Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Drugs and sport: Should Samantha Riley's swimming coach, Scott Volkers, be banned from international competition?
In mid February, 1996, it was announced that Australian world champion breaststroke swimmer, Samantha Riley, had tested positive for a banned drug, dextropropoxyphene, apparently taken two days before she competed in the world short course championships in Brazil, in December, 1995.
The International Swimming Federation (FINA) had the option of disciplining Riley and her coach with anything from a warning to a two-year ban, if it decided that the drug use had been accidental.
FINA's judgement was that Riley receive a strong warning and that her coach, Scott Volkers, be banned from coaching for two years. This ban originally covered all coaching, whether in Australia or as part of international competition.
A later statement from Australian Swimming Inc (ASI) claimed that FINA had `clarified' the ban on Volkers and that it applied only to coaching outside Australia. This has been interpreted as meaning that Volkers will be able to continue coaching his champions, including Samantha Riley, in Australia.
Every aspect of these events has caused controversy.
The latest has centred around the severity of the penalty imposed on Volkers. Some have claimed that it is too severe while others have argued that it is not severe enough.
Background
There are two categories of banned substance in swimming. In category one are drugs such as testosterone, commonly referred to as steroids, which enhance performance and help athletes to build muscle.
In category two are substances which affect athletes in other ways.
Dextropropoxyphene is in this second category. It is banned not because it is performance enhancing but because of its potential to cause drowsiness in athletes and thus possibly lead to their being harmed. Also of concern is that under the pain-relieving influence of dextropropoxyphene injured athletes may continue training and competing and exacerbate their injuries.
In Australia, the drug dextropropoxyphene is most commonly found in a tablet called Digesic, used to treat headaches, sore muscles and pain.
Australia has been particularly concerned about the probable punishments to be applied to Volkers and Riley because Riley is expected to win medals in the 1996 Olympics at Atlanta as are the three other squad members whom Volkers trains.
Now that Riley has been given only a warning the concern remains that the ban imposed on Volkers may damage the Olympics preparation and then the actual at the Games performance of his elite squad.
Arguments in favour of Scott Volkers being banned from international competition
Some of those with an interest in Australia's place in international swimming have maintained that both Riley and her coach, Scott Volkers, should have received the maximum penalties possible.
According to this line of argument, for Australia to maintain its credibility as a country strongly opposed to the use of drugs by athletes, Riley and her coach should have been as severely punished as the regulations allow.
Former Olympic swimmer, Dawn Fraser, commenting prior to FINA's ruling, said, `I think FINA will have to be very strong in any stand they take because if they don't we will be the laughing stock of the world.'
According to this line of argument, Australia has adopted such a strong stand opposing the use of drugs in sport that for Scott Volkers to receive anything other than a severe penalty would seem inappropriate.
This has been the position apparently adopted by the American swimming authorities who have accused Riley of hypocrisy, suggesting that she has sought for herself and her coach a leniency she would condemn if displayed toward others. (Riley has been a staunch and public opponent of drug use in swimming.)
It has been maintained that it is not appropriate to consider this as an individual case in which, however inadvertently, a banned substance was administered to an athlete.
Australia has previously called for a blanket ban and maximum penalties for all competitors taking prohibited drugs and similar penalties for any coach or official involved, irrespective of the circumstances.
Australia has argued that this is necessary to demonstrate that taking drugs is not worth the certainty of disqualification if detected.
It has further been pointed out that unless substantial penalties are imposed on either Riley or her coach then it will be possible for any athlete in international competition to plead that their coach gave them a prohibited substance and they took it in ignorance.
Dawn Fraser, remarking on this point, has observed, `FINA will leave themselves open to the Chinese swimming association to come back and say the coach gave it to our swimmers.'
A spokesperson for the China Swimming Association has expressed a generally similar view, suggesting that FINA's decision has set a dangerous precedent .
The deputy secretary general of the China Swimming Association, has asked,`Will what FINA says still carry weight? Today, it happens (an apparent relaxation of the ban on drugs), so it may happen again tomorrow.'
Yuan Jiawei has also asked, `Just suppose a Chinese swimmer will have the same problem. Then should we all follow suit?'
Other criticisms of the decision include that FINA has demonstrated favouritism, treating Samantha Riley and her coach more leniently than they would others found to have committed a similar violation.
Yuan Jiawei, the deputy secretary general of the China Swimming Association, has suggested that if the offending swimmer and coach had been Chinese, the result may have been different.
Arguments against Scott Volkers being banned from international competition
A number of arguments have been offered against Scott Volkers being banned from coaching in international competition for two years.
The first of these is that Volkers administered the banned substance in ignorance. The second is that the medication is not a performance-enhancing drug and may soon be removed from the banned substances list. Finally it has been argued that banning Volkers for this period of time is inequitable, firstly because it is a more severe penalty than some other coaches have received for more grave offences and secondly because in banning Volkers, FINA not only penalises him and Riley, but also the three other Olympic hopefuls in his squad.
Volker's central claim in his own defence is that he acted in ignorance. Volkers claims that Riley had been complaining of a headache and shoulder pain for some days and that he gave her a tablet from his wife's bag which turned out to be a prescription medication containing dextropropoxyphene.
