For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Pour débat à la Commission permanente – Voir article 15 du Règlement

Doc. 8726

18 April 2000

Doping in sport


Committee on Culture and Education

Rapporteur: Mikko Elo, Finland, Socialist Group


      Doping in sport is an increasing threat both to the health of athletes and to the moral and ethical foundations of sport. The fight against this threat is a matter for international co-operation and the Assembly considers that the 1989 Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention and the recently created World Anti-Doping Agency are the two major weapons available.

      Recommendations are made on how the Council of Europe, the competent authorities in member states and sports organisations could improve their chances of success, the first steps being to increase harmonisation of national legislation and to improve the exchange of information.

I.        Draft recommendation

1. The Assembly is alarmed at the increase of doping scandals in sport (for example, during the 1998 World Swimming Championships in Australia, during the Tour de France, in Italian football and in the recent World Ice Skating Championship in Nice). Both the health of athletes and the moral and ethical foundations of sport are at stake.

2.       The Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping Convention of 1989 has proposed a number of measures for more effective anti-doping programmes and policies and continues to be the sole legal framework for European and international co-operation in this field, not only between governments but also between governments and international sports organisations.

3.       The Assembly welcomes the setting up of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the active role played by the Council of Europe in its creation. It notes with satisfaction that both the Council of Europe and the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention participate in the WADA Board. It welcomes continuing partnership with the European Union in this field.

4.       It recalls its Recommendation 1292 (1996) on young people in high level sport. Some sports can put a particularly dangerous pressure on young athletes and lead them to doping. These sports should be more carefully monitored than others.

5.       The Assembly feels that more should be done at European and world level for the protection of the health of athletes, and in particular young athletes, and of the ethical foundations of sport.

6.       Consequently it recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i. give greater consideration to how the harmonisation of national legislation, including legislation on medicinal products and on dietary supplements, might help reduce the incidence of doping in sport and promote such harmonisation;

ii. improve the exchange of information and co-operation in this field;

iii. take an active stand in the Board of the World Anti-Doping Agency in order to highlight the quality of the work done by the Council of Europe bodies concerned and their experience in international co-ordination in the fight against doping;

iv. increase the resources of the Monitoring Group set up under the Anti-Doping Convention to enhance its effectiveness;

v. encourage those few member states that have not yet ratified the Convention to do so as soon as possible and invite all countries in the world to accede to it;

vi. ask member states, and where appropriate, sports organisations to:

a. ensure that athletes, coaches and any other persons found guilty of doping related offences (prescribing, supplying, offering, administering or applying prohibited doping agents to athletes, facilitating their use or encouraging athletes in any way at all to use them), are effectively punished;

b. improve protection for young athletes in order to avoid them being tempted by doping, in particular by providing them with adequate information on the negative consequences of doping for their health;

      c. regard trafficking in doping agents as equivalent to drug trafficking and take all measures to ensure that the international organisations that fight drug trafficking include the fight against doping in their remit.

II.        Explanatory Memorandum by the Rapporteur Mr Mikko Elo


      Doping has existed for a very long time, but recognition of the phenomenon can be seen to date from the early sixties. In this respect the Council of Europe has played an essential role since 1967, when a first resolution on the subject was adopted. Mention should also be made of the action taken by the International Olympic Committee, which has attempted to combat this evil (albeit not necessarily with success). The considerable amount of work done on the subject has focussed, among other things, on defining doping. The Anti-Doping Convention of 16 November 1989 gives the following definition2: doping means "the administration to sportsmen or sportswomen, or the use by them, of pharmacological classes of doping agents or doping methods".3

      The scandals which shook the Tour de France, Italian football, the World Swimming Championships in Australia in 1998 and the World Ice Skating Championship in 2000 showed, if there was any need to do so, that the problem persists and that Europe is determined to do something about it, a clear sign of an awareness of the public-health issues raised by the spread of doping. In response to this situation the World Conference on Doping in Sport, held in Lausanne, decided to establish a World Anti-Doping Agency, whose statute should provide for co-operation between government authorities and sports bodies in harmonising standards and practices not only in different countries but also in different sports.

