interested in making change. 

Mr. Tygart, I think your direct testimony has been very helpful. 

I was on this subcommittee in 2003 when we did the investigations 

on Salt Lake and the bid rigging, and we had the same kind of a 

situation where the IOC, you know, the intentions were good but 

they just weren’t getting there. And I think because of illumination 

that we had and another hearing that it kind of nudged people 

around. I agree with you, Mr. Tygart. You know, we have been investigating this for a long time. We can figure out what we need 

to do about the rules and the funding and we can do it soon. 

So the chairman and I were just talking, I am hoping we will 

have another hearing soon, and I am hoping that the various organizations will come to that hearing and tell us the changes they are 

going to make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the gentlelady. You know, as I listen to everything you say I am thinking of where my office is in Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania, three gold medalists from there. A guy named 

Kurt Angle, he used to run up the hill with other students on his 

back, or Suzie McConnell, a basketball player, or this new swimmer, Leah Smith, outstanding people. 

And it is amazing to think with all the other things going on that 

people like that can still shine and get their gold medal and not 

have to get it in a food court. And Mr. Nelson, I hope you get ‘‘The 

Star-Spangled Banner’’ played for you sometime with that. 

We have heard a lot of commitments to reform the system today, 

but particularly, Mr. Koehler and Dr. Budgett, will you commit to 

this committee to keep us informed of your progress on these reforms and to reappear before the committee once these reforms are 

completed? 

Mr. KOEHLER. On behalf of the World Anti-Doping Agency, we 

would be pleased to keep this committee up to date on the reforms 

and the actions that are moving forward. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Dr. Budgett. 

Dr. BUDGETT. I can echo that. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Mr. Tygart submitted additional documents to support his testimony, so I ask unanimous consent to 

enter those documents into the hearing record, and, without objection, we will do that. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]1

Mr. MURPHY. Finally, in conclusion, I want to thank all the witnesses and Members that participated in today’s hearing. I remind 

Members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the 

record. I ask that the witnesses all agree to respond promptly to 

the questions. With that, again thank you for attending this hearing, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

75 


TO: 

FROM: 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

Members, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee Majority Staff 

February 24, 2017 

RE: Hearing entitled ''Ways to Improve and Strengthen the International Anti-Doping 

System." 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on Tuesday, 

February 28, 2017, at I 0:15 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn !louse Office Building. entitled "Ways to 

Improve and Strengthen the International Anti-Doping System." This hearing aims to evaluate 

progress made thus far in reforming the global anti-doping system following the Rio Games and 

recent revelations of government-facilitated doping. The purpose of this hearing is to support 

efforts to strengthen clean competition and restore public confidence in international sports. 

I. WITNESSES 

Richard Budget!, M.D .. Medical and Scientific Director. International Olympic 

Committee: 

Rob Koehler, Deputy Director General, World Anti-Doping Agency; 

Travis Tygart. Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency: 

• Adam Nelson, American Shot Putter and Olympic Gold Medalist; and 

Michael Phelps. American Swimmer and Olympic Gold Medalist. 

II. BACKGROUND 

a. The Olympic Movement and the World Anti-Doping Agency 

The World Conference on Doping held in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1999, 1 under the 

leadership of the Olympic Movement. including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), 

established the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as an independent international agency to 

1 0LYMI'lC INFORMATION Cc.NTI'R: L\USANNE DITl.AR.~TlON 17-18 (1999), 

http:/ 1

1 ibrary .la84 .org/0 lympicl nlcJrmalionCcntcr/OiympicRcvic" I 1999/0REXXVJ25/0R EXXV125 g.pd f. 
76 


Majority Memorandum for February 28, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 2 

research, educate, and enforce standards on anti-doping in Olympic sport. 2 WADA developed 

the World Anti-Doping Code (the Codc)-the international agreement that standardizes antidoping policies, rules, and regulations among authorities around the world. 3 Under the Code, the 

roc, as a stakeholder organization, has jurisdiction to impose consequences on those whom 

WADA finds to be non-compliant. 

WADA's mission is to "lead a collaborative worldwide movement for doping-tree 

sport.''4 Since its creation, W ADA has implemented and overseen many positive developments 

in the fight against doping in international sport. The Agency. which consists of equal 

representatives hom the Olympic Movement and public authorities, pursues scientific research, 

education, development of anti-doping capacities, athlete outreach, cooperation with law 

enforcement, and monitoring of the Code. The Athletes Biological Passport program, designed to 

detect variation in biomarkers in athletes' blood associated with the use of banned substances. 

has been widely endorsed by anti-doping experts as an effective tool to reduce cheating in sport. 5 

The Anti-Doping Administration and Management System keeps stakeholders apprised of athlete 

whereabouts, test planning and results management, and therapeutic usc exemptions.6 

Funded equally by the sport movement and governments of the world, in 2016, WADA's 

total budget was nearly $30 million. After the IOC, the U.S. is the next largest contributor to 

WADA 's budget at roughly $2 million per year. 7 The U.S. supports anti-doping activities, 

including W ADA's budget, through use of funds from the Oftice of National Drug Control 

Policy (ONDCP) 8 These funds were first authorized under title VII of the Office ofNational 

Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of20069 

b. The Role of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 

National anti-doping organizations (NADO) are responsible for testing national athletes 

and athletes from other countries competing within that nation's borders, adjudicating antidoping violations, and providing education on anti-doping issues. 10 The U.S. Anti-Doping 

2 World /Inti-Doping Agency Misshm Statement. https://www.\vada-ama.org/cn/who-wc-arc (last visited Feb. 23. 

201 7). 1 H'or/d Anti-Doping Agency Code, https://wW\\.wada-ama.org/en/what-wc-do/thc-code (last visited Feb. 23. 2017). 

·t Afission Statement supra note 2. 

'!Nick llarris, Athlete Biological Passport: lhe ke.v questions surrounding (/Et-:)1's !/elf blood-testing process 

brought in to stamp out poformance-enhancing drugs in footba!!, DAlLY MAIL (Sept. 24. 20 IS). 

http ;/.\vww .da i I ymai l, co, uk/ sport/footba !!!art i cl c-3 2 4 7 57 3/A th I ctc-B iologi cal-Passport -kcy-q uest ion s-surrou ndi ngliiTA-s-ncw-blood-tcsting-proccss.html. 

" World .Inti-Doping Agency A !JAMS. https://www.wada-ama.org/cn/adams (last visited Feb. 23. 20 17). 7 WORLD ANTJ-DOPJNG AGENCY. CONTRIBUTIONS TO WADA ·s BUDGET 2016 (.lA~. 1 1. 2017), https://www.wadaama.org/s!tcs/dcfault/files/rcsDurccs/files/wada_ contributions_ 2016 _update_ cn.pdf. 8 EXECUTIVe OFFICE OF TJIF PRESIDENT OF THe lJ'\lTED STATES. FY 2016 f3GDGET AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY, 

COMPANION TO rHE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRMEGY, II. 231 (Nov. 2015), 

https:l /obamawhitchouse.archivcs.gov/sites/dctau lt/flles/ondcp/policy-and-rcsearchity _ 20 I 6 __ budget_ summary .pdf. 9 Sec 21 U.S.C pOOl et seq for authorizing language for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, and (P.L. 109·469), 

https:iimvw.gpo.govifdsys/pkg/PLA W-I 09publ469/pdf!PLA W -1 09publ469.pdl'. 10 H"or/d Anti-Doping Agency. Sational Anti-Doping Organi:alions. https://wv.,w.wada-ama.org/en/national-antidoping-organizations·nado (last visited Feb. 23. 20 17) 
77 


Majority Memorandum for February 28, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 3 

Agency (USADA) is the NADO in the U.S. for Olympic, Paralympic, Pan American, and 

Parapan American sport. USADA's mission is to preserve the integrity of competition, inspire 

true sport, and protect the rights of U.S. athletes. The organization is responsible for managing 

the anti-doping program, results management processes, drug reference resources, and athlete 

education for all United States Olympic Committee (USOC) recognized sport national governing 

bodies, their athletes, and events in a manner that is consistent with WADA 's Code. 

Additionally, USADA helps to advance clean sport through scientific research and education and 

outreach initiatives that arc focused on awareness and prevention. 11 

c. Challenges Facing the Current Anti-Doping System 

WADA's sweeping mission is not without its challenges. Experts point out that conflicts 

of interest stemming from the composition of WADA 's senior leadership currently exist, as antidoping decision makers often simultaneously hold a policy-making position within a sports 

organization. Such conflicts can have both real and perceived effects on the rigorous 

investigations of possible violations as well as the enforcement of anti-doping measures. Several 

anti-doping experts have publicly stated that W ADA lacks sufficient independence. 1

' In the 

summer of2016, press reports and whistlcblowcrs regularly suggested that this lack of 

independence had led to "foot-dragging" in response to long running allegations of statesponsored dopingu 

Actions taken by WADA to investigate recent claims of a state-sponsored doping scheme 

have prompted questions over the inherent conflicts of interest between those who police sport 

and those who promote sport. 1

'

1 Indeed, recent events have raised the intensity and public profile 

ofthe debate over WADA's effectiveness. In light of the allegations, the Institute ofNational 

Anti-Doping Organizations (iN ADO) called for further action to protect clean sport, noting that 

"iN ADO recognises that WADA's role as an international regulator is seriously compromised if 

those who govern sport (such as International Federations (!Fs) and the IOC) do not 

appropriately act on clear cases ofnon-compliance." 15 Similarly, Travis Tygart, CEO of the U.S. 

Anti-Doping Association (USADA), has called into question WADA 's ability ·'to do its job.'' 16 

Central to any discussion ofWADA's value as an international regulatory body is its 

ability to investigate, and where necessary hold accountable. individual NADOs for world antidoping code non-compliance. In a 2014 documentary, the Russian Anti-Doping Agency 

11 ().S. Anti-Doping Agency, A hout, \VW\v.usada.org/about! (last visited Feb. 23, 20 17). 12 \\.'ill Jlobson. H:.U)A heard of Russian doping in 20 I 0, didn't investigate zmlil media reports, WASIL POST (Jun. 

2. 2016 ). https://\V\VW. washingtonposLcom/sports/oJympics/\Vada-heard-0 f:-russian-doping-in-20 1 0-diJntimestigale-until-mcdia-reports/20 16/06/02/9cc77acc-28e7-ll c6-b989-4e5479715b54 ~·story.htmL 

13 Rebecca Rui'f., Juliet Macur, and Jan Austen, Even with Confession ofChealing World's Doping Watchdog Did 

:\'othing. N.Y. TiMES (June 15. 2016). bttp:liwww.nytimes.comi2016/06i161sports/olympicshvorld-anti-dopingagcncy -russia-cheating. h tm 1? _r-"0 14 Hobson. supra note 12. 

"Press Release, Institute ofNational Anti-Doping Organisations. iN ADO Calls lor Further Action to Protect Clean 

Sport (May 19, 20 16). http://mvw.inudo.org/about!press-rclcases.htmL 16 Travis T. Tygart. Come Clean. Russia. or Xo Rio. N.Y.TIMES. May 25,2016, 

h tt.ps://www. nyti mcs. com/20 16/0 5/2 51 opi nio n/come-c 1 can-russia-or-no-rio .html. 
78 


Majority Memorandum for February 28, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 4 

(RUSADA) was alleged to be colluding with coaches and athletes to cover-up positive tests tor 

the use of pcrtormance-enhancing drugs. 17 In response to mounting evidence and media scrutiny, 

W ADA, which initially held that it lacked the institutional authority to investigate, 

commissioned an independent report led by former WADA president Richard Pound. 18 The 

Independent Commission report, published on November 9, 2015, corroborated claims of statesponsored doping as well as a deep-rooted culture of chcating. 19 

d. Leading up to Rio: A System Under Severe Strain 

In May 2016. the American newsmagazine 60 Mimlles20 and then The New York Times 21 

published reports detailing Russian state-facilitated doping schemes during the Soc hi 2014 

Winter Olympic Games. The primary source of these allegations was the former Director of the 

Moscow and Soc hi doping control laboratories, who ran the testing for thousands of Russian and 

international Olympians. On May 19, 20!6, W ADA announced that Richard McLaren would 

conduct an investigation into those allegations. 22 

An Olympic summit held on June 21, 2016, produced a Five-Point Plan addressing the 

need "to make the entire anti-doping system independent from sports organizations" and called 

on WADA to convene an "Extraordinary World Conference on Doping" in 2017.23 Similarly, on 

assuming the role of Director General of WADA on July 1, 2016, at the very height of the public 

controversy over how to respond to revelations shattering public confidence in the world antidoping system, Olivier Niggli highlighted his aims of''bolstering our investigative work" and 

''implementing a new whistleblower program by the next Foundation Board meeting in 

Novembcr."24 

On July 12, 2016, the Committee sent the President of the !OC, Thomas Bach, a letter 

expressing strong bipartisan interest in a renewed commitment to clean sport by the Olympic 

Movement in light of recent and ongoing investigations, including state-sponsored doping25 On 

17 Sec 4-purt installment of ARD/German TV documentaries. The first is, The ~)'ecrets of Doping: flow Russia ,\fakes 

ils Winner.<>. (20 14). hHps:I/YV\'-'V>,youtubc.com/watch?v=iu9IJ-ty9JCY. 18 WORLD A"TI-DOPING AGENCY, THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION REPORT #1, FiNAL REPORT ('-!OV. 9. 2015). 

https://vvww, wada-ama.org/sitcs/dcfault/tlles/rcsourccs!fi les/wada _independent .. commission _report_}_ en.pdf. !') ld 

Russian /Japing at Soc hi Winter Olympics Exposed (60 Minutes broadcast May H. 20 I 6), 

http://www .cbsnews. com/new s/60-m in utcs-russ ian -doping-at -socb i -wl ntcr-o 1 ymp i cs-exposcd/. 21 Rebecca R. Rui7: and Michael Schwirtz, Russian Insider ,)'ays S'tate-Nun Doping Flteled Olympic Gold, N.Y. 

T!MES (May 12. 2016 ). https:ii\1 W\\.nytimcs.com/20 16/05/13/sportsirussia-doping-sochi-olympics-20 14.html?_r~O. 

~::Press Release, World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA Names Richard McLaren to Sochi Investigation Team (May 

19. 20 16). https://www. wada-ama.org/cn/mcdia/ncws/20 16-05/wada-names-richard~mclaren-to-sochi-invcstigationtcam. 

''Press Release, Olympic Movement. Declaration ofthc Olympic Summit (Jun. 21, 20 16), 

https://www.olympic.org/news/dcclaration-of~thc-olympic-summit. 

Press Release. World Anti-Doping Agency. Olivier :\iggli ilcgins New Role as WADi\ Director General (Jul. I. 

20 16 ). https://wv-.'w. waJa-ama.org/en/media/ncws/20 16-07/olivicr-niggli-hcgins-ncw-role-as.-wada-director-general. 

:;s Letter from H. Comm. on Energy & Commerce, to Thomas Bach, President, Int'! Olympic Comm. (July 12, 

2016). 
79 


Majority Memorandum for February 28,2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 5 

July 16,2016, Part I ofthe McLaren Report was released. 26 Most notably, the McLaren Report 

found that ·'The [Russian l Ministry of Sport directed, controlled and oversaw the manipulation of 

athlete's analytical results or sample swapping" with the active participation of Russian security 

services and both the Moscow and Sochi LaboratoricsP 

Later that same day, W ADA publicized the recommendations of its Executive Committee 

based on the McLaren Report, which included the following: (I) The IOC should consider 

declining entry to Rio 2016 for all athletes submitted by the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC); 

(2) Russian government officials should be denied access to international competitions, including 

Rio 20 16; and (3) the Russian National Anti-Doping Agency should be considered noncompliant under the World Anti-Doping Code.28 

On July 19,2016, IOC President Bach stated, "(t]he findings of the report show a 

shocking and unprecedented attack on the integrity of sports and on the Olympic Games. 

Therefore, the IOC will not hesitate to take the toughest sanctions available against any 

individual or organisation imp!icatcd.''29 The IOC's Executive Board announced that it would 

begin exploring legal options balancing the applicability of a collective ban of all Russian 

athletes from the Olympic Games 2016 against the right to individualjusticc. 30 The IOC also 

provided for "the eligibility of each Russian athlete ... to be decided by his or her International 

Federation (IF) based on an individual analysis of his or her international anti-doping record."31 

On July 24, 2016, the IOC Executive Board released its decision concerning the 

participation of Russian athletes in the Rio Games.32 The IOC opted to delegate its authority on 

the matter to the 28 !Fs to determine individually the eligibility of Russian athletes if they were 

able to provide evidence, a record of non-doping, and "rebut the applicability ofeo!lective 

responsibility in his or her individual case."33 The IOC determined that an arbitrator of the Court 

of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) would rule on each and every athlete ban.34 Several days later, 

lOC announced that a panel consisting of three Executive Board Members would confirm or 

26 RICHARD 11. MCLAREK, TilE lNDFPFNDE]';T PERSON REPORT (JUL. 16, 2016). https;/1\Y\VW. wadaama.org/sitcs/defat!lt/f1!es/rcsources/fi lcs/20 160718 _ip ___ report-· ncwlinal.pdr. 

27 /d. 

Press Release, \Vorld AntiwDoping Agency. WADA Statement: Independent Investigation confirms Russian State 

manipulation of the doping control process (Jul. 18, 20 16), https://wv.·\v.\vada-ama.org/cn/mcdia/news/20 16-

0 7/wada-statem cnt -i ndcpcndcnt-i nvcsti gati on-eon ti rms-russ ian-state-manipulation -o C 

Press Release, Int'l Olympic Comm., Statement of the lnt'l Olympic Comm. on WADA Report (Jul. 18, 2016), 

https:/I\\'\Yw.olympic.org/ncws/statemcnt~of-thc-international-olympil:-committcc-on-wada-report. 

w Press Release, !nt'l Olympic Comm .. Statement of the Executive Board of the Int'l Olympic Comm. on the 

'J\1 ADA Independent Person Report pul. 19, 20 16). https://w\V\v.o!ympic.org/news/statcmcnt-of-the-cxccutivcboard-of-thc-intcrnational-olympic-committcc-on-thc-v\.:ada-indcpcndcnt-person-report. 

liJd 

32 Press Release, Inrl Olympic Comm.l Decision of the IOC Executive Board Concerning the Participation of 

Russian Athletes in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 (Jul. 24. 2016). https:l/www.olympic.org/ncws/dccision-ol~thei oc-cxccutive-boB rd -concerning -the-participation-of-russ lun-a thl ctes-i n -thc-o! y mp i c-games-rio-20 1 6. 

!d 

34 !d 
80 


Majority Memorandum for February 28, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 6 

overturn each decision.35 By the start of the Rio Games on August 5, 20!6, 271 of the 389 

athletes put forward by the ROC were cleared to participate. 36 

On August 2, 2016, the !OC responded to the Committee's letter, in writing, stressing 

that while it is only one component of the Olympic Movement-with W ADA serving as the 

·'independent leader in the fight against doping"-thc IOC was proud of its record supporting 

clean sport.37 The IOC discussed its decision on Russian participation at Rio and listed the steps 

it had taken to combat doping since the Olympic Summit in June. While thanking the Committee 

for its support ofiOC's efforts to protect clean athletes, the !OC noted that the 2017 

"Extraordinary World Conference on Doping" will be "an ideal venue to discuss how linancing 

for WADA's impm1ant anti-doping activities and initiatives can be enhanced." 

e. Events Following Rio 

The Rio Games began on August 5, 20 I 6 and ended on August 21, 2016. Nine days later, 

on August 30, 2016, the leaders of 17 NADOs, who had come together for a special summit in 

Copenhagen, Denmark, released a series ofref<:mn proposals to strengthen global anti-doping 

cfforts. 38 These included a bid to remove the contlict of interest present where anti-doping 

decisions arc controlled by sports organizations, a bolstering of\VADA's capacity to investigate 

and impose sanctions for World Anti-Doping Code non-compliance, and a commitment to 

protect whist!cb!owers from reta!iation.39 

On September 21, 2016, WADA 's executive committee, reflecting an eight-point 

consensus reached during its recently held multi-stakeholder think tanks, affirmed its support for 

a reinforced and independent WADA.'0 An IOC summit held October 8, 2016, proposed changes 

to anti-doping protocols that would separate WADA's role as regulator from overseeing testing 

in international sports and empower CAS initially to handle all doping sanctions matters. 41 On 

October 26, 2016, NADO leaders at a summit in Bonn, Germany renewed their calls, from 

August, lor immediate change in the anti-doping system in order to restore the confidence of 

clean athletesY 

35 Rio 2016./0C pane/to decide/ate a( Russian athletes. CNN. Jul. 31,2016, 

http:! /edition .cnn .com/20 16/07/3 1 /sport/olympics-thrcc-pcrson-ioc-board-dccision-russia-rio-:!0 16/, 

Eoghan Macguirc and Steve Almasy, 2 71 Russian athletes cleared for Rio Games, Aug. 5. 2016, 

http://cdition .cnn.com/20 16/08/04/sport/russia-ioc-bach-o!ympics-rio-20 16/. 37 Response on file \\'ith the Committee. 18 SPECIAl. NADO SU~\11T REFORM PROPOSALS (AUG. 30. 2016), http:/iwww,usada.org/wpcontcnt/up!oads/Spccial_ Ni\ DO_ Summit_ Reform ___ Proposals.pdf. 

30 !d. 

40 Press Release. World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA llolds First in Series of Multi-Stakeholder Think Tanks 

(Sept. 20. 20 16 ). https://www. wada-ama.org/en/mcdia/ncws/20 16-09/wada-holds-!irst-in-scrics-of-multistakeholdcr-think-tanks. 

·ll INT't. OLYMPIC CO~M., DECLARATION OE TflE 5'" OLYMPIC SU\1M!T (Ocr. 8. 2016). 

https://stillmed.olympic.org/mcdia/Documcnt%20Libraryl01ympic0rgiNcws/20 16/10/20 16-1 0-08-DcclarationOlympic-Summit.pdf. 

Press Release. USADA. Renewed Calllc11. Urgent Anti-Doping Reforms (Oct. 26. 2016), 

http://ww\v,usada.org/rcncwed-calls-urgcnt-anti-doping-reforms/, 
81 


Majority Memorandum for February 28, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 7 

On November 20, 2016, the WADi\ Foundation Board, composed equally of the 

Olympic movement and governments of the world, met to develop a roadmap for reforming the 

world anti-doping system, to include a graded sanctioning framework for non-compliance and a 

formalized process for protecting whistleblowers.43 

On December 8, 2016, Thomas Bach. President of the !OC. led Executive Board 

meetings focused on the success of the Summer Games in Rio, cleaning up the Olympic Games, 

and upcoming challenges_44 While Bach was quoted saying that the retesting program designed 

with WADA, the NADOs, and the !Fs had proven to be successful, preventing 41 athletes from 

participating in Rio, he indicated that other results may continue to come and the program may 

need to be analyzed further. 

On December 9, 2016, Part 2 of Richard McLaren's report was released by W ADA. 45 

Part 2 of the repmt further supported the findings inl'art 1, and detailed "the institutional 

conspiracy [that] existed across summer and winter sports athletes" as well as how the 

'·systematic and centralised cover up and manipulation of the doping control process evolved and 

was refined over the course of its usc .... "46 The report concluded that up to one thousand 

Russian athletes benefited from the state-sponsored doping scheme. The findings of the McLaren 

reports raise concerns about whether the current anti-doping system is structured and equipped to 

adequately address systemic, especially nation-state driven, doping violations. 

f. Remaining Challenges 

While many summits, conferences, and meetings have occurred since the Rio Games, 

challenges remain and progress towards meaningful reform remains unclear. The current system 

is rife with conflicts of interest where officials are wearing too many different hats and are in a 

position where they both have to promote and police sport. This inhibits their ability to make 

independent decisions and makes it challenging to conduct thorough and fair investigations. 

Another area for reform includes clearly delegating who makes the decision to both 

investigate and sanction in the event of a suspected anti-doping code or rules violation. As 

witnessed prior to the Rio Games, despite evidence that athletes were doping, organizations 

wavered and were unsure of their authority to make decisions and sanction athletes. Ultimately, 

the decision was passed down to the 28 IFs, but then the question remains whether the IFs are 

equipped to evaluate and make individual determinations for all of the athletes within their spmt 

-particularly when the decision timeframe is short. In the case of Rio, this resulted in 

inconsistent decisions by the IFs. For example, some IFs, such as International Association of 

3 Press Release. World Anti-Doping Agency, Foundation Board Press Release: foundation Board Equips Agency 

to be Fit tor the Future (Nov. 20. 20 16). https://wmv.wada-ama.org/cn/media/ncws/20 16-llltbundation-boardpress-rc!ease-toundation-board-equips-agency-to-be-tlt-tor-thc. 

44 Press Release. Olympic Movement, lOC President Looks Back at 2016 and Sets Tone tbr Promising 2017 (Dec. 

8, 2016 ), https://\V\VW .oly mpic.org/news/ioc-exccutivc-board-meeting-comes-to-a-c!osc. 45 RICHARD H. MCLARE:-:. O.C., TilE 1NDEPENDE)>;T !'ERS[)N 2"' REPORT (DEC. 9, 2016). https://www.wadaama.org/s i tes I de fau I t/li I es/rcsou rccs/ti I cs/m c larcn _report ~_part_ i i _ 2. pd L 

!d 
82 


Majority Memorandum for February 28, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 8 

Athletics Federations- the governing body for track and field, banned all Russian athletes, 47 

Other federations, however, made decisions for individual athletes. This variation reflects 

different perspectives on the issue of"collective" versus "individual" responsibility, and raises 

questions about the adequacy of the current system to issue consistent and fair punishment for 

violations, especially in response to a systemic doping program. 

Further, recent events highlight the need to examine potential improvements with respect 

to whistle blower protections. There will always be athletes or institutions that attempt to gain a 

competitive advantage. Whistleblowers-whether they are athletes, coaches, or people within the 

NADOs-are critical to anti-doping organizations' ability to identify and investigate violations. 

Therefore, it bares questioning whether the current system docs enough to encourage, embrace, 

and protect honest whistleblowers. 

This hearing provides an opportunity to learn from the past and examine opportunities to 

ref~Jrm the system to make it fair, nimble, and effective for the sake of athletes, clean sport, and 

the integrity of the International competition, including the Olympic Games. 

Ill. ISSUES 

The following issues will be examined at the hearing: 

• The current state of the anti-doping system; 

• The challenges currently facing the anti-doping system; 

• How to better facilitate efforts to guarantee clean competition and restore public 

confidence in international sports; 

IV. STAFFCONTACTS 

If you have any questions regarding the hearing, please contact Brittany Havens or John 

Ohly at (202) 225-2927. 

47 Rebecca Ruiz. Sports Court Upholds /ian on Russian 7r·ack and Field Athletes, N.Y. TIMES (Jul. 21, 2016), 

https :/ /www. nyti mes.com/2 0 l 6/07/22/sports/ o I ym pies/russia -o ly mpi cs-ban-doping-track-and-lie I d. htm I '?_r;Q. 
83 


INTERNATIONAL 

OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE 

Office of the Director General 

Dear All, 

IOC Honorary President 

IOC Members 

IOC Honorary Members 

Presidents of National Olympic 

Committees 

Presidents of International Federations 

Lausanne, 23 February 2017 

Ref. CDKIMAS/hgr 

By e-mail only 

The IOC and the Olympic Movement have recently taken a number of actions and 

initiatives to protect the clean athletes and contribute to the reform of the anti-doping 

system. Given the sometimes confusing public discussion, I would like to provide you with 

an update of the current situation. 

Firstly, firm actions are being taken with regard to the findings of the Mclaren Report on 

doping and manipulation in Russia, which have caused damage to the credibility and 

integrity of sport. In this respect, the IOC established two Commissions in July 2016: one 

under the chairmanship of IOC Member Denis Oswald; and another under the 

chairmanship of the former President of the Swiss Confederation, Samuel Schmid. These 

two Commissions started work last year, even before the publication of the full and final 

report by Professor Richard Mclaren in December last year. 

The Oswald Commission is examining the evidence against individual Russian athletes 

and their entourage who may have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) at the 

Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. In a preventive perspective the IOC has already 

initiated disciplinary procedures against 28 Russian Olympic athletes. All the other athletes 

mentioned in the Mclaren Report who did not take part in the Olympic Winter Games are 

of course under the exclusive authority of the International Federations. The IOC greatly 

appreciates the work of the IFs with regard to these cases, for which we have neither the 

information nor any kind of authority to prosecute. 

The work of the Oswald Commission and of the IFs is not easy because as the Mclaren 

Report clearly states: "The IP is not a Results Management Authority under the World AntiChateaudeVidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland 1 Tel +41216218111! Fax+41216216216jwww.olyrnpicorg 
84 


Doping Code 0/VADC 2015 version). The mandate of the IP did not involve any authority to 

bring Anti-Doping Rule Violation ("ADRV") cases against individual athletes." 

