Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: 2000; drugs and Olympic athletes
1995: Drugs and swimming: Samantha Riley case
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click here for a list of items relevant to this topic, from the Echo's Year 2003 file.
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2003/04: Should Shane Warne have been banned from cricket for 12 months?
What they said ...
'There is a world of difference between brazen cheats who hoodwink fellow competitors and the likes of Warne who, in my opinion, has just made an honest mistake'
Former England captain, Ian Botham
'In the middle of the season you're surrounded by medical people, I can't see any excuse for taking something'
Warne's Victorian coach, David Hookes
The issue at a glance
On Friday February 21, 2003, the Australian Cricket Board's anti-doping tribunal found Shane Warne guilty of using a 'prohibited method', that is, of taking a diuretic containing a number of substances that are banned under its anti-doping code.
Warne has been banned from playing cricket at all levels, international, state and local for a period of twelve months. The ruling immediately created controversy among those who felt it was too harsh and those who considered it was perhaps not harsh enough.
Background
On February 11, 2003, the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) announced it had referred a positive finding on a test of a urine sample from Australian leg-spinner Shane Warne for a hearing by its Anti-Doping Policy Committee.
The random sample was taken in Sydney on 22 January.
The body responsible for monitoring Australian athletes to prevent doping and with disseminating anti-doping information within the Australian athletic community is the Australian Sports Drug Agency.
The Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) is a Commonwealth statutory authority within the Communications and Information Technology portfolio under the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990 (ASDA Act).
The Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) delivers a wide-ranging anti-doping program, which includes drug testing, education, policy advice and advocacy.
Previous suspensions by the ACB Anti-Doping Committee
The Australian Cricket Board (ACB) and the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) began drug-testing cricketers in 1998. Prior to Warne's ban only two players had been suspended by the ACB's Anti-Doping Committee.
In March 2002, the ACB Anti-Doping Committee fined then-New South Wales player Graeme Rummans $2000 and suspended him from all forms of cricket for one month after he tested positive for probenecid, in December 2001.
Rummans had taken the substance to treat a boil on his shoulder. He was tested as part of the ACB's independent, random and unannounced drug testing program before a NSW Blues training session.
The prescribed two-year ban for a doping offence was reduced to one month after the Committee accounted for the mitigating circumstances surrounding the administration of the drug.
In handing down the penalty, the Committee also took into consideration expert testimony from ACB Anti-Doping Medical Advisor Dr Peter Harcourt on the likely effect of the substance on Rummans given the relatively low levels found in his system.
In April 2001, the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) Anti-Doping Committee suspended Western Australian player Duncan Spencer after testing positive to the banned anabolic steroid, Nandrolone.
Spencer was suspended from playing international and interstate cricket for 18 months after admitting to taking the banned substance to aid his recovery from a back injury that had kept him out of representative cricket since 1994.
He was also tested as part of the ACB's independent, random and unannounced drug testing program following the Mercantile Mutual Cup Final between Western Australia and New South Wales on 25 February 2001, and played no representative cricket after the test result was recorded.
The prescribed penalty of two years was reduced to 18 months under a discretionary power given to the Committee under the Anti-Doping Policy to consider evidence from the ACB Anti-Doping Medical Advisor, Dr Peter Harcourt
(This information is taken from the Australian Cricket Board's Internet site.)
Internet information
The Australian Sports Drug Agency home page can be found at http://www.asda.org.au/
A brief overview of the national and international anti-doping policies that the Agency implements can be found at http://www.asda.org.au/adframework.html
The full text of Australia's anti-doping policy can be found at http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1998/ascpub/drugpol.asp
This is a very interesting document and contains a number of provisions relevant to the Warne case.
The procedures the Australian Sports Drug Agency follows with regard to drug testing athletes are outlined at http://www.asda.org.au/drugtest.html
A brief history of drug use in sport, together with a detailed account of the effects a wide range of substances has on athletes and their performances can be found at http://www.asda.org.au/dis.html
The Australian Cricket Board has issued a number of media releases relevant to the Shane Warne case.
On February 11, 2003, it issued a media release detailing its previous suspensions of players for doping offences. This can be found at http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/137739_ACB_11FEB2003.html
On February 17, 2003, it detailed the composition of the three person anti-doping committee that would hear the Warne case. This media release can be found at http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/142164_ACB_17FEB2003.html
Arguments against Shane Warne being banned from cricket for 12 months
1. Shane Warne did not take the diuretic to mask a performance-enhancing drug
Shane Warne has repeatedly claimed that he did not take the diuretic, Moduretic, with the intention of masking other, performance-enhancing, substances. He claimed he had taken the tablet at his mother's insistence, as she wanted him to look his best before a television interview.