The Council of Europe's work on doping

      The first Council of Europe initiative in this field dates back to 15 January 1963, when the relevant committee proposed the following definition of doping: the administration, by any means, to an individual in good health of a substance foreign to the body or of abnormal quantities of physiological substances, with the sole aim of artificially and unfairly enhancing individual performance in a competition.

      The first resolution on doping dates from 19674. It already recognised the need to exercise persuasion vis-à-vis the sports movement and contained a fairly similar definition: "doping is the administration to or the use by a healthy person, in any manner whatsoever, of agents foreign to the organism, or of physiological substances in excessive quantities or introduced by an abnormal channel, with the sole purpose of affecting artificially and by unfair means the performance of such a person when taking part in a competition".

      Three years later a resolution on the medical aspects of sport5 dealt with the potential dangers to children's health of participation in competitive sports and acknowledged that anti-doping measures could not solely be coercive in nature.

      At the second Conference of European Ministers responsible for Sport, held in London from 4 to 7 April 1978, Resolution No. 3/78 on ethical and human problems in sport was adopted. This text clearly stated that doping was detrimental to the health of athletes and to the ethics of sport. Governments were invited even then:

"- to co-ordinate the action of the Ministers responsible for Health and for Sport, to support the governing bodies of sport in [their anti-doping] tasks, and to intensify the co-ordination of relevant international research at European level;

- to support the testing of athletes for illicit substances at and between events …;

- to recommend regular health checks for sportsmen and progressively to provide the facilities for this;

- to invite national sports organisations to intensify their efforts to preclude the taking of illicit substances …".

      The first recommendation by the Committee of Ministers on the subject of doping dates from 20 April 19796. It already called for international co-operation, in particular with regard to educational campaigns but also in the fields of testing and research into the detection of doping agents. It also recommended that each country establish a national anti-doping committee.

      In 1984 another recommendation7 instituted a European Anti-Doping Charter for Sport.

      This text required member States to apply appropriate legislation where it existed and to encourage sports organisations to introduce specific regulations. Improved co-operation at an international level would focus on measures to reduce the availability of doping agents and on the facilitation of controls carried out by international federations. With regard to detection of substances, accredited control laboratories were to be set up and research programmes to improve testing were to be encouraged. At the same time, educational campaigns would draw attention to the values of sport, and properly constructed training programmes would improve performance without using artificial aids.

      Furthermore, the member States were asked to offer their co-operation to sports organisations, in particular with a view to harmonising anti-doping regulations and procedures, on the basis of the standards of the International Olympic Committee. This harmonisation would extend both to the organisation of controls outside competitions and to the penalties imposed. It was to be recognised that "unduly high performance levels required in some events might result in the temptation to use drugs".

      In Resolution No. 4/86, adopted at the conference held in Dublin from 30 September to 2 October 1986, the Sports Ministers drew attention to the need for harmonisation at an international level and for a widening of the co-operation to countries outside Europe.

      In 1988 the Committee of Ministers adopted a specific recommendation8 on the institution of doping tests without warning outside competitions. A particular aim was to make it possible to detect substances with long-term effects, such as steroids. Under the terms of this recommendation athletes might be subjected to drug tests without warning at any time, outside competitions, but the procedure followed had to be fair and the athletes' right to defend themselves respected.

      With the adoption of the Anti-Doping Convention (ETS 135) on 16 November 1989, the Council of Europe endowed itself with a legal co-operation framework which today commands international recognition. Without reiterating the entire content of this convention, it should be pointed out that it already covered certain elements now considered essential to the efforts to combat doping at an international level, such as the introduction of a single list of doping agents and methods (based on the IOC list), co-operation with national and international sports organisations and, above all, the appointment of a Monitoring Group, which has proved its usefulness and produced some extremely high-quality work.

      The very broad scope of the Anti-Doping Convention is apparent from the fact that countries not parties to the European Cultural Convention, such as Australia and Canada, have acceded to it.

