– The Executive Committee and Niso cannot support such a change as proposed. This is what the Norwegian athletes’ committee writes in a consultation response to Antidoping Norway. They fear for Norwegian athletes’ legal security if Antidoping Norway gets what they want. – We agree that the current system must be made more efficient, but this cannot be at the expense of our legal certainty, says Magnus Nedregotten to news. He is the leader of the Norwegian athletes’ committee. – Obviously problematic Anti-doping Norway wants to change the reporting obligation regulations, which cover around 100 Norwegian elite athletes. This is the notification obligation Applies to athletes who are on the notification obligation list. Includes around 100 Norwegian athletes as of September 2023. Athletes have to state where they live, where they train, planned gatherings and competitions. Athletes must provide one daily meeting point between 05.00 and 23.00, so that they are available for unannounced doping control. Breach of the reporting obligation may lead to a warning. If an athlete receives three warnings within 12 months, this is considered a breach of the doping regulations. This can lead to exclusion from the sport. Regulated by the reporting obligation regulations, which Antidoping Norway now wants to change. Source: Antidoping Norway Athletes who have received a warning for breaching the obligation to report can now appeal to Antidoping Norway. The case is then dealt with by the Board of Appeal, an independent body. Antidoping Norway wants to discontinue it. They want the reporting obligation committee to take over responsibility. The athletes’ committee believes that this is very problematic, and believes that Antidoping Norway has a lot of power. – It should not be the same people who test you and who deal with the case, says Magnus Nedregotten to news. The head of Antidoping Norway believes that the athletes’ legal security is well taken care of. – Today there are four independent treatments of the duty to report before there can be consequences. It is in the reporting obligation committee, the appeal board, the prosecution board and the sentencing committee. Our proposal now is that it should go through three independent treatments. We believe that it satisfies the legal security guarantees that will be necessary, says Antidoping Norway head Anders Solheim: ANTIDOPING CHIEF: Anders Solheim. Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB Antidoping Norway believes that the current system is ineffective, and that with the proposed change they will approach international practice. – It requires more time and to have it through four independents than three. Athletes may risk having ongoing cases during championships. We believe it is an obligation towards international sport that it should not happen, says Solheim. The Norwegian athletes’ committee Leader: Magnus Nedregotten, curling Deputy leader: Kjetil Borch, rowing Aida Husic Dahlen, table tennis Anita Yvonne Stenberg, cycling Anna Margrete Sletsjøe, paddling Erlend Mamelund, handball Felix Baldauf, wrestling Sarah Louise Rung, swimming Astrid Uhrenholdt Jacobsen, cross-country skiing (member in the athlete committee of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)) Birgit Skarstein, rowing (member of the athlete committee of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC)) Source: Olympiatoppen Fears for the athletes Birgit Skarstein also sits on the athlete committee. She understands the desire to make the current system more efficient, but: – We want this to be done without weakening the athletes’ legal security, says Skarstein to news. A doping or reporting duty case can – in addition to being career-threatening – cost several million kroner. Few athletes can afford that. – Since the proposed changes are aimed at the athletes, who every day have to deal with this strict, but necessary, set of rules that lay down guidelines for both sport and everyday life, it is critical that the design and practice provide confidence and security for the athletes, says Skarstein. – We have the opportunity to be a leading country and ensure better legal certainty for the athletes, says Nedregotten. – Wada’s requirement is that once a warning has been issued, you can have an administrative review by Antidoping Norway. Wada does not require any independent treatment, we focus on what Wada says about how it should be practised. That is our motive for proposing this, says Solheim. – A necessary evil If the change is implemented, Antidoping Norway can issue a warning. But one warning has no consequences. – If you disagree with a warning, you can complain. One warning has no consequences, nor two. When you get three, there are consequences. That is because the athlete must have the opportunity to correct it. Many athletes receive a warning that has no consequences, says Solheim. LEADER: Curling player Magnus Nedregotten is the leader of the Norwegian athletes’ committee. Pictured here during the Olympics in Beijing, where he won silver together with Kristin Skaslien. Photo: LILLIAN SUWANRUMPHA / AFP But Nedregotten does not understand why they want to remove the appeals board. – The athlete committee thinks the current solution is a better alternative than that proposed by Antidoping Norway, he says. – We greatly appreciate that athletes get involved. We have had a separate meeting with the Athlete Committee and Niso about this. Unfortunately, it is the case that the reporting obligation system is a necessary evil for effective anti-doping work. We manage a strict set of regulations, says Solheim. On Tuesday there is a board meeting in Antidoping Norway. A decision in the matter is expected there.
ttn-69