It is now the more comprehensive task of the Oswald Commission to establish all 

appropriate evidence. Therefore, the Commission must go beyond the mandate of 

Professor Mclaren. The Commission will: 

consider the samples of ALL Russian participants at the Olympic Winter Games 

Sochi 2014; 

re-analyse all samples for adverse findings. The IOC has already initiated the 

forensic analysis of the samples of 28 Russian athletes who competed in Sochi in 

2014 and where the Mclaren Report indicated there was evidence of 

manipulation; 

investigate all Russian samples from the 2008, 2010 and 2012 Olympic Games. 

The re-analysis programme of stored samples has so far resulted in sanctions 

against 18 Russian athletes from Beijing 2008 and 20 from London 2012. In many 

cases, medals were withdrawn. 

The Schmid Commission, which has to address the substantial allegations about the 

potential systematic manipulation of the anti-doping samples, is also continuing its work. 

The complexity of the Schmid Commission's work is considerable since for instance, in his 

first interim report, Professor Mclaren describes a "state sponsored system" whilst in the 

final full report in December he described an "institutional conspiracy." 

The Commission will now have to consider what this change means and which 

individuals, organisations or government authorities may have been involved. 

The Commission has already met several times and will offer hearings to all those 

involved in due course. 

The two Commissions will continue to closely cooperate with Professor Mclaren, the 

World Anti-Doping Agency 0/VADA) and the International Federations. The establishment 

of acceptable evidence is a significant challenge, as some IFs have already experienced; 

where in some cases they have had to lift provisional suspensions or were not able - at 

least at this stage- to begin disciplinary procedures due to a lack of consistent evidence. 

In this context, WADA has written to all the Olympic Winter IFs in order to "inform [them] of 

some of the discrepancies or issues that have been identified since the publication of the 

Report." (WADA letter. 19 January 2017). 

At the recent meeting (21 February) held by WADA in Lausanne to "provide assistance to 

IFs regarding how to analyse and interpret the evidence", it was admitted by WADA that in 

many cases the evidence provided may not be sufficient to bring successful cases. IFs 

were told by WADA to make direct contact with the IP team to try to obtain further 

information. WADA also explained that the translations used by the IP team were not 

adequate and was obtaining official translations of some of the texts. 

For all these reasons, this process will clearly take some time, but I can assure you that we 

are still determined to conclude these cases as swiftly as possible. We want to protect the 

clean athletes and ensure a level playing field. It is already evident from the appeals filed 

against some International Federations provisional suspension decisions that the IOC 

decision will have to stand up to a strong legal challenge. 

Ref. CDKIMAS/hgr Page 213 

JNTFRNAT!ONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE 

Chateau de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne. Switzerland 1 Tel +41 21 621 6111 1 Fax +41 21 621 62161 www.olympic.org 
85 


In the meantime, the IOC is encouraging WADA and Russia to re-establish state-of-the-art 

anti-doping institutions in Russia. We have asked that, in the period leading up to the 

Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018, every eligible Russian athlete undergo antidoping tests with higher benchmarks than for athletes from other countries. The IOC is 

also working with WADA to ensure that pre-Games testing on all athletes is done efficiently 

with the relevant intelligence through the WADA pre-Games "task force" funded by the 

IOC. 

The IOC is also pursuing the reform of the WADA system, as supported by the IOC 

Session, the IOC Executive Board and the Olympic Summit. 

We are driving forward to establish an independent testing authority - independent from 

sports organisations and from national interests. The importance of this body being 

independent from national interests is demonstrated by recent decisions by national antidoping organisations concerning athletes of the same nation. This is another reason why 

sanctioning should be delegated to the CAS as the IOC successfully did at the Olympic 

Games Rio 2016. 

The IOC is also participating in WADA's good governance working group. Here the IOC 

has made proposals for more accountability, transparency and diversity. Our 

representatives will be guided by the proposals adopted by the IOC Executive Board and 

the Olympic Summit. 

We will continue to keep you informed, and I would like to thank you for your continued 

support. As always, I look forward to our next meeting. Until then, I remain, 

Yours sincerely, 

Christophe De Kepper 

Director General 

Ref. CDK!MAS/hgr 

JN'!'El~NAnONAl. OL\'Mf'fC COMMITTEE 

Page 3/3 

Chateau de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne. Switzerland 1 Tel +41 21 621 61111 Fax +41 21 621 62161 www.olympic.org 
86 


NADOSummit 

Copenhagen, Denmark (30 August 2016) 

We, a dedicated group of National Anti-Doping Organisations from around the world, recognise that we 

are at a crossroads in the fight for clean sport. With the best interests of clean athletes at heart, we 

have come together to propose reforms that we believe will better protect them, restore confidence in 

the integrity of international sport which has been deeply damaged and ensure that the disturbing 

events of recent years are not repeated. Therefore, at this time we recommend and propose the 

following: 

1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been responsible for significant advancement in 

the fight for clean sport since 1999. We support the authority and autonomy of WADA and 

reject any efforts to weaken its mandate, autonomy or operations. We fully endorse a 

strong WADA that adheres to the principles of independence, separation of powers, and 

best governance practices, including: 

a. Improved monitoring systems for World Anti-Doping Code ("Code") and UNESCO 

International Convention Against Doping in Sport compliance in order to permit the 

earlier identification of failing anti-doping systems; 

b. The Code should be amended to clarify and broaden the range of violations and the 

consequences of Code non-compliance such as systematic subversion of anti-doping 

systems (such as recently occurred with Russia), including adoption of clear 

sanctions with strong deterrent effect; 

c. WADA must have authority and capacity to investigate and to impose proportional 

sanctions and consequences for all instances of Code non-compliance; 

d. Mentoring of developing and/or non-compliant NADOs must be emphasized to raise 

the quality and ensure the integrity of national level anti-doping efforts around the 

world; A mechanism should be established that allows the possibility of anti-doping 

organisations maintaining operations while serving consequences for less severe 

non-compliance; 

e. Adoption and implementation of best governance practices, e.g., independence, 

transparency (including mechanisms for oversight), term limits, global inclusivity, 

audit committee, etc.; and 

f. Independence in governance and operational decisions and activities as described in 

proposed reform number 2 below. 

2. The anti-doping system should be independent of sports organizations. The current Code 

principle that NADOs must be independent in their operational decisions and activities (Art. 

20.5.1) should apply equally to WADA, Major Event Organisations (including the IOC as the 
87 


term Major Event Organisation is used herein) and IFs. We recommend that the Code 

definition of "Anti-Doping Organization" and the inclusion of IFs, the IOC and Major Event 

Organizations therein be reviewed and modified. We further recommend that: 

a. Officers, directors, employees and all decision-makers of anti-doping organisations 

should not simultaneously hold a board or officer position or other policy-making 

position in any IF or major event organization. 

b. The chief executive and any board of directors of anti-doping organisations should 

be selected independently and transparently consistent with 2(a) above. 

3. The continuing involvement of IFs, Major Event Organisations and other sport organisations 

in anti-doping rules formation and evaluation, education, deterrence programs, intelligence 

sharing, and working with anti-doping organisations, remains critical to the fight against 

doping in sport and every step should be taken to increase this involvement. 

4. Anti-doping efforts are fundamental to ensure the integrity of competition and the value of 

sport. The IOC has called for the anti-doping system to be independent from sports 

organisations. It is therefore understood that the IOC and IFs need to continue significant 

independent funding and should make the funding available initially at no lower than the 

level of the present investment in the fight against doping. 

5. In addition to the current commitment of financial support from governments, the funding 

to anti-doping from current and new sources that benefit from clean sport should be 

increased, including increased financial commitments to WADA and other anti-doping 

organisations. 

6. A program for the encouragement, management and protection of whistle blowers ought to 

be given the highest priority by WADA. 

In recognition of the important international events that have recently transpired, we further 

recommend: 

1. Support for, and completion of, the independent investigation of state-sponsored doping in 

Russia by the Independent Person, Richard Mclaren, including: 

a. adequate sanctions for rule violations and all instances of Code non-compliance; 

b. meaningful recognition and compensation for those who have been harmed by 

doping violations committed by others; and 

c. continuation of oversight by international experts at the Russian Anti-Doping 

Agency and the Russian drug testing laboratory to guarantee their reform and the 
88 


reliability of future anti-doping programs for the wellbeing of Russian athletes and 

the clean athletes of the world. 

2. Meaningful recognition and compensation for their courageous contributions should be 

extended to Yuliya and Vitaly Stepanov and other whistleblowers relied upon in the 

investigation of the Independent Person and preceding WADA Independent Commission 

investigations, without whom the state-supported system of doping would likely never have 

been exposed. All relevant organisations should do everything in their power to protect and 

ensure safety, security, and a sustainable future for Yuliya and Vitaly and the other 

whistleblowers. We ask the IOC and Russia to publicly commit to do everything in their 

power to recognise the significant contributions to clean sport made by Yuliya and Vitaly 

and the other whistleblowers and to also assist in guaranteeing the safety, security, wellbeing and a sustainable future for Yuliya and Vitaly and the other whistleblowers. 
89 


National Anti-Doping Organizations Supporting the Copenhagen 

Declaration of August 30, 2016 

Australia Netherlands 

Austria New Zealand 

Belgium (Flanders) Poland 

Canada Slovenia 

Croatia Spain 

Denmark South Africa 

Estonia Sweden 

Finland Switzerland 

France Ukraine 

Germany United States 

Ireland Institute of National AntiJapan Doping Organizations 
90 


;_/,JI!fusADA ----- v. ,,,.____ _,. - 0 

True Sport· 

Preser!llng rhe lnttgrtry of competition, /ID(Iirlng truosport, Prvtectlttg the tights of US. athletes. 

Via Electronic Mail 

December 8, 2014 

Sir Craig Reedie, President 

David Howman, Director General 

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 

Stock Exchange Tower 

800 Place Victoria 

Suite 1700 

Montreal Quebec H4Z 187 

Canada 

Re: Need for WADA Investigation of Allegations of Systematic Doping in Russia 

Dear Sir Craig and Mr. Howman: 

Recent days have brought multiple news reports alleging systematic doping in Russia involving 

participation and complicity by a broad range of Russian Olympic sports, the Russian national 

anti-doping agency (RUSADA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited Moscow 

laboratory. 

These news reports cite as evidence undercover tape recordings with Russian athletes and 

coaches, financial records pertaining to the alleged payment of bribes, emails and confessions 

by a number of insiders including athletes, coaches and a former employee of RUSADA. 

Already, since the publication of these news reports USADA has been approached by a credible 

sports official who claims to have additional first hand evidence of systematic blood doping by 

Russi an athletes. 

On the whole, the claims that have been made are that organized, systematic doping in Russia 

covers many, if not all, Olympic sports. The sports of athletics (track and field), biathlon, 

cycling, nordic skiing, swimming and weightlifting have all been specifically identified. 

Individuals implicated include high ranking sports officials, such as a Vice President of the 

International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), Russian Olympic team coaches and the 

Director of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory. 

If true, the allegations of organized and systematic doping of Russian athletes go far beyond 

any known doping scheme in the past 30 years and present a challenge to clean sport that 

overshadows any other faced by WADA in its 15 years of existence. By positing the potential 

that doping has been pursued on such a massive and systematic scale involving complicity by 

IJ.S. AniJ.O..piPg Agency 
91 


0 

True Sport' 

p,_,.,;ng theint.grlly of mmpelftlon. IMplr/ng troe $part. Protecting the rights of (ll athlet11< 

such a range of sports and anti-doping officials, the allegations strike at the heart of the current 

efficacy and continuing legitimacy of the global anti-doping system. 

The alarm and concern raised by clean athletes and other stakeholders in the Olympic 

movement has been swift, as well as loud and clear. There can be no doubt that these 

apparent revelations present a watershed moment for anti-doping and the integrity of sport. 

The circumstances require dynamic and decisive action by WADA to lead a thorough, searching 

and independent investigation. Anything less than a full, complete and successful investigation 

by WADA of the claims regarding an organized Russian doping operation would constitute an 

abdication of WAD A's responsibilities and its role as the leader of the global anti-doping 

movement. 

There can be no reasonable position that in the face of such extensive, shocking and apparently 

well evidenced claims that WADA can legitimately do anything less than organize an 

independent, full-scale investigation of the claims. The fact that the claims transcend any single 

sport means that reliance on the IAAF or any other sports organization to investigate is 

insufficient. Moreover, for WADA to sit on the sidelines in the face of such allegations flies in 

the face of WADA's mandate from sport, governments and clean athletes and the role for 

which it was created. 

In the past WADA has not shrunk from its responsibility to lead the fight against doping in sport. 

For instance, WADA's support of USADA's cycling investigation was pivotal in many respects, 

and WADA has played an invaluable role in bringing public pressure to bear on professional 

sports leagues to improve their anti-doping programs. These are just to name a few of WADA's 

many prior courageous stances. 

Yet, In the few brief days since these allegations were reported there seem to be indications 

that WADA has in this particular case deviated from its traditional leadership role. Moreover, 

on the whole, in our opinion, WADA's initial statements in response to the allegations of 

Russian doping have been disappointing and unfortunately equivocal and insufficient. 

We were initially encouraged by David's statement to German television in response to the 

allegations of an organized Russian doping program that WADA must be "fearless in 

approaching [these] issues and make sure those who are suffering from fear are protected." 

This statement appeared to us to reflect WADA's willingness to assume a leadership role in 

protecting witnesses and investigating their claims. 

However, David's comments were thereafter followed by a statement on the WADA website 

which seemed to signal a retreat from this initial statement and indicate an unwillingness to 

become immediately engaged in investigation of the claims. The official WADA statement 

reads, in part, that "WADA has in fact already received some information and evidence of the 

Page 2 of4 
92 


True Sport' 

p,.,.rvfng lhe lntegrfry of rotllflO~rltln. Inspiring rrw spat. Ptor.<:tlng tire rights of U.S. athlores. 

type exposed in the documentary. All of that information has been passed to the appropriate 

independent body within the international federation, the IAAF. We will await the outcome of 

that independent body's deliberations." 

We have also read that Sir Craig was cited by the Associated Press as saying that WADA is 

unable to take action even against Russia's anti-doping laboratory or anti-doping agency. The 

AP article states, in part: 

Reedie; who is also an IOC vice president, said WADA was not in a position to 

take action against Russia's anti-doping lab or anti-doping agency. 

"We don't have these powers," he said. "The next part of the process is in the 

hands of the IAAF ethics commission. That's where we are at the moment." 

With all due respect, having worked with WADA on many prior investigations, we do not 

believe WADA lacks the power to conduct an investigation, protect witnesses or take steps to 

investigate whether WADA accredited laboratories or national anti-doping agencies have 

become corrupted or otherwise failed to fulfill their responsibilities under the World AntiDoping Code and WADA International Standards. Moreover, if there was ever any doubt as to 

whether sport, governments, and clean athletes wanted WADA to undertake an investigative 

role regarding such allegations of corruption, any such doubts must have been erased by the 

amendments to the Code adopted in South Africa last year which provide in Article 10.7.10, 

that WADA is directed "to initiate its own investigations of anti-doping rule violations and other 

activities that may facilitate doping." 

Sport must have an independent body which will investigate and get to the bottom of claims of 

widespread, systematic doping such as have been alleged in this case. There can be no 

question that WADA was in part created and empowered in order to undertake the very sort of 

investigation that is needed into the circumstances of alleged organized Russian doping. 

Indeed, WADA is the only body with such a global mandate. Therefore, clean athletes and all 

who care about clean sport are looking to WADA to investigate the claims of pervasive doping 

that have been made. 

As to the contention that the IAAF investigation should be permitted to proceed before WADA 

acts, this position falls to address the claims of doping in a variety of sports in addition to 

athletics as well as the contention that the Moscow laboratory and RUSADA, entities as to 

which WADA has Code-based responsibility for oversight and review, are allegedly complicit in 

the doping scheme. Furthermore, the allegations that have been made include the claim that 

an IAAF Vice-President has been compllcit in the cover-up of tests and that IAAF anti-doping 

controls may have been compromised. In such circumstances, WADA should not defer 

investigative responsibility to the IAAF. 

Page 3 of4 
93 


True Sport' 

Presenting thelntegtlly of mmpotitloll. lnsplting troe sport. l'fDtectlng the tights of US. athletes 

In light of the foregoing, we write to ask that on behalf of all stakeholders WADA immediately 

initiate an independent, detailed and thorough investigation into claims of organized Russian 

doping. Such investigation should start with review of all evidence upon which the public 

reports of doping have been based and include a systematic and searching effort to determine 

whether the claims are supported by additional evidence. Ultimately, WADA should assess 

whether any individuals have cases to answer for anti-doping rule violations and report 

whether any institutions have failed to fulfill their responsibilities under the Code and 

International Standards. 

We are writing first to both of you as the appropriate officers within WADA to assess and 

respond to this request and wish to give you a sufficient period of time in which to do so. We 

recognize the possibility of being misquoted and that notwithstanding your statements cited 

above, that you may, in fact, intend that WADA conduct an investigation along the lines we 

have suggested. Therefore, we are presenting our concerns to you first before presenting them 

to the WADA Executive Committee or Foundation Board. 

We seek your clarification at the earliest practicable time as to whether WADA intends to 

conduct an investigation such as we have described. If WADA does not intend to initiate such 

an investigation then, for the reasons set forth in this letter, we would likely request further 

consideration of this matter by the WADA Executive Committee and/or by the WADA 

Foundation Board. 

We look forward to hearing from you in response to this inquiry. 

Sincerely, 

Travis T. Tygart 

USADA CEO 

Dr. Edwin Moses 

USADA ~hairman of the Board 

Page 4of 4 
94 


1 O!ymplcP!azo 

CotorodoSprings,CO 

IIOSC19·5170 

o719.B56.4578 

1719.86:5.4669 

useswimming.org 

Date: December 9, 2015 

To: Cornel Marculescu, Executive Director 

FINA . 

Re: Urgent Request for Targeted Out-of-Competition Testing of Top Ten Swimmers before 

the Rio: Games 

We have learnb,~ from the WADA Independent Commission that state-sponsored doping in 

Russia involved athletes from sports other than just athletics, including swimmers. We also 

know that there are a number of top swimmers from other countries where there has been a 

history of doping, and many would ~uestion the effectiveness of their National Anti-Doping 

Organizations, .'· 

Our request is that FINA develop a specialized Test Distribution Plan to test the top ten 

swimmers in each of the Olympic events at least six times out·of-competltion prior to the Rio 

games. Those tests would include the collection of both urine and blood, and the samples 

would be analyzed for all prohibited substances, including HGH, EPO, and micro-dosing of 

steroids using :sotope ratio mass spectrometry. In conducting these tests, FINA could 

collaborate with a handful of National Anti-Doping Organizations around the world which have 

impeccable reputations {for example, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the Australian Anti-Doping 

Authority, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, UK Anti-Doping, and the Japan Anti-Doping 

Agency) in order to partially offset the cost to FINA. In the opinion of the clean swimmers of the 

world, there is no more important priority for the use of FINA funds. 

We also urge FINA to support, both politically and financially, IDC President Thomas Bach's 

i~~~~~e to outsource international sample colld/ R../2 an independe~n~ ' 

Thank you for considering this urgent request.~;·' ,~J ' TWr ~ { J~c- Chuc-k W:lgus Kt4J ~\JD~'1/U 2 g/ 'aJi? d A4ftt1//} 3 

\j /; .ill:/U /J,./42:~:.. J(WP ) . ~~;,P:J/ / 7'~ u ~ 

~~ 11 ~-~ ?;/jjY -.- (J "~I ~ .trrv.fl'~ ~~k~ ~/ :1]0fJEIJJfVJ 

~ f-' Ullv ~22/ /! ~· J\u,/2 V; ~ ~USA~j~~ 1 ' y4(1f ~" ((§{5) ~ (__.- /M-"'v'~~-, /~fl(fW~J/~ 

5J11!1U~ iJ r?:J~ atit:~lfon.-- ~· M 

' 1Jv~~ I (kt·J,~ 
95 


The preceding letter has been signed by the following USA Swimming National Team athletes; 

Cammile Adams 

Nathan Adrian 

Michael Chadwick 

Tyler Clary 

Kevin Cordes 

ConorDwyer 

Missy Franklin 

Matt Grevers 

Jessica Hardy 

Chase Kalisz 

Caitlin Leverenz 

Ryan Lochte 

Simone Manuel 

KatieMeili 

Cody Miller 

Lea Neal 

David Nolan 

Michael Phelps 

Allison Schmitt 

Josh Schneider 

Tom Shields 

Austin Surhoff 

Kelsi Worrell 
96 


2!24/2017 Letter from Beckie Scott, Cha1r ofWAD/\s Athlete Committoo, to Sir Craig Reedie, WADA President! World Anti-Dopmg Agency 

II WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

March 11, 2016 

sHARE 11 ~ Q. ,. (http:/Jwww .addth1s.com/bookmark.php?v"'300&pubid"'ra-532af65b05d02789l 

Letter from Beckie Scott, Chair of WADA's Athlete Committee, to Sir 

Craig Reedie, WADA President 

Dear President, dear Sir Craig: 

The WADA Athletes' Committee met today in Canmore, Alberta. The most important discussion item for us, as the voice and representatives of 

clean athletes wor!d~w1de, was the request we put forth in November to the WADA Foundation Board: a request to extend the mandate of the 

Independent Commission. We are of the firm opinion that there needs to be further investigqtion into other sports in Russia, and other countries 

1dentif1ed in the report 

Since November, we have received many calls and requests from athletes and athlete committees, from many sports, across many nations, for 

the same. Today we considered those, and have again reviewed the detailed content of the report issued in November, during an in~camera 

sess10n. 

Many comments and statements within the report indicate that other sports and countries arc implicated, and as such, require further 

investigation. 

Our view as a committee is that the response to date- to such an evidence-based, incriminating report- has been unsatisfactory, and we wish to 

express our strong position, once again, in renewing our cal! for WADA to extend the mandate of the Independent Commission to sports in Russia 

other than athletics, as well as other countries narned in the report. 

WADA states clearly that it supports clean athletes and at the moment, dean athletes are disappointed with the lack of action that has been 

taken. 

The principles of fair sport are very close to our hearts. We believe that extending the mandate will be a sign of our commitment to clean sport, 

and a sign that the voice of the clean ;;1thlete is being heard. 

In addition, we as a committee wish to publicly announce our strong support and gratitude to the whistle blowers, Vitaly and Yuliya, They have 

made il courageous contribution to the anti-doping movement and to clean athletes in particular. Their bravery and risk-taking has brought about 

perso11al changes to their way of life which are substantiaL We recognize them for their contribution, and we trust that the wor!d of sport will 

likewise support and appreciate them. 

Yours sincerely, 

https·i/www.wada-ama.orglenlmedia!news/2016·03/letter-from-beckie-scott-chair-of-wadas-athlete-commitlc.le-to-slr~craig--reedle 111 
97 


January 25, 2016, 

Dear IOC President Thomas Bach, 

Dear WADA President Sir Craig Reedre, 

We write you in response to the two-part report from the WADA independent commission led by Dick Pound 

investigating systemic doping violations in Russian Athletics 

While we applaud the provisional suspensron of the Russian Athletics Federation. we feel strongly that more should 

be done to ensure a fair field of play for athletes in all sports, not just those who compete in Track and Field. 

According to the report, while the WADA independent commission "expresses no concluded opinion as to other 

sports in Russia, there is no reason to believe that Athletics is the only sport in Russia to have been affected by the 

identified systemic failures" 

The IOC and WADA should prioritize the rights of clean athletes everywhere by holding all athletes to the same high 

standard. In addition to requiring RUSADA to perform in accordance with the WADA code moving forward, a full 

investigation should be carried out into the failed testing of Russian athletes from ALL sports. And it is not just 

athletes who should be investigated and punished, but those who helped the athletes to cheat: whether it was 

coaches, RUSADA personnel, and yes, even politicians. 

Perhaps at least some other International Federations will follow the IAAF's lead and suspend the Russian governing 

bodies in their sports But Federations acting on their own will only accomplish so much. WADA and the IOC need 

to show strong leadership of the Olympic Movement by ensuring that all Russian Federations are thoroughly 

investigated. WADA's IC has a body of knowledge and contacts with whistleblowers that far exceeds what any IF 

knows about the misdeeds of RUSADA, the Moscow laboratory, and corrupt officials who work with athletes across 

all Russian sports. With evidence of state supported doping across the whole of sport in Russia, with a corrupt and 

ineffectrve NADA testing system, and with athletes and insiders coming forward at great personal risk, now is exactly 

the trme to investigate thoroughly. The clean sport movement is at a crossroads. The athletes of the world are 

watching and waiting 

We ask the IOC and WADA to continue and increase your efforts to protect clean sport in all countries. 

Sincerely, 

Sarah Konrad, Chair, USOC Athletes' Advisory Council, on behalf of the full USOC AAC' 

'Ratified on January 23,2016, by the members of the USOC Athletes' Advisory Council representing athletes from 47 

Natrona! Governing Bodies and 10 Paralympic sports 

Cc: IOC Athletes' Commission Chair Claudia Bakel 

IOC Athletes' Commission Member Angela Ruggiero 

WADA Athlete Committee Chair Beckie Scott 
98 


mail Online 

Russia could be let off the hook BEFORE end of 

investigation by British drug-buster and 

WADA president Sir Craig Reedie 

o W ADA president Sir Craig Reedie has 'no intention' of taking 

any action against Russia and assured them they won't be 

singled out 

o Britain's most senior international sports politician doesn't want 

to disrupt his friendship with Russian sports minister Vitaly 

Mutko 

o Senior Russian insiders say they 'take comfort' from approach 

byWADA 

o Sir Craig insists he needs to tread a diplomatic line in his 

WADA role 

o Russia is central to ongoing controversy in athletics and could 

see more dopers punished over the next few days 

o World Anti-Doping Agency is widely perceived as ultimate 

'policeman' ofworld sport against doping 

By ~ick Harris for The Mail on Sunday 

Published: 17:35 EDT, 15 August 20151 Updated: 17:47 EDT, 15 August 2015 

Fears that the British head of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) may be taking 

a soft approach to Russian drugs cheats have grown with the revelation he has assured 

them they won't be singled out for a clampdown. 

Russia has more dopers serving bans than any other country. But The Mail on Sunday 

can exclusively reveal that Sir Craig Reedie, WADA president and arguably Britain's 

most senior international sports politician, has told Russian sports minister Vitaly 

Mutko there is 'no intention' W ADA will take any action against Russia to disrupt the 

pair's friendship. Senior Russian insiders say they 'take comfort' from this approach 

by WADA, although it may raise concerns such messages from WADA are 

inappropriate. 
99 


Sir Craig insists he needs to tread a diplomatic line in his WADA role, which he has 

held since January 2014. Last week he re-iterated he was against banning any nation 

from competing, no matter how prolific their doping patterns. He said such bans 

would be 'blunt-edged' and 'damage the innocent.' 

Russia could be let off the hook by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) president Sir Craig 

Rccdie 

But Russia is central to the ongoing controversy in athletics with a raft of historic 

Russian dopers expected to be retrospectively punished over the next few days. 

Their athletics set-up remains under active investigation by an independent 

commission headed by former WADA president Dick Pound over allegations of more 

recent systematic doping and cover-ups. 

These were aired in December by German TV station ARD, which built on a major 

investigation published on the same subject by The Mail on Sunday in 2013 on the eve 

of the world athletics championships in Moscow. 

W ADA is widely perceived as the ultimate 'policeman' of world sp01i against doping, 

and as neutral and detached. Yet sources say Reedie sent a message to Mutko in late 
100 


April via a senior Russian anti-doping official to suggest that ARD's December 

programme was of historic not current relevance. 

This might be interpreted in some quarters as WADA pre-judging Pound's findings, 

and there are some in Russia who believe this. Pound told The Mail on Sunday that his 

commission 'has decided that it should not issue interim statements prior to issuing its 

report, in order not to interfere with the ongoing investigation.' 

It is understood Sir Craig also described ARD's programme to the Russians as simply 

'adverse publicity' that has not damaged Russia's relationship with WADA. 

Britain's most senior international sports politician doesn't want to disrupt his friendship with 

Vitaly Mutko 

Sir Craig also asked an intermediary, in writing, to tell Mutko he valued their 

friendship, and 'there is no intention in WADA to do anything to affect that'. 

Sir Craig declined to address specific claims made by MoS sources but said: 'We at 

W ADA have a normal institutional relationship with The Russian Ministry of Sport, 

as is the case with all signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code. 
101 


'WADA informed the Russian Ministry of Sport of the Independent Commission after 

it was formed in December 2014. The Commission is entirely independent and is 

conducting its investigation without any interference of the WADA management 

including myself. 

