Cycle News

VOL. 55 ISSUE 21 MAY 30, 2018 P145 scribed in the introduction to the Code. Interestingly, it is sufficient for a substance or method to be included on the Prohibited List if it meets two of these three criteria. A substance or method can thus be classified as doping if it (1) enhances the performance and poses a health risk, (2) enhances the performance and violates the spirit of sport, or (3) poses a health risk and violates the spirit of sport. Prima facie, this is a broad delineation, as it does not, for example, exclude the possibility of a substance being included on the Prohibited List even though its use adversely affects the athlete's performance. Indeed, the broadness of the delineation has attracted criticism. In a 'Call for WADA' a number of scientists urged WADA to adopt a more restrictive approach by making the first criterion a necessary condition. Although WADA initially considered taking on this recom- mendation when preparing the new Code, the 'two out of three' approach ultimately prevailed. It prevailed because it makes it easier for WADA to ban more substances, and in doing so, punish more athletes, which— again—is how WADA justifies its exorbitant expense/income. It's about money, not science and not sport. Mr. Geeraets goes on to break down the "spirit of sport" claim, as it's very obviously subjective in nature. There are 11 points here, and Mr. Geeraets defeats all of them, one-by-one, piece-by- piece. Mr. Geeraets then breaks down WADA's claim that submis- sion to WADA regulation is volun- tary. He goes into much detail, but to put it simply, it's voluntary in the same way it's voluntary to wear a helmet as a supercross competitor: You can choose not to, but that means you're choos- ing not to compete in the first place. Basically, if you're a fan, you don't have to pee in a cup for WADA, so if you're a racer and you don't like WADA, you can volunteer to quit your job. It's more nonsense. Complete nonsense. In conclusion, Mr. Geeraets correctly points out that support- ing WADA, and indeed WADA itself, is presented as an ideol- ogy, rather than a logical, practi- cal and optional institution. In this paper, we have shown that WADA has sought to defend the current Code in terms of the spirit of sport and with the help of the argument of voluntary con- sent. We argue that WADA's de- fence of these arguments does not stand up to scrutiny. With regard to the analysis of the con- cept of the spirit of sport, WADA provides us with an enumeration, but this enumeration has been found to be inconsistent. Simi- larly, the argument of voluntary consent also fails to withstand scrutiny. Since WADA significant- ly curtails athletes' options, with the result that their only choice is between committing to the Code or retiring from their sport altogether, their commitment to the Code cannot be said to be voluntary. Lastly, we claim that WADA's arguments are not just bad arguments, but should be considered ideological in nature. And indeed it is ideology's ability to distort social reality that is the specific aim of these arguments because, in this way, they can be used to ward off any critical discussion of the Code. That's ultimately the danger of WADA: Their rules are consid- ered self-justifying and beyond reproach, and I don't believe that's a good way to do things— not in business, government, or sport. Broc Tickle deserves to be rac- ing. He's invested his entire life into becoming one of the best racers on the planet, and a four-year ban might as well be forced retirement forever, because that's what it will be for any athlete in professional motocross or supercross. Decisions made in our sport should be made by people who understand our sport, who care about our sport, and who are inter- ested in what's best for our sport. WADA is not interested in what's best for any sport, much less ours. WADA is only interest- ed in what's best for WADA. They need to go. CN

• Cover