Volkers claims that when he gave the tablet he was unaware that it contained a banned substance.
Secondly defenders of both Riley and Volkers have claimed that the drug is a pain killer with no performance-enhancing effects.
Dr Peter Larkins, president of Sports Medicine Australia, has stated that Riley will have gained no performance-enhancing advantage from having taken dextropropoxyphene. The drug is a pain killer and some of its effects may, it has been claimed, have reduced her competitiveness.
It has also been claimed that the ban on the drug is being reconsidered.
On the question of the equity or fairness of the punishment Volkers has received, those who consider it inequitable complain on two grounds.
Firstly they maintain that it is unjust because it is a more severe penalty than the one year ban imposed on four Chinese coaches, each of whom was found guilty of administering steroids.
The worst offender, Zhou Ming, received a two year ban, the same period of disqualification as has been imposed on Volkers.
Critics of the Volkers decision note that months after his disqualification his swimming association applied for his reaccreditation and got it.
According to this line of argument, deliberately administering steroids over a long period is a far worse offence than accidentally administering a banned pain killer on one occasion. (Steroids are performance enhancing drugs.)
Supporters of Volkers are concerned that he appears to have attracted a more severe punishment for a lesser offence.
Secondly they argue that in banning Volkers from coaching outside Australia, FINA is penalising not only the two involved in the original drug-taking incident, Riley and Volkers, but all the swimmers Volkers coaches.
The squad Volkers trains is made up of Samantha Riley, Susan O'Neill, Elli Overton and Angela Kennedy. All are medal prospects at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics in individual and/or relay events.
Some swimming authorities have argued that it is unreasonable to deprive all Volkers squad in this way. Riley has been particularly critical, arguing that to take her coach from her in this manner is almost equivalent to banning her and that if FINA wished to do that they should have done so outright, and in a way that did not penalise the three other swimmers.
`How could the squad perform without Volkers? We can't. It's like penalising all of us,' Riley has observed.
Further implications
The China Swimming Association may lodge a protest over the FINA ruling in Riley's case and over the manner in which it has been implemented.
Should this happen the response of FINA and the international swimming community will be interesting.
It has further been suggested that the way in which Riley appeared ready to try to circumvent the ban on her coach and the manner in which Australia disputed the validity of the ban represent a threat to the authority of FINA.
The Chinese have expressed concern that such challenges to FINA may become general.
They have referred to the case of American distance freestyler, Jessica Foschi.
Foschi tested positive for steroids at last year's US Nationals and was banned by US authorities under FINA statutes.
Since FINA's decision in the Riley case US officials have decided to remove the two year ban placed on Foschi.
It will be interesting to note whether the Riley case does start a round of contested FINA decisions and whether it induces national swimming authorities to be more lenient with their competitors.
It is clear that Riley can expected to be under close international scrutiny from now on. It remains to be seen whether the resulting pressure will affect her performances.
Riley has previously had complaints successfully lodged against her kick style while competing in the United States.
Other champion Australian swimmers also coached by Volkers may also be placed under closer scrutiny.
Meanwhile Volkers in the process of lodging an appeal with FINA against the severity of his sentence. It remains to be seen whether he will be successful.
Finally, irrespective of how Australia's swimming team performs in the 1996 Olympics at Atlanta, there has been concern expressed that these events cast doubt on our credibility as hosts of the Olympic Games in 2000.
Sources
The Age
13/2/95 page 1 news item by Caroline Overington, `Minor headache sinks Riley'
22/2/96 pages 1 and 2 news item by Caroline Overington, `It's no life of Riley for banned coach'
23/2/96 page 14 editorial, `Shush, Sam'
The Australian
13/2/96 page 1 news item by Nicole Jeffery, `Riley's career on the line'
14/2/96 page 1 news item by Adrian McGregor. `Riley puts a brave face on adversity'
14/2/95 page 11 analysis by Roy Eccleston, `In deep water'
15/2/96 page 12 editorial, `Riley deserves a warning, not a ban'
21/2/96 page 20 news item by Nicole Jeffery, `No reprieve for Riley, urges Fraser
23/2/96 pages 1 & 2 news item by Nicole Jeffery, `FINA warns of ban on all swimmers'
24/2/96 page 25 analysis by Roy Eccleston, `Why this coach is crucial'
27/2/96 page 22 news item, `Chinese critical of Riley decision'
The Herald Sun
13/2/96 page 72 news item, `Riley's pain'
14/2/96 page 84 and 85 news item by Wayne Smith, `Riley sweats as her coach takes blame'
14/2/96 page 85 news item by Frances Murphy, `No sports gain from pain drug'
23/2/96 page 15 comment by Forbes Carlile, `We won't punish him'
25/2/96 page 38 news item, `Volkers gets nod'
What they said ...
`How could the squad perform without Volkers? We can't. It's like penalising all of us'
Australian world champion breaststroke swimmer, Samantha Riley
`Will what FINA says still carry weight? Today, it happens (an apparent relaxation of the ban on drugs), so it may happen again tomorrow'
Yuan Jiawei, deputy secretary general of the China Swimming Association, commenting on FINA's treatment of Riley and Volkers