THE HERALD INVESTIGATES

MacLeod gets green light to play onKEVIN FERRIE, Chief Rugby Writer February 26 2008


Scott MacLeod can continue his playing career after admitting to a violation of anti-doping rules, but the Scottish Rugby Union seemed to be premature in claiming yesterday that the international lock has "been completely cleared".

Gregor Nicholson, the SRU's international administration manager, made that assertion under questioning on the matter at a press conference held at Murrayfield yesterday.

Yet the boldness of the statement is at odds with his own previous comments which made it clear that the final say lies elsewhere, with the International Rugby Board, UK Sport and the World Anti- Doping Agency all entitled to re-open the case.

"We have kept UK Sport and the IRB fully appraised of this procedure," said Nicholson. "They have received a copy of the full decision of the judicial committee. It is entirely in the IRB, UK Sport and indeed WADA's hands to review this whole process. It's all very open and above board. They have the right to ask us to review the case if they so choose. That matter is with them at the moment."


As things stand, MacLeod has escaped with a warning and a reprimand which, having had a week in which to consider making an appeal, he agreed to accept yesterday.

The SRU's view of his situation was at least partly supported later in the day when a statement was issued by Andy Parkinson, Head of Operations (Drug-Free Sport) at UK Sport, which stated: "This case provides a useful reminder to all athletes of the process they must go through to be able to use prescribed medicines that contain prohibited substances.

"The rules are designed to ensure all athletes can compete on a level playing field, but the process must be adhered to properly to ensure it is not open to abuse. In this case, we are satisfied the player involved needed the substance for his particular medical condition, and the SRU have dealt with this correctly in line with the regulations set out in the World Anti-Doping Code."

Russell Langley, acting head of communications at UK Sport, subsequently elaborated on that, indicating that, as far as they were concerned, the full process has been undergone.

He added: "We are satisfied this case has been dealt with in the proper way. We have reviewed the case and we will not be taking the matter any further."

Meanwhile, Dominic Rumbles, a spokesman for the IRB said: "The SRU have kept in touch with us throughout this case. We have received a copy of their report and we are satisfied with the outcome."

A spokesman for WADA was not prepared to give any such assurance, though.

Contacted by The Herald last night, their spokesman Frederic Donze said that they were unable to offer a response until they had full details of the case available to them.


Cleared… but now the questionsKEVIN FERRIE, Chief Rugby Writer February 26 2008
I have known James Robson for some 20 years and I have no doubt about his judgement, honesty and integrity when it comes to ethical issues in terms of sporting medicine.

As an individual, I trust him implicitly.

I know Scott MacLeod less well, but have every reason to believe that he is a straightforward, uncomplicated big lump of rugby forward who has retained a certain innocence, very much in line with the likelihood that he made a careless mistake with his medication.

advertisement
None of that is the real issue, though.

How often has a sports person accused of a drugs offence turned up to face the world's, or even their local, media and said: "Sorry, they've got me bang to rights. I cheated. I shouldn't have. There is no excuse"?

Consequently, it was critical that the Scottish Rugby Union did everything in its power to be transparent and open when they sought to clear MacLeod's name as soon as they had allowed the fact that he had failed a dope test to emerge.

What matters as much as the facts of the case is the public perception and, as far as that is concerned, those outside Scottish rugby as well as many inside it are now entitled to ask many questions.

The organisation may believe it presented that opportunity at a Murrayfield press conference called with unseemly haste and cut short as soon as questioning began to become uncomfortable.

The way the affair has been handled raised many questions, some of which have been answered fully but others which cast serious doubt over the procedure.


Is there any connection between the allegation of a Scottish rugby player taking drugs and the pride taken by all involved with the Scotland team at the way in which the players had bulked up' ahead of the World Cup?
The answer seems quite clear, in as much as the drug MacLeod took illegally, Terbutaline, is not listed as a drug which enhances muscle development, but is there because it is a stimulant.

There were, though, one or two ribald remarks made from commentators in other countries about the way that had been done. Those close to the camp, know well the excellence of the reputation of Mark Bitcom, the Scots' fitness and conditioning coach, but any sort of drug test failure in the ensuing season was likely to cause embarrassment.


How could a member of a squad whose medical affairs are overseen by the most experienced team doctor in world rugby make such a mistake?
Again the explanation is entirely plausible. MacLeod has been asthmatic for several years. He previously did have clearance to use Terbutaline. He switched to another, Salbutamol, at a time when Terbutaline was not available to him, and he received clearance for that.

When Terbutaline then became available again, he switched back, but did not realise the importance of getting a new clearance for it.

That matter is exacerbated by the fact that both Terbutaline and Salbutamol are drugs used to relieve asthma symptoms.