W ADA president has 'no in ten lion' of taking action because of his relationship with the Russian 

sports minister 

'The last occasion on which I saw Minister Mutko was at a colleague's birthday 

celebration in Moscow in February. At that meeting, I encouraged the Minister to cooperate fully with the Commission, and stated that the Commission may wish to 

communicate with him as part of its ongoing investigation. 

'After that meeting, Minister Mutko further expressed some concerns that there might 

be a political agenda directed against Russia. I reassured him that this was not the case 

and that the purpose of the commission was to objectively examine any evidence 

which will allow the Commission to take a view on the allegations raised by the 

television programs. 

'I regard it as only right and proper that W ADA maintains regular diplomatic relations 

and an open dialogue with all members of its Foundation Board. This is important in 

order to continue in our efforts to protect the rights of the clean athlete at a global 

level.' 
102 


Russian Liliya Shobukhova was stripped of her three Chicago marathon titles and 2010 London 

win (left) 

Read more: http://www.dailvmail.eo.uk/sport/othersports/article-3199484/Russia-let-hook-endinvcsti gat ion-British-drug-buster-W ADA -president-Sir-Craig-Reed ie.htmlliixzz4eX6 8pK2 B 

Follow us: @MaiiOnline on Twitter I DailyMail on Facebook 
103 


mail Online 

WADA president Sir Craig Reedie's 'comfort' 

email to Russia's most senior drug-buster reveals 

toothless clampdown on doping 

• WADA president Sir Craig Reedie has 'no intention' of taking any 

action against Russia and assured them they won't be singled out 

• Sir Craig sent an email on April 30 to Natalya Zhelanova, 

appointed personally by Mutko earlier this year to handle Russia's 

doping issues. 

• Britain's most senior international sports politician doesn't want 

to disrupt his friendship with Russian sports minister Vitaly 

Mutko 

• Senior Russian insiders say they 'take comfort' from approach by 

WADA 

Ry Nick Harris for The Mail on Sunday 

Published: 04:38 EDT, 23 August 20151 Updated: 06:49 EDT, 23 August 2015 

Details of a 'reassuring' email sent by the British head of the World Anti-Doping 

Agency (WADA) to Russia's most senior anti-doping official highlight why some 

senior figures in Russian sport feel 'comfort' that WADA is not intent on a particular 

clampdown on Russian doping. 

As the Mail on Sunday revealed last week, Sir Craig Reedie, the president of W ADA, 

sent a message to Russia's sports minister Vitaly Mutko to say W ADA had no 

intention of doing anything to disrupt the men's friendship. 

The message was sent in April against a backdrop of an ongoing Independent 

Commission (IC) investigation into allegations by German TV station ARD into 

systematic doping in Russia. The IC was established by WADA and is headed by 

highly respected fmmer WADA president Dick Pound. 
104 


Russia could be let off the hook by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) president Sir Craig 

Reedie 

As the world athletics championships got underway in Beijing on Saturday, Russia's 

status as the world's major 'rogue' nations in doping terms endures. Russia has more 

currently banned athletes than any country, with further cases pending. 

The Mail on Sunday can reveal Sir Craig sent an email on April 30 to Natalya 

Zhelanova, appointed personally by Mutko earlier this year to handle Russia's doping 

issues. 

'I wish to make it clear to you and to the Minister that there is no action being taken 

by WADA that is critical of the efforts which I know have been made, and are being 

made, to improve anti-doping efforts in Russia,' Reedie wrote. 

After admitting in the email he was 'not involved in the daily work' of Pound's 

commission, Sir Craig none the less offered his opinion to Zhelanova, from his official 

WADA email account: 'It is my view that the content of the [ARD] television 

programmes was based on a period of lime that pre-dates the changes in legislation 

and the investment in [Russian anti-doping] that have been made.' 
105 


Sources in Russia say Sir Craig's approach provided 'comfort' that the ARD 

allegations were 'old news' -whether it was Sir Craig's intention to convey that 

message or not. 

Sir Craig has told the MoS: 'The Commission is entirely independent of WADA and 

its management, including myself. Any views offered would have no influence, nor 

would interfere in any way whatsoever, with the work of the Independent 

Commission.' 

Britain's most senior international sports politician doesn't want to disrupt his friendship with 

Vitaly Mntko 
106 


Controversy continues to reign over alleged use of banned performance-enhancing techniques at 

Dacgu 2011 

I-I is email to Zhelanova was, sources say, just one of several messages sent via 

different email addresses and I or messaging devices. Asked to confirm this, W ADA 

said: 'WADA maintains diplomatic relations and dialogue with all countries and 

sports on an ongoing basis and through a number of different means of 

communication.' 

In his email on April 30, Sir Craig wrote: 'On a personal level I value the relationship 

I have with Minister Mutko and I shall be grateful if you will inform him that there is 

no intention in W ADA to do anything to affect that relationship.' 

The MoS asked Ms Zhelanova to confirm what assurances Russia had received from 

Sir Craig. Two separate assistants replied to say Ms Zhelanova was away on holiday 

but would respond on her return. 
107 


W ADA president has 'no intention' of taking action because of his relationship with the Russian 

sports minister 

Earlier this month Sir Craig told the BBC that he did not support bans from sport for 

nations guilty of persistent doping. Following the MoS report last week about Russia 

taking 'comfort' from Sir Craig's stance, CNN reported that WADA would 'consider 

banning countries for doping' and carried an interview where Sir Craig was quoted 

saying: 'The fact that this is being discussed as a potential sanction is not entirely 

unhelpful ... It's a very, very serious sanction because it tends to be a pretty blunt 

instrument. Maybe that's required. I'm not sure.' 

The MoS asked WADA to clarify Sir Craig's stance and WADA replied they had 'no 

jurisdiction over potential "Nation Bans".' 

WADA added: 'Regarding the WADA President's comments in the recent CNN 

interview, these were taken out of context. This was an hour-long interview edited 

down to 2.5 minutes.' 

Read more: http:(/www.dailymail.eo.uk/sport/article-3207651/WADA-president-Sir-Craig-Reedie-s-comforte m a i 1-Russia -s-se n io r-d rug-buster -reve a Is-tooth less-cia mpd own -doping. h t m l#ixzz 4e XA 7xtlu 

Follow us: @MaiiOnline on Twitter I DailyMail on Face book 
108 


2123/2017 Russ <m dopmg scandal 'When 1\ mattered most. the !OC failed to lead' I Sport I The Guard:an 

• an 

Russian doping scandal: 'When it mattered most, 

the roc failed to lead' 

Thirteen national anti-doping groups tell the Guardian how in 'its response to the Russian doping problem, 

the IOC failed to protect the rights of clean athletes' 

Russta doping scandal: what we know so far 

National Anti-Doping Organisations 

Sunday 31 July 201610,30 fDT 

E xposure of the Russian doping scandal presented the International Olympic Committee with 

a defining moment in the fight for integrity in international sport. Unfortunately, when it 

mattered most, the roc failed to lead. 

We represent 13 national anti-doping agencies (Nados). Every day, it is our job to inform and 

educate, investigate, and drug test elite athletes in our respective countries as part of a 

coordinated global effort to ensure a level competitive playing field for aspiring Olympic and 

Paralympic athletes. 

ADVERTISING 

Earlier this month, two days after the findings on Russian doping were issued by independent 

investigator Richard McLaren, we wrote IOC president Thomas Bach with a simple and effective 

three-step plan for the IOC to protect the integrity of the Rio Olympic Games. 

h:tps f!www lheguardtan.comlsport/:?016/,u!/31/russian-dopng·scanda!·ioc-failed·to-lead·natton<.JI·ant:-doping-organisa:ior,s 1/3 
109 


2/2312017 Russ1an dopmg scandal: 'When 1t mattered most. the IOC failed to lead' I Sport I The Guardmn 

We asked the IOC to: (1) Suspend and exclude the Russian Olympic Committee from Rio; (2) As a 

consequence of that suspension, provisionally deny entry to all Russian athletes nominated by 

the ROC to participate in Rio; and (3) Mandate the existing joint World Anti-Doping Agency-IOC 

pre-Games testing taskforce to apply a uniform set of criteria to determine whether individual 

Russian athletes should be permitted to participate in the Rio Olympic Games under a neutral 

flag. 

These simple steps are fully consistent with Wada's recommendations that followed the McLaren 

Report and could have been easily implemented by the IOC. It is noteworthy that the 

International Paralympic Committee has chosen to follow Wada's recommendation and has 

begun suspension proceedings to exclude the Russian Paralympic delegation from Rio. 

Through its response to the Russian doping problem, which has been percolating for some time, 

the IOC failed to protect the rights of clean athletes. In so doing, the IOC departed from the tough 

stance on doping it has previously endorsed, including its prior commitment to "zero tolerance" 

for doping and to apply the "toughest sanctions available" for what the IOC described as an 

"unprecedented level of criminality. 

Instead, the IOC issued a confusing patchwork of conflicting and insufficient instructions to 

international sport federations (!Fs). The IOC's hasty and ill-considered directives are legally 

infirm and have already resulted in an uneven and incomplete response from !Fs. By leaving to 

!Fs the responsibility to exclude individual Russian athletes, the IOC ignored that most !Fs do not 

have a ready legal framework for making these decisions. 

In contrast, had the IOC used its authority under Article 59 ofthe Olympic Charter to suspend the 

ROC, a fairer and more transparent outcome would have resulted. The IOC could have handled 

the question of Russian athlete participation with a uniform set of guidelines that would have 

provided the advantages of clarity, consistency and transparency, while avoiding the legal 

quagmire into which the IOC has cast the 28lnternational Federations. 

By throwing eligibility decisions to !Fs without clear guidance and without requiring a minimum 

level of evidence to demonstrate that Russian athletes have been subject to an adequate advance 

testing programme, the IOC has violated the athletes' fundamental rights to participate in Games 

that meet the stringent requirements of the World Anti-Doping Code. The IOC's plan affords no 

guarantee that Russian athletes competing in Rio will have been sufficiently and regularly drug 

tested under a code-compliant testing programme. Because the benefits of doping can persist for 

months and even years after banned substances are no longer detectable, there can be no 

confidence that recent testing will prevent Russian athletes from reaping the ill-gotten rewards of 

a state-sponsored doping programme. Yet, the IOC's approach allows Russian athletes to compete 

based on no consistent standard- while some may have a clean recent test, others may come with 

no screening at all. 

Finally, the JOC took another damaging step inexplicably excluding whistle blower Yuliya 

Stepanova from participation in the Rio Games. Inconsistent with legal precedent, this 

shortsighted decision to exclude Ms Stepanova will deter future whistleblowers and significantly 

undermine the global anti-doping movement. 

Through its mishandling of this issue, the IOC has departed from the foundational principles of 

the World Anti· Doping Code to which the governments of the world and all stakeholders in the 

Olympic Movement have committed. The !OC rebuffed the recommendations offered by Wada, 

https·//wwwtheguardian.comlsoortl2016/ju!J31/russian-doping-scandal-ioc-failed-to-lead-rrational-antl-do~ng-organisations 2/3 
110 


2.12112017 Russ1an doping scandal: 'When 1\ mattered most, the !OC failed to !ead' 1 Sport 1 The Guardian 

and each of the 13 Nados signing the letter, and failed to exercise their authority to implement 

the three-step plan we offered to protect the rights of clean athletes competing in Rio. 

The IOC has demonstrated through these actions that, as an organisation made up of national and 

international sport leaders, it lacks the independence required to keep commercial and political 

interests from influencing the tough decisions necessary to protect clean sport. A radical change 

is needed to ensure that such a failure never occurs again. 

The Op-ed has been written and endorsed by the heads of 13 National Anti-Doping Organisations 

around the world: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New 

Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, US 

https·l/www.theguardian.com/sp:>rV2016/jul131/russian-dop1ng-scandal-ioc-f8iled-to-lead-natlonal-antl-doping-organisatlons 313 
111 


2123/2017 On Eve of Olymptcs. Top lnvesttgator Detatls Secret Efforts to Underm1ne Russtan Doping ProDe- ProPubltca 

Chasing an Edge Investigating th" Use of Drugs in 'J'ra(k and Field 

On Eve of Olympics, Top Investigator Details 

Secret Efforts to Undermine Russian Doping 

Probe 

In an exclusive interview, thC' formC'r chkf investigator of the World Anti-Doping Agency said his efforts to investigate statesponsored doping in Russia wC'rC' repC'atedly thwarte>d by WADA's own president. 

This story was co-published tuith the BBC. 

In a blistering public critique on the eve of the Olympics, the former chief investi,c;ator for 

efforts to investigate Russian do pin?; were 

Rltsslan officials. 

Jack Robertson, who left the agency· in Jannar;.·, said he was forced to leak information to 

the media in order to pressure WADA prC'sident Sir Craig Reedie to act and, C\'E'H then, 

he says, the agency sat on credible allegations that snggPsteJ Russian doping extt>nded 

far beyond trark and field. 

Cltimately, Robertson says, the investigation delays have allowed the presidl'Hl of the 

International Olympic Committee~ who has reportedly been supported by Vladimir 

Putin- to claim that the committee didn't haw e>nout;h time to dctnmine \Vhethcr it 

should ban all Russian teams. The result is that Russia may still han• one of the largest 

deleg,ations in Rio. 

In a \vide-ran)!;ing Q&A, Robertson. speaking publicly at length for the first time, rcsf'rvcd 

his harshest criticisms for Rcedie, a former e\it(' badminton player and chair of thr 

British Ol;.1npic Committee. Recdic also holds the potentially conflicting role> of \ice 

htl('ls'/fwww.propublica,orglartlcle/olymptcs-top-1nvesllga.tor-secreH"lfforts-undermlne-russlan-dop1ng-probe 1!11 
112 


2;2312017 On Eve of Oly'Tlplcs, Top lnvest1gator Details Secret Efforts to Underm1ne H.uss1<m Doping Probe- ProPublica 

president of the IOC. (\VADA gets a large chunk of its funding from the IOC.) The 

revelations of systemic Russian doping arc au enormous embarrassment for the IOC, as 

well as a diplomatic problem, since the IOC president and Putin are, according to The 

Guardian, "the unlikely Olympic power couple!' 

The unprecedented Olympic ban of Russia's track and 

field team and the allegations that doping extends 

throughout Russian sport have dominated the news, but 

Robertson rcve<J.ls the deep divisions within the agencies 

charged v.ith protecting clean sport. Jv; the man who led 

WADA's investigation of state-sponsored doping, he 

offers a unique perspPclivt' on the unfolding story and 

describes WADA and the IOC as repeatedly bowing to 

political concerns and parulyzed by a reluctance to take 

on a powerful nation. 

Some of Robertson's assc::rtions arc directly contradictt>d 

in a statement rl'leas:cd by WADA :\1onday, follov.ing 

ProPublic<1's request for response. 

The drcision to speak out is a particularly tough one for 

Robertson. From 1991 to 2011, Robertson \Vas a Drug 

Enfon:ement ,\dministration agent, primarily running 

invo'stigations into Mexican drug cartels. ln the last few 

~·ears of his DEA career, he led the agcncy"s three largest 

steroid operations: TKO, Gear Grinder, and R;nv Deal. 

Retired agents once voted him "agE'nt of the year," out of 

5,000, and ·when he left thC' DEi\ he be('amc WAD A's 

first chief investigator. There, he helped USADA expose 

Lance Armstrong's doping. One of Armstrong's yellow jerseys adornE'd his office \vall at 

WADA. Armstrong (without realizing exactly who it was for) had signed it: "Jack, Catch 

me if you can. Best \vishes." 

Even as he investigated Russian doping, Robertson battled the lingering effects of throat 

ranccr. Iii~ voice is badly damaged, and he has difficulty speaking for long conversations. 

The abridged ronversation below extended for hours, and over two Jays. 

"The action the IOC took has forever set a bar for hmv the most outrageous doping and 

cover up and corruption possible will be treated in lhc futurl','' Robertson told me . 

.. Those involved in running sport arc former athletes, so somehow I figured that they 

\vould have honor and integt'ity. But the people in charge are basically rapin!,'; their sports 

and the system for sl'lf-interest Sport is St'riously broken." 

JOC Votes Against Blanket Ban 

Instead of issuing a bl:mket ban, the !OC is allmwflg the international federations for 

mch .sport, /rom gymnnstics to ro11in,4. to dec1de ulwthcr Russian competitors wiJJ b(' 

allowed So br, more them 250 Russitm athletes lwvc been cleared to compete in Rio. The 

IOC and WADA prC'sidcnt Reedie lwt't' said th:il there n1ll be rwwy clC';W Russian 

athletes in Rio. Robertson calls tlwt ··.1 f.-1rcc, "and says that M>lDA intcntionaflv SNt on 

Ct'!dcnce olRussi:w doping 

htfps·//www.vopublica.orglarliclelolympics-top--investigator-secret-effo:ts-undermlne-russlan-doPII1g-PFobe 7111 
113 


2/23/2017 On Eve of OlympiCS, Top Investigator DetailS Secret Efforts to Undermme Russian Dopmg Probe- ProPublica 

Q: \Vith Russian track and field out, do you think many of the other Russian 

.athletes .arc clean? 

A; For Craig Recdie to say he a.ssumes that a large percentage of Russian athletes who 

will be in Rio nrc clean, he's talking out of his rear end. The whole ru~c of "clean Russ[;m 

athletes" is a farce. The investigation shO\-vcd that to be on the national team, at least for 

athlct\rs (Hd note-: outsid{' olthc US., 

required to dope. They actually preferred dean 

they knew once they took this raw talent and put them on a doping regimen they would 

go from great to suprrhmnan. We didn't investigate all sports, but the evidence we had is 

that this was the typical method for all Russian sports. 

Q: Obviously, you aud Sir Craig Reedie came away with yery different 

perspectives. How involved was he with the details of the investigation? 

A: I led this investigation, and at no time did Craig Reedic talk to me about this 

inwstigation. Ever. Never. !\ot r':cn to get briefed on il. It is insane. It's the most 

important investigation in \\'ADA's history, in Olympic history. Even after the 11rst 

indepr>ndcnt commission press contf.orence, when (the chair ofWADA's Athletes' 

Committee] asked him to investigate all sports, he didn't contact me for additional 

information ur evidence. 

(Ed. note: w:.tDA responded: ''Given tlwt lbe Commission, which W<JS /!yJ by Dick Pound, 

w:ts mdC'pendenl, it is on(v right tht1t J.1ck didn ~ di~'cuss the inw.'StJ/;ation with the 

VV>!DA President.·; 

Q: \\'hat if someone argued, well, the roc did rcfc1· it to the individual sport 

federations, so the federations could each bar Russia individually'! 

A: The IOC knows there's simply not enough time for the federations to make a 

determination. But also, it's not their job. This was not the IOC's buck to pass. This 

involved government, the ::\Iinistry of Sport, the FSB [Rossian state secmityl, the lab, 

RCSADA [the Russian Anti-Doping Agl'ncy], coaches, athletes, heads of national 

federations, and to actually get the e">idence to prove that ... when I startcJ, I didn't think 

there was any chance whatsoever we'd come to prove these things, but by the grace of 

God everything fell into place . .:-\nd then it was pnt in the hands of people with selfinterest, who arc compromised. Tlw anti-doping code is now just suggestions to follow or 

not. 

h\tps i/www propubllca.org/article/olympicS-top-1nVes!lgator-secret-efforts-underm:'l&russian-doping-probe :Y11 
114 


2123/2017 On Eve of Olympics, Top Investigator Details Secret Efforts to Undermine Russian Doping Probe- ProPublica 

Q: \Vhat do you think of the IOC's stance that athletes who were outside of 

Russia are good to go? 

A: [ IOC President Thomas] Bach's contention is that if an athlete was outside of Russia, 

then they're dean because they were being tesled. No, no, no, no. They would commonly 

go to remote training camps Otltsidc of Russia, like Lance Armstrong. And they falsified 

entries in the online reporting system about where they would be. So they're in a remote 

area, lying about where they are, taking substances that don't stay in their system long, 

and, worst case, even if someone is trying to test them and they miss it, it would have had 

to happen three times [within 12 months to be sanctioned]. 

Q: They could beat most tests anyway, right? 

A: Russia had f1gured out how to beat doping tests, but they hadn't figured how to beat 

the biologic<ll passport. I_ A system that can detect doping through multiple tests over 

time, without detecting the actual drug.] That became dear when we heard !'('corded 

conversations of the heads of the All-Russia Athletics Federation. They were saying they 

hadn "t figured out the passport ycL But they figured out other \vays to beat it, using the 

Moscow anti-doping laboratory, hut also the Russian Anti-Doping t\gency, RUSADA 

would literally schedule the times to test athletes around their doping cycles. The athletes 

and coaches would c<1ll RlJSADA to schedule a time, like setting up a dentist 

appointment. 

Q: So once you had recorded conversations, were there some adtnissions? 

A: I myself interviewed Russian athletes, as did other investigators, who we had on 

recordings [taken by whistlcblower and fellow athlete Yulia Stepanm·a 1 admitting and 

talking about the fact that they doped, \Vhat they used and when, all the details. And they 

still denied. Why would you expect them to tell the truth? Armstron~; never Uid. Marion 

,Jones never did. 

Q: But I don't recall Armstrong or Jones being recorded. Did these athletes 

know they'd been re<.-'Orded? 

A: Oh I was reading them the transcripts of what they said, and they didn't deny those 

Wt're theirYoices ... just, "~ope, didn"t dope." 

Q: Does that te11 you anything in particular, other thau that athletes don't 

like to confess'? 

A: It's just further evidence that it ;vas state-organized doping, because the athletes were 

rehearsed to say the same nothing. The FSB [Russian state security] was im·oh·ed, and 

that wasn't really much of a secret, and that would be intimidating for any athlete to 

come forward ... But there are also a lot of rewards, and iftheytalk, they lose that. Yulia 

was on salary as a police officer even though she was nevf'r a poliee offker, but once she 

talked, they took that away from her. 

Q: 1 knm-v that Yulial actually, didn't even knon• how to inject the 

testosterone she was given correctly, and was doing it under her skin instead 

of into her muscle. It seems like, while the operation was organized, some of 

the athletes wen~ not very doping savvy. 

A: Athletes were doping sometimes without any knowledge really of tvhat they were even 

taking. They knew they were doping, but about the actual snbstances, they didn't know. 

Some of their ('oachcs were hetterthnn others, hut the conches weren't doctors, and the 

doctors had no regard for ho\V it ·was affecting athletes. Their job was to put oul people 

who win medals. Athlete health wasn't a low priority, it was a no priority. 

WADA Waits to Investigate 

The JOC:., decision to allow Russia entry to the O(nnpics c:1me vez:v late in the run up to 

Rio, in part because tbe final Ii)(/('p('ndenlliwestigation report- the 11-1cD.1ren report --

https·//www.proPUblica.org/artlde/olympics-top-invesligator-secret-ctforts-undermine-russian-doping-probe 4/11 
115 


2.123/2017 On Eve of Olymp1cs, Top Investigator Deta:ls Secret Efforls to Undermme Russian Ooplng Probe· ProPublica 

was made public only on July 18, The llfcLaren report confirmed allegations m<1de in the 

mediil by Grigo1y Rodchenk01~ tb{' {ormC'r hf•ad o{ Russia:.· anti-doping lahoratmy, tlu;t 

the Russ1~111 government was involFed in m:~nipulating <ithletC' samples, Robertson s:~ys 

WADA le,?ders knew of the allegations much earlier, and thM hi.:; requests for the 

(W,WA 

issued :.1pres.s release on .!lfondaydLr:;puting Robertson:'> chC~racterization 

;11/egations) 

Q: Bach, in deciding not to ban Russia, said that the ruling ·was about "doing 

justice to clean athletes all over the world." In order to do that, he said, each 

athlete would have to be evaluated indhidually. The IOC didn't have time for 

that, and \-vithjust days to the Olympics, passed it to the individual sport 

federations which also don't have time. How did it (~orne down to the wire 

like this? 

A: \VADA handed the IOC that excu~e by sitting on the allegations for close to a year. We 

knew since last August and 'VADA waited until May to nmne an independent 

commission to investigate all Russian sport and the lab. In November. after the first 

investigation press conference, [Olympic eross~eountiy ski champion and chair of the 

WADAAthletcs' Committee] Beckie Scott demanded that WADA investigate other 

sports, not just athletics. Reedie said he'd take it under advisement, and he blew h{~roff. 

WADA waited until the nth h<mr, only once it ·was exposed to the public by 60 ~Iinutes 

and the ;-{ewYork Times, and so the IOC could say there wasn't enough time. 

(Ed. note: Beckie Scott confirmed Robertson S account of her actions to Pro Publica, and 

Silid it WilS c!w.r <1fter thC' fir:<>! imTstig.1tion pn•ss conlCrencc tbat the scope of doping 

''went well bt:J'otui" track ;wd tic/d.) 

Q: I asked \VADA to respond to your statement that it had waited. Reedie 

replied in an email: "'It was only when CBS 60 Minutes and the New York 

Times, on 8 and 12 May 2016 respectively, puhli-.hed the allegations fl·oro the 

former director ofthe Moscow and Sochi laboratories, Dr. Grigory 

Rodchcnkov, that VI.' ADA had concrete evidence suggesting Russian state 

involvement that could be investigated by initiating th(~ McLaren 

Investigation, which we did immediately." Seems reasonable. 

A: How investi.gations work is that you receive allegations and tlwn you investigate and 

search for e\'idencc. You don'twait for evidence to magically show up on its own, or in 

the media. But the truth of the matter is, we did have evidence, because Rodchenkov 

confcSSl'd to sample switching in the Moscow laboratory to cover-up positive tests of 

their athletes, to the WADA science director. He promptly made that known to me, and I 

had him put these admissions into a written statement, for the purpose of the t1rst 

independent commission. So the indcpc!ldcnt commission was aware of this duriug the 

course oft he investigation. 

(I:.'d. note: CommL-,·sion chair Richard W Pound s,<tid that '·the commission did 110! 

uncover C'Oncref{' evidence> to the cf/i'('l thi.lf lhc Russi;.ln state was rmwipu!Ming thc 

doping control process.") 

Q: Can yon elaborate on that, when you say WADA was "siHing" on the 

allegations? You were the investigator, so who are you referring to? 

A: Craig Reedie, he had to be literally pressured into eH!I)' investigation. Even the first 

one, he was reluctant despite the allegations, then the [German broadcaster] ARD 

documentary forced him into it. And then Reedie sent a message to the Russian ministry 

basically apologizing that they were being picked on. l-Ie sent an em all to the Russian 

sports minister saying WADA had no intention of harming their friendship. And then 

later he wrote a note to Scrgey 13ubka fa gold medalist who competed for the Soviet 

Union and Ckraine and is now vice president of IAAF, which governs track and field] to 

warn him about another doping documentary coming out, and it said, '·Hope no more 

h!lps.//www.propublica orglar!ic!e/olympics-top-investigator-secret-efforts-11!1dermine-russian-doping-probe 5111 
116 


2!2312017 On Eve of Otymptcs, Top Investigator Deta1!s Secret Efforts to Underm1ne Russian Dop1ng Probe- ProPub!1ca 

damage will be done." To me, these showed his mindset, more committed to preserving 

his friends' repulations than discovering the truth. 

Q: Did you try internally to get the initial investigation moving before it hit 

the media? 

A: I had been looking at this for three years, and had gone to WADA leadership a number 

of times and said, 'This cannot just be Jack versus Russia. I need manpower.' With DF.A, 

I had subpoena pm.ver behind me, at WADA I couldn't compel people to talk. But they 

always had excuses, 'Oh we're ~etting o% increase in our budget right now so \Ve don't 

have the money.' And then when money did become available WADA beefed up every 

other department, but never investigations. I was working 11 hours day, sometimes 18 

hours. Once it was exposed in the media, then I got some manpower to Jo the 

investigation. 

Q: You also said that there's something you want to say ahout why the 

investigations were independent commissions, chaired by someone from 

outside WADA. What do you want to add to that'! 

A; ~obody knows this, why an independent commission was created ·when WADA 

could've done the investigation in house. And I led the investigation anyway, so why even 

have an independent commission? I was told by [former WADA director gt•rwral) David 

Howman there was a concern Craig Reedie would somehow jeopardize the investigation. 

:V1aybe there arc other reasons, but that's what I \'{as told. \Ve basically could not trust 

him not to expose our investigation to Russia. 

Leaking to the Media 

Robertson S<J}~'> that f,E4DA president Rcedje hoped that stories in the mediH would blow 

(Wer. In 2014, Robertson asked one ofhL<> supetior:5l0r pcrmi5sion to s/u-J.rC infonmttion 

with German inn?stigative reporfc>r !!ajo Seppelt in the hope that the resulting stmy 

would pres.surc WAD.4 into a.n ofllcial invcsligiltion. When it appe;m:d that mf.ght not 

work, Robertson was {'ncouraged to share information rvith the U.S. Anti-Doping Ag('m:v 

about Reedie:~· resistance to st<1rting an investigHtion. 