      The Monitoring Group has come to epitomise co-operation in the efforts to combat doping. Its tasks are as follows:

- adapting the provisions of the convention;

- approving the list of banned agents and methods;

- holding consultations with relevant sports organisations;

- making recommendations to States parties concerning the implementation of the convention;

- recommending appropriate measures to keep the public informed about activities under the convention;

- making recommendations to the Committee of Ministers with a view to fostering the accession of further countries;

- making proposals for improving the effectiveness of the convention.

      In a recommendation adopted in 19929 the Parliamentary Assembly called on governments of member States to ratify the convention on spectator violence and the anti-doping convention.

      In 1996 it also adopted a recommendation10 clearly setting out the risks run by young people participating in high-level sport.

The work done by the Monitoring Group set up under the Anti-Doping Convention

The Monitoring Group has adopted a number of texts:

-       Recommendation No. 2/94 on measures to restrict the availability of anabolic steroids, androgens and similar substances. The aim is to provide for effective control of the supply and transfer of such agents, in particular in view of the risks run by users.

-       Recommendation No. 1/95 on standard urine sampling procedures for doping control in and out of competition. The purpose of this text is to harmonise sampling procedures so as to guarantee samples of standard quality and provide athletes with an assurance that conditions of collection and of medical supervision during controls will be satisfactory and that the procedure followed will respect their fundamental rights. It sets forth requirements concerning doping control stations, sampling equipment, control forms and the chain of custody, designed to prevent samples from being inadvertently mishandled or tampered with.

-       Resolution No. 1/97 on the approval of a new reference list of prohibited pharmacological classes of doping agents and doping methods. The aim was to take into account the new presentation of the list drawn up by the International Olympic Committee.

-       Recommendation No. 1/97 on disciplinary measures to be taken with regard to members of the athlete's entourage and protection of minors. The objective here is to take account of the particular responsibility of members of the entourage of under-age athletes and to afford special protection to minors.

-       Recommendation No. 1/98 on standard operating procedures at doping control laboratories. This text aims to harmonise standards applicable to the identification of samples and their transfer to control laboratories.

-       Recommendation No. 2/98 on basic principles for disciplinary phases of doping control. The objective is to lay down basic rules governing anti-doping commissions and disciplinary panels so as to harmonise sanctions within each country and between different sports, with the aim of guaranteeing fair and equitable treatment for athletes involved in disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with Article 6 § 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

-       Recommendation No. 3/98 on blood sampling for doping medical controls. In view of the difficulties that may be posed by blood testing, States parties are asked to take measures to reduce the related risks as far as possible and to ensure that sportsmen and sportswomen tested have given their free and informed consent.

      The 1989 convention constitutes a particularly useful weapon in the fight against doping not only at a European level but also world-wide, since Canada and Australia have already ratified it and South Africa is preparing to do so.

The International Olympic Committee's activities in the field of doping

      The International Olympic Committee began to pay attention to doping in 1961, when it set up a Medical Commission following the death of a Danish cyclist, who had taken a heavy dose of amphetamines, during the Games in Rome. Some earlier work moreover existed, such as that done in Switzerland by Professor Demole, who as far back as 1941 defined doping as unfair methods used by athletes to stimulate their performance.

      The work done by the Medical Commission resulted in a list of banned substances, but not in any definition of doping. The first doping tests at the IOC's instigation were performed at the 1967 Games. The list is made up of five classes of prohibited substances. Anabolic steroids, known for the serious damage which they cause, were not included until 1976.

In 1986 the IOC took part in the proceedings of the fifth Conference of European Ministers responsible for Sport. The Olympic Charter against Doping in Sport was adopted in 1988 following a first conference on the subject, held in Ottawa. This text specifies that it is intended to serve as an inspiration to all States with a view to international harmonisation. Further conferences took place in Moscow in 1989, Bergen in 1991 and London in 1993. A medical code was adopted at the IOC's centennial congress in Paris in 1994.

The scandals which took place in 1998, in particular during the Tour de France and the world swimming championships in Australia, prompted the IOC to hold a World Conference on Doping in Sport in Lausanne from 2 to 4 February 1999, which was attended by representatives of the sports movement, governments, the European Union, the Council of Europe and Unesco. The governmental organisations succeeded in bringing about a shift in the IOC's position, persuading it that finding a real solution to the problems of doping had become a matter of urgency and that it was no longer possible merely to issue statements of principle without engaging in any genuine international co-operation, especially within the sports movement.