There are other drugs available which contain steroids, which operate on a preventative basis. MacLeod thought the key factor was ensuring that he did not use one of those steroid-based preventative medicines.

However, Dr Robson admitted that the episode has exposed flaws in procedures in terms of both education of players and monitoring of what substances they are taking which will be addressed.


Was the SRU premature when it claimed that MacLeod was completely in the clear?
They very much gave the impression of being so when Gregor Nicholson, their international administration manager, said that the International Rugby Board, UK Sport and the World Anti-Doping Agency, all had the power to ask for the decision to be reviewed and that the matter was "now in their hands".

In fact, had they checked with those bodies while, or even better instead of, putting together the reams of scientific and medical detail which accompanied yesterday's announcement, they would have received the answers given to The Herald that the IRB and UK Sport are satisfied with the outcome.


Is the rest of the sporting world entitled to question the "independent" nature of a three-man, SRU-appointed panel?
Without casting any aspersions on the character or integrity of the individuals themselves, those outside Scottish rugby, in particular, might well question their neutrality.

The chairman of the panel, Rod McKenzie, is a lawyer who is regularly listed as an SRU representative when acting as a disciplinary official at major matches; Professor Donald Macleod was James Robson's predecessor as the Scotland team doctor; and Dr Brian Walker was last year appointed head of sports medicine at the Scottish Institute of Sport which works very closely with the SRU. On their website he is described as "current team doctor to the Scotland Rugby under 19 squad", while, among his listed hobbies, are "supporting Glasgow Rugby, Dundee United and Scotland (rugby and football)".


Why is it that the timing of these "independent" proceedings seems to have fitted in almost seamlessly with Scotland's preparations for their meeting with Ireland?
Anyone who is in any way sceptical about the way in which this case has been handled will hardly be reassured of the panel's independence by the way in which every aspect of this case seems could appear to have been stage-managed to minimise inconvenience and embarrassment for the Scottish national team.

The SRU was apparently contacted on February 14 and the judicial hearing was set up for the following Monday (Feb 18). We were told yesterday, before Dominic McKay, the SRU's communications director hurriedly called the press conference to a close, that their verdict was made known at 4.50pm on Monday of last week.

The Scotland squad had been training that day, but we were told that the team themselves were not being told who would be playing until the following morning. In other words the final selection meeting was almost certainly due to take place that evening.

As suggested above, few involved in Scottish rugby will doubt that Scott MacLeod has been guilty of anything more than a careless accident and has justifiably been cleared of cheating.

However, as with the way many in this country seemed too ready to accept the athlete Dougie Walker's protestations of innocence, and to suggest that the skier Alain Baxter had been harshly treated when he was stripped of the bronze medal he won at the Winter Olympics, there must be a greater awareness of how this is seen on the wider world stage.

The SRU seemed to try to minimise scrutiny by:

failing to reveal that Macleod had undergone a suspension (for Llanelli Scarlets the previous weekend) until, not only had it been served but he had played in Saturday's Test against Ireland.

nannouncing that they were calling yesterday's press conference only an hour or so before it took place; and

stating there would only be a short question/answer session before closing that abruptly when questioning became awkward.

What all with an interest in this should be doing today is asking themselves whether they would accept as readily the explanations and the way the case was examined if it had all occurred on other than British soil, rather than with a fine, upstanding Scottish lad as the accused.



Terbutaline Facts

Terbutaline is a Beta-2 Agonist, a medication used to treat conditions such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.

It is often used in inhalers.




Use of Terbutaline allows those with breathing difficulties to get air to the lungs more freely.


It can be used to prevent premature labour during pregnancy.


It is typically inhaled but can have an anabolic effect if injected.


It remains on the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned list, despite calls in some quarters for it to be taken off.


WADA permit the use of Terbutaline by inhalation providing the sportsperson involved has a valid need, and obtains a therapeutic use exemption (TUE).


Israeli wheelchair tennis player Ilanit Fridman was banned for one month in 2006 after testing positive for Terbutaline at the previous autumn's US Open Wheelchair Tennis Championships, despite a tribunal finding she had not sought to enhance her performance. Fridman did not have a TUE.


New Zealand cyclist Amy Mosen was warned and reprimanded in 2005 for use of Terbutaline.


In 2007, an unnamed footballer based in England was warned after testing positive for Terbutaline without holding a TUE.


In the case of a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage by using Terbutaline, WADA's code calls for a two-year suspension for a first offence.


In cases where a TUE has not been obtained but no sporting advantage is being sought and the medication is deemed necessary, WADA allow for punishments ranging from a warning and reprimand to a one-year ban.

This article was posted on 26-Feb-2008, 08:00 by Hugh Barrow.