The tablet Warne took is apparently used by some people to give a short-term appearance of weight loss as its diuretic effect reduces body fluid and thus temporarily alters body shape.
After his penalty was announced, Warne declared, 'I have never taken any performance-enhancing drugs and I never will.' Warne further claimed that the tablet he took 'had nothing to do with cricket or trying to mask anything. It had to do with appearance.'
2. The type of diuretic used by Warne was not strong enough to hide traces of steroids.
It has been claimed that the medication Shane Warne took, Moduretic, is a prescription drug used primarily for controlling blood pressure and that though it contains a number of substances that athletes are prohibited from taking it is not intended as a masking agent for anabolic steroids and would not have been strong enough to have been effective for this purpose.
3. If Warne had been aware he had taken a banned substance he could have avoided the drug test
It has been noted that if Warne had been aware he had taken a banned substance he could have avoided the January 22 training session at which the incriminating blood test was taken.
The January 22 nets session was optional and so, Warne's supporters argue, if he had been concerned about either the diuretic he had taken, or had been using the diuretic as a masking agent to prevent the detection of an anabolic steroid, he could simply have foregone the practice and then no urine sample would have been taken.
4. Warne could have had a more moderate penalty imposed on him
Herald Sun sports writers Rod Nicholson and Tony Rindfleisch noted before Warne's hearing, 'If the panel accepts that he was not seeking to mask a more serious drug by taking the diuretic, it can penalise him for taking a prohibited substance, which carries a three-month penalty.'
Victorian cricketer, Darren Berry has criticised the twelve-month penalty imposed on Warne. 'At the end of the day, it was silly. He [Warne] knows that. I think twelve months for being silly is very harsh ...'
It has been noted, for example, that in April 2000, Duncan Spencer, a western Australian fast bowler was suspended for only six months longer than Warne for actually taking and anabolic steroid, while in March 2002, Victorian batsman Graeme Rummans, was fined $2000 and banned for only a month for taking probenecid, a known masking agent.
Critics of the penalty have noted that Warne could have been banned for a more moderate period such as three or six months.
5. Penalties should not applied without full consideration of the circumstances
This point has been made in an editorial published in The Herald Sun on February 13, 2003. The editorial states, 'Each case is different. Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson deliberately set out to cheat with drugs to enhance his performance and was rightly banned for life.
Unlike Johnson, Warne is certainly not a cheat. He has been obsessed by keeping trim and fit, and that's no crime.'
The same point has been made by former England captain Ian Botham. Botham has stated, 'There is a world of difference between brazen cheats who hoodwink fellow competitors and the likes of Warne who, in my opinion, has just made an honest mistake.'
It has further been noted that the rules under which the Australian Cricket Board operate allow it to take into consideration 'exceptional circumstances'. According to those who believe Warne should have been punished more lightly, this provision allowed the panel to consider the full circumstances surrounding Warne's offence, including his claim that he did not take the diuretic as a masking agent.
6. Warne has been made a scapegoat
It has been claimed that rather than act for him, Warne's celebrity has in fact acted against him.
According to this line of argument Warne's international prominence has meant that his case has been used to send a message to the world that Australian cricket will not tolerate drug abuse. Thus, it has been claimed, Warne's case was not judged on its individual merits, but rather was used to make a statement about Australia's disapproval of drug cheats.
Victorian cricketer Darren Berry has claimed, 'I think Joe Public felt an example had to be made ... He was almost hung before he went to trial ...'
After his ban was imposed Warne claimed, 'I feel I am a victim of anti-doping hysteria.'
7. The one-year penalty may mean the end of Warne's cricket career
It has further been argued that given the time in Warne's career at which the one-year ban has imposed it creates the risk that he may not return to international cricket. Warne has recently announced his retirement from one-day cricket. He is now well in his thirties and has only recently recovered from a shoulder injury. Under these circumstances having to maintain his fitness and game readiness for twelve months may prove too much and he may decide not to attempt to play again.
After the panel passed down its judgement a number of commentators and editorial writers urged Warne to maintain his 'courage' and to attempt to play cricket again at the end of his ban.
Such urgings indicate that the writers believe there is the possibility that Warne may decide to do otherwise and that this would be a great loss to Australian cricket.