The final declaration of the conference recommended adopting an Anti-Doping Code for the entire Olympic Movement, setting up an independent International Anti-Doping Agency and reinforcing co-operation between the Olympic Movement and public authorities. The new Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code came into force on 1 January 2000. Article 2 defines doping as follows:

"Doping is:

• the use of an expedient (substance or method) which is potentially harmful to athletes' health and/or capable of enhancing their performance, or

• the presence in the athlete's body of a Prohibited Substance or evidence of the use thereof or evidence of the use of a Prohibited Method."

The position of the European Union

      It should be noted that the EU treaty says nothing about sport. A number of developments have, however, taken place in the past decade, especially since the problems encountered with the Tour de France in 1998.

      A Resolution of the Council on Community action to combat the use of drugs, including the abuse of medicinal products, particularly in sport, was adopted on 3 December 199011. This was followed by a declaration on the same subject on 4 June 199112 and a further resolution on 8 February 199213 with an annex setting forth a Code of Conduct against Doping in Sport.

      More recently, at the Vienna European Council meeting on 11 and 12 December 1998, the Heads of State and Government, recalling the Declaration on Sport attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam, underlined their "concern at the extent and seriousness of doping in sports, which undermines the sporting ethic and endangers public health." They emphasised the need for mobilisation at European Union level and invited the member States to examine jointly with the Commission and international sport bodies possible measures to intensify the fight against doping, in particular through better co-ordination of existing national measures14.

      On 17 December 1998 the European Parliament adopted a resolution15 in which it called on the Commission to take into account the true dimension of doping in sport with a view to putting forward proposals at Community level, particularly to improve the co-ordination and complementarity of measures and initiatives adopted under national law and by the European institutions. The European Parliament regards doping as a phenomenon that "jeopardises the health of athletes, falsifies the results of competitions, harms the image of sport, particularly in the eyes of young people, and undermines the ethical dimension of sport."

      In an Opinion of 16 September 199916 the Committee of the Regions underlined the social function of sport, stressed that national anti-doping measures needed to be co-ordinated and harmonised and supported the call for a harmonised public health policy to combat doping.

      The Ministers responsible for Sport in the fifteen member States of the European Union held three informal meetings on the subject of doping in 199917. At their meeting in Paderborn on 1 and 2 June the Ministers adopted joint conclusions setting forth a number of pointers for future policy:

- harmonisation of doping legislation and of other anti-doping measures, to make the fight against doping more effective;

- recognition of the related public health risk;

- preparation of a uniform list of prohibited substances and methods, applicable to all sports;

- use of sanctions as a deterrent, essential to effective prevention of doping;

- the need for co-operation between sports organisations and governments;

- continued co-ordination of the anti-doping work of the EU Commission and the Council of Europe;

- establishment of an international independent and transparent Anti-Doping Agency, with the Commission's participation;

- inclusion of the fight against trade in doping products in existing Community instruments of police, judicial and customs co-operation;

- co-operation between EU member States in research work concerning doping agents, such as EPO.

      At the Commission's request, the European Group on Ethics (EGE) issued an opinion on the ethical aspects of doping on 12 November 1999. It concluded that the action taken at Community level should be based on three principles: the right of everyone to health and safety; integrity and transparency of sports events; and special protection of vulnerable persons, especially children.

      The EGE went on to make a number of recommendations on the subjects of co-operation and health protection. Mention must be made of three proposals: insertion of specific clauses on the protection of athletes in Community health and safety texts, adoption of a directive on the protection of children and adolescents in sport, and inclusion of provisions concerning the ban on doping in sports professionals' contracts.