Q: So you're saying you wouldn't have gone to the media if there was another 

way. Was that above board? 

A: I got David Bowman's permission, but 1 did downplay it. I said, 'Hajo has shown a 

remarkable ability to work in Russia, I need his help to advance the investigation.' In my 

mind, I knew it ·would take him to a story so sensational WADA would have no choice but 

to C"ommit the resources. I provided Hajo with additional 

me with credible information. He hdpcd make my case stronger, 

documentary stronger. 

Q: So when the ARl) documentary came out, that's when it kicked into high 

gear'! 

A: Oh, no. After the docunwntary, I expected Craig Rc(~die to be furious about \Vhat was 

revealed. What I was told was that he wanted to avoid an inn:stigation and tty to resolve 

this qui0tly with the Russians to save them further ernbarra,.,;smcnt. Reedie wn.nted to 

monitor m.edia traffic to see if Hajo's allegations were gaining momentum or dying dOV>11, 

so maybe we wouldn't have to investigate. And David Howman became concerned that 

there wouldn't be an investip;ation at all, and suggested I discreetly provide information 

directly to Tra;,is Tygart about what \VaS going <m, so that he could take steps to influence 

Craig Reedie into doing the right thing. ftalked to Travis and asked him to -write a letter, 

and to persuade other key people within the anti-doping community to send letters. 

(Ed. note,· After the document;?ry came out, Tygart wrote H'ADA a letter that read: ''For 

H01DA to sit on th(' sidelh1es in the f.1cf' of sud1 itllegntions 17if'S in the face ofV1i:4DA S 

m<md:Jte lrom sport, governments <md clean Mhletcs. "ProPublic<t corrobomtcd 

https·/fwww.propubllca.org/artic!e/olymplcs-top-mvestlgator~secret-efforts-undermine-russian-c1o)]ng...probe 6111 
117 


2/23/2017 On Eve of Olyfllp,cs. Top Investigator Details Secret Efforts to Undormme Russmn Doping Probe- ProPubilca 

RabC'rtson :, account with othersourcf's. In responS£' to Robertson, fE·lDA said that it 

alway'> monitors mediil reaction, and that it launched a $1.4 nn!lion inn>stlgation w/thln 

seven bu,o.,·incss chly.s ofthe documcntat;Y) 

Stunned That Russia is Given an Out 

In Xmnnbcr2rns, findin;;s ofs):~tcmcltic doping in Russi<w tmck and field were 

presented by irwcstigllfion chuir Pound at;; press confi.-'rcace. Robertson, who /tyf the 

iJwcstJ/;ative effort, blasls Pound, •~lw h(' setw as hmin,g off(:rcd Russia ;m out, 

Q: \Vhcn the investigation findings were first revealed, I think it showed a 

more elaborate scheme than we were all expecting. Did it seem to you then 

that this would play out differently than it did? 

A: We busted our asses and were able to give Dick Pound the e\idencf' to show there '\Vas 

state-sponsored doping. There was real excitement for us before the press conference in 

Europe, because tlw evidence was about to be rcyealed. So at the press conference, he's 

suying the right things, that it ·sa dopin?; cultnrc, and then he says he believes Ru;.;sia 

nc('cls to take the necE>ssary steps to be compliant so they can be in Rio. I was watching on 

a screen in a WADA conference room in Montreal with my C{HVorkrrs, and that took me 

by surprise, and I later learned it took another commission member by surprise. We had 

no idea Dick was going to basicnliy offer them 

nshan\Cd. 

(h'd. note: Reached in Rio, Pound, who is· now a membc>rofthe lOC rPprPsenting C?nada, 

told ProPub/icw that thc> decfsjon to giJ·c Russhm track and field il shot at being in Rh; 

stemmed limn a Jll('C'ting 117"th Russ1~111 sports minister Vital)· Mutko. Pound smd tlud 

Motko rolled hi~- (:vcs, Pound said thul he hoped 

Russit1 

Punishing the Whistleblower 

When the !OCchoso to allor·v Russh1 into the O~vmpics, jt added a c.:?Vf'nt: no Russian 

itthlcte rdw has previous~)· sctTCd a doping ban can compete'. 11wt dcci~ioo appears to 

httpS'I/www propubllca.orgtarticle/olymplcs-top-i nvesligator-secret-efforts-undermine-russian-dopng-probe 7/11 
118 


212312017 On Eve of O!ymp,cs, Top InvesTigator Details Secret Efforts to Undermme Russian Dop1ng Probe- ProPublica 

dirccNv contradict :1 previous rulin,r; by the LOurt o/ArbitrMion fOr Sport. lh'o peoplf! 

famili:Jr aith the dcdsion-nwkinf{ process told ProPublic,1 that they believe tlw df'('ision 

was era !led in order to let Russi<1 compete while keeping out Russi:w whL~·tleb!ower Yu/1.1 

Stepilnova, who prc1'imis~v scJYed a twO-}'f'ar ban for tJ biologic:il JN!Ssport positive. 

Q: Another aspect ofthis that was sometimt_~s overshadowed has to do with 

the whistleblowcrs. WADA code has been revised specifically to encourage 

whistlchlowers, and \VADA has said it's disappointed that IOC decided not 

to allow Yulia to compete. \Vhat do you think? 

A: WADA only came out in suppmi of the \Vhistleblo-wers because of [promim'nt Irish 

journalio;t] David Walsh's article ["llushand and wife who brought Jown Russia."J baseJ 

on his interYiew with Yulia and Vitaly. That's how it works, it has to be in the media. In 

December, before that article, I went to [WADA Uirector general Olivicrll'\iggli, and said 

thal Craig 

comes out and supports Yulia competing as a neutral 

Niggli said I needed to come back to reality, that's not going to happen. And then Da,,id 

\Vnlsh criticized \\'ADA for not twtter supporting lh<.'m. and it was only then that \VADA 

decidt>d to come out and claim we'd been supporting them all along. That was a bunch of 

crap. 

(Eel note: In re:c.ponse, rt~-lDA disputed Robertson:.,, claim, and .<wid thBt Reedic wrote to 

the head otthe L4A1~: which gm·ems tmck <Wd fief~ in support ofStepanol<1 in Janwuy 

2016, be/On' rvalsh :~·article. llowel'e!; the Nrtic!e Robc;tsoni:'l rcfi:'rring to (above) came 

out in Nmnnbcr 2015- Wah;h wrote :motln'r article, ''How lf~lflA bdnt)'ed thf' 

whistleblVlVCJ:~' it relil:'d on," in June olthis ye<Jr) 

Q: I've talked to people hoth at IOC and WADA, and a number have feltthat 

this decision was made specifically to keep Yulia oul. No matter what the 

impetus for lhe decision, ·what if some athletes say, well, great, she shouldn't 

be in Rio even though she exposed this and served her full han? 

A: The IOC questioned her motives for speaking out. David, for all of my career I ran 

informants and whistlehlowers, and every time I had to determine what their motivation 

was for coopcrBting, Some tor revenge, some for money, some for lighter punishments, 

some to atone for sins. In my 30~plus years in investigations, I have never ever met two 

https·!fwww.propublic.a.org/artldefolymp!CS-top-irvestigator-secre!-effor!s-undermlne--russlan-do~ng-probe 8111 
119 


2!23/2017 On Eve of OlympiCS, Top Investigator Details Secret Efforts to Undermme Russian Dop1ng Probe- ProPubl:ca 

people that had more pure motives than Yulia and Vitaly. Yulia was not even seeking a 

reduction of her sentence. She was entitled to that, but she took the 61ll han, and never 

Their sole motive is to allow future Russian 

athletrs be abk to comp0te without doping if they don't want to. In Russia, they'w been 

labeled 'traitors.' The one thing she ever asked for in return ·was to be able to compete as 

a dean ath\(•te in the Olympics. If .::he said nothing, she'd have a home and a salary and 

be in Rio right no\v. 

A New Low for Sport 

In addition to background oftfw im·cstigatiom--, Robertson II'Dntcd to discuss why he 

takes the r('cent elm in ofel'ents so per.wnm/(l', ;md wh,v, to him, it represents a tmdir tix 

intl!nmti(!lJ<Ii sports. 

Q: So arc you arguing that ·we should just disband the IOC and \VADA? 

A: The world needs \\'ADA and IOC and Lt\AF, but we need people to run them -who 

value integrity. Thafs all. The people I worked with at WADA were absolutely amazing. 

the best in the field. But it's my feeling they've been betrayed by their leadership. You 

know, I lost much of my voice to throat cancer, so I know a thing or two about cancer. 

And this is like cancer, if you don't get all of it, it can come back worse. 'i-Ve've sem it in 

FIFA, you haw to take out the hoss, hut you havc to tal.:c out their henchmen too, those 

;vho would follow them for thC'ir Ovin careers. Everyone who supported t1wrn in their 

tkdsion.s has to go. 

Q: \Vhy arc you speaking out now, since we talked before and you ·wanted to 

bundle things internally, and as long as I've known you ... I mean, early on 

when we first met I was frustrated because you wouldn't tell me anything! 

A: Before now l've avoided the spotlight, as you know. I don't want people to believe I'm 

looking for my 15 minntes of fame. And the leader;; failed me, hut I've experierwed that 

before in law t'nforrrmcnt. But more importantly they failed clean athletes and our own 

whistlcblowcrs. Change has to bappen, and even as damaged as my voil::e is, it needs to 

be heard. 

Q: \Vhen \VADA abruptly said you retired earlier this year, I was caught hy 

surprise. I thought right away it must have something to do with the throat 

A: I did not retire. 

Q: \VADA said you n•tircd. 

A: Right. Let me just say something, I won't go into details about my dismissal; l think it 

was unfair, but what I'm saying here has nothing to do with that. But let Illt' say: I did not 

retire. 

Q: You didn't tell me this, but, you know, I learned from other people that 

do<.·tors were tdling you shouldn't travel to Russia b<.~causc you ·weren't 

healthy enough. 

A: Oh, yeah, I violated what the doctors wen:- telling me. Tf Thad to do it again, I would 

still do it. The whistleb!ow<'rs trusted nw, and! felt responsible to them and to dean 

athletes. How could I not feel that way? I made saeriJiccs, hnt they had to leave their 

home. >l"otjust their home, their country, and go into hiding. They left everything, And, 

in th<' <'nd, \\'ADA did fail them. 

The Russian Reception, and Two Strange Deaths 

https //www.propwblica orgiartidefolymp,cs-top..irvestigator-secret-eftorts-underm:'le-russian-doping-probe 9/~1 
120 


2/23/2017 On Eve of Olympics, Top Investigator Details Secro! Efforis to Ur1dermme Russian DoJ)Ing Probe~ ProPubl1ca 

People in Russ ill. {rom Putin down to the Russian public, lmvc been defiant OFcr the 

im·t~<>tijption rcport:,~ suggestinfj they're false <md politic:llfv motivated. 71u! 111oscow 

Times recentfv reported tli<ll Oil{!' 14 percent of Russian dti?cns helicFe Russian Nlhletcs 

were doping in SodJi. Puti11 called the h;m on Russl~"W track ;md fjefd athldcs politimf{v 

motiv<Jted "open discliminRtion. '" 

Q: I was actually in Russia recently fm· something unrelated to this, and 

much of the sentiment is that this is the U.S. or other countries trying to 

undermine Russian sport. How would you respond to that? 

A: The Russian government says that politics drove all this. lam the nne that led this 

investigation, and I can say that through the investigation there were absolutely no 

politics. The one time I saw politics was \vhen Craig Reedic tried to intcn'ene by ;vriting 

em ails to the Russi<1n ministry to console them. I3ut there were no politics in the 

investigation. l ran the inve::;tigation. lam the one person who can make that statement. 

Q: So, is that just the official response or do you think that's how the average 

sports enthusiast in Russia is re.acting to their track team being barred? 

A: Through the investigation. 1 dewloped an appreciation and respect for the Russian 

people, and the city of Moscow, even though I knew that the people I was talking to, 

heacls of the 11oscow lab and RCSADA, were lying to me. And they knew I knev;' that But 

I still considered them nict• pcopk. They hud no alternative but to be part of a system. It 

wasn't only their jobs in jeopardy, but their safety and security. I have no proof at all, but 

coming from l)F.J\, I don't believe. in coincidences, that the two former heads of RUSADA 

both die within about lO days of one anothPr. I met one of them, and the man was able to 

h<mdlr stress, and was vet}" Ut, and then died of a heart attack. It's just very suspect. 

(t..'d note: Tfwt nwn, NiJ.:ita Kamacv, died in Febrwny td l(OJO 52. '111c RussMn sports 

minister called the death "n"r:Y une~\]Wcled. 1J1c mi:fn seemed hc<.llth_1·; and evcr:;1hlng tMS 

fine. ",·1 RUSADA press rt>lC<ISt' said, "PreswmJbb~ the cause oldcatb wc1s <1 m;J5sive ht><lrt 

attuck. "About t>vo weeks t'llrlier, the RUSADA founding c/wirman, I.-~hJ.cheslc!J." .Sincv, 

died. RU:..S'ADA confirmed hr" death but did notgirC' a cause.) 

Solidarity for the Whistleblowers 

Robertson is pttrticultu~y angl)~ he S<'I.J:~~ th.:'lf fE-1.DA and the JOC Jwve not donc enough 

to support the wln~o;t/eblowcrs. 

Q: I didn't realize quite how strong your feelings were about the 

whistlcblo·wers having been let down, both because they made a huge 

sacrifice and ultimately Russia was uot banned and Yulia was not allowed 

into the Olympics, Steve Magness, who as you know spoke out publicly to the 

BBC's Mark Daly and I last yca1· about allegations of medical misconduct in 

track, recently wrote an essay titled "No one really wants a whistlcblowcr." 

So, what now for whistleblowers in sports? 

1\: This is my opinion, and it may sound silly: I think there should be a sign of solidarity 

from dcnn athletes for the sacrifice of \'italy and Yulia. Likl' in the !Junger Games movie, 

with the salute that's a sign of solidarity. ::-.;'ot on the podium, rmd not a~ainst any 

country, but just for clean athletes ... Vitaly and Yulia had to flee their home, and Yu!ia 

scrw~d her full ban, and now the fOC has repaid her by banning her. And then the IOC 

tried to buy her off by giving her an roc guest pass to be their guest in Rio with travel 

and That's nothing more than a bribe, but she would not be 

bought off, so this say for future \'\'histJ[>hlowers"! 

Q: So where do '''ego from here? 

A: We can'tjust keep going from scandal to scandal. And if this scandal isn't enough to 

bring about change, then nothing ever will be. 

https lfvvww.propubllca.org/ar!icle/olympics-top-lnvestigator-secret-efforts-undcrmine--russmn-doping-probc 10111 
121 


2/23!2017 On Eve of Olympics, Top Investigator Detmls Secret Efforts :o Undermine H.uss1an Doping Probe- ProPublica 

Correction, Aug. 4· 2016: This story was corrected to ref1ect that Sergcy Bubka 

competed for the Soviet Cnion and Ukraine, not Rus.!:lia. 

hrtps·lfwww.proovblica orgrartlde/olympics-top-investigator-secret-efforts-undermina-russian-doping-probe 11m 
122 


2!25i2017 UK AntJ-Oop,ng Agoncy takes charge of Russian testing programme I AtllletJCS Ne>.vs! Sky Sports 

Athletics 

UKAD to control Russia tests 

ByPA Sport 

Lost Updated· 10/02116 4·llpm 

ll 

Russian athletes are to be tested by UK Anti-Doping Agency 

http·!!www.skysports.com/mo•e-sports/athletics!rews/29172/10162366/uk-nnti-doping-agency-takes-charge-of-russian-testing...programme 1/5 
123 


2{25/2017 VK An!1-Dop1ng Agency tHkes charge of Russmn testing programme~ Athletics New'S! Sky Sports 

UK Anti-Doping has signed a deal to deliver a testing programme in Russia, the 

World Anti-Doping Agency has announced. 

WADA said UK Anti-Doping will take control in the country so long as the Russian 

Anti-Doping Agency remains non-compliant with the WADA code. 

RUSADA was declared non-compliant in November following allegations it 

was involved in a cover-up of positive tests concerning Russian athletes. 

PRICE BOOST 

Manchester Utd v Southampton 

Z!atan lbrahimovic to score a header 

PRICE 

BOOST 

£10 Free Bet. No Deposit Needed 

Now7/1 

Shortly afterwards, WADA held meetings with both UKAD and RUSADA in Moscow 

with a view to the UK agency implementing a pr-ogramme during the period. 

http:flwW'A',skysr;.arts,com/rnore-sports/ath!elicsfnflws/29172/10'!62366.\Jk";;lnti-dopir~g·agency.taKes·chnrge.of··russian-iesting-prcgramme 215 
124 


2/25/2017 UK Ar;tt·Dopmg Agency takes charge of Husstan testmg programme I Athle!tcs News i Sky Sports 

In a statement, WADA said: "UKAD will initiate a test distribution plan to ensure 

that the necessary testing takes place during RUSADA's period of non-compliance. 

"UKAD will ensure that targeted and intelligence-led testing is carried out 

on Russian athletes, and is responsible for continued coordination with 

the appropriate sport federations during this period. 

"Results management of all cases will be managed by a designated independent 

body, with full oversight by WAD A." 

Russia was banned indefinitely from all international athletics competition 

in November following widespread violations of the WADA code. 

The ban remains in place as Russia battles to convince athletics authorities it has 

sufficiently changed its practices in order that it can compete at this summer's Rio 

Olympics. 

Norwich v Ipswich 

~lli 

Also See: 

Results & Medal Table 

Photo Galleries 

TeamGB 

Promoted Stories Recommended by 

http:Jiwww.skysports.com/more-spJrts/athtetics/news/29172!10162366/uk-antJ.doping-agency-!akes-charge-of-russian-1~sting-programme 

Click to 

Expand 

3.'5 
125 


2124/2011 

fran;;:als-Esoafol 

UNESCO Constitution. 

BY TYPE 

Conventions 

Recommen::Jatwns 

D!:'darat10ns 

BY THEME 

Education 

Natur<sl Sciences 

Soc1al & Human Sciences 

Culture 

Corr>mun:cat,on 

&lnfomliltiOn 

Other 

BY REGION f COUNTRY 

Afnca 

Arab States 

ll,s:a(PacfK 

Europe/North America 

LatJ•<America/Canbbean 

International Convention against Dop1ng 1n Sport 

International Convention against Doping in Sport 2005 

Pans, 19 Octobec200:. 

- Erllry :nto force Authorrtat:ve 

Declaratwns and Rcservat:ons • 

UNt':SDOC • (PDF) English - French Spanish - RUSSI1VI - Chmesc - Arab:c 

M:ndful also of lhe :nflucnn~ t•mt elite athletes have on youth, 

Mtndful of the need to budd the capaoty of States Parties to irnplerrert ant!-

dop:ng orogrammes, 

to 

ht!p'l/porta!_unesco.org!en!ev.php-URLJDoo31037&:..JRL_DO=DO _ TOP!C&UR~ SECTION=201.html 

UNESCO ORGANIZATION 

Office of International 

Standards and Legal Affairs 

1'1155101) 

Who'swho-:> 

FEATURES 

Depositary letters 

Moremformat10nont'1e 

Convcntmn· 

• Webstte of Soctal and Human 

Sciences Sector 

1/12 
126 


2/24/2017 InternatiOnal Convention agamst Dopmg m Sport 

appropriate levels, 

Adopts thiS ConventiOn on this nineteenth day of October 2005. 

I. Scope 

Article 1 -Purpose of the Convention 

Article 2- Definitions 

definttions are to be understood w1thtn the 

Code. However, m case of conf!irt lhc 

For the purposes of this Conventton: 

3. "Ant;-doping rule Vlolatwn" m sport means one or more of ~he fo!lowmq· 

WI !I 

st.bstance ortts metabol1teso' markers in an 

(b) use or atte'Tlpted use of a prohtbtted substance or a prohtb,:ed ll'ethod; 

(e) tampenng, or attemp'.:1ng to tamper, wtth any part or doptng control; 

(f) oossessicnof probtbiteasubstancesormethods; 

(g) Lratr:ck•ng in any pmh'ottedsubstance or proh:bited met1od; 

7. "Comoet1t10n" means a smgle race, match, game or smgular athletic contest. 

9. "Doping in spo:t'' meanst>Je occurrencl:' of an anti-doping rule violation, 

10. ''Duly authorized dopint;; control te<'lrns'' means dop1ng control teams operatmg 

htlp"/fportal.unesco onjenJev php-URL _ID= 31037&U RL_OOo:: D 0 _ TOPIC&URL_SECTION"'201_htrnl 2112 
127 


2/24/2017 !nternat1ona! Convention agamst Dopmg m Sport 

under the authonty of mternat1onal or nat1onal ant-cop1ng organizations. 

18. "Proh1b1~C'd metnod" mea'lS any method so descnbed on the Prohibited L1st, 

which appears i'l Annex I to thiS Convention. 

19. "Proh1b1tedsubstarce" means any substanccsoccscribcd on the Prohibited 

L1st, wh1cr- appears mAnnex I to th1s ConvcrJtiOn, 

20. "Sports orgamzat1on" means any org11mzattonthat sen~es as the ruling body 

foranevcntforoneorscveralsports. 

Article 3- Means to achieve the purpose of the Convention 

In order lo achieve lhe purpose of the Convent1on, States PartieS undertake to· 

Article 4- Relationship of the Convention to the Code 

3. The Annexes arc an <ntegra! part of thiS ConventiOn, 

Article 5- Measures to achieve the objectives of the Corwention 

!nab1d1ngby 

undertakes to 

m thiS Convention, each State Party 

meaS\.lres. Such measures may include 

http.l/portal.unesco.orglenfev.php-URL_ID=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECT!ON=201.html 3/12 
128 


2'24/2017 lnternst10nal Convention agsinst Dopmg 1n Sport 

legLSiat1on, regulaton, pollclesoradmmlstrativeor<~ctices. 

Article 6- Relationship to other international instruments 

II. Anti-doping activities at the national level 

Article 7- Domestic coordination 

Article B- Restricting the availability anrl use in sport of prohibited 

substances and methods 

Article 9- Measures <1gainst athlete support personnel 

Article 10- Nutritional supplements 

Article 11- Financial measures 

States Part1es shall, where appropriate: 

Article 12- Measures to facilitate doping control 

States Part1es shall, where appropnate 

III. International cooperation 

cf 

Article 13- Cooperation between anti-doping organizations and sports 

ht!p:l/portal.unesco.orglen/ev.php-URL_!0:=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION;:;2Q1.html 4/12 
129 


2124/2017 lnternatmnal Convention aga111st Doping 1n Sport 

organizations 

Article 14- Supporting the mission of the World Anti~ Doping Agency 

of the World Ant1~ 

Article 15- Equal funding of the World Anti-Doping Agency 

Article 16- International cooperation in doping control 

Article 17 -Voluntary Fund 

2. The r!'.sources of Lhe Voluntary Fund shall constst of 

(a) contnbutJons made by States Parties; 

(b) contributions, giftsorbequestswi'lich may be Made by 

(!)other States; 

of the Umt('d Nanl,-,ssystef"l, part:cularlythe 

as well as other international 

(ii1) public or private bod1es ormd1v1dUals; 

(c) any mtcrcstduc on the resources of the Voluntary Fund; 

Article 18- Use and governance of the Voluntary Fund 

http://porta!.unesco.orglen!ev.php-U RLJD= 31037&U RL _DO= DO_ TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html 5112 
130 


2!24/2017 International Convention <~gnmst Doping m Sport 

IV. Education and training 

Article 19- General education and training principles 

(a) the harm ofdopmg totheeth1ca1 va!J..esofsport; 

{b)thehealthconseql.encesofdopmg. 

(a) dopmg contra! procedures; 

and 

(d) nutnt•onalsupplements. 

Article 20- Professional codes of conduct 

Article 21 - In11olvement of atl"lletes and atl"llete support personnel 

Article 22- Sports organizations and ongoing education and training on 

antH:Ioping 

Article 23- Cooperation in education and training 

therelevantorgamzationsto 

and expenem;:c on effective antiV. Researcl"l 

Article 24- Promotion of research in anti-doping 

Article 25- Nature of anti-eloping research 

Whenpromotmg 

ensure that such 

as set out in Article 2<1, States Parties shall 

(a) comply with mternat10nally recognized eth1cal practices; 

(b) av01dthe Oldministrationto ath!etesofproh1b:ted subst<'lncesand methods; 

(c) be undertaken only w1th adequate prec"'ut10ns ln place to prevent tile results 

http:llportal.unesco.orglen/ev.php-URL_ID=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html 6/12 
131 


2124/2017 !nternatlonal Conventlof' against Dopmg m Sport 

ofant1-doomg "eseorchbelng miSUSedandappliedfo<doping. 

Art ide 26- Sh;ning the results of anti-doping research 

Article 27- Sport science research 

StatesPart1esshallencourage: 

(a} members: of the 

research in accordance 

carryoutsportscience 

and athlete support personnel w1thm 

research that 1scons1stent with the 

VI. Monitoring of the Convention 

Article 28- Conference of Parties 

to 

The Conference of Parties shalt 

2. 

3. Each State Party shall have one vote at the Conference of Part1es. 

4. The Conference of rartTes shall adopt 1ts own Rules of Procedure. 

every two 

request of at 

Article 29- Advisory organization and observers to the Conferen~;e of 

Parties 

orgamzat1ons as o:.servers. 

Article 30- Functions of the Conference ofPartie.s 

l.Besides forth in ott,er prov!s1ons o< th1s Convent;or, ttle funct1ons of 

shall be to 

(a) promote the purpose oftfqs Convertiof"l; 

(c) adopt~ plan for the use of the reso:.~rces of the Voluntary Fund, m accordance 

with Article 18; 

{d) examme the reports subm1tted by States Part1es m acc.ordance with Article 

31; 

{f) examJnedraftamendmentstothlsConventionforadoptlon; 

Article 31- National reports to the Conference of Parties 

Article 32- Secretariat of the Conference of Parties 

http-!lpor!al.u!'1esco.orgten/ev.php-URL_!0=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.htm! 7/12 
132 


2/24/2017 International Col'vef"!IOn against Doping 1n Sport 

1. The secretanat of the Conference o~ Part1es shall be prov1ded oy t'1e D•rertorGoneral of UNESCO. 

Article 33- Amendments 

(a) a Party to this Convention as so amended; 

(b) a Party tattle unamet"lded Convent1on in rdat1on to any State Party not bound 

by the amendments. 

Article 34- Specific amendment procedure for the Annexes to the 

Convention 

VII. Final clauses 

Article 35- Federal o-r no-n-unitary constitutional systems 

•coplom•cctotiooof wh1ch 

:>ewer, the 

http"f!)Xlrtal.unesco.org/cr\lcv.php-URLJD""'31037&URL_pO"'DO_TOP!C&URL_SECT!ON"'201.html 8112 
133 


2!24/2017 International Conventlon agams! Oop;ng m Sport 

Article 36- Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession 

Article 37- Entry into force 

Article 38- Territorial e:x:tens1on of the Convention 

Article 39- Denunciation 

Article 40 - Depositary 

(b) the date o' entry tnto force of this Conventton in acrordarce wtth Arttde 37; 

{c) any report prepared m pur5uancc of the proviSIOns of Article 31; 

the Convent,on or to the An'lexes adopted m 

andthcdateonwhichthe amendfT'lentcomes 

(e) any declaration or nottficatton made under the provisions ofArtide 38; 

provtstons of Article 39 and the date on which 

(g) any other act, notlftcatton orcommuntcatton relating to this Convention. 

Article 41 -Registration 

dtthc 

Article 42- Authoritative texts 

2. The Append~ecs to thts Conver>tiOn are provtded in Arabtc, Cnirese, Engltsh, 

http:!/portal.unesco.ot[}'en/ev.php-URL_J0=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201,html 9/12 
134 


2.124/2017 International Convention agnms.t Doping m Sport 

french, Russ1<m and Spanish. 

Article 43- Reservations 

No reservatiOns that are 

Convent1on shall b<e 

w1th the object an(! purpose of the p•esent 

Annex I- The Prohibited List- InternatiOnal Standard 

Annex II- Standards for Grant1rg Ther<.~peut1c Use Exemptions 

AppendiX 1- Wocld Ant1-Dopmg Code 

AppendiX 2 - Jn~ernattonal Standard for Laboratories 

AppendiX 3- intematwnal Stardard for Testing 

Depositary : 

UNESCO 

Entry into force; 

1 february 2007, according to 1ts Article 37. 