The Herald Sun in its editorial of February 23 stated, '[Warne] still has an opportunity to become cricket's most successful bowler ...' The editorial writer clearly fears that Warne may forfeit this opportunity.
Arguments supporting Shane Warne being banned from cricket for 12 months
1. All the players are warned of the penalties imposed for taking prohibited substances
This point has been mad by Dr Brian Sando, Australian Sports Drug Agency Chairman. Dr Sando has claimed that he was disappointed by Shane Warne's positive drug test and appeared to find Warne's claim that he took the tablet in ignorance difficult to accept.
Dr Sando has noted, 'the education programs [warning against taking prohibited substances] are pretty widespread.'
The same point has been made by Australian fast bowler, Glenn McGrath. McGrath has stated, 'We talk about drugs before the start of every season, and a guy from the Australian Sports Drug Agency comes out and has a chat, so we are all well informed.'
2. Other Australian players have had penalties imposed on them for taking prohibited substances
It has been noted that other cricketers have been banned for taking illegal substances and that had Warne not been similarly treated there would have been the suspicion that he had been favourably treated because of his celebrity.
In April 2000, Duncan Spencer, a western Australian fast bowler was suspended for 18 months for taking an anabolic steroid. In March 2002, Victorian batsman Graeme Rummans, was fined $2000 and banned for a month for taking probenecid, a known masking agent. Rummans had taken the drug on the advice of his family doctor to help retain the antibiotics he had been prescribed for a boil on his shoulder.
3. Shane Warne should have checked whether he was taking a prohibited substance
It has been claimed that Shane Warne should not have taken any medication unless he first checked that it did not contain prohibited substances. Those who hold this view argue that no international cricketer should ingest a chemical substance without knowing what it contains and further that international sportsman have ample access to medical personal who could check the composition of any medication for them.
Warne's Victorian coach, David Hookes, has made this point. Mr Hookes has stated, 'In the middle of the season you're surrounded by medical people, I can't see any excuse for taking something.'
Australian fast bowler, Glenn McGrath, has made the same point. McGrath has stated, 'Having things checked is part and parcel of what we do.'
4. Australia is generally critical of athletes from other nations who take prohibited substances
Australia has been accused of adopting a double standard with regard to drugs and sport. It has been suggested that Australia is highly critical of athletes from other nations who are suspected of taking prohibited substances, yet that Australian officials indulge in special pleading when it comes to Australian athletes caught in similar circumstances.
This position has been summed up by Herald Sun commentator, Ron Reed, who has noted, 'Australian sport [is frequently] accused of having one rule, or perhaps one attitude, for itself and another for everyone else.'
5. Shane Warne's public prominence requires that he be punished for his action
It has been claimed that Shane Warne's high public profile makes it important that he not be allowed to take prohibited drugs without being punished. If he is seen to be able to behave in this manner, it is argued, those who admire and imitate him may also take banned substances.
Mr Dick Pound, the chairman of the World Anti Doping Agency, has stated, 'Somebody at the top of an international sport, and an icon, has a particular responsibility to the public at large and young players who hope to emulate him.
The penalty has to have a deterrent effect as well as a punishment effect. I feel very strongly that athletes, particularly top athletes, have a responsibility to themselves and their countries.'
6. The penalty he received is half the ban that would normally be imposed
It has been claimed by some that the one-year ban is an appropriate penalty given the full circumstances of the case. It is a significant penalty, yet it is only half that which could have been imposed.
This point has been made by Mr Dick Pound, the chairman of the World Anti Doping Agency.
Mr Pound has stated that if the panel concluded that Warne took the diuretic to mask banned drugs then he should have received the maximum two years. If, however, the panel concluded that Warne took the drug 'in the innocent and reasonable belief he was doing nothing wrong' leniency could be granted.
Mr Pound has suggested that 'Maybe they thought it was innocent but not reasonable.' That is, that Warne took the drug with no intention of masking another substance, but that given the prohibition against diuretics and the reason for that prohibition, it was not reasonable that he should take this substance. Under these circumstances, it has been claimed, a penalty of twelve months, half that which could have been imposed, is a fitting punishment.
7. Diuretics are banned; supposed reasons for taking them are not relevant
It has been argued that the mere presence of a banned substance in Shane Warne's sample was sufficient reason to impose a significant penalty upon him.
Mr James Sutherland, the Australian Cricket Board's chief executive has stated, 'The mere presence of diuretics constituted use of a prohibited method.'