      These initiatives led the Commission to prepare a working paper18 taking stock of the Community's efforts to combat doping in sport, which it published in the form of a communication to various EU bodies19. Five measures were identified:

- intensifying research into doping substances, detection methods and the health impact of doping under the fifth framework programme for research activities;

- enlisting the education, vocational training and youth programmes20 to contribute to awareness-raising and prevention measures;

- making the most of police and judicial co-operation programmes21;

- providing more information on medicinal products under Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 199222;

- promoting action relevant to public health policy under Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

      Lastly, as regards the constitution of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the European Union is to appoint two members of the agency's Foundation Board.

International co-operation and creation of a World Anti-Doping Agency

      The adoption on 10 November 1999 of the instrument establishing the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in the wake of the conference held in Lausanne on 1 and 2 February, required the various governmental organisations involved to harmonise their positions with a view to participating in the Agency's functioning while guaranteeing its independence and effectiveness. The IOC has endowed the agency with a capital of five million Swiss francs. The governmental organisations will not begin to participate until 2001, by which time an agreement will be reached on the agency's operating methods and tasks.

As regards the agency's functioning, parity should be maintained between representatives of the sports movement and representatives of the public authorities. At the invitation of the Australian authorities, an international summit on "Drugs in sport" was held in Sydney from 14 to 17 November 1999. Participants decided, inter alia, to establish an International Intergovernmental Consultative Group on Anti-Doping in Sport.

      A first working meeting concerning the WADA was held on 13 January 2000 in Lausanne. The Council of Europe was represented by the Chair of the Monitoring Group set up under the Anti-Doping Convention and the head of the Sports Division. The following priority tasks for the WADA were identified:

- developing out-of-competition testing;

- establishing a laboratory accreditation procedure based on ISO standards;

- encouraging controls at sports events other than the Olympic Games;

- organising a research partnership, focussing in particular on substances such as EPO and human growth hormone;

- harmonising the various sets of rules, whether originating from the sports movement or from public authorities;

- ensuring that women and athletes are better represented on the Agency's governing bodies;

- avoiding confining sanctions to athletes;

- working to improve the concept of a medical passport for sportsmen and sportswomen;

- reaching agreement that within the agency decisions would be taken by a qualified two-thirds majority rather than requiring unanimous approval.

      More recently, the International Intergovernmental Consultative Group (in which the Council of Europe participates ex officio) held a meeting in Montreal from 16 to 18 February 2000. The discussion focussed on the principles of government representation within the WADA, the responsibility of WADA Board members, principles for governance of the agency, future action of governments in respect of the WADA, and government nominations to the WADA Board.

      It should be noted that in the Montreal declaration participants encouraged governments "to accede to the existing Anti-Doping Convention", which should be regarded as "a reference point for the development of a world-wide legal instrument" adapted to new circumstances.


i       Give greater consideration to how the harmonisation of national legislation, including legislation on medicinal products, might help reduce the incidence of doping in sport, and promote such harmonisation

      Harmonisation of legislation is clearly the linchpin of effective anti-doping measures. There is a need to broaden the traditional concept of the use of doping agents and substances.

      Establishing a list of banned substances is not enough, in that many medicinal products can be diverted from their proper use without being regarded as existing or potential doping agents. This problem has already been dealt with in a European Union directive, which goes to show that the issue of doping must be addressed at a more general level, in the light of public health requirements, rather than being confined to the sports arena.

      A study conducted in 1999 by the Clearing House (which provides the Council of Europe with information on sport) in the 41 countries that have signed the Anti-Doping Convention plus Georgia showed the huge disparities which exist at present. In some countries the fight against doping is the responsibility of a government agency; in others it is solely a matter for the sports movement. If a distinction is drawn between measures targeting doping itself and those aimed at sources of supply, it can be seen that fourteen countries have specific anti-doping legislation (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Australia), whereas thirteen have made the supply of doping agents a criminal offence (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom and Australia).

      The instruments themselves are extremely varied, ranging from specific anti-doping laws to regulations on the manufacture, marketing and use of medicinal products, or even legislation to combat drug abuse.

      In this connection, it can be seen that thought should be given to adopting a global approach to doping, encompassing the whole range of products, supply channels and the effects on users, some of which are similar to those observed in drug addicts.