Authoritative texts: 

ArabiC, English, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russ1an 

Registration at the UN: 

On 6 Marcto 2007 under cert1f1rate n6 550<l8 d<.~ted of 15 March 2007 

States Parties 

LISt In alphabetical order 

Llstinchronolog,calorder 

Declarations and Reservations: 

The mst-ument of rat1f1cat'on contamed the following decl<lratlon: 

The mstrument of rat1f1catmn contamed the following dcclarat1on: 

rhc instrument of 01cceptance contained the following declaration· 

to thC' Faroe 

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_!Do::31037&URL_OO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECT!ON::::201.Nm! 10112 
135 


2124/2017 !nternattoml Coovention agatnsl Dopmg m Sport 

consultatton wtth thattemtory,·"[Ongmal: English] 

United States of Amenca 

The instrument of rat!ficat!On contained the following declarations : 

Objections to the amendments to the annexes of the Convention: 

Annex I- 2016 ~ 

Annex II- 2016 ~ 

Annex I- 2017 ~ 

Territorial Application ; 

Umted 25 Ap'l! 2006 

Great 

Northern 

31 May 2012 

Chma 9 October 2006 

Bntish V1rgm lslands 

Kong 

ocd 

http'//portal.unesco_orglen/ev php-URL _!D=::31037&U RL_ DO"' DO_ TOPIC&URL_ SECT!ON=201.htm! 1if12 
136 


2i2tli2017 InternatiOnal Convenuon agamst Oopmg m Sport 

Admm1strilt1ve Reg10n 

fl<etherlands 11 July 2008 Aruba 

:~Jether!a~'ds 12 May 2009 ... Netherlands An:.dles 

Nett;erlards 11 May 

Monitoring : 

Conference of PartieS (Rules of Procedure) 

5th session (Pims, 29-30 Oclober 2015) 

• Resolutions 

• Documents 

4th sess·on (Pa't~, ~9-20 September 2013} 

• Rcsoll.t10ns 

• Documents 

3rd sess:on (Pans, 1<1-15 November :tOll) 

• ResoiUtons 

• Documen~s 

2nd seSSion (Paris, 26-28 cctobre 2009) 

• Resoluttons 

• Docu..,ents 

sess<on(Pans,5-7February2007) 

• Fmal Report 

, Documents 

- Manual of ~he Fund for the [ltmtnati01 of Doptng in Sport 

htlp:f/portal.unesco.orglen/ev.php-UHL__ID"'31037&URL~OOo::DQ_TOPJC&URL_S!:::CT10N::::201.htrn! 12i12 
137 

138 


FINANC:I\L STA!~MENTS 

n 

126 IOC ,\'...:'..JUAL PEPOPT x:ns CY[:JIF.lll iTY, SUSTAI>JASILITY tV-.10 YOUTH 
139 

140 


!=iNANC1AL STATEMENTS 

To ensure the credibUity of the 

Olympic Movement, its values and 

its mission, the IOC must set an 

example for others to follow by 

dem<•nstra,ting good governance in 

a:B of its This includes 

increasing tho transpan:mcy of 

its operatitH"'S1 which was one of 

t:he recommendations outlined in 

Olympic Agenda 2020. 

IOC is under no obligation 

lnterna~icnal Finarlcial Report:ng 

S:andards (iFRS}, <t 

~hat to do so w1i: hGip 1t 

T'le ICC's stror>g f:•-,a~"'cial to~mdat:on is 

dr:von partnershipS w1th sponsors 

and wnich provide 

sustainable revenue streams to ensure 

the independent financial stabil1ty of 

t".e tv1overT1ent. The co:~t:nued 

partr,erships suoports 

tr,e ICC's work towards orornoting 

the woridw1de development of sport 

SL,poort1ng the stag1ng 

Games and 

promot1on of t~1e 

128 I !OC AN~L:AL f~[PORT 2015 

The iOC, and the organtsa!lons within 

the Movement, are ent1re!y 

IOC revenue 2013-2016 

(% forecast) 

!It Broadcasting rights 74'% 

TOP programme marketing rights 

Other nghts 4%• 

4°/o 

The ICC's forecast 2013-20~16 total 

revenue of USD 5.6 biiiion 1-:as :rcreased 

by 6.2% compared to the 2009-201.? 

revenue. The main drivers of the 1ncrease 

are televiSIOn broadcasting ngh~s and tne 

TOP programme marketJrg nghts. 

Olympic broadcasting revenue forecast 

for 2013·2016 has ,ncreased by T1°/o to 

USD 4.1 bii!ion the 2009-

the 

themselves, tn one 

nll of ti:ese demonstrated huge 

confidence the future of the O!ymp1c 

Movement and in O!y:r.o1c Agenda 2020 

Furthermore, 1n a sign of the cont:nuing 

appeal of the Oymp1c Gar11.es and the 

Olympic va!ues, partnership agreemer,ts 

for tPe eighth edition of the TOP 

(TOP Vll!), 20'3, 

CRITl.BiLilY, SlJSTAINflf3iL.I'Y AND YOUTH 
141 


IOC total revenue in USO billion 

In order to supoort tre of the 

Olympic Games, promote wor'dw:de 

deve:oofT'ent and t~e 

\tlovernert the ot :ts 

revenue of a;; :o organ1sat,ons 

througnout the 1\~overnent. Tnis 

:s the eq<-<:va:ert 3.26 n:1l'ion a 

day. every day ot the year. 

The IOC reta1ns 10% of Olympic revenue 

for !OC actlvlt,es to deve,'op sport and 

operat:onal costs of goverrrng tho 

OlympiC V1overnent 

IOC revenue distribution(%) 

e Distribution, Olympic Games, 

Promotion of Olympic Movement 90% 

lOC activities to develop sport 

and operations of the JOC 10"% 

HNA\JC!AL STATF.MENTS 

D1stnbutaole roveme :nciuaes cash and 

value-!n-kind ~evenue frorn broadcastw·g 

rights, TOP and ticket 

:ncome to 

and the United States Olympic 

Con-',mittee (USOC) and Oly'T1plc 

Games-relateo exper'diture a•e deducted 

from, H'e revcrue to ca'culate the equal 

srares attr:butab!e to the lnternat~onai 

Federa~rons, O•ymprc Solidanty, National 

Olyr>;p·c Comrn1ttees an1j the IOC. 

CF<I-CiBIL! I Y, SUST/\1\jAfliU'Y AND VQU:-H OC ;\~NUAL r<FPOH1 2015 129 
142 


FiNANCiAL STATt:MENTS 

Distributable revenue of the 10C 

allocated through direct IOC 

contributions tow~1rds different 

organisations within the Olympic 

Movement, as well as various 

lOC activities 1 and 

programm~s at supporting 

the staging of the Games 

and promoting the worldwide 

<lo've!oplment of sport and the 

Movement. Among others, 

distribution to tho 

following recipients: 

130 IOC N\1'\JU/I.L fll;:P0'l1 2015 

:he IOC contrioutron supports the 

of tho SurTlmer nnd W1nter 

GafTleS. -:-h'S includes drrect conwbut,ons 

to the OCOGs share ot ~ne 

te!evrs:oG r:ghts ai'd ·:oP 

cons.decab!e costs that prevrously 

OCOG, such as 

the host hm,orl''"'tinn op8rDt'on, and 

vanoc;s forms ot Games to the 

OCOG, rnc:ua,rg t~rough rts 

Knov/edge" orograrrmos. The OCOGs 

?004 A\tl8t'S 965 

2008!:3eirng 1,250 

2012 London 1.374 

:?00:? Salt La~o 5;)2 

2C06 Tvnn 

2010 Vancouver 775 

2014 Soch 833 

Source: lOG's aud:ted f,nanc1a! sta~erncnts 

CUNI::f'irS 

ihe IOC d.srributes revenue to each of 

the 206 NOCs the worid to 

Q:ympic nopef:J!s. 

athletes ar:d teams The !OC also 

contrmutos revenue ::o O:yrnp:c So~idar:ty, 

an autO'lOrlOUS comm:ss:on tnat 

cl stributes revenue to NOCs. The 201~ 

Socr. revenue distnbut:on :o Olymp·c 

Sol1darity and NOCs was more tr1an 

double cern pared to 2002 Salt Lake City 

2001'. Atnens 234 

2008 Bci:•ng 301 

2012 London 520 

2002 Sa!t LaKe 81 

2C06 runn 136 

2010 Vanco0vEJ' 215 

2014 Soch1 19H 

Source: lOG's aud:ted f·nanc1alstater-:erts 

CF1[f)llW ITY, SUSTA!i\JABIL ITY AND YOU rr 
143 


Games m wh1ch the tederat1on 1s act:ve. 

Tne 201 4 Sochi revenue d1stnbution to 

lmernatior;ai Federations was more than 

double compared ~o ?002 Sal! Lake City 

2004 i\thens ?.57 

2008 08ijl'":g 2~37 

?012 L.ondo'l 520 

?002 Salt Lake 92 

2006 Tunr: 128 

2010 Vancouver 209 

20lt. Soc\11 199 

So:...rce IOC'~ aud:tea f.nanCial s;awments 

CI-<EDIBIUTY, SUS r,'\l'\lr'\E3!L ITY !\ND YOU-:-:' 

ln':ernat1onai Olympic Academy and the 

!nternatJona; Paralymp1c Cornmttee 

The iOC also supports Hie lnternmiora! 

Para!ymp1c Corrlm!Ttee by enabling the 

Paraly.'T'p·c (:lames atl1ietes to corrpete 

n the same city as tr1e Olympic Games, 

benefit from ~he sarT'.e Organ1S1'1Q 

Comm1t:ee, use the same sports 

vonues and facJLtleS, and enJOY the 

samo cond1':1ons for ofttcta! travel a~:d 

accommodat1on as O!yrnp:c athletes. 

2004 Athans 57 

2008 1:3el)ing G9 

2012 Londoq '81 

2002 Salt Lake 28 

2006 33 

2010 Vancouve,· C19 

20::1 Soch1 40 

Source· lOG's aud.ted f:nancwJ statements 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

2010 Singapore 00 

20: 4 Nanrng 50 

2012 lnnsbruck 20 

Source· lOG's aud!led flqanc<al statements 

IOC Execut1ve Board determtnes the 1

eve 

ot tundwg tor the Oly;r,p1c Founoat1on 

1

0C AN~Ut\l. REPORT ?01.5 ! 131 
144 


F-INANC:A;__ STA:EMENIS 

'The financial statements of the 

!OCare 

Cons1stenr W:th recommendatton 29 o~ 

Agenda 2020- to 1ncrease transparency 

- tneiOC 20:0 F:nanc:al Staten"'~ents 

have oecn ent1anced ;n 11'18 w::h I FRS 

oest practices. ensur:ng f<;mer and more 

mean'rnful presentatton. ;h:s mcreases 

and supports the IOC's efforts to acr1:eve 

gremer transoarency 

132 IOC N>J~Ui\1. RFDO"JT 2015 

5 

Frorri a financial point of v:ew, :?Oi5 is 

on trac;.;; to acnieve the overal: 

of 90% dlst•:but1on of the 

tr>e doveloome'lt 

fho !OC's financial 

-:-he year under rev:ew, 2015, 

year of ~ne 2013~:<016 

nor-Games year 1n Wh'crt 

broadcast,ng Games costs and 

d:stnbut:on we Therefore, 

only non-Gan~es related revenue and 

expend1tures are presented in the :?015 

statement of act v1t1es. 

Aiong With the preoarat1on of the 

Games and the developrr:cnt 

sport. the IOC continues 1ts 

commitment :o lead ar:d support the 

O!ymp:c Movement, 

~he :rnp~ementat·or: 

2020 across aii!OC 

F•nancial righiighcs of ?Oi5 i•-:clude 

the fo::OWIIlQ 

<D The !OC's sound f:nanc1al posit~on 

:s demonstrated by 

!OC fund balance stands at 

USD 1.4 b!'l1on, 

fir'anctal stab:llty. 

IOC current assets sta;:d at USD 

2.4 b1!:1o~. whtc!l covers 95?(" of the 

total t.abd:t•es 

TotaiiOC assets ,ncroasod by 

22% cornpa~ed to !he 

year to mach USD b:ll·on, due 

to future C3arr:es-re:ateci 

aovances income t;oat 1s 

rece1ved dLv:ng 2015. 

/iii Tt1e IOC cont:nues to suopor! ~he 

Olympic Movemeflt with a total of 

USD 292 miilion distributed for 

fhe IOC's and revenues of 

14 mil!ion and are 

comonsed of rove~"'ue from suppliers. 

rewmues, arr1ong otners 

CHED!8iUrY, SL!ST/\I\1/\Ri~ ITY AND VOUT!i 
145 


TotaliOC asse:s increased by 22% i'l 

?01b con:parcd to the orev:ous year 

oue :o future O!ymo1c Games·reiatod 

advances and :ncome received 

u~e year. These Olympic r.;~mPC·CC""''on 

advances and inCO'"'lG are accurnula~ed 

non·· Games years ard will 

statement of 

f:r'anc·al actiVIties during tne relevant 

Gan:es year 

IOC current asse:s stanci at USD 2.4 

b:llion, 

fi:";anc al pa,::;,t:o:l. Casr1 ar1d finnnci.J.i 

assets rop 9Se<~t 66% ot the ICC's 

tota: assets 

Tt1e liab1l:t:es s1de of the statement of 

Tt"'e IOC fund balance stan as at USD 1.4 

t)liilon. which represents 36% of :he totai 

f1nanc:al pos:t1on. Of the funo oalances, 

19?r0 are undesigr;ateo to cover the 

'INANCIAI. STATcMlN'S 

fund, at almost 2'1% of total fund 

baiaqces, IS des:gr;atod for tf-)o financ:ng 

of the annual mcrmcrmcnn<c 

Sol~oar:ty v: 

ass!staGce to the NOCs 

The lOC 

exchange risks 

deals With different 

fore1gn currenctes in its operations 

IOC revenue, !OC contnbut'ons ard its 

operattng expenditures are denom1natod 

1n vanous currencies USD, CHF, 

fUR, GGP, AUD, CAD and Amount 

ot related rx and losses are 

occcur,ruaceu n fund ba!ances ana will be 

reclass:fiod to the statement of actiw::es 

when tne related hedged transact1ons 

occur 111 the ~u!ure 

IOC combined statements of financial position at December 31, 2015 

in USD n1illion 

3,887 Total 

Asset 

CRED:BIL 'TY, SUSlAIN,\8LITY .AND YOU iH 

2,482 Total 

Fund 

<'"'" '"''''< balances 

1,405 Total 

Liabilities and fund balances 

IOC 1\N~Ur\L f'EPOR.T 2015 133 
146 


FINA'JCIAL STATEMF'ITS 

Statement of Activities 

total revenue target, wh,ch vvould al!ow 

n to GCh1eve the ovet·all ob;ective of 90% 

d:smbutJO'l tc support the dove!opmer:t of prorrot1on of the Olyrlp:c Movement. 

soorl worldwide 

(such revenue and 

OCOG ;na.rket:ng prograrnrnes). Games 

d1stnbut~on ar:d are deferred 

;n the stateme:1ts pOsitton until 

~he relatea Games year. 

The iOC cont1n~es to 

Olymp1c Movemen! 

USD 292 mi~!ion d:stnbuted for soon, 

Games and the promot:on 

Movement Wr1hln th1s, 

miii!Otl 1s diStributed through 

134 I IOC NJNUAL Rt=:POi-n 2015 

The financial statomer't line iter'l 

'Promotion of the Movement' 

has been added m to ach1eve 

mear1ngfu! a:1d ta1cer presentatio!'l of 

the ~inancial statements, cons1stent with 

recornrnenda\1on 29 of Olyrnoic 

2020- to 

1ts mission to promote 

throughout tho wori(j as 

the O!ymp1c Found at tor: for Culture and 

Heritage (USC Ll2 rnill!on) ns well as H1e 

Oyrnp:c crannel {USD 11 rn:iilon}, which 

commenced April2015. 

A oart of the !OC total reven:.:e IS used to 

coverlOC 

USIJ 155 

exoenses of 

1 t11S •ncludes the 

l"heiOC roa!:sed USD 157 rni!!1on of 

rovonue 1n 2015. T!lG revenue frorr the 

() 

TOP 1n 2015 

represents 

the TOP revenue 1nstalmems tr;at oecor11e 

due fhe IOC's mher 

i4 ml!1on and of revenue 

trom suppliers, nghts of Oiymp1c 

Scque!lces, and the O!ymprc Museum 

ooerar1onal revenue, among others 
147 


IOC combined statements of activities for the year 

ended December 31, 2015 1n USD million 

Finane: a! 

expenses 

Tota' revenue Fxcessof 

expenditure 

Sou'CS'' lOCaud.·ted hlanc.'a!staterr>ents 

SUS IPJN.l\F31L !TY i\~J YOUTH 

FINANCIAL STATeMeNTS 

IOC N.JNU;\i_ REPOilT :?0:5 135 
148 


FINANCIAl S--:-ATEMENTS 

Combined Financial Statements 2015 

136 IOCA\i~JI\Lil[P0flT?015 CHFDI!-31U-;-Y, SL!STf\1:-.JAiliLITY A~D YOUTH 
149 


As sta!u:ory auo1tor. we havG aud1ted 

ti"le con•b·ncd f1nanc1al 

statements of :11e Olynlp:c 

wh1ch cornpr:se the 

i!icocne, sta.ter::ont of cash fiow, 

statemem n fund balac;ccs 

and notes 180), for :ne year 

ended 31 ?015 

3'10 

presentat,on f:nanca.l 

statements tha! are free fran> matenal 

rY'ISStateMer:t. whetr:er dut~ to fraud or 

error The fxecut:ve Board further 

Our cesoons!b:tl1y 'S to express (}I' ooir>ion 

these comb1ned ftnarc:ai s~ateme01ts 

based on our aua'tt \/1/c conducted our 

auo:t :n accordance w1~h Swtss lnw and 

Sw1ss fl..ud<t:ng Smnda~ds as we!: as 

ifle lntcrna1 anal Sta~dards 01~ Aud1t:ng. 

T'lose star:oards requ1re rt;at we p:an 

Cfl::'D!BIU-:-Y, SUST;\1'\IABil 'fY A~D YOul H 

and perform 1'le audit to obtain 

reasonable assurance wrether t~e 

cornb!°Cd f1nu.ncw.l statements are free 

fcom matEw,a! rnss:atemont 

An rtudit !"VO~ves performing procedures 

to obtmn 80d1t evrdence about the 

a~ounts a:1o d1sclosures ·n :r1e como1ned 

f,nancial ste:temen:s. The procedures 

soiected depend on the aud:tor's 

judgmeflt, rncluding tne assessment of 

~he nsks of matenal m:sstatement of :he 

co:-rb·ried financ1al statements, who thor 

due to fraud or er~or. !r, YY1ak:1ng those 

r'sk assessn-:ents, tho aud1tor cons1ders 

fiNANCIAL S~ATE\;1[Ni S 

ar;d That there are no wcumstarces 

1ncompat1Die With our Tldt;pr,ndence 

:he 'ntornal co'<trol system reievo.,.,,t to the In accordance w:t'"' article 69b 

em:y's preoarat on and f<F presentat:on 

combined f:nnncial statements in 

order to deSiQP audit procedures that 

are appropr:ate 1n the c:rcumstarccs, 

b" t ;10! for the an 

op:n1on on entity's 

nternai con~ro system. An audit a!so 

'nc:udes evatuat1r:g the Rn<YO<lr,Rfeness 

of tr;e 

pcese'ltat~or: of tne cornbnted fir,anc·al 

statements. We believe that t':e aud:t 

GVIdonco we h3Ve obta1ned :s suff1C10nt 

ar1d appropr a:e to orov1ae a bas1s for our 

audit op.n1or; 

:n 00r opin1on, the comb,ned fir1anc:eti 

stater~'er'ts for the year ended 31 

December 2015 a true and fo.:r 

v1ew of the posi~ion, tt1e results 

ot cpe'attons and tho cash flows 1P 

accorda'lC8 wth tre lnternatior'a' 

3 CC :n connect:on witr, art·cle 

We rccor'Hllend that the comb:red 

f:r.anc!ai stater::ents sub~;itted to you 

oe approved 

PricewaterhouseCoopers SA 

Michael Foley 

Audit expert 

Auditor in charge 

Pierre-Alain 

oevaud 

Audit exoert 

Lausa.1ne, 2 June 2016 

'OC r~N\IUAL (.1[POW 2015 ! 137 
150 


FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Current assets 

Cash and cash equ:va:erns 

F1na11C1al assets nt fatr value through prof:t or ioss 

Hec{wables and other current nssets 

01ymp1c Games-re:ated deferred expendr::ure 

Non~current assets 

F:nanCiai assets 

lnves:ments 1n assouares 

Tang:ble J1xeo nssets 

Intangible fixed assets 

Oiymp1c Games-reiared deferred exptmdnure 

Total assets 

Current liabilities 

Oef8rred 1ncome 

earmarked funds 

FUND BALANCES 

Non~current liabilities 

Olymp:c Games·rei<J!ed advances 

Deferred :ncome 

Fund balances 

UndoSIQnated 

Oes.gnated 

Cumu!at1ve :ransiat,on Dd;ustment 

Cash flow hcdnes 

Total liabilities and fund balances 

rhe notes on panes 1-13 to 1 so arc an 1ntcgral pan of tho f1nancm.! s!atem8r:ts. 

136 lOG ANNU;\L REPORT 2015 

PiiE:VIOUS PAGE CONTENTS N~X1 

11 

11 

12 

13 

413244 

32 

33 482 

1 064 i23 

34 866 

23 228 

20 390 

CREDIBIUTY, SUSTAINABILITY AND YOUH" 
151 


0 PREVIOUS !'AGE CONTENTS NEXT PAGE CD FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

2015 2014 

Notes Undesignated Designated Total Total 

REVENUE (note ?.K) 

l8!evision broadcasting nghts 14 

TOP programme marketing nghts 

Other nghts 15 

Other revenue 16 

EXPENDITURE 

Olympic Games-related expenditure, 

contributions and special projects 

SJiympic Games-relate? expenditure 17 

Youth Olympic Games-relmed expenditure 16 

Grants and contnbutions 

12 

19 

Spec1al proJects 

Distribution of revenue to OCOG, NOC, USOC and IF 

Revenue d1stnbutton 20 

TOP programme market1ng 20 

Promotion of the Olympic Movement 22 (53 019) (53 019) (46 330) 

Operating expendttures 21 (149 911) (4 900) (154 811) (140 747) 

Excess of (expenditure)/revenue 

before financial income (183 025) (106 570) (289 595) 128 203 

Financial expenses, net 23 (36 573) (36 573) J61006) 

Share of prof;t/{loss) of associates 394 394 (180) 

Excess of (expenditure)/revenue (219 204) (1065701 (325 774) 67 017 

The notes on pages 143 to 180 are an integral part of tho financial statements, 

CRE0181UTY, SlJSTAINABILITY AND YOUTH IOC ANNUAL REPORT 2015 I 139 
152 


FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Ex~!~s _o_f_(~:Ceenditure)/revenue 