The same point was made by Peter Roebuck in an opinion piece published in The Age on February 23, 2003. Mr Roebuck stated, 'Shane Warne deserves his suspension and must cope it sweet ... Whether the pill was taken in order to lose weight or to camouflage the taking of steroids is irrelevant. These substances are illegal precisely because they can be used for either purpose.'
Further implications
Shane Warne initially indicated that he would appeal the Australian Cricket Board's anti-doping tribunal's decision to impose a twelve month ban on him for taking a prohibited substance. Warne has now changed his mind and will not appeal the decision.
Despite the controversy it has created, it is difficult not to conclude that the tribunal's decision was an appropriate one. It may well be true that Warne took the diuretic in ignorance and without the intention of masking a steroid. However, the claim that he is innocent does not make him so. Any player can claim to have taken a masking agent for other purposes. If Warne's defence had been accepted to the point where he escaped punishment then it would have largely made a nonsense of any attempt on the part of the Australian Cricket Board and by extension the Australian Sports Drug Agency to prevent the use of masking agents.
It may also be that up to a point Warne is a victim of his own celebrity. Had he not been such a high profile player then there may not have been the same pressure on the tribunal to be seen to take a stand against the use of drugs in cricket. However, Warne should by now be familiar with the price of his fame. It is not the first time that undisciplined, if not compromising, conduct has brought him before the public eye.
Warne is amply rewarded for his play on field and his celebrity status earns him sponsorships and endorsements off field. If he is to accept the benefits that come with fame he must also accept the responsibility. The most charitable claim that could be made regarding Warne's case is that he was culpably negligent and the tribunal has rightly found him culpable. It is to be hoped that his well-publicised example acts as a warning to other players.
The Australian Cricket Board's involvement in drug testing only dates back to 1998. It is interesting to note that some critics are arguing that it is setting too high a standard and that more allowance should be made for players who take currently prohibited substances to aid their recovery from an injury.
What such critics forget is that the regulations exist to protect players from harming themselves either through returning to competition before they are fully recovered from injury or from suffering due to the long-term side effects that some performance-enhancing drugs can have.
Sources
The Age
23/2/02 page 5 (Sports supplement) news item by Chloe Saltau and Nabila Ahmed, 'Ban unfair: Berry'
23/2/03 page 5 (Sports supplement) comment by Greg Baum, 'A bitter pill to swallow'
23/2/03 page 5 (Sports supplement) timeline, 'Five years in Shane Warne's life'
23/2/03 page 6 (Sports supplement) comment by Peter Roebuck, 'The fight must go on'
23/2/03 page 6 (Sports supplement) analysis, 'The guilty and the accused'
The Australian
13/2/03 page 10 editorial, 'May be time to give Warne out'
13/2/03 page 11 comment by Kerry O'Keefe, 'Ten years after, I'm still trying to pick the spin from the spin'
14/2/03 page 10 cartoon by Nicholson
14/2/03 page 3 comment by Chip Le Grand, 'Party girl mum who just wanted Warne to look good on telly'
15/2/03 page 18 editorial, 'Mother's little helper, no shelter'
The Herald Sun
13/2/03 page 1 news item by Michael Warner, 'Mum's bitter pill'
13/2/03 page 5 analysis by Jen Kelly, 'Blood pressure drug risky pill to swallow'
13/2/03 page 19 cartoon by Mark Knight
13/2/03 page 20 editorial, 'A fair go for Warne'
13/2/03 page 20 comment by Scott Philips and Peter Kell, 'Our image the biggest loser'
15/2/03 page 13 news item by Michael Warner, 'Warne did it for mum'
16/2/03 page 3 comment by Glenn McGrath, 'The night Warnie was lost for words'
16/2/03 page 3 news item by Rod Nicholson and Tony Rindfleisch, 'Defence will be "bad judgement"'
18/2/03 page 2 news item by Michael Warner, 'Former spin rival to judge Wrane'
21/2/03 page 20 editorial, 'Cricket and drugs'
21/2/03 page 126 comment by Ron Reed, 'Either way, Shane's record is soiled'
23/2/03 page 4 news item by Damian Barrett, 'Furious star says he's a scapegaot'
23/2/03 page 5 news item by Chris Tinkler, 'Hookes calls penalty "harsh"'
23/2/03 page 5 news item, 'A let-off, says anti-drugs chief'
23/2/03 page 74 editorial, 'A time for courage'