      Participants in a seminar held in Lisbon in 199923 made the following recommendations:

• national laws on the manufacture, circulation and distribution of medicinal products should be harmonised;

• customs and police authorities should be made more aware of the problem and should help curtail the supply of doping agents as part of their tasks under the law.

The Anti-Doping Convention offers a common legal framework for harmonising and strengthening national legislation on the manufacture and circulation of doping agents. Governments must be encouraged to take appropriate measures at this level, including the introduction of legislation making it a criminal offence, punishable by a fine and/or a prison sentence, to participate in the doping industry by manufacturing, supplying, dealing in, possessing or inciting people to use doping agents or generally facilitating their use in any way whatsoever.

Any ad hoc legislation passed should be subject to harmonisation as regards the list of banned substances. The 1994 recommendation on anabolic steroids no longer suffices to classify the potentially dangerous products being used today, such as peptide hormones. The 1998 Tour de France revealed that erythropoietin (EPO) is now in extremely widespread use among cyclists as a means of boosting endurance. This development, which many people had predicted, is proof, if any was needed, that the search for new doping agents is never-ending in an effort to enhance performance at all costs or, more mundanely, to enable participants to stand up to a time-table of events that has become ridiculously overcrowded because of the financial stakes involved.

A doctor disclosed to the press a case where a cyclist had been making use of perfluorocarbons, which can serve as a blood substitute for transfusion purposes but, so far, are solely in experimental use in hospitals. The doctor concerned reported this abuse as it almost cost the cyclist his life.

Sport is increasingly synonymous with big money, and this can help to make the use of new doping agents and the creation of genuine underground supply networks a very lucrative activity. In this respect, it is not unreasonable to compare the situation with that of the fight against narcotics, some of which are also used as doping agents.

The International Cycling Union's decision to introduce pre-competition haematocrit tests (with a permissible maximum of 50%, higher than the physiological averages) showed how difficult it is to establish cases of EPO abuse, which has so far remained undetectable by any watertight method (although it would seem that a reliable test can be envisaged in time for the Sydney Olympic Games). The controls are therefore presented as routine occupational health checks, and a count approaching 50% is described as close to the physiological averages without any mention being made of possible EPO abuse. In this connection, it would seem preferable to make arrangements for specific year-round medical supervision of sportsmen and sportswomen, along the lines of the measures taken by the French Cycling Federation with the public authorities' backing. Although it is no substitute for anti-doping tests, such long-term medical supervision at least makes it possible to ensure that people participating in high-level sports are in good health, to forestall abuse and to have perfect knowledge of an individual athlete's medical profile, and therefore be capable of explaining any physiological particularities, especially in the event of a questionable test for anabolic agents. The proposed introduction of a medical passport by the WADA follows the same logic.

Given the different procedures existing at international level, athletes must be guaranteed that their fundamental rights, as set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights, will be respected, not least when appeals are lodged with bodies such as the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

ii.       Improve the exchange of information and co-operation

      A survey of countries parties to the Anti-Doping Convention24 has provided further proof of the usefulness of the work done by the Monitoring Group. Twelve deemed its work to be "very useful/efficient", and nineteen rated it as "useful/efficient". However, respondents thought there was room for improvement in the field of follow-up action, especially effective consolidation of the work accomplished, without specifying the form of co-operation envisaged.

iii.       Ensure that athletes, coaches and any other persons found guilty of doping related offences are severely and effectively punished

      Harmonisation of sanctions must not result in the introduction of a system of automatic penalties, which would be contrary to universally recognised legal principles. It should also be said that Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be applicable to sanctions imposed in sports.

iv.       Take an active stand in the WADA Board in order to highlight the quality of the work done by the Council of Europe bodies concerned and their greater experience in matters of international co-ordination than the various sports organisations