Other comp~e~c::nsi~e _i':'~~~~:-

ltems that will not be reclassified to the statement of activities ~~ ~ - - - R~m~asuren:onts of defined benefit obligations 

~~~r:n_s ~~~t m~r b~ subseq~:~en~ly r~classifi~d to the statement of activities __ 

Cash flow hedge 

franslat1on adJustment 

Other comprehensive income for the year 

Totai?DITJprehensive income for the year 

The notes on pages 143 to 180 are an integra! part of the financial statements. 

140 i !OC ANNUAL REPORT 2015 

0 PREVIOUS PAGE CONTENTS NEXT PAGE 0 

2015 2014 

(325 774) 67 017 

(25 728) 

(12 710) (15 020) 

413 (12 201) 

(28 962) (52 949) 

i4 068 

CREDIBIUTY, SUSTAlNAB!UTY AND YOUTH 
153 


0 PREVIOUS f'AGE CONTENTS NEXT PAGE 0 

qperating activities 

Lxces~ C:~ :~v~~eJexper:ditureJ 

Adjustments for: 

Excess of televiston broadcasting nghts revenue over distributton 

Aliocation to earmarked funds 

Recognition of Olympic Games-related deferred income and expenditure, net 

~:na_nct~l expense, net 

Depreciatton and amorttsation 

Changes tn 

Olympic Games-related def~rred income and expendtiure, net 

Interest received 

Interest patd 

Net cash generated by/(used tn) operating acttvittes 

Investing activities 

Proceeds frotn sales of ftnanctal assets at fair value through profit or loss 

Dtvidends from associates 

Proceeds from sale of associate 

Net ~ca~h g~en~rate~ by/(used in) invest1~9 act1v~ties 

ln?rease/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 

Movement in cash and cash equivalents 

~! start of yea.r_ 

!ncrease/(decrease) 

Effects ?f ex?hange rate cha~ges ~ 

At end of year 

The notes on pages 143 to 180 are an tntegral part of the financial statements. 

CREDIBILITY, SUSTAINABILITY AND YOUTH 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

2015 2014 

262 

389 

219010 

1ti4 935 

67 017 

(594 256) 

40 000 

18 637 

57 979 

34 147 

180 

(25 700) 

~ (401996) 

~~ (30 432) 

150 605 

(11 025) 

109 148 

!OC ANNUAL REPORT 2015 , 141 
154 


FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Ba_~ance at ~ Janua_~ 2014~ 

Excoss of revenue/(expendtture) 

Total comprehens1vo :ncome/(!oss) for the year 

Balance at 31 December 2014 

Balance at 31 December 2015 

Undosignatod 

funds 

1 358 027 

1 346 41'4 

(219 204) 

116 665) 

1110 605 

The notes on pages 143 to 180 are an 1ntegra! part of the financial statements. 

142 IOC ANNUAL REPORT 2015 

c) PREVIOUS PAGE CONTENTS NEXT PAGE 0 

399 323 

Cumulative 

translation 

adJustmen7s 

41 282 

29 081 

Cash flow 

hedges 

{15 020) 1 759 858 

CRED!B!UTY, SUSTA!NABIUTY AND YOUTH 
155 


0 PREVIOUS PAGE CONTENTS NEXT PAGE G 

The International Olympic Committee 

(!OC), domiciled in Lausanne, Switzerland, 

is an international non-governmental 

not-for-profit organisation in the form of 

an association with the status of a legal 

person. The mission of the IOC is to lead 

the Olympic Movement in accordance 

wrth the Olympic Charter. The Olympic 

Movement encompasses organisations, 

athletes and other persons who agree 

to be gu!ded by the Olympic Charter, 

including, in addition to the IOC, the 

International Sports Federations (IFs), the 

National Olympic Committees (NOCs) 

including the United States of America 

Olympic Committee (USOC) and the 

Organising Committees for the Olympic 

Games (OCOGs). 

The IOC's revenue are largely generated 

from royalties on licensing television 

broadcasting rights for Olympic Games, 

as wei! as revenue from the commercial 

exploitation of the Olympic symbol and 

Olympic emblems. 

CREDIBILITY, SUSTA!NABIUTY AND YOUTH 

In addition to the activities of the IOC, 

these combined financial statements 

include the activities of the following 

organisations and programmes: 

• The Olympic Foundation for Culture 

and Heritage (OM), a foundation 

governed by the provisions of 

the Swiss Civil Code. It has been 

entrusted by the IOC with the task of 

depicting the history and development 

of the Olympic Movement and to 

associate the movement with art and 

culture for specialists and the public at 

large worldwide. 

• The Olympic Foundation (OF), a 

foundation governed by the provisions 

of the Swiss Civil Code. It has been 

entrusted by the !OCto give support to 

the activities of the Olympic Movement 

notably in the areas of culture, 

education and sports. 

• Olympic Solidarity (OS}, a programme 

developed jointly by the IOC and the 

National Olympic Committees (NOCs}. 

Its purpose is to assist the ofncially 

recognised NOCs, especially those 

most in need, to fulfil their mission 

and in making known the ideals of the 

Olympic Movement. 

e IOC Television and Marketing Services 

SA (IOCTMS). a company fully owned 

by the OF which manages the !OC's 

worldwide sponsorship programme, 

all its other marketing activities and 

activities related to broadcasting rights 

and new media. 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

• The Olympic Partner (TOP) 

Programme, the IOC's worldwide 

sponsorship programme which is 

managed by IOCTMS. 

• Olympic Broadcasting Services SA 

(OBS SA), a company fully owned 

by the OF that supplies al! services 

relating to the establishment and 

management of the Host Broadcasting 

function of the Olympic Games, 

• Olympic Broadcasting Services SL 

(OBS SL), a company that provides 

services to OBS SA, fully owned 

subsidiary of OBS SA. 

• Olympic Channel Services SA (OCS 

SA), a company fully owned by the OF 

which provides any types of services 

in relation to audio-visual programmes 

relating to the Olympic Movement and 

to sports and to ensure the distribution 

of such programmes through all 

available media including through 

digital and linear broadcasting. 

• Olympic Channel Services Spain SL 

(OCS SL), a company that provides 

services to OCS SA, fully owned 

subsidiary of OCS SA. 

The activities of the OM, the OF, OS, 

IOCTMS, TOP; OBS SA, OBS SL, OCS 

SA and OCS SL have been combined 

with those of the IOC (together. the IOC 

or the Group) on the basis of the fact that 

the latter has a 100% shareholdlng or 

control of the Boards of each organisation 

and programme. 

IOC ANNUAL REPORT 20i5 I 143 
156 


FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

The combined financial statements are 

prepared 1n accordance with and comply 

with International Financial Reporting 

Standards (I FRS). The significant 

accounting policies are described below 

and have been consistently applied to the 

years presented, unless otherwise stated, 

The financial statements are prepared 

under the historical cost convention 

except for financial assets at fa!r value 

through profit or loss and derivative 

financial instruments which are shown 

at fair value. Transactions and balances 

among the combined organisations and 

programmes have been eliminated. 

The preparation of financial statements 

in conformity with I FRS requires the 

use ot accounting estimates and also 

requires the exercise of judgment in the 

application of the accounting policies. 

In particular, significant assumptions are 

used in the calculation of the defined 

benefit obligations {note 13). 

These combined financial statements 

have been approved by the Executive 

Board of the IOC on 2 June 2016. 

The amounts shown in these combined 

financial statements are presented in US 

dollars, in view of the international nature 

of the IOC's operations and due to the 

majority of its revenue being earned in 

that currency. 

The television broadcasting revenues are 

received in USD. EUR, JPY, GBP. CAD 

and AUD. The related distributions are 

paid in USD and EUR. 

144 ! lOG ANNUAL REPORT 2015 

0 PREVIOUS PAGe CONTENTS NEXT PAGE 0 

Chango in presentation 

In order to give a more meaningful 

and fairer presentation of the Group's 

engagement in the Olympic Movement 

promotion, the Group reviewed the 

presentation of its Operating expenses 

within the combined statement of 

activities. As a result of this review, 

the Culture and Heritage expenses, 

amounting to USD 41.873 million (2014: 

USD 46.330 million) are now presented 

as part of the Promotion of the Olympic 

Movement (note 22) as opposed to their 

previous classification within Operating 

expenditures. Pnor year presentation has 

been restated accordingly. 

ln order to give a more meaningful and 

fairer presentation of the Group's f1nancia! 

instruments, the restricted financial 

assets have been reclassified in the 

financial assets at fair value through profit 

and loss (USD 1.509 million in 2015 and 

USD 1,020 million in 2014) and in the TV 

broadcasting rights receivables (USD 

575 million in 2015 and USD 43 m11!ion 

in 20i4). Prior year presentation of these 

amounts has been changed to conform 

to the_ revised presentation. 

In order to give a more meaningful and 

fairer presentation of the Group's fixed 

assets, intangible assets have been 

presented separately from the tangible 

assets. Prior year presentation has been 

restated accordingly. 

Certain comparative statement of 

financial position figures have been 

reclassified to conform to the current 

year's presentation. 

Amendments published 

standards into 

effect in 2015 

The following new standards, 

amendments or interpretations becoming 

effective for the annual period beginning 

on or after 1 January 2015 have been 

applied for the first time. The Jist is 

not exhaustive but only discloses the 

changes relevant to the lOG's combined 

financial statements. 

The nature and the effect of these 

changes are disclosed below. Although 

these new standards and amendments 

applied for the first time in 2015, they did 

not have a material impact on the annual 

combined financial statements. 

Amendments to lAS 19 

Defined Benefit Plans: 

Employee Contributions 

lAS 19 requires an entity to consider 

contributions from employees or third 

parties when accounting for defined 

benefit plans. Where the contributions 

are linked to service, they should be 

attributed to periods of service as a 

negative benefit These amendments 

clarify that, if the amount of the 

contributions is independent of the 

number of years of service, an entity is 

permitted to recognise such contributions 

as a reduction in the service cost in the 

period in which the service is rendered, 

instead of allocating the contributions to 

the periods of service. This amendment 

is effective for annual periods beginning 

on or after 1 July 2014. This amendment 

is not relevant, since employee 

contributions were already recognised 

as a reduction in the service cost in the 

period in which the service is rendered. 

CREDIBILITY, SUSTAINABILITY AND YOUTH 
157 


COMMITTEE 

IOC reanalysis programme 

Beijing 2008 and London 2012 

The protection of clean athletes and the fight against doping are top priorities for the International 

Olympic Committee (IOC), as outlined in Olympic Agenda 2020, the IOC's strategic roadmap for 

the future of the Olympic Movement. To provide a level playing field for all clean athletes at the 

Olympic Games Rio 2016, the IOC put special measures in place, including targeted pre-tests 

and the reanalysis of stored samples from the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and London 2012, 

following an intelligence-gathering process that started in August 2015 - in consultation with 

WADA and International Federations (IFs). 

Forty-one athletes eligible for Rio were suspended as a result. 

The additional analyses on samples collected during the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and 

London 2012 were performed with improved analytical methods, in order to possibly detect 

prohibited substances that could not be identified by the analysis performed at the time of these 

editions of the Olympic Games. 

For reference, some reanalysis of the stored samples of Beijing 2008 and London 2012 was 

already conducted in 2009 and 2015 respectively. leading to the sanctioning of six athletes. The 

programme for Beijing samples has concluded due to the statute of limitations. 

The total number of confirmed Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) by reanalysis in 2016 

was reported as 98 in July and there have been 3 further AAFs since then, bringing the 

total for 2016 to 101. Samples from London have been reanalysed to assist the Mclaren report, 

and there are likely to be more confirmed AAFs in the coming weeks and months as the 

reanalysis programme continues in consultation with WADA and the IFs. 

Details of cases can be given only once each case has been concluded and the athletes in 

question have been notified of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). 

The reallocation of medals is not automatic and is decided by the IOC on a case-by-case basis. If 

the IOC decides to reallocate the medals, such reallocation takes place only after all remedies of 

sanctioned athletes/teams have been exhausted (e.g. when all procedures are closed). In such 

case, the IOC will follow up with the relevant National Olympic Committee, which then notifies the 

relevant athlete(s) to whom the medals have been reallocated. 
158 


INTEl< NATIONAL 

OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE 

Key figures: 

Beijing 2008: 

- Number of tests carried out during the Games (27 July-24 August 2008) 4,800 

-Number of samples selected for reanalysis (process over as samples stored for 8 years): 1 ,053 

-Number of sanctions issued as of December 2016: 54 

London 2012: 

-Number of tests carried out during the Games (16 July-12 August): 5,000 

- Number of samples selected for reanalysis (ongoing process I samples stored for 8 years): 492 

-Number of sanctions issued as of December 2016: 34 

The reanalysis included samples from athletes from 89 NOCs and from 16 sports. 

Background information: 

The amount of stored urine is limited, so it is not desirable to reanalyse before new tests 

are developed unless the intelligence for a particular new test in a particular group of 

athletes means that is worthwhile. This is the case for a number of London samples 

thanks to the new test for steroids (long-term metabolites). 

New tests for substances other than anabolic steroids may be developed in the next three 

years - perhaps for Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs), like EPO, blood 

transfusions and small peptides (e.g. growth hormone), so unless there is a good reason 

we want to keep samples until nearer to the eight-year mark. 

For obvious reasons, the exact test distribution plan (TOP) is not divulged as that is useful 

intelligence for cheaters - the more unpredictable testing is, the more effective the 

deterrence. 
159 


OLYMPIC 

COM 

Beijing 2008: by country 

I Country 

I 

Number of 

athletes per 

delegation 

Number of AAFs Number of AAFs 

2009 2016 

t 

Armenia- 2 -+--·----;2"''15~--+-----~--+---:;------l 

---~· -··-~---- ---·-- Azerbaijan 44 4 

Bahrain 13 ' 1 

Belarus 175 ' 7 

Croatia 98 1 

r--------

·- +-·-

1 i 

Cuba I 157 ~9if1~-==r------2"'80.:4;----

Germany 1 421 

Greece 1 151 1 1 

Italy 334 1 

Kazakhstan 130 7 

I _1 ···-··-t 

I 1 

Moldova 29 aaiar --2o 

' Russia 454 i 16 

i 2 

4 

....... _1 

I Turkey 67 

i Ukraine 241 

l Uzbekistan 56 r---

I Total 5 49 

I 54 

London 2012: by country 

I ----- -·--.. ···---·----·--

Country Number of Number of AAFs Number of AAFs 

I 

athletes per 2015 2016 

delegation 

I 

i Armenia 

t 

24 1 1------ --·-

+ -- 'Azerl)~ 52 --·· .. --

Belarus 161 I 

Georgia 34 r-- 1 

Kazakhstan 115 I 5 

Moldova 20 2 

"Russia 430 11 -·--··· ---- -- ' Ukraine 230 --- i 1 5 

' 

Total 1 33 

34 
160 


lNTERNAriONAL 

OLYMPIC 

COMM!TTEF 

Beijing 2008 and London 2012: by sport 

List of sanctioned athletes to date (8 December 2016): 

Beijing 2008: 54 (5 in 2009 + 49 in 2016): 

Vanja PERISIC (CRO, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 18.11.2009 

Athanasia TSOUMELEKA (GRE, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 18.11.2009 

Stefan SCHUMACHER (GER, cycling) 

Source: IOC News 18.11.2009 

Davide REBELLIN (ITA, cycling, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 18.11.2009 

Rashid RAMZI (BRN, athletics, GOLD) 

Source: IOC News 18.11 2009 

Sibel OZKAN (TUR, weightlifting, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 22.07.2016 

Nurcan TAYLAN (TUR, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 09.08.2016 

Hripsime KHURSHUDYAN (ARM, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 09.08.2016 

Yulia CHERMOSHANSKAYA (RUS, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 16.08.2016 

Anastasia KAPACHINSKAYA (RUS, athletics, SILVER) 

Source IOC News ~.i:LQ.SL;?.QJ§ 

Alexander POGORELOV (RUS, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 19.08.2016 

Ivan YUSHKOV (RUS, athletics) 

Source IOC News 19.08.2016 

Alexandru DUDOGLO (MDA, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 31 08.2016 

Nadezda EVSTYUKHINA (RUS, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source jOC News 31.08.2016 

Tatyana FIROVA (RUS, athletics, SILVER) 

Source: lQC News 31.Q];L.f.Q1§. 
161 


!NTERNAT!ONA!. 

OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE 

Tigran MARTIROSYAN (ARM, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 31.08.2016 

Marina SHAINOVA (RUS, weightlifting, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 31.08.2016 

lntigam ZAIROV (AZE, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 31.08.2016 

Yarelis BARRIOS (CUB, athletics, SILVER) 

Source: IO~ews 01 09.2016 

Samuel Adelebari FRANCIS (QAT, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 01 09.2016 

Maria ABAKUMOVA (RUS, athletics, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 13 09 2016 

lnga ABITOVA (RUS, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 13 09.2016 

Denis ALEXEEV (RUS, athletics) 

Source: IOC News_13 09.2016 

Anna CHICHEROVA (RUS, athletics, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 06.10.2016 

Sardar HASANOV (AZE, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Wilfreda MARTINEZ (CUB, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Josephine Nnkiruka ONYIA (ESP, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Soslan TIGIEV (UZB, wrestling, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Ekaterina VOLKOVA (RUS, athletics, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Olha KOROBKA (UKR, weightlifting, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Nastassia NOVIKAVA (BLR, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Andrei RYBAKOU (BLR, weightlifting, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 26_1 0.2016 

Taimuraz TIGIYEV (KAZ, wrestling, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 26.10.2016 

Khadzhimurat AKKAEV (RUS, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Khasan BAROEV (RUS, wrestling, SILVER) 

Source: IO(;:J'{g_ll{s 17.11.2016 

Natalya DAVYDOVA (UKR, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source IQC News 17.11.2016 

Chrysopigi DEVETZI (GRE. athletics, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Mariya GRABOVETSKAYA (KAZ, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

lryna KULESHA (BLR, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC NewsJ7112016 
162 


l NT ERNATIONI\L 

OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE 

Dmitry LAPIKOV (RUS, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Asset MAMBETOV (KAZ, wrestling, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Maya MANEZA (KAZ, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Irina NEKRASSOVA (KAZ, weightlifting, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Vita PALAMAR (UKR, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Nizami PASHAYEV (AZE, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC NJL"Y_§ ... 17 11.2016 

Vitaliy RAHIMOV (AZE, wrestling, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Vladimir SEDOV (KAZ, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Elena SLESARENKO (RUS, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 17.11.2016 

Denys YURCHENKO (UKR, athletics, BRONZE) 

Source IOC New§.J.L.1L2016 

llya ILIN (KAZ, weightlifting, GOLD) 

Source IOC New§ 25.11.2016 

Pavel L YZHYN (BLR, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 25.11.2016 

Aksana MIANKOVA (BLR, athletics, GOLD) 

Source: IOC News 25.11.2016 

Natallia MIKHNEVICH (BLR, athletics, SILVER) 

Source IOC News 25.11.2016 

Sviatlana USOVICH (BLR. athletics) 

Source: IOC News 25.11.2016 

Re-tests London 2012: 34 (1 in 2015 + 33 in 2016) 

Olga BERESNYEVA (UKR, swimming) 

Source: IOC News 12.06.2015 

Yulia KALINA (UKR, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 13.07.2016 

Pavel KRYVITSKI (BLR, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 09.08.2016 

Oleksandr PYATNYTSYA (UKR, athletics, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 09.08.201Q 

Evgeniia KOLODKO (RUS, athletics, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 20.08.2016 

Ekaterina GNIDENKO (RUS, cycling) 

Source: IOC News 13 09.2016 
163 


tNTEHNATlONAL 

OLYMPIC 

COMMITTE!' 

Tatyana LYSENKO (RUS, athletics, GOLD) 

Source: IOC News 11.10.2016 

Apti AUKHADOV (RUS, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 18.10.2016 

Maksym MAZURYK (UKR, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 18.10.2016 

Zulfiya CHINSHANLO (KAZ, weightlifting, GOLD) 

Source: IOC News 27 1Q.2016 

Kirilllkonnikov (RUS, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 27.10.2016 

Maiya Maneza (KAZ, weightlifting, GOLD) 

Source: IOC Ne'!Y§_:n:J0.2016 

Svetlana Podobedova (KAZ, weightlifting, GOLD) 

Source: IOC News 27.10.2016 

Dzina Sazanavets (BLR, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 27.10.2016 

Marina Shkermankova (BLR, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 27.10.2016 

Dmitry Starodubtsev (RUS, athletics) 

Source: IOC fif!WS 27.10.2016 

Yauheni Zharnasek (BLR, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 27.10.2016 

Besik KUDUKHOV (RUS, wrestling, SILVER- Deceased person proceedings filled) 

Source: IOC News 27.10.2016 

Andrey DEMANOV (RUS, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 21.11.2016 

Oleksandr DRYGOL (UKR, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 21.11.2016 

Cristina IOVU (MDA, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 21.11.2016 

Alexandr IVANOV (RUS, weightlifting, SILVER) 

Source IOC News 21.11 2016 

Hripsime KHURSHUDYAN (ARM, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News_21j 1.2016 

lryna KULESHA (BLR, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC News 21 11"2016 

Rauli TSIREKIDZE (GEO, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 21.11.2016 

Margaryta TVERDOKHLIB (UKR, athletics) 

Source: LQC News 21 112JL1§ 

Almas UTESHOV (KAZ, weightlifting) 

Source IOC News 21.11.201§ 

Nataliya ZABOLOTNAYA (RUS, weightlifting, SILVER) 

Source: IOC News 21.11.2016 

Yuliya Zaripova (RUS, athletics, GOLD) 

Source: IOC News 21.11.2016 

Anatoli CIRICU (MDA, weightlifting, BRONZE) 

Source: IOC New§_61.112016 
164 


INTERNATIONAL 

OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE 

llya ILIN (KAZ, weightlifting, GOLD) 

Source: IOC News 25,112016 

Aksana MIANKOVA (BLR, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 25,112016 

Boyanka KOSTOVA (AZE, weightlifting) 

Source: IOC News 25,11.2016 

Nastassia MIRONCHYK-IVANOVA (BLR, athletics) 

Source: IOC News 25,11.2016 
165 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

February 8, 2017 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO WADA 'S BUDGET 2017 

Olympic Movement Contribution 

Public Authorities Contribution 

Total 

Montreal international 

AFRICA 

Algeria .. 

Angola ... 

Benin .. 

Botswana ... 

Burkina Faso ... 

Burundi .. 

Cameroon .. 

Cape Verde. 

Central African Rep 

Chad .. 

Comoros .. 

Congo .. 

Dem. Rep. of the Congo .. 

Djibouti 

Egypt. 

Equatorial Guinea ..... 

Entrea .... 

Ethiopia .... 

Gabon .... 

Gambia .. 

Ghana ... 

Guinea .. 

Guinea-Bissau .. 

Ivory Coast. 

Kenya .... 

Lesotho ... 

Liberia .. 

2017 

Amounts invoiced Amounts received 

USD USD 

14,862,420 

14,862,420 

29,724,841 

29.724,841 

Amounts invoiced 

74,312 

3.664 

1,613 

505 

505 

505 

505 

1.613 

505 

505 

505 

505 

505 

3,239 

505 

3,664 

505 

505 

3.239 

505 

505 

3,239 

505 

505 

1.613 

3,239 

505 

505 

4,465,160 

1,553,269 

6,018,429 

6,018,429 

Amounts received 

17,958 

19 

1,536 

3.664 

505 

3.085 

3,239 
166 


CONTRIBUTIONS TO WADA 'S BUDGET 2017 

Libya .. 

Madagascar. 

Malawi .. 

Mali ... 

Mauritania .. 

Mauritius .. 

Morocco .. 

Mozambique .. 

Namibia .. 

Niger ... 

Nigeria .. 

Rwanda ... 

Sao Tome & Principe ... 

Senegal.. 

Seychelles .. 

Sierra Leone .. 

Somalia .. 

South Afnca . 

Sudan .. 

Swaziland .. 

Tanzania .. 

Togo .. 

Tunisia. 

Uganda .. 

Zambia .. 

Zimbabwe .. 

AMERICAS 

Canada .. 

USA .... 

Antigua and Bar·buda .. 

Argent1na .. 

Aruba .. 

Bahamas .. 

Barbados .... 

Belize .. 

Bermuda ... 

Bolivia .. 

Brazd. 

Bntish Virgin Islands ... 

Cayman Islands. 

Chile .. 

Colombia ... 

Costa Rica .. 

Cuba .. 

Dominica .. 

Dominican Republic ... 

2017 

Amounts invoiced 

USD 

3,664 

1,613 

505 

505 

505 

505 

3,664 

1,613 

1,613 

505 

3,664 

505 

505 

1.613 

505 

505 

505 

3,664 

3,239 

505 

3,239 

505 

1,613 

1.613 

1,613 

1,613 

4,310,102 

1,077,525 

2,155,051 

3,448 

127.062 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

314.681 

3.448 

3.448 

42.455 

33,188 

7.413 

30,300 

3.448 

8,146 

Amounts received 

USD 

505 

505 

3,287 

1,613 

59,748 

6,849 

100 

3,448 

3,448 

42,455 
167 


CONTRIBUTIONS TO WADA 'S BUDGET 2017 

Ecuador .. 

El Salvador,. 

Grenada .. 

Guatemala .. 

Guyana ... 

Haiti .. 

Honduras .. 

Jama1ca .... 

Mexico .. 

Netherlands Antilles .. 

Nicaragua .. 

Panama .. 

Paragu~y ..... 

Peru .. 

Puerto Rico ... 

Saint Kitts and Nevis .. 

Saint Lucia ... 

St. Vincent & the Grenadines .. 

Suriname ... 

Trinidad & Tobago .. 

Uruguay .. 

Venezuela .... 

Virgin Islands .. 

ASIA 

Afghanistan .. 

Bahrain ..... 

Bangladesh .. 

Bhutan ................................................... . 

Brunei Darussalam .. 

Cambodia .. 

China ... 

DPR Korea .. 

India. 

Indonesia .. 

Iran .. 

Iraq .. 

Japan .. 

Jordan .. 

Kazakhstan .. 

Kuwait. .... 

Kyrgyzstan. 

Lao PDR .. 

Lebanon .. 

Malaysia .. 

Maldives ... 

Mongolia .. 

2017 

Amounts invoiced Amounts received 

USD USD 

8,189 

4,138 

3,448 

7,413 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

4,870 

322,094 

3,448 

3,448 

6,465 

4.914 

21,895 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

3,448 

6 034 

7,155 

81,504 

3,448 

3,040,851 

5,000 

57,205 

5,000 

5,000 

55,606 

5.000 

318,443 

6,621 

123,923 

13,867 

31,544 

11,754 

1,502,800 

11.754 

44,947 

110,712 

6,621 

5,000 

19,415 

31,224 

12,356 

13.638 

3,448 

225,641 

5,000 

123,923 

11,754 
168 


CONTRIBUTIONS TO WADA'S BUDGET 2017 

2017 

Amounts invoiced Amounts received 

USD USD 

Myanmar ... 5,000 

NepaL. 5,000 

Oman .. 35,432 

Pakistan . 21,029 

Palestine .. 6,621 6,621 

Philippines .. 11,555 

Qatar .. 78,328 78,328 

Republic of Korea. 152,461 

Saudi Arabia ..... 48,713 

Singapore .. 104,627 

Sri Lanka .. 6,621 

Syna ... 7,957 

Tajikistan .. 6,621 

Thailand .. 40,558 

Timor-Leste ... 5,000 

Turkmenistan .. 6,621 

United Arab Emirates ... 75,017 15 

Uzbekistan ... 11,883 

Vietnam .. 9,377 

Yemen .. 5,000 

EUROPE 7,059,650 830,033 

Albania .. 8.472 

Andorra ... 4,857 

Armenia ... 8,472 

Austria .. 122,852 

Azerbaijan .. 32,418 

Belarus . 31,811 

Belgium 151,217 1,270 

BelgiUm - Brussels 7,497 

Belgium - French Community. 56,980 

Belgium - Flem1sh Community .. 85,470 

Belgium • German Community. 1.270 1,270 

Bosma and Herzegov111a ... 10,095 

Bulgaria .... 24,433 

Croatia .. 21,108 

Cyprus .. 8,472 

Czech Republic .. 68,690 68,690 

Denmark .. 95,750 95,750 

Eston1a .. . 8,472 8,472 

Finland ... 76,936 

France .. 815,630 

Georgia .. 10,229 

Germany 815,630 

Greece .. 79,513 

Hungary ... 48.556 48,556 

Iceland ... 8,472 8,472 
169 


CONTRIBUTIONS TO WADA 'S BUDGET 2017 

Ireland .. 

Italy .. 

Latvia ... 

Liechtenstein .. 

Lithuania .. 

Luxembourg .. 

Macedonia ... 

Malta .. 

Moldova (Republic of) .. 

Monaco ...... 

Montenegro (Republic of) .. 

Netherlands .. 

NorNay .................... .. 

Poland .. . 

Portugal .... . 

Romania ............................... . 

Russian Federation ... 

San Marino ... 

Serbia (Republic of) .. 

Slovakia ................................................. . 

Slovenia .. 

Spain .... 

Sweden .. 

Switzerland .. . 

Turkey ................... . 

Ukraine .. . 

United Kingdom .. 

1/srael ........................................................ .. 

OCEANIA 

Australia ... 

New Zealand., 

Donations 

Other Grants- Australia (Oceania Rado) .... 

2017 

Amounts invoiced 

USD 

67,568 

815,630 

10,837 

7,935 

16,272 

16,618 

8,472 

8,472 

8,472 

8472 

8472 

243,967 

141,186 

191,260 

73,752 

78,602 

815,630 

2,654 

21,355 

32,940 

15,482 

423,162 

160,939 

189,043 

318,065 

106,678 

815,630 

75,185 

377,505 

324,655 

52,851 

Amounts received 

USD 

67,568 

7,915 

16.272 

16,602 

243,947 

141,186 

52,242 

21,355 

31,736 

377,506 

324,655 

52,851 

42,383 

42,383 
170 


2124/2017 

WORlD 

ANTI·DOPING 

AGENCY 

FOUNDATION BOARD 

Foundation Board 1 Wodd An!i-DoPJrg Agency 

The 38~member Foundation Board is WADA's supreme decision·making body.lt is composed equally of representatives from the 

Olympic Movement and governments. 

Sir Craig Reodie 

President 

IOC Member 

United Kmgdom 

Ms Linda Hofstad Helleland 

Vice President 

Minister of Culture 

Norway 

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT ·IOC REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr Ugur Erdcner 

IOC Vice President 

President World Archery 

Turkey 

Mr Nenad Lalovk 

!OC Member 

President UWW 

Serbia 

Mr Robin Mitchell 

IOC Member, President Oceania National Olympic Committees 

Fiji 

h!tps./lwww wada-ama.orglcnlfou'ldation-board 1!5 
171 


2}24/2017 

Mr Richard W. Pound 

!OC Member 

Canada 

Foundatio'lBoard j World An\l-Dopmg Agency 

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT· ANOC REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr Fabio Pigozzi 

President, !nt8rnationa! Federation of Sports Medicine 

Italy 

Ms Rania Elwani 

ANOC Representative 

Egypt 

Mr Andrey Kryukov 

Executive Board Member, National Olympic Committee 

Republic of Kazakhstan 

Mr Zlatko Matcsa 

President, Croatian Olympic Committee 

Croatia 

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT· ASOIF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr Tamas Ajan 

Honorary !OC Member 

President IWF 

Hungary 

Mr Jean·Christophe Rolland 

President FISA 

France 

Mr Francesco Ricci Bitti 

Chair of ASO!F 

Italy 

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT· SPORT ACCORD REPRESENTATIVE 

https·/twww.wada-ama.org/tJr?oundation-board 215 
172 


2/2412017 

Mr Patrick Baumann 

Secretary General FIBA 

Switzerland 

Foundation Board 1 WOf!d Antt-Oop1rg AgerJcy 

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT· AIOWF REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr Anders Besseberg 

President IBU 

Norway 

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT· IOC ATHLETES COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES 

Ms Angela Ruggiero 

!OC Member, !DC Athletes Commission 

USA 

Ms Kirsty Coventry 

IOC Member, IOC Athletes Commission 

Zimbabwe 

Mr Adam Pengilly 

!OC Member, !OC Athletes Commission 

UK 

MrTony Estanguet 

IOC Member, IOC Athletes Commision 

France 

OLYMPIC MOVEMENT· IPC REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr Jose A. {Toni) Pascual 

Cha1rman, IPC Anti-Doping Committee 

Spain 

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES· MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTATIVES 

Ms Tracey Crouch 

Min1ster for Sport 

United Kmgdom 

rlttps"lfwww.wada-ama.org!en/fou'ldation-board 3.'5 
173 


212<1/2017 Foundation Board 1 Wor!o Ant1~Dopmg Agency 

Mr Chris Agius 

Parliamenti'lfy Secretary for Research, lnnovat1on, Youth and Sport 

Republic of Malta 

Mr Philippe Muyters 

Flemish Min1stertor Work, Economy, Innovation and Sport 

Belgium 

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES· COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPRESENTATIVES 

Ms Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni 

Deputy Secretary General, Council of Europe 

Italy 

Mr Akif <;agatay Kili~; 

Minister of Youth and Sports 

Republic of Turkey 

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES· AFRICA REPRESENTATIVES 

Ms Nicole Assele 

Minister of Youth and Sport 

Gabon 

Mr Jerry Ekandjo 

Minister of Sport, Youth and National Service 

Namibia 

Mr Hassan Wario 

Cabmet Secretary, Ministry of Sports, Culture and Arts 

Kenya 

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES· THE AMERICAS REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr Pedro Infante 

President of the Central American and Caribbean Council of Sport- CONCECADE 

Venezuela 

Ms Carla Qualtrough 

Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities 

Canada 

https /lwwwwada-ama.org/orffoondation-board 415 
174 


212412017 Foufldation Board i World Ant1-Dopmg Agency 

Ms Clara Luz Roldan 

President of the South Amencan Sport Council- CONSUDE 

Colombia 

Mr Michael K. Gottlieb 

Asststant Deputy Director 

White House Drug Policy Office 

Executive Office of the President 

USA 

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES· ASIA REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr Mohammed Saleh AI Konbaz 

President, Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee 

Saudi Arabia 

Mr Dong Hun Yu 

Vice Minister, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism 

Republic of Korea 

Mr Yingchuan U 

Assistant Minister, General Administration of Sport 

China 

Mr Toshiei Mizuochi 

State Minister of Education. Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 

Japan 

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES· OCEANIA REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr Greg Hunt 

Mmister for Sport 

A.ustra!ia 

Dr Jonathan Coleman 

Minister of Sport and Recreation 

New Zealand 

https./lwww.wada-ama.org/en/:oundatiort-board 515 
175 


Conflict of Interest 

Policy 

No USADA officer, director, employee I other than a Doping Control Officer), or any immediate family 

member of an officer, director, or employee of USADA shall: 

a. Be an employee of an NGB, the USOC, or other Sports Organization for which USADA 

conducts doping controls; 

b, Have a business or commercial relationship with an NGB, the USOC, or other Sports 

Organization for which USADA conducts doping controls; 

