Shift in doping battle

On January 1, the World Anti-Doping Agency upgraded its arsenal in the fight against doping, with a new code designed to extend its powers of sanction and investigation.

The code includes immediate four-year bans for doping offences with "serious substances or methods", bans of up to four years for people who enable or cover-up doping and the possibility of two-year bans for athletes who associate with coaches or medical doctors who have previously been found guilty of doping violations.

The purpose of these changes is to shift the risk-reward balance for athletes in order to change their behaviour.

An athlete, weighing up the pros and cons of doping, has just seen the risks increase, hopefully to the point where they outweigh the benefits.

Provided athletes also believe there is a real chance of being caught, they should, rationally, choose not to dope.

There was little controversy following these changes. Four-year bans and the tightening of the net to include doping enablers have been part of the shifting anti-doping landscape for a while, so formalising them is unequivocally welcomed.

There is one controversial provision in the 2015 code, however.

It concerns the possibility of leniency for athletes who are accused of doping, but who cooperate early and provide "substantial assistance" to authorities.

Wada has the final say in any reduced bans, and can, in exceptional circumstances, even offer complete confidentiality and eliminate an athlete's ban altogether if their assistance is so valuable that it helps catch other offenders.

Depending on your point of view, you may view this as analogous to the way police investigations work. In those cases, an informant is often absolved of the crime provided the kingpin goes down as a result of their cooperation.

On the other hand, you may be deeply offended by the notion that a cheat, once suspected and accused of doping, can wriggle his or her way out of trouble and go on with their career facing no punishment at all, no shame, no stripping of titles or prize-money, provided they cooperate.

Certainly, this is what seems to be felt by elite athletes. I posted the key Wada changes on Twitter last week and this led to a lively discussion after a few elite athletes from around the world voiced strong displeasure about this clause.

As a passionate sports fan who happens to be employed in sport, I'm fully committed to eradicating doping but I also recognise that doping cheats don't deny me anything other than the opportunity to watch honest competition, or a fair race in which the best athlete, rather than the most chemically enhanced, one, wins.

Athletes, however, are literally cheated out of earnings, sponsorships and the possible attainment of lifelong dreams through hard training by dopers. So it feels presumptuous to weigh my opinion against those of athletes who lose much, much more.

Placing oneself in their shoes, the notion that "crime pays provided you are also a snitch" is understandably unpalatable. Viewed on a case-by-case basis, it's difficult not to sympathise with an athlete who finishes, say, fourth at the Olympics and is denied a medal by a cheat who scrambled to cooperate so that confidentiality could be assured.

I'd hate to be that athlete and, being oblivious about it wouldn't console me.

I'd be too mistrusting about what it means for Wada to have "the final say".

On the other hand, each doping case is a battle in a bigger war and this utilitarian approach may sacrifice short-term wins in favour of long-term gains, albeit at another individual's expense.

The reality is that the 2015 Wada code signals an acceptance of the shifting sands in the battle against doping.

"Test, catch and sanction" is a thing of the past - we are now in the era in which anti-doping is an investigative process.

Blood and urine tests are the fingerprints and the forensic markers, but witnesses, informants, strategic gambits and negotiations are also part of the armoury.

Next step? Criminalisation and jail time, perhaps?

Such is the world we live in and it will be fascinating to see how the cooperation plays out.