      Over the past thirty years the Council of Europe has shown itself to be a driving force in this field, establishing a strong track record culminating in the signature of the Anti-Doping Convention, to date the only international legal instrument in force in this field. These achievements must be put to good use in improving co-operation with international sports bodies. The fact that non-European countries, such as Canada and Australia, are parties to the convention shows the usefulness of this instrument in negotiations with the sports movement and, in particular, the Monitoring Group's potential strength in pushing through proposals. By working in tandem with the European Union representatives it should be possible to make progress in fields such as harmonisation, with the introduction of a single list of banned substances at world level for all sports. Co-operation should also extend to the establishment of programmes for research into new substances, their effects and their detection. By assuming responsibility for controls at an international level, the agency should moreover permit greater harmonisation of controls themselves, disciplinary procedures and sanctions. Lastly, care must be taken to guarantee transparency and independence in the way the agency operates. In this respect, its present location in Lausanne can but be an interim solution.

v.       Increase the resources of the Monitoring Group set up under the Anti-Doping Convention, to enhance its effectiveness

      The survey25 showed that only two countries would be willing to increase their financial contributions, but thirteen offered to contribute in other ways, for instance by hosting seminars or participating in prevention schemes. It must nonetheless be said that there were no specific proposals concerning the use of additional resources by the Monitoring Group.

vi.       Improve protection for young athletes

      Too intensive training of young people in high-level sport may lead to the abuse of substances known to have adverse effects on users' health. What is more, in certain sports, such as football, youngsters turn professional at a very early age (the young footballers in the training centres are fifteen years old).

      Such practices, which are inconsistent with national child protection law, should be subject to special scrutiny by virtue of the law.

      At the level of the European Union, mention must be made of a directive of 22 June 199426 on the protection of young people at work, which provides that employment of children for the purpose of their taking part in sports activities shall be permitted under conditions determined by the member States, provided that such activities "are not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children".27

      As regards the International Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 26 January 1990 under the aegis of the United Nations, it should not be forgotten that doping also concerns children and may be regarded as tantamount to maltreatment.

vii.       Equate trafficking in doping agents with that in narcotics and take all possible measures to ensure that the international agencies that fight drug trafficking include the fight against doping in their remit

      It is becoming increasingly clear that the supply of doping agents has gone beyond the "cottage industry" stage. Networks are known to exist, and it is a known fact that certain doping agents also come within the ambit of the legislation on narcotics. Moreover, it is not a rare occurrence for sportsmen and sportswomen to move on from doping agent abuse to hard drug abuse at the end of their sporting career.

      Harmonisation of legislation is not enough. What is needed is genuine international co-operation, such as that existing in the fight against drugs. The range of potential doping agents is vast. In this connection, drawing up a single list of banned substances at international level would be a first step forward. However, from the public health point of view, it should not be forgotten that substitute products are constantly being sought and it is only through legislation on pharmaceuticals and harmful substances in general that their circulation and use can be controlled.

      Many factors militate in favour of increased police co-operation, as under the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events of 1985. Although doping is a more discreet phenomenon, there is no denying that it may eventually lead to serious public health and crime problems, two sectors which lie outside the jurisdiction of the international sports organisations. This merely heightens States' responsibility in such matters.

ETS n° : 135

Treaty open for signature by the member States, the other States Parties to the European Cultural Convention States and the non-member States which have participated in its elaborabion and for accession by the other non-member States

Status as of : 06/04/00

Place : Strasbourg
Date : 16/11/89

Conditions : 5 Ratifications including 4 member States.
Date : 01/03/90

Member States :


Date of

Date of

Date of entry
into force




























27/01/93 (su)








Czech Republic

28/04/95 (s)

28/04/95 (s)




16/11/89 (s)

16/11/89 (s)







20/11/97 (a)






























29/01/90 (s)

29/01/90 (s)




25/03/91 (s)

25/03/91 (s)










































16/11/89 (s)

16/11/89 (s)




















12/02/91 (a)




San Marino






06/05/93 (s)

06/05/93 (s)





02/07/92 (su)


















the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia


30/03/94 (su)











United Kingdom

16/11/89 (s)

16/11/89 (s)





Non member States :


Date of

Date of

Date of entry
into force












05/10/94 (a)







Bosnia and Herzegovina


29/12/94 (su)




06/03/96 (s)

06/03/96 (s)



Holy See




United States


International Organisations :


Date of

Date of

Date of entry
into force








Notes :

(25) Date of accession by the former Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

(a) Accession - (s) Signature subject to ratification - (su) Succession - (r) Signature "ad referendum".
R.: Reservations - D.: Declarations - A.: Authorities - T.: Territorial Application - C.: Communication - O.: Objection.