c. Serve in any governance or policy making capacity, paid or unpaid, for an NGB, the 

USOC, or other Sports Organization for which USADA conducts doping controls; 

d. Be an active athlete or coach of an active athlete participating at the elite level of 

competition in an organization for which USADA conducts doping controls; 

e. Fail to abide by the USADA gift policy as described below. 

No USADA officer, director, employee (other than a Doping Control Officer), shall accept gifts, cash, 

travel, hotel accommodations, entertainment, or favors from the USOC, an NGB, or any other USOCmember organization, or other Sports Organization for which USADA conducts doping controls, or any 

athlete subject to testing by USADA. 

No Doping Control Officer or any immediate family member of a Doping Control Officer shall: 

a. Be an employee of the USOC or other Sports Organization for which USADA conducts doping 

controls or an NGB in a sport in which he or she performs doping controls; 

b. Have a business or commercial relationship with the USOC, other Sports Organization for 

which USADA conducts doping controls, or an NGB in a sport for which he or she performs 

testing services on behalf of USADA; 

c. Serve in any capacity, paid or unpaid, for the USOC, other Sports Organization for which 

USADA conducts doping controls, or an NGB in a sport for which he or she performs testing 

services on behalf of USADA; 

d. Be an active athlete or coach of an active athlete participating at the elite level of 

competition in a sport in which he or she conducts doping controls; 

e. Fail to abide by the USADA gift policy as described below. 

A Doping Control Officer may accept ~ifts or souvenirs in his or her capacity as an agent of 

USADA, provided that no gift or souvenir shall have a fair market value greater than $25.00, and 

provided that no more than a total of $100.00 (based on a fair market value) in gifts or souvenirs 

is received from any one person or organization in any calendar year. In no event, however, 

may any such gift or souvenir influence, or appear to influence, the Doping Control Officer in the 

discharge of his or her official duties. A Doping Control Officer shall not otherwise accept cash, 

travel, hotel accommodations, entertainment or favors from the USOC, or any other Sports 

Organization for which USADA conducts doping controls, any NGB or other USOC-member 

organization in a sport in which he or she conducts doping controls for USADA. 

© 2013 LJSADA All R>g!.:s Reserved Rev. 1112013 
176 


An immediate family member under this subsection is defined as any parent, sibling, child, spouse, or 

domestic partner of the officer, director, employee, or Doping Control Officer. A written conflict of 

interest policy cannot address every potential situation that could raise a conflict of interest or create an 

appearance of impropriety. Accordingly, all USADA officers, directors and employees have a duty to 

raise any situation involving a potential conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety with their 

supervisor as soon as they become aware of the situation. Directors shall raise potential conflict or 

appearance concerns with the Audit and Ethics Committee. 

Signature: _______________ _ 

Print Name: _______________ _ Date: _________ _ 

© 2013 USADA. All Rights Reserved Rev 11!2013 
177 


2.125/2017 Olymp.cs: Tokyo pledges 'model' drug-free Games, Sport News & Top Stones- The Straits Times 

THE STRAITS TIMES ' . ~ " . ~· -

Olympics: Tokyo pledges 'model' drug-free Games 

Fl:KCO :"C1KYO (,\FP)- Tokyo h pronming a model Olvmpic G,1!1ll'~ with the \\"orld\ ~lnrtt·~t ant1-doplng rule> iflt wim the right to ho~t the 2020 (•dil!on. 

E:..,Kt;ng trst!ng ;n top-1~otch labmJtones combined With ~rwng '>one~l d!silpprovJI ofehemJcJI cnh;mccnwnts g1ve )apJn a leading cdgo; m tlw ra_u• to ~tamp out doping 

in sp01 \, ,1dvocaw~ ~ay 

·;ap;m b J \wrld lt•Jdcr m ,1nti dop1ng, ,mel we .1re proud to have one oftlw world's highest standards ofmcdicJI can•," ~.11d Mr i\la<;ato Mizuno, viC"e prewknt of the 

j.lpanes(' Olympic Committee. 

'),1p,1n w1ll t\Jntmue to lw m the forefront of Mlti-doping act!vitw~ gomg forw.1rd. am! in 2020 we look furwMd to ofh·nnga moJt'l ofclea:-t sport as aleg,lcy of 

c·xceikncethroughouttheworld." 

'i~ ~~:rue that Japan ts one oftlw ~trongbt countnc~" ao:; t:1r a~ drug t{'~ting i~ nm('enwd. C<:>Jdian Dick Pound. an lntcrnatkm,ll Olympic Corr.nmtee member who was 

tlw ill'l pre~idl'nt oft he \V01Id 1\mi Doping.\gcncy(\\',1da). told ,\!"Pin l.aus:mnt 

"The cmmtry that does h.11"e ,\ fe1v probh:ms b Sp;lin," h(' SJtd, but ackkd tt 1vould not b(' the ded~ive file( or in the t:n;:il dech-wn on ,1\lilrding the compHitwn 

http /lwww.stra•tstim es.comfsportlolympcs-tokyo-pledges-mode!-drug-free-games 112 
178 


2!25/2017 Oly!T'plcs: Tokyo pledges 'moCel' drug-free Games, Sport News & Top Stones- The Straits Times 

nw :oc Jn\'l't> m Bumos i\JJc> in September to tlccidc ~vhicb oft he thre(' o;honliqrJ ci!!C~- Tokyo, l~tanbul and i'Vl.Jdnd- w:lJ piay host to thousand ul athictcs fur the 

2020 summer Cames. 

·~okyo ha~ received \~idc~pread !)raise for a b1d thJt pronme-, a htghly compJct and cm•irOtu11CntJ!Iy friendly gam{'s in a city with an J.lready weU-devcloped 

lllh\lStiUClUrt.' 

(~wwi:lg public <,upporllor the proicett<, ilbo [wiping, n1.1kmg Tokyo the bookie~· favour:!L'. 

It 1~ wen .1~ ICJdV to tro;_mcc i>ladnd, where the expcme ofho~tmg one of the b1ggot sportmg jJmborce~ on the pbnrt is worrvmg Cltl7:ens Jlrc::~dy gro::~ning under the 

\Wightof,11l'•tUitym~:w;ures 

ConcmcntJtor~ ><IV l>L:mbu! hMi hcen domg well, pushing its stJtus JS J bridgC' hN\\'CC'n Furope :~.nd Asia. but rcn:nt disturb,mrcs in wh1ch riot police f1red tcargJ~ 

ag;Hn<;l dcmon>tPlOrS w:!i h;JVe giVen ~ome f()( memi-Jers ]1ilU.~t' for thought 

W,Icb figure~ 'bow lh,Jt more than !00 ,1lhiHP~ wNl' c,wghi fi1r dupmg l'tolation'> m tlw ;tm-up wand dmint; ),l~t year':, !.undPn Olympic:,. TokyD 1vill be looking tu 

better that 

T!w IOC hring'i w·th 1t ;1 formid,1bl<• ,1nt1-dopmg .lppJrJtc~s. wh1ch it'i mcUkal dit('Cror, Mr ]{ich,ml Rudgctt 'i,l:J would be augmemed by J na!IO!UI system 

!-k ,,11d tnc ,11m ofholdil1g a dopmg·free 01~ mpics W<h a noble one 

'lt:>Jt~1'1\asucino.pn·attrm,"hes,lid 

· u~mg be G,l~Cs to tnspire :myonc to incrca~e rhe1~· deterrence. mcrc,<se tht'Jf IHtdlig\'IIC\' on the way thetr testing" is dom: will re;:dly !w!p. 

·~think Jap,1l~ wtth thetr strong ht~tory ofantidopmg, wtth :-heit wry aeril·e largr LlbMJ.tory, will he il gwat pl.-1ce w do th<1L' he :1dded 

."1ctwd:ng to the lapJ.n _.\ntl-Dopmg r\gency (ada), only ·~0 c.1scs ol'dorl('d athletes hJve bet'!~ disc<Netcd m JapJn sinr(' 2007. The US Anti-Doping ,\gency website 

nwJnwhlle, <;how~ llwre were 37 dopmg vio\Jt1om m the US Ill 20!2 alone. 

'\\'e CJil.t SJY thilt Jny country I'> ,\b~o!ulely doping free, but we olwiou'>l)·do know th,\1 ~onw hanc more risk o~'ha\·ing doping bccau>t' oftlwir historie,ll cu:ture of 

,uhletes .\nd coJches who were dopmg thJn m Plher count ric~," SJ.lli !Vlr Budgett 

'And tht• ~t;:nJqK., .,h0w that there i~ <1 vri'y low inndenn' ufdoptng :n j.lp,m. 1 'u'>pcct th.1t i~ rt>lated to the ~octal structure .md the char Jeter ofj.lpJ.IW~c ;:;port,' hr 

:\b i\t~uko Ok,1moto. J re~earcher at \V<lSetlJ lJmversity in Tokyo, agree> 

"On the other hand, drugs are <IS~ocratcd w:th enl ,1nd thtngs thJt do h,lrm" 

'1: 1' tm;lO<>~i:Jle to know !Or .~ure that .my counry, .mJ sport. is do;1ing !i-(•c lwcau~c dw <~ihkte~ are nol tested Jllthe ttme, said Budgelt 

But ,"\n .wow,\: w mJke tlw G,HliCS a~ l're~e (rom drug~ ao po<,.oible, he ~ay~. 1~ a gre~t ,1mbit1un. 

'\Vt• can li'(' the G,Hnc>s to i:n.provc the kwl ofimtidoping in any ho<,t country .md thJt... i~ (a) hnta>tic !r~JCy." 

http:!/www.strmtstiMes.com/sportlolyr•lpics-tokyo-pledges-mtxle!-drug-free-games 
179 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

(!Congress of tbc Wnitcb ~tates 

~oust of ll\epresmtatlbt!l 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 

Mr. Travis Tygart 

Chief Executive Officer 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 

5555 Tech Center Drive 

Suite 200 

Colorado Springs, CO 80919 

Dear Mr. Tygart: 

Maionty l202)215·-2S27 

Mmority {207)225 3641 

March 29,2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Tuesday, 

February 28, 2017, to testif)' at the hearing entitled "Ways to Improve and Strengthen the International 

Anti-Doping System." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of tho hearing record, please respond to these questions and requests 

with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, April 12, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word fonnatto 

Elena.Brennan@maiLhouse.gov, 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~t~ Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

cc: The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Attachment 
180 


Attachment-Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Tim Murphy 

1. On March 1, the day after the Subcommittee's hearing, Vladimir Putin pledged to 

establish an "independent" system in Russia to tackle doping. This system will transfer its 

anti-doping program from the nation's sports ministry to an independent organization. Does 

USADA believe this will address the problems that occurred in Sochi and London? 

Unfortunately, for many including Russia, the term "independence" is being used as a 

political talking point rather than a genuine call to action. Those who truly value clean 

sport know that Russia is still a long way away from implementing the types of reforms 

necessary to remove the fox from the henhouse, achieve real independence and 

prevent this type of corruption from ever occurring again. We need action, not words. 

With that said, if Russia can finally commit to removing both sport and government 

influence over its anti-doping system, that's something we would of course be 

supportive of. 

a. If not, what steps does USADA believe need to be taken to further improve the 

system? 

The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. Yet here we are, a yearand-a-half removed from the first Mclaren report and Russia- in the face of irrefutable 

facts- still won't admit to having operated a state-supported doping system. It's 

ridiculous. 

Secondly, we should understand that while enacting the proper reforms, including 

regaining code compliance and removing both sport and government influence is a step 

in the right direction, ultimately it is about developing a culture within the system that 

truly values clean competition- and that's something that will take time. Unfortunately, 

if you analyze their recent rhetoric, hires within the anti-doping system, the lack of 

ongoing testing, and unwillingness to show even the slightest degree of contrition, it's 

clear they're still a long, long way off. 

2. With the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang less than a year away, Is USADA 

confident the systemic weaknesses identified before and after the Rio games will be 

addressed in advance of the games? 

In February, you heard the most accomplished Olympian in the history of the Games, 

Michael Phelps, tell you that he doesn't believe he's ever competed on a truly level 

playing field during international competition- including the Olympic Games. Why is 
181 


that? It's because Michael, like many of us who value clean and fair competition, know 

that the IOC cannot be trusted to both promote and police itself. If you need proof, look 

no further than the Independent Observer report from the Rio Games: 

• 4,125 athletes out of 11,470 in the athlete's village had no testing in the year prior 

to Rio 

Of those, 1,913 were athletes competing in ten of the high-risk sports 

Considering both the anti-doping program in Rio, as well as the IOC's reticence to 

remove themselves from critical anti-doping functions, the simple answer to your 

question is no, as of right now, we do not have confidence that the systemic weaknesses 

identified before and after the Rio games will be adequately addressed in advance of 

PyeongChang. But with that said, we would certainly hope that it is- clean athletes 

deserve it. 

And, we do believe it could be ... if the IOC is willing to strengthen WADA and remove 

itself from critical anti-doping functions. The answers are relatively easy, yet finding 

sport leaders with the fortitude to implement them has proven much more difficult. 

a. In addition, does USADA have confidence that all athletes implicated in the Russian 

doping scheme will be adequately tested leading up to and during competition? 

No. Regarding Russian athletes, we've always said there needs to be an independent 

panel of experts that can assess each athlete on an individual basis using uniform 

criteria to determine whether they should be eligible to compete. It's an unfortunate 

situation, but given the established evidence on the corrupt Russian system, they simply 

can not be trusted to assess themselves. 

b. What additional changes do you believe are necessary to ensure public confidence 

that the next Olympics will be a clean and fair competition? 

The first step is removing the fox from the henhouse, and that can be easily done by 

implementing the Copenhagen Reform Proposals that have been established and 

endorsed by both National Anti-Doping Organizations and clean athletes from around 

the world. Once we remove the fundamental conflict of interest that exists when sport 

is asked to both promote and police, we can then focus on strengthening WADA 

through improved independence, transparency and increased investment, as well as 

further establishing WADA's ability to investigate, monitor compliance and impose 

sanctions. At the end of the day, we need to make sure all athletes from around the 

world are held to the same, high standard. 

3. Recently, an International Olympic Committee {IOC) Athlete's Commission member 

described the current lack of sanctioning criteria for sporting organizations that fall foul of 

2 
182 


anti-doping rules "completely ridiculous." Does USADA agree with this characterization? 

Please explain. 

Absolutely. Athletes cannot be the only ones who are held accountable for their 

decisions to dope. Organizations should be held responsible for any anti-doping rules 

violation or systematic doping they are involved in. That's why we believe that WADAthe global regulator- must have the power to suspend International Federations, 

National Olympic Committees, and National Anti-Doping Organizations when necessary 

for intentional violations of the WADA Code and of course with the right of appeal to an 

independent judiciary body. 

4. The IOC has suggested the establishment of an independent testing authority, 

separate from national interests. What is USADA's opinion on the proposal? 

When the IOC uses the phrase 'national interest' it is really a convenient excuse to 

justify its terrible decision not to sanction proven Russian state doping. Further, it is 

offensive and inaccurate for the IOC to paint all nations with the corrupt Russian 

paintbrush. It is not the U.S.'s (or many other countries participating in the Olympics) 

'national interest' to abuse our athletes with drugs, intentionally send cheating athletes 

to the Olympic Games and to knowingly rob other countries and athletes in violation of 

the established rules, an international treaty and the Olympic Charter. 

In fact, our 'national interest' is the opposite- it is to protect public health and to 

protect the rule of law and clean athlete's right to compete and win honestly. 

The details and decision-making surrounding the creation of any new testing 

bureaucracies should be left to WADA, as the global regulator for anti-doping, not the 

IOC. 

This is also a perfect example of the type of IOC double speak that far too often 

confounds our efforts at real change. While simultaneously professing a commitment to 

"independence," the IOC is attempting to drive how the new system will be constructed. 

This again is emblematic of the IOC's reluctance to relinquish control of international 

anti-doping efforts. 

Further, it is our belief that true reform in global anti-doping efforts does not require 

the implementation of a new massive, top-down global testing bureaucracy that 

consolidates control without appropriate checks and balances, but rather a basic 

adherence to the fundamental principles of "independence" as outlined in the 

Copenhagen Declaration. While there is huge value in empowering WADA to be a strong 

global regulator that can oversee NADOs, hold them accountable, and ensure that 

athletes who come from countries without the will or ability to implement effective 

national anti-doping organizations are still being held to a high standard, creating a 

3 
183 


large-scale bureaucracy that values minimum testing criteria over a localized, 

intelligence-based testing model would be a significant step backwards for clean sport. 

To discuss and reach a better understanding of these points with the IOC, NADO leaders 

have for many months been seeking a meeting with IOC President Thomas Bach. So far, 

those efforts have been unsuccessful. 

a. Do NADDs provide a valuable resource in the global fight against doping? If so, how? 

Simply put, the most significant victories for clean athletes and advances in anti-doping 

over the past decade and a half have come from NADOs, whether it be in spearheading 

research for the detection of new performance enhancing drugs, collaborating globally 

in testing task forces, making sure that athletes in their own countries feel confident in 

their ability to compete clean and win, speaking up when sport organizations are not 

acting in clean athletes' best interests, or coming together in order to better the global 

system through reform efforts, NADOs are a critical resource for global anti-doping 

efforts. 

Yet, despite these efforts and for no good reason, the IOC is currently looking to strip 

jurisdiction from NADOs in favor of a large-scale bureaucracy, in no small part due to the 

outspoken criticisms from many NADO leaders following the IOC's mishandling of the 

Russian doping crisis. A very telling position. 

b. Based on your experience, what more can be done to ensure the national anti-doping 

organizations remain independent and do not place national interests above their 

mission? 

The easiest way to accomplish this is to ensure that NADOs are adhering to an 

independent governance structure where neither sport or government has any role 

policy making. Once this is achieved, the focus then shifts to improving and 

strengthening WADA, who when made truly independent, can then act as an effective 

global regulator, holding NADOs and all other relevant stakeholders accountable and to 

ensure no interest- a national one or any other- gets in the way of the rules being 

fairly and uniformly enforced for the good of clean athletes. 

c. Based on USADA's experience, would a centralized testing authority be financially and 

logistically feasible and/or practical? Please elaborate on any specific challenges or 

benefits to this model. 

It's not practical, or logistically feasible to scrap the good parts of the current system in 

order to spend millions of additional dollars on an entirely new body that is still 

inherently conflicted. Instead, the more logical, efficient, and cost-effective approach is 

to enact the Copenhagen Reform Proposals to ensure sound governance, and then 

4 
184 


invest in current independent anti-doping structures that have proven effective and fill 

the gaps by WADA becoming a truly independent global regulator not just an IOC 

puppet. 

The creation of a global testing agency would be a step backwards for clean sport. As 

mentioned above, while there is huge value in empowering WADA to be a strong global 

regulator that can oversee NADOs and others, hold them accountable, and ensure that 

all athletes are being held to a high standard; creating a large-scale bureaucracy that 

values minimum testing criteria over a localized, intelligence-based testing model, 

would be a significant blow to the hopes of clean athletes. 

5. The JOC recently suggested that CAS should be responsible for sanctioning athletes. 

What is USADA's reaction to and position regarding this proposal? 

This appears to be more IOC doublespeak. The IOC has cited "separation of powers" as 

the rationale behind removing all sanctioning power from anti-doping organizations and 

handing it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)-- whose current President just so 

happens to be an IOC Vice President. 

So, let's be very clear, this is not a "separation of power" as much as it is a clear and 

unambiguous consolidation of power by the IOC. 

Lastly, CAS has never been a sanctioning body. It is an adjudicative body, meaning that it 

only resolves cases through arbitration hearings or mediations- which will now be 

required in every case. The costs of these proceedings would be exorbitant, and entirely 

unnecessary, as 99 percent of cases are currently being resolved without a hearing. 

Having CAS be the sanctioning body would also compromise the due process rights that 

U.S. athletes are currently afforded. Additionally, there is no need for this power grab 

as WADA currently has the power to appeal any national level case to CAS and thus, 

ensure fair, thorough, harmonized sanctioning. 

a. If CAS is responsible for issuing sanctions, how would an athlete appeal a sanction? 

Presumably there would either be no appeal or an appeal to CAS, but it is a good 

question and one that we're asking as well. Any attempts to meet with IOC President, 

Thomas Bach, to clarify their positions on this, and other topics, have been unsuccessful. 

6. In your oral testimony, you stated "We find ourselves at a critical juncture for the soul 

of sport." Please elaborate on that statement, particularly the "critical juncture" component, 

and explain why need for reform is so timely. 

We said following the IOC's decision to allow the Russian sports system to go 

unpunished that "the Olympic flame burns less bright today." It was true then, and it's 

5 
185 


true now. There has never been a greater attack on the spirit of Olympism. Yet from 

those ashes emerges a silver lining: We have now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to 

reform the global anti-doping system in a way that prevents future generations of 

athletes from having their moment stolen from them. 

But with the Winter Games in PyeongChang rapidly approaching, our window is fading 

fast, and the reform efforts are moving too slow. We must act now, otherwise we do a 

terrible disservice to not only the Olympic Games, but more importantly, the athletesand future generations of athletes- who dedicate their lives to competing in them. 

The IOC's game seems to be to delay -let the crisis subside and make a few tweaks to 

the system ultimately giving the IOC more control. This will be a huge loss for clean 

sport and the rights of athletes. 

7. During the hearing, Dr. Budgett testified that the IOC has already taken steps to 

invoke change with a governance structure review. This review, which includes independent 

experts as well as representatives from sport and government, is tasked with examining the 

total of the World Anti-Doing Agency (WADA), including whether the executive board should 

be independent of sport and government. 

Your reaction to this statement seemed hopeful, yet pessimistic given your comment 

that "we've had 2-plus years for that move to be made and athletes are still waiting for some 

change ... " Since the hearing, have you seen any progress with regard to changing the 

governance structure at WADA? Do you believe that the IOC review will ultimately effectuate 

change in the governance structure of WADA? Please explain. 

We do not as the IOC could act today (as it could have every day since this scandal first 

broke in 2014) to remove itself from WADA's governance and while in the press it claims 

to want sport removed all it has done is attempt to gain more, not less, control of 

critical anti-doping functions. And, in fact, the likelihood of real reform is waning. The 

window of opportunity for real reform is rapidly closing. The IOC delay game so far has 

worked to a large extent. This is why Congress' and other governments' attention and 

focus on these issues is needed now more than ever before. 

While the IOC pays lip service to "independence" at the hearing in February, just weeks' 

later they published a "12 Point Declaration" of its Executive Board outlining their vision 

for global anti-doping reform. It's is not a vision centered on independence, but rather a 

vision where the IOC continues to influence critical anti-doping functions, consolidates 

testing and sanctioning powers and suppresses its most vocal critics. 

As we've said before, finding the answers to the global doping crisis is not difficult, but 

finding sport leaders who are willing to implement them is. 

6 
186 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Rob Koehler 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

~ongress of tbe Wntteh ~tates 

J!')ouse of l\epresentatibes 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Maj<Hity {202)225-2927 

M!!lority \202)22&-36<11 

March 29,2017 

Deputy Director General 

World Anti-Doping Agency 

C/o Lance Bultena 

Columbia Square 

555 13th Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Dear Mr. Koehler: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Tuesday, 

February 28, 2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "Ways to Improve and Strengthen the International 

Anti-Doping System." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions and requests 

with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, April12, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to 

Elena.Brennan@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~~- Tim Murphy V CJ"' Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

cc: The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Attachment 
187 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

WADA RESPONSES TO SUBCOMMITTEES' LETTER OF 29 MARCH 2017 

Responses to The Honorable Tim Murphy 

1. On March 1, the day after the Subcommittee's hearing, Vladimir Putin pledged 

to establish an "independent" system in Russia to tackle doping. This system 

will transfer its anti-doping program from the nation's sports ministry to an 

independent organization. What role will the World Anti-Doping Agency 

(WADA) have in overseeing this transition? 

a. Does WADA believe that this will adequately address the problems that 

occurred at Sochi and London? 

WADA has established an !SO-accredited compliance review system. The Russian AntiDoping Organization (RUSADA), like all anti-doping organizations (ADOs), falls under the 

scrutiny of this compliance system. The system includes a review by an independent 

committee, the Compliance Review Committee (CRC); which in turn, makes 

recommendations to WADA's Foundation Board as it relates to declaring an ADO noncompliant or re-instating an ADO that was previously declared non-compliant. 

This means that Russia's reform will undergo a careful review by the CRC; which, in total 

independence, will provide recommendations to the WADA Foundation Board. WADA 

management is currently working with RUSADA to assist them in rebuilding a 

transparent and credible organization. To this end: 

Two independent experts have already been posted in Russia for a year; and, are 

working every day in the RUSADA office to assist them in this process. 

The CRC has made it a provision of compliance that RUSADA put in place an 

independent Supervisory Board. 

Russia has also transferred funding of RUSADA from the Ministry of Sport to the 

Finance Ministry. 

The CRC will scrutinize the operations of the Supervisory Board; and, as indicated 

above, provide recommendations to the WADA Foundation Board. 

The structure we are expecting from RUSADA is similar to that found in many countries 

where National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) are funded mainly by governments. 

RUSADA needs to operate independently from undue influence. This structure is 

intended to provide for adequate safeguards within the Russian anti-doping system, just 

as it does in other countries. 

Having said this, going forward, the Russian system will continue to be scrutinized by 

the WADA compliance system for a number of years; until, the Agency is satisfied that 

10-Apr-17 1 
188 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

efficient and transparent procedures have been put in place and that they are being 

carried out in line with expectations. 

a. WADA does believe that the above-noted approach adequately addresses the 

problems that occurred at Sochi and London. 

2. With the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang less than a year away, what is 

WADA doing to ensure that the systemic weaknesses identified before and 

after the Rio games are addressed in advance? 

a. In addition, what is WADA doing to ensure that all of the athletes implicated 

in the Russian doping scheme are adequately tested leading up to and 

during competition? 

As was the case for Rio, WADA is not responsible for the organization of the 2018 

PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games; nor, is it responsible for the testing that will take 

place during the event. Testing at Olympic Games is the responsibility of the roc. 

As indicated in Response 1 above, we are working with Russia to re-establish a credible 

anti-doping system. In the meantime, testing in Russia is being conducted by the United 

Kingdom Anti-Doping organization (UKAD). It is UKAD that decides which athletes are 

to be tested; and, that manages therapeutic use exemptions in Russia. UKAD is working 

hand in hand with WADA to ensure that an appropriate number of tests take place in 

Russia. 

Furthermore, all samples are being analyzed outside of Russia given that they no longer 

have a WADA-accredited laboratory. 

a. A taskforce comprised of WADA, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and a 

number of NADOs have been invited to ensure that an adequate worldwide testing 

program is carried out, as it relates to all countries and sports, in the lead up to the 

PyeongChang Games. This will include recommending target testing, which will be 

required for certain athletes participating in the Games. 

3. It is no secret that some have criticized the pace of WADA's investigation into 

allegations of widespread doping by Russian athletes. For example, according 

to reports, WADA began receiving information from whistleblowers as early as 

2010 but did not launch an independent investigation until after the release of 

a documentary in 2014. Further, after the conclusion of that investigation -

which suggested a potentially larger issue across multiple sports - it took 

months and two prominent media stories before WADA commissioned a 

broader independent investigation. Can you please explain the timing of these 

decisions? 

a. Did WADA need the public pressure to pursue these investigations? If so, 

why? If not, then why did it take so long to begin the investigations? 

b. Did the involvement of the International Olympic Committee {IOC) in 

WADA's governing structure influence the timing of these investigations? 

10-Apr-17 
189 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

i. If so, please explain how this impeded your work 

ii. If not, why did it take so long to initiate these investigations? 

For the record, WADA strongly disagrees with the allegations that it could have begun its 

investigation earlier and that it could have acted on evidence as early as 2010. This 

viewpoint, which has been taken in particular in the U.S. by the United States AntiDoping Agency (USADA) is, in WADA's view, entirely misleading and does not reflect the 

reality, and the facts, of how events unfolded. 

In 2010, WADA was approached by the Russian Whistleblower, Vitaly Stepanov, who 

started a dialogue with WADA; principally, via Jack Robertson, who is a former U.S. DEA 

agent and was WADA's Chief Investigator at the time. Mr. Stepanov explained the 

situation concerning his wife, Yuliya Stepanov; specifically, that she was subject to an 

institutionalized doping regime in Russia. At the time, Vitaly told us that he had yet to 

tell his wife that he was talking to WADA; and that, he had no concrete evidence 

whatsoever to support his statements, that they were his words and his words alone. 

This dialogue continued until 2013, which is when Yuliya Stepanov got caught for doping 

and was suspended in Russia. Ms. Stepanov getting caught was a game changer for the 

relationship with the Stepanovs. It was then that Yuliya and Vitaly, together, decided to 

collaborate with WADA by gathering evidence that could lead to a meaningful 

investigation with meaningful outcomes. 

It is important to note that, under the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code (Code), which was 

in force until the end of 2014, WADA's role and authority as it relates to investigations 

was stipulated under provision 20.7.8 of the Code, as follows: 

"To conduct anti-doping controls as authorized by other 

anti-doping organizations and to cooperate with relevant 

national and international organizations and agencies 

including but not limited to, facilitating inquiries and 

investigations." 

To be clear, WADA's role and authority under the 2009 Code was clearly defined as a 

facilitator, to pass on information to relevant organizations and to facilitate the conduct 

of investigations. At the time, not only was the information from Vitaly Stepanov 

insufficient to take definitive action; the Code also required WADA to pass the 

information on to RUSADA and/or the International Athletics Federation (IAAF). As you 

can appreciate, because the Stepanovs' information included allegations of doping 

cover-ups against RUSADA and the IAAF, this would have been a disaster. 

It was only effective 1 January 2015, when the 2015 Code came into force, that WADA's 

role and authority vis-a-vis investigations increased as indicated under provision 20.7.10 

that empowered WADA to: 

10-Apr-17 3 
190 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

"Initiate its own investigations of anti-doping rule violations 

and other activities that may facilitate doping." 

In January 2015, a few days after the new Code came into force, WADA established the 

first independent Pound Commission which, in December 2015, confirmed allegations of 

widespread doping in Russian Athletics. 

It is WADA's view that the Agency did all it could under the Code rules applicable at the 

