Introduction

Organized games are a timeless expression of individual, social, and cultural dimensions. From a macroscopic point of view, sport is a cultural phenomenon that has evolved independently between regions. For example, Sumo is to Japan, as Baseball is to the United States, as Lacrosse and Hockey are to Canada. The spirit of these games and activities are largely universal, but their manifestations are culturally unique. Thus sport contributes as much to the communal experience of its emotional ups and downs as much as it does to preserve distinct national identities.

At the individual level, sports may represent a cathartic outlet for some, as well as a way to develop physical abilities and to put them on display for others. Social bonding may transpire via repeated bouts of cooperation, with or without opposition, or through the mutual admiration gained through direct competition. These expressions hold value not just between participants, but amongst spectators as well, forming the basis for the flourishing of entertainment-based, professional sports leagues like the NHL and NBA in North America, but also for the Olympic movement. For these reasons, sport is cherished universally and is thought by many to be worthy of protection.

In a developed and modern society, protection often means rules, regulations, and governmental support. Since the 1960’s the IOC has recognized the negative implications of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport, resulting in the first ever banned substances list in 1967. While some performance modulating compounds are not currently banned (e.g. caffeine), others such as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are. AAS’s capability to augment lean muscle mass and function as originally documented by Bhasin et al (1996) qualify their use in competition as ”doping”. In the eyes of most athletes, coaches, and administrators their usage is largely considered unfair and unsportsmanlike. To that end, both the aspirations as well as the complexities of pursuing doping-free sport are responsible for launching one of the most recognizable international regulatory bodies: the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA, est. 1999). Despite WADA’s “noble” cause to eliminate doping in sport, some critics argue that WADA has been largely ineffective in its mission, with some blaming shortcomings of its financial and governance structure.

Financing and Governance

Financing

WADA is a Swiss not-for-profit foundation with its operational headquarters located in Montreal, Canada (WADA, 2024). Guided by the standards and values set out in the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code), anti-doping operations are funded by relevant stakeholders of international olympic sport: the IOC (~50%) and public authorities (~50%) (WADA, 2024). So far, WADA has continued to receive most of its expected income from stakeholders, however even a single affluent athlete could “cripple” the agency in the event of an appeal through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)(Houlihan & Vidar Hanstad, 2019, p.212).
While international sport federations (IF’s) do not directly finance WADA, IF’s are also important stakeholders (note: WADA’s jurisdiction is limited only to current signatories to the Code, and all stakeholders are expected to be WADA-compliant). Generally, governments fund their National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) but in cases where funding is inadequate Regional Anti-doping Organizations (RADOs), who are financed by WADA, will provide assistance. Despite some concerns over whether WADA’s oversight should include education, broader and more ambitious oversight is likely to net more commitment and financial support from stakeholders (Houlihan & Vidar Hanstad, 2019).

Governing Bodies

Congruent with the financing structure of WADA, its 42-member Foundation Board is composed equally of sport representatives and public authorities. This includes four athlete representatives as well as two representatives of WADA’s Athlete Council and two representatives from National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADO). International level athletes, be they active or retired, currently make up one-third of the board (WADA, 2024). While boards are required for voting on policy and publishing statutes, it is best practice for boards to stay removed from day to day operations, and thus management of the agency rests with the 16-member Executive Committee. Both the Foundation Board and the Executive Committee are advised by the five (independent) Permanent Special Committees (PSC): the Independent Ethics Board, the Athlete Council, the Nomination Committee, the Risk and Audit Committee, and the Compliance Review Committee (WADA, 2024).

Figure 1
Governance Structure of the World Anti-Doping Agency

Management

WADA’s Director General works alongside experts and advisors to carry out policies, regulations, and rulings made by the board. There are ten Expert Advisory Groups and (EAGs) who provide counsel to both management and the three Standing Committees on matters of health & research, ethics, finance, social science, and legal matters. There are also 16 Working Groups (WGs) who primarily give advice on specific banned substances or testing procedures including the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) (WADA, 2024). Sample analysis is carried out through independent, WADA-accredited laboratories who must adhere to criteria defined in The International Standard for Laboratories (ISL).

Government Relations and Challenges

While not formally part of WADA’s governance structure, public authorities echo WADA’s mission and values via anti-doping programs. In further commitment to WADA’s cause, governments facilitate operations by providing administrative support, selecting a testing pool of athletes from each sport discipline, sample collection and testing, executive functions in the event of an adverse analytical finding (AAF), and in some cases the legislative control of PED’s. Despite the positive benefits of a partnership with international organizations and nation states, both the IOC and governments have previously undermined WADA authority with varying degrees of non-compliance, including “serious under-funding” and “active interference” (Houlihan & Vidar Hanstad, 2019). Indeed, while one may generally think of anti-doping as a pursuit relegated to basic testing and education, the most impactful and high profile cases have either involved conspiracy to dope (e.g. the Festina Affair) or state-sponsored doping (e.g. Russian doping scandal).

Thus, while WADA shoulders much responsibility for anti-doping efforts while also offering some accountability to IO’s to maintain basic anti-doping operations (e.g. testing and education), WADA struggles to wield the requisite authority or autonomy when non-compliance is identified (Houlihan & Vidar Hanstad, 2019). This is largely because governments themselves are not signatories to the code; accountability of states to anti-doping is intended via the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport (2007) which, according to former WADA Director of Standards and Harmonization Rune Andersen, is a poor tool for handling non-compliance in anti-doping (Norges idrettshøgskole, 2024). Since governments fund and oversee the functioning of NADOs, to whom the individual athletes are accountable, when state non-compliance occurs it impacts and influences the compliance and public image of sport representatives as well. Therefore, the importance of state-compliance is essential for anti-doping awareness and attitudes within sport. In the event of non-compliance WADA intervenes to hold IO’s accountable and appeals are handled through the CAS.
Keywords: WADA, Doping, Olympics, Sport Ethics, Sport Governance, Sport Management

References and Resources

Bhasin, S., Storer, T. W., Berman, N., Callegari, C., Clevenger, B., Phillips, J., Bunnell, T. J., Tricker, R., Shirazi, A., & Casaburi, R. (1996). The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men. The New England journal of medicine, 335(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

Houlihan, B., & Vidar Hanstad, D. (2019). The effectiveness of the World Anti-Doping Agency: developing a framework for analysis. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(2), pp. 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1534257

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2021). World Anti-doping Code 2021. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/world-anti-doping-code

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2024, May 1). Governance. World Anti-Doping Agency. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are/governance

Solly is the head coach of the Nanaimo Kettlebell Club and has been training clients for over 15 years. He has twice been on Team Canada as both an athlete and coach, and has continues to operate the longest running kettlebell sport event in Canada.