Reporting committee: Committee on Culture and Education

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: None.

Reference to committee: Doc. 8280 and Reference No. 2351 of 25 January 1999

Draft recommendation: unanimously adopted by the committee on 6 April 2000

Members of the committee: MM. Roseta (Chairman), Zingeris, de Puig, Ivanov (Vice-Chairmen), Arzilli, Bartumeu Cassany, Baumel (Alternate: Ehrmann), Billing, Cherribi, Chiliman, Cubreacov, Diaz de Mera, Dumitrescu, Fayot, Mrs Fehr, Mrs Granlund, MM. Hadjidemetriou, Haraldsson, Hegyi, Henry, Irmer, Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa, MM. Jakic, Javelidze, Kalkan, Mrs Katseli, MM. Khripel, Kiely, Kofod-Svendsen, Kovacevic, Lachat, Mrs Laternser, MM. Legendre, Lemoine, Libicki, Mrs Lucyga, MM. McNamara, Melnikov, Mezeckis, Monfils, Mrs Moserova, Mr Nagy (Alternate: Szinyei), Mrs Nemcova, MM. O’Hara, Pinggera, Polydoras, Mrs Poptodorova, MM. Pullicino Orlando (Alternate: Debono Grech), Ragno (Alternate: Martelli), Risari, Mrs Saele, Mr Sağlam, Mrs Schicker (Alternate: Schieder), MM. Schweitzer, Shaklein, Siebert, Mrs Stefani, MM. Svec, Symonenko (Alternate: Khunov), Mrs Troncho, Urbanczyk (Alternate: Smorawinski), Vahtre, Valk, Wilshire, Xhaferi.

NB: The names of those present at the meeting are in italics

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ary, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul, Ms Kostenko

1 The rapporteur wishes to thank the consultant expert Mr Jean-Christophe Lapouble for his assistance in the preparation of the report.

2 Article 2-1 a.

3 Article 2-1 b. clarifies what is meant by "pharmacological classes", viz. substances banned by international sports organisations and appearing in lists that have been approved by the Monitoring Group established under the Convention.

4 Resolution (67) 12 on the doping of athletes, 29 June 1967

5 Resolution (70) 7 of 7 March 1970

6 Recommendation No. R (79) 8 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning Doping in Sport

7 Recommendation No. R (84) 19 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the "European Anti-Doping Charter for Sport", 25 September 1984

8 Recommendation No. R (88) 12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Institution of Doping Controls without Warning outside Competitions, 21 June 1988

9 Recommendation 1190 (1992) on European Sports Co-operation

10 Recommendation 1292 (1996) on young people in high-level sport

11 No. 91/C 170/01, OJ No. C 329, 31 December 1990

12 No. 90/C 329/02, OJ No. C 170, 29 June 1991

13 No. 92/C 44/01, OJ No. C 044, 19 February 1992

14 Press Release: Vienna (11-12-1998) - No. 00300/1/REV (press), Presidency Conclusions, Annex IV

15 OJ No. C 98 of 9 April 1999

16 Opinion No. 37/99 of 16 September 1999

17 In Bad Godesberg (18 January 1999), Paderborn (1 and 2 June 1999) and Vierumäki (25 October 1999)

18 COM (1999) 643 final of 1 December 1999

19 The Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

20 Socrates, Leonardo, Youth for Europe, European Voluntary Service, etc

21 Oisin, Grotius

22 OJ No. L 113 of 30 April 1992

23 Seminar organised under the Sprint programme by the Council of Europe and the Portuguese National Institute for Sport, 24-25 June 1999. The report and the conclusions are to be found in document CDDS (99) 58.

24 Circular letter T-DO 99/02 of 18 January 1998

25 Circular letter T-DO 99/02 of 18 January 1998

26 Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 (OJ No. L 216, 20 August 1994)

27 Article 5