time. It is also our view that, if we had exposed the initial, weak, information that had 

been provided by Vitaly Stepanov, between 2010 and 2013, it would have been 

dismissed as being the words of one individual (Vitaly Stepanov) against the strong 

denial of Russia. We are convinced that we would not have had anywhere near the 

success that we ultimately had; in fact, we believe that the international community 

wouldn't even be talking about doping in Russia today. 

Following the release of the first Pound Commission Report in November 2015, WADA 

was called upon to conduct further investigations into other sports in Russia and other 

countries. WADA's response was that, 'as a matter of course, we ensure that all 

information/intelligence that we uncover, and/or is received from whistleblowers, is 

properly assessed by our Intelligence and Investigations Team; and that, when believed 

to be credible, we would not hesitate to launch the appropriate form of investigation.' 

This is exactly what we did as it relates to the independent Mclaren Investigation. As 

soon as Dr. Rodchenkov's information was made available to WADA, via the New York 

Times in May 2016, the Agency initiated the investigation. It should be noted that Dr. 

Rodchenkov was heard three times by the Pound Commission in 2015; and, was never 

forthcoming with the information that he later revealed to the New York Times. 

Therefore, to summarise, WADA's position following the Pound Commission was that 

further evidence was needed before the Agency could possibly embark on a new 

investigation, knowing that the Agency had no legal means to obtain further cooperation 

from anyone; particularly, in Russia. This was also the publicly expressed view of 

Richard Pound following publication of his Report. This view was also shared by 

professional investigators who did not see how an organization like WADA, without any 

law enforcement powers, could meaningfully launch an investigation in Russia without 

receiving further collaboration by whistleblowers. The fact is that Dr. Rodchenkov opted 

not to talk to WADA until May 2016, which is after he spoke to the New York Times. It is 

difficult for WADA to understand how, with these facts, the Agency can be accused of 

taking too much time to act. 

WADA therefore does not agree that it was public pressure that prompted the Pound and 

Mclaren investigations, but rather the: 

New powers of investigation that came about via the 2015 Code; 

Provision of further evidence by Dr. Rodchenkov in 2016; and 

Letters from National Anti-Doping Organizations and other WADA partners, 

requesting an investigation. We welcomed these letters and as the responsible global 

regulatory body, took their requests seriously as we always do. 

10-Apr-17 4 
191 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

The conspiracy theory that has been propagated by some to the effect that this 

investigation would have been impeded by some force within our governance structure 

is simply unfounded. 

The timing of the Pound Commission and the Mclaren Investigation has been fully 

explained above. The Pound Commission was initiated as soon as it was possible under 

the Code and made relevant by the information/evidence available. Both investigations 

were conducted in total independence and the Reports were made public as soon as they 

were completed. We don't know what else could have been done/be done to prove the 

independence with which WADA acted in both cases. 

4. You stated in your testimony that it was not until 2015 - when the World AntiDoping Code ("the code") was revised - that WADA officially obtained 

investigative powers. Though WADA did not have the power to launch formal 

investigations, at the time of the Russian doping scandal, did WADA have the 

power to hold NADO's and other organizations compliant to the code? 

a. If so, why didn't WADA make compliance decisions in regards to doping 

violations leading up to the 2016 Rio Games? 

WADA did take a number of decisions in relation to non-compliance prior to the 2016 

Rio Games. In particular, RUSADA was declared non-compliant in November 2015 by 

WADA prior to the Games (that declaration of non-compliance is still in effect) and 

the laboratory in Moscow had its WADA accreditation revoked in April 2016 (that 

accreditation is still revoked today). 

b. Why were these decisions passed on to the International Federations, 

instead of going through WADA or the NADOs? 

Under the Code, WADA has limited jurisdiction regarding the consequences of noncompliance. In November 2015, WADA publicly declared RUSADA non-compliant. In 

April 2016, WADA revoked accreditation of the Moscow Laboratory. WADA also 

removed the Russian Sports Minister from the Agency's Foundation Board and 

recommended that action be taken by other organizations as a result of the 

situation. 

It is not WADA that passed the decision on to the International Federations as to 

whether or not Russian Athletes should be eligible to compete at the Rio Games. 

WADA asked the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International 

Paralympic Committee (!PC) to consider, under their respective Charters, to decline 

entries, for Rio 2016, of .9!l athletes submitted by the Russian Olympic Committee 

(ROC) and the Russian Paralympic Committee. 

The !OC decided to pass the decision on to the International Federations; while, the 

IPC decided to heed WADA's recommendation. The Agency was not involved in the 

respective decisions of the IOC and the !PC. 

10-Apr-17 5 
192 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

5. I understand that WADA established a panel to examine potential reforms to 

global antidoping efforts. 

Further to stakeholder consultation with NADOs, the IOC, Athletes, Governments and 

others, WADA established, and communicated at the November 2016 Foundation Board 

meeting, a road map aimed at strengthening WADA and the anti-doping system. As part 

of this road map, a number of Working Groups have been formed. The WADA 

Governance Working Group is likely the working group that is the most relevant to this 

question. 

a. What is the current status of this review? 

The Governance Working Group is comprised of representatives from Sport and 

Government; as well as Athletes and NADOs. It is chaired by an independent judge 

from Burkina Faso and is assisted by two experts -- one with a background in 

governance, Akaash Maharaj; and, the other with a sports background, Huw Roberts. 

The Committee met for the first time in Lausanne on 11 March and had fruitful 

discussions. An interim report will be provided to the WADA Foundation Board in May 

2017; and, further meetings of this Group are anticipated going forward. 

b. Are there specific options under consideration? 

The discussions include WADA governance reform; and general principles of good 

governance that need to apply to all ADOs, including International Federations and 

National Anti-Doping Organizations. Many options are on the table, including, in 

particular, the composition of WADA's Foundation Board, the relationship between 

the Foundation Board and the WADA Executive Committee, the selection of the 

WADA President and Vice-President, the selection of the WADA Working Committees, 

the involvement of athletes, etc. 

There are many questions that require thorough review and guidance from experts in 

order to develop the optimal solution. This is the focus of this Working Group going 

forward. 

c. What is the process for evaluating or acting upon the recommendations of 

this review? 

Once the Working Group has made definite recommendations, it Is likely that some 

of the recommendations will be implemented through a change of WADA's Statutes; 

while others, might make their way into the Code so that they not only apply to 

WADA, but all other ADOs as well. 

d. During the hearing, you indicated that WADA plans to finalize these reforms 

within a year. Can you provide a more specific timeframe as to when these 

reforms will be finalized? 

We are unable to estimate how much time this work will take. Changes to the WADA 

Statutes can be done relatively quickly by a decision of the WADA Foundation Board. 

Changing the Code however requires significantly more time as thorough stakeholder 

10-Apr-17 6 
193 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

consultation is required. Timing for Code changes is particularly difficult to predict as 

some of the stakeholders are sovereign nation-states. 

6. The IOC has suggested the establishment of an independent testing authority, 

separate from national interests. What is WADA's opinion on this proposal? 

Establishment of an independent testing authority (ITA), as proposed by the roc, is 

currently being studied by another Working Group that was assembled by WADA. The 

Agency does not have an opinion per se on this proposal. Rather, we are waiting for the 

recommendations of our Working Group regarding how such an entity could be 

established and the implications it would have for the global anti-doping system. 

What is clear to us is that, whilst an ITA may address issues for some stakeholders, the 

reform being called for goes well beyond simply creating another body. In particular, 

stakeholders are calling for good governance that applies to all organizations and that a 

robust compliance program is enforced by WADA. 

a. As the organization responsible for ensuring the independence, integrity, 

and compliance with the Code for national anti-doping organizations, does 

WADA have concerns about the independence or integrity of national antidoping organizations, including established and tested organizations such 

as those in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and 

elsewhere? 

All organizations must be looked at as part of WADA's compliance monitoring 

program; which includes review of established NADOs such as those in the United 

States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and elsewhere. No country is immune 

from conflicts of interest. How these conflicts of interest are addressed and what 

safeguards are in place is what WADA will look at as part of its compliance 

monitoring program. Having said this, as mentioned above, what is key to the work 

going forward is that principles of good governance be embedded within the Code so 

that all organizations are accountable for ensuring that those principles are enforced. 

b. Do these organizations provide a valuable resource in the global fight 

against doping? 

NADOs are a key resource in the global fight against doping. Having established and 

performing NADOs around the world is the only way to raise the level of anti-doping 

worldwide. WADA must rely heavily on its NADO partners to ensure that robust antidoping programs are established at the national level, including on international level 

athletes falling within a NADO's jurisdiction. 

c. Based on WADA's experience to date, would a centralized testing authority 

be financially and logistically feasible and/or practical? Please elaborate on 

any specific challenges or benefits to this model. 

As indicated above, the ITA is an !OC proposal; accordingly, they are best suited to 

address its feasibility and cost. 

10-Apr-17 7 
194 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

7. The IOC recently suggested that the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS} should 

be responsible for sanctioning athletes. What is WADA's reaction to and 

position regarding this proposal? 

This question refers to an IOC proposal to have CAS acting as a first-instance entity for 

disciplinary cases from International Federations. Please note that, while WADA has a 

right of appeal, it does not intervene in first-instance cases. It will therefore be a matter 

for International Federations to discuss with the IOC as to whether or not they agree to 

have all cases heard by CAS at first instance; and, what the impact would be in terms of 

timing and cost. WADA will maintain its right of appeal on such decisions. 

8. In your testimony, you stated that WADA now has a system in place to hold 

countries and sports organizations compliant to the code. Specifically, you 

testified, "Now there's a call by athletes, by the anti-doping community, to go 

in and audit, to go in and make people accountable, and if they are not doing it 

we have appointed an independent compliance review committee to make a 

call on countries, on sports that are deemed not doing the work to make them 

compliant." 

a. Is this independent compliance review committee a part of WADA? 

i. If not, why isn't WADA conducting compliance review itself? 

As indicated above, WADA has started an !SO-accredited compliance program, which 

includes auditing ADOs to ensure, not only that Code rules are in place but, that 

good practice of the rules is being followed. The CRC was established as part of this 

!SO-accredited process and is an advisory body to WADA's Executive Committee and 

Foundation Board. 

WADA is conducting compliance work itself, which includes a review of rules; 

organization of audits with the assistance of external experts; and, requesting 

corrective actions from ADOs. We are optimistic that, through this process, most of 

the non-compliance issues can be resolved through dialogue between ADOs and 

WADA. 

The CRC's role is to deal with problematic cases when WADA management is 

confronted with issues that need to be escalated to the CRC either because they are 

not resolved in time or because wrongdoings have been identified. In such situations, 

it was felt that having a recommendation from an independent body to the WADA 

Executive Committee and Foundation Board would ensure that an independent 

expert and non-biased view would be provided to the Foundation Board; and, would 

add weight to the recommendation being put forward. This system has been in place 

for over a year; and, thus far, each CRC recommendation has been accepted by the 

Board. 

b. Are there any WADA representatives or employees on this committee? 

i. If yes, who? What are their roles on WADA and on the compliance review 

committee? 

10-Apr-17 8 
195 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

There is no WADA staff member serving on the CRC. For reasons of efficacy, the CRC 

receives support from WADA staff; such as, provision of pertinent information in 

order to feed their evaluation and recommendations. The current composition of the 

Committee is as follows: 

Mr. Jonathan Taylor, Chair 

Mr. Henry Gourdji, Vice Chair 

Mr. Tom Dielen 

Ms. Barbara Leishman 

Ms. Beckie Scott 

Ms. Bente Skovgaard Kristensen 

The CRC is supported by our compliance team; including: WADA's Chief Operating 

Officer, Frederic Donze and WADA's Compliance Manager, Emiliano Simonelli. 

Depending on the specific issues at stake, other WADA staff members may be 

involved in providing information to the CRC. 

9. You testified that WADA is about to launch a new whistleblower program called 

'Speak Up' in the coming days. Please elaborate on the specifics of this 

program and the reforms it includes. 

a. Will there be any policies included that will mandate that WADA document 

and consider the information brought forward by whistleblowers? If so, 

please describe these policies. 

The WADA Speak Up! program was launched in March 2017 and is available to 

athletes, athlete support personnel and anyone around the world who would choose 

to report doping misconduct. Speak Up! is administered by the Agency's independent 

Intelligence and Investigations Department and guarantees confidentiality to all 

Informants and Whistleblowers using the system. 

The status of Informant or Whistleblower triggers different rights and 

responsibilities. Any person reporting misconduct to WADA will be considered an 

Informant. The Informant may decide not to pursue further cooperation with WADA 

once they have provided the information. However, an informant can become a 

Whistleblower if they wish to further cooperate with WADA. In this case, an 

agreement is signed between WADA and the Informant outlining each party's rights 

and obligations. There is no obligation for the Informant to become a Whistleblower. 

However, this status offers additional rights to the person willing to cooperate further 

with WADA's Intelligence and Investigations Department. The Whistleblower must 

maintain strict confidentiality at all times during the investigation. Therefore, if the 

Whistleblower goes public, the agreement is terminated and the Whistleblower 

cannot benefit from any protection or financial assistance from WADA. 

Speak Up! also comprises a secure IT platform. Of note, the identity of 

Whistleblowers will never be recorded on the platform itself so that, even in the 

worst-case scenario of a hacking incident, Whistleblower identities cannot be 

exposed. 

10-Apr-17 9 
196 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

Of course, all information provided through Speak Up! will trigger action from our 

Intelligence and Investigations Department. This Department acts in total 

independence from WADA management, prioritizing and taking action based on 

information provided by informants and whistleblowers. 

It should also be noted that an Intelligence and Investigations Policy will be proposed 

to the WADA Foundation Board in May 2017 to ensure that WADA's Intelligence and 

Investigations Department can act in total independence from WADA management; 

whilst, ensuring that it is regularly audited by outside experts to ensure that the 

Department doesn't operate in a vacuum. 

10. According to information available on WADA's website, the principle of 

WADA's strict liability is applied in situations where urine or blood samples 

collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results. Further, it 

means that each athlete is strictly liable for the substances found in his or her 

bodily specimen, and that an anti-doping rule violation occurs whenever a 

prohibited substance (or its metabolites or markers} is found in bodily 

specimen, whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a 

prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. Is there any 

flexibility to take into consideration the circumstances or intention of the 

athlete when it comes to strict liability? 

a. If so, please give examples of circumstances that would allow for 

flexibility and how that would be handled. 

Article 10 of the Code outlines how the strict liability principle applies in 

conjunction with a lot of other provisions when it comes to sanctioning athletes. 

The strict liability principle is only restricted to the fact that when a substance is 

found in a bodily specimen of an athlete, it is the athlete who has the burden of 

explaining how the substance entered his/her body. It is not the ADO's 

responsibility; which, as you can imagine, would be impossible in most cases. 

This is where the principle of strict liability stops. Each athlete then has the 

possibility to clear the circumstances of the case by showing that it was either by 

no fault or no significant fault; or, that it is as a result of a contaminated product, 

and so on. 

All this is articulated in the Code; and, allows flexibility and, depending on the kind 

of substances, between a reprimand and a four-year suspension. To receive a fouryear sanction, depending on the kind of substance, it is either the athlete or the 

ADO that has the burden of proving the intentional nature of the infraction. 

b. How is the strict liability principle put into practice? 

i. Who is responsible for enforcing it? 

10-Apr-17 10 
197 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

There is plenty of case law in relation to how this principle of strict liability has 

been enforced. WADA reviews every decision taken around the world and, 

exercises its right of appeal if it feels that the principles of the Code have not 

been appropriately applied. 

11. The fundamental principle of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is to 

monitor selected biological variables over time that indirectly reveal the 

effects of doping rather than attempting to detect the doping substance or 

method itself. There are concerns that bad actors are always trying to stay 

one step ahead of the testing and technology. Does the athlete biological 

passport alleviate some of those concerns? Why or why not? 

The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is, and will be going forward, a very powerful 

tool in the fight against doping. The ABP allows for detection of the effects of doping 

rather than of a substance itself. 

It does indeed reduce the risk of new substances being used that are not yet 

detectable. It should be noted that this gap has been reduced as a result of WADA 

having established agreements with several pharmaceutical companies and the 

industry on the whole. Essentially, companies inform WADA during compound 

development if there is potential for future abuse in sport with new molecules being 

provided to WADA-accredited laboratories for testing before being put on the market. 

In turn, the Agency commits to inform them should it uncover evidence of black 

market supply involving their compounds. This partnership acknowledges that the 

impacts of doping extend well beyond elite athletes to include society on the whole. 

a. Is the Biological Passport widely utilized? 

With the ABP, one must understand the distinction between the 'Blood Passport' 

(which is commonly referred to as 'the ABP'), which looks at parameters found in 

blood from the 'Steroid Passport', which looks at steroid markers found in urine. 

The Blood Passport is mainly used in sports that are most at risk for using 

substances to enhance the transfer of oxygen in blood. The Blood Passport is used 

by almost all International Federations around the world; and, to a lesser degree 

NADOs. 

The Steroid Passport derives from regular urine analyses; and therefore, de-facto 

every athlete should have a Steroid Passport (albeit not always activated). 

At the moment having a 'Blood Passport' is not mandatory; however, it is certainly 

something that WADA is considering going forward. Logically however, a 

mandatory requirement should only be applied to sports where there is an 

identified risk. In other words, it is not likely logical to require a Blood Passport for 

a sport such as archery. 

b. How accurate is the Biological Passport? 

10-Apr-17 

The ABP (Blood Passport) has proven to be very robust and there is a lot of case 

law that supports Passport findings. The Passport can be used, not only for 

11 
198 


WORLD 

ANTI-DOPING 

AGENCY 

play true 

sanctioning athletes but, even when the evidence might not yet be at a level that 

would allow for a case to be prosecuted. It can be used to ensure that testing 

programs are more targeted and applied immediately when the risk is identified. 

The Passport requires a combination of statistical indications and profile review by 

independent experts before an adverse Passport finding can be rendered. The 

independent review by experts is a key requirement of the Passport in order to 

avoid any bias that could result from application of a statistical model without such 

review. 

10-Apr-17 12 
199 


GREG WALDEN, QR;EGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, Je., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

C!Congrcss of tbc Wnitcb ~tatcs 

~ou~e of l\epre~entatibe~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Dr. Richard Budget! 

Medical and Scientific Director 

International Olympic Committee 

C/o Ron Hutcheson 

Hill+Knowlton Strategies 

607 14th Street, N.W. 

Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Dr. Budget!: 

MajUtity 1202)225-.. 2921 

M!rl()rily l10Z)22!HI641 

March 29,2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Tuesday, 

February 28, 2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "Ways to Improve and Strengthen the International AntiDoping System." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains open 

for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are attached. 

The format of your responses to these questions should be as t'ollows: (l) the name of the Member whose 

question you are addressing. (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in bold, and (3) your 

answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to the•'e questions and requests with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, April 12, 2017. Your responses should be mailed to 

Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Elena.Brennan@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Tim 

~~- Murphy U CJ' Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

cc: The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Attachment 
200 


INTERNATIONAL 

OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE 

Medical and Scientific Department 

Ref. No. 2017/RBU/cftr 

By mail and e-mail 

Honourable Tim Murphy 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations 

Sent to: 

Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515 

Elena.Brennan@mail.house.gov 

Lausanne, 131

h April 2017 

Additional questions related to the hearing "Ways to Improve and Strengthen the 

International Anti-Doping System" 

Dear Honourable Tim Murphy, 

Thank you for your letter dated March 29, 2017. You will find below the replies to your 

additional questions for the Record. 

1. Does the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have sole jurisdiction of 

the drug testing samples that are collected at the Olympic Games? 

a. Do any other groups or individuals have access to those samples both retesting and/or decision making? If so, what groups or individuals can access 

the samples? 

1. The IOC has sole jurisdiction at the Games. 

a. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, WADA has access to all samples collected by any 

code signatory. No other groups or individuals have access to the samples for re-testing 

or decision making. 

2. It is my understanding that the IOC is retesting samples dating back to 2006 

and has the results of those retests for the pastthree to four years. Is this 

accurate? 

a. If so, have you released, or do you intend to release, these results? 

2. The IOC has stored samples from Olympic Games since 2004 so they can be retested if 

later information raises suspicions or if testing technology improves. The process of 

reanalysis is completed for 2004, 2006 and 2008, and ongoing for 2010, 2012, 2014 and 

2016. 

a. ADRVs are always publicly announced. 

Chateau de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switze~and 1 Tel +41 21 621 61.11 1 Fax +41 21 621 62161 www.olympic.arg 
201 


3. The IOC issued blanket bans in prior situations where a National Olympic 

Committee failed to adhere to the values, ethics and Charter of the Olympic 

Movement- even when the violations did not implicate athlete conduct or 

were far beyond the control of individual athletes. For example, in 2012, the 

IOC suspended the India Olympic Association for holding elections that 

violated the Olympic Charter. Why was a blanket ban appropriate in this and 

similar circumstances, regardless of the impact of individual athletes? 

a. Was the conduct identified in the two World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 

Commission reports in advance of the Rio Olympics consistent with the 

Olympic Charter? 

b. What about the conduct identified by the WADA Commission reports is 

different from prior cases where the IOC issued a blanket ban? 

3. The NOC of Russia was not implicated in the two reports so there were no grounds for 

sanctions at the NOC level. 

a. As the lOG's official statement said at the time of the second report's release, the 

conduct described in the reports is "a fundamental attack on the integrity of the Olympic 

Games and on sport in general." It is absolutely inconsistent with the Olympic Charter. 

That is why the IOC established two commissions to determine appropriate sanctions and 

measures. 

b. As noted above, the reports did not implicate the Russian Olympic Committee. 

4. The IOC recently suggested that. the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS) 

should be responsible for sanctioning athletes. Why does the IOC believe CAS 

is the appropriate entity for issuing sanctions? 

a. If the CAS is responsible {Or sanctions, who would be responsible for 

adjudicating appeals of those sanctions? 

4. Following the principal of separation of powers, legislative, policing and sanctioning 

roles should not all fall under the responsibility of one organisation. The involvement of 

CAS ensures that sanctions are determined by an independent body, with no possibility of 

a conflict of interest. 

a. An ad-hoc body of CAS is responsible for determining sanctions. Any appeal would go 

to a completely separate CAS appeal chamber. 

5. Why did the IOC find it necessary, and what was the reasoning behind, 

creating two separate commissions -Oswald and Schmid -after the 

Mclaren report was released? 

a. Please describe the scope the objectives of these respective commissions. 

b. How does the IOC intend to use the results of these commissions? 

c. What is the current status and timing of these commissions? 

5. The IOC Disciplinary Commissions are addressing two different aspects of the reports. 

One is focusing on individual actions, the other is looking into evidence of systemic 

corruption. 

a. The lOG's announcement establishing the commissions defined their scope as follows: 

An Inquiry Commission, chaired by the former President of Switzerland, Samuel 

Schmid, is addressing the "institutional conspiracy across summer and winter 

sports athletes who participated with Russian officials within the Ministry of Sport 

Ref. No. 2017/ Page 214 

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE 

Chateau deVidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland 1 Tel +41 21 621 61111 Fax +41 21 621 62161 www.olympic.org 
202 


and its infrastructure, such as RUSADA, CSP and the Moscow Laboratory along 

with the FSB," in particular with regard to the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. 

A Disciplinary Commission, chaired by IOC Member Denis Oswald, is addressing 

the question of doping and manipulation of samples concerning the Russian 

athletes who participated in the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. In the context 

of this Disciplinary Commission, all the samples of all Russian athletes who 

participated in Sochi will be re-analysed. The re-analysis will be to establish 

whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. 

b. The commissions will report to the IOC Executive Board, which will determine what 

sanctions should be applied. For more information, please see the recommendations of 

the 51

h Olympic summit, which are attached. 

c. The work of both commissions is ongoing. They are expected to complete their work in 

time for the IOC Executive Board to determine any sanctions before the Olympic Winter 

Games PyeongChang 2018 in February. 

6. Recently, an IOC Athlete's Commission member described the current lack 

of sanctioning criteria for sporting organizations who fall foul of anti-doping 

rules "completely ridiculous." What is the ICC's position on the current 

sanctioning criteria? 

a. Does it need to be improved? If so, how? 

6. The IOC agrees that the sanctioning framework can be improved and welcomes the 

ongoing review by WADA. 

a. As mentioned above and to avoid any conflict of interest, the IOC favours a clear 

separation between the legislative, policing role, which is clearly that of WADA, and the 

sanctioning authority which should be delegated to CAS. We also believe that anti-doping 

testing should be independent from sport organisations or national interests. 

7. It has been reported that some athletes who have been found to have doped 

and won an Olympic medal are refusing to return their medals. Does the ICC 

plan to collect medals from athletes subsequently found to have doped in 

Olympic events? If so, please describe this process. 

a. Does the ICC plan to reallocate these medals to the appropriate athletes? 

7. The IOC relies on National Olympic Committees to collect the medal of any disqualified 

athlete. 

a. The IOC believes it is extremely important that deserving athletes receive the medals 

and the recognition they deserve. In keeping with the guidance provided by Olympic 

Agenda 2020, the IOC has taken action to more-formally recognise Olympians who receive 

their medals belatedly. 

Ref. No. 2017/ Page 314 

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE 

Chateau de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland 1 Tel +41 21 621 61111 Fax +41 21 621 62161 www.olympic.org 
203 

Æ 


8. During the hearing you testified that the IOC has already taken steps to 

invoke change with a governance structure review. This review, which 

includes independent experts as well as representatives from sport and 

government, is tasked with examining the total of WADA, including whether 

the executive board should be independent of both sport and government. 

Please provide an update to the Committee regarding the status of this review. 

a. Do you believe that this review will ultimately effectuate change in the 

governance structure of WADA? Please explain. 

8. The IOC, through the 5th Olympic Summit Declaration and the IOC Executive Board's 

12 points Declaration, made clear recommendations to strengthen the worldwide antidoping system as well as WADA and its Governance. 

To respond to the call of the IOC and other Stakeholders, WADA has set-up a working 

group on Governance Matters to review its Governance. The IOC and the Olympic 

Movement were invited to actively take part in this working group and appointed not only 

experts in the field of sports and anti-doping to sit on the working group, but also in the 

field of governance and legal services. 

The working group had its first meeting on 11 March and is expected to meet again before 

the Summer. The IOC is still waiting forWADA to confirm the date of this second meeting. 

Recommendations by the working group for future structure and improvement of WAD A's 

Governance should be made to the WADA Foundation Board in September 2017. 

a. The recommendations will depend on the consensus of the independent experts and 

stakeholders who make up the group. It is agreed by all stakeholders that the governance 

structure ofWADA needs to improved, and we are confident it will be. 

Yours sincerely, 

Dr Richard Budget! 

!OC Medical and Scientific Director 

Ref. No. 2017/ Page 4/4 

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE 

Chateau de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland 1 Tel +41 21 621 6111 1 Fax +41 21 621 6216 1 www.olympic.org