THE HERALD ASKS

DOUG GILLON February 27 2008
How independent is an independent tribunal? When it is convened by the Scottish Rugby Union, not very. The disciplinary panel they asked to determine whether international lock Scott MacLeod had a doping case to answer was chaired by lawyer Rod McKenzie and otherwise comprised two doctors: Professor Donald Macleod and Dr Brian Walker. They ruled that there was none.

McKenzie works for Harper Macleod. In stating their credentials in the field of sports law, they state: "We recently completed the update of the SRU's Discipline Procedures". He is frequently on SRU panels. Professor Macleod was for many years Scotland's team doctor, while Dr Walker is the national under-19 squad doctor.

We do not question their integrity. Disciplinary tribunals in other sports are often comprised of people with similar credentials. The question is whether this is appropriate? The answer must be no.


They demonstrably aren't "independent". The player was representing Scotland. The trio who sat in judgment each had SRU connections.

Much of anti-doping's lexicon is confusing. The SRU initially said MacLeod had been "completely cleared". He has not, as my colleague Kevin Ferrie stated yesterday.

The World Anti-Doping Agency can challenge the SRU panel, which could send the case to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, subjecting the player to months of uncertainty and significant expense. A similar case, in which an independent panel found athlete Diane Modahl guilty, bankrupted her and put the UK governing body into receivership. She was ultimately exonerated.

UK Sport won't challenge the verdict, but yesterday said: "He has not been cleared. MacLeod has been warned and reprimanded. If he commits any further offence, then this will count against him as a first offence. He's simply escaped a ban."

Xenophobia is unwelcome. But what would be the perception in Scotland if we heard that a Chinese lawyer and two of his medical compatriots had cleared a swimmer involved in doping allegations in Beijing?

There was quite enough uproar in Scotland when the referee of the recent Scotland v France match had a French father. Independent? The International Rugby Board should know better. It's little wonder there's confusion in rugby as to what constitutes "independence".

Again, we don't impugn integrity, but underline the basic precept that justice must be seen to be done.

UK Sport said yesterday that independent' in a doping tribunal context means: "independent of the case, or of a player, or his or her club. The tribunal's supposed to be people with the resources and experience to deal with the case. If the governing body has difficulty, then we help provide personnel. Some smaller sport bodies do not even have an anti-doping officer, let alone the ability to handle a doping case . . . We are happy with the composition of the SRU panel and their findings."

However, UKA added that a new national anti-doping panel (which comes into force on April 1) and the UK anti-doping agency, which will replace UK Sport next year, favours a wholly independent process.

"We want to allay any fears about such panels. People must have complete confidence. We have to have faith in the process. There has to be complete consistency and fairness. It's fair to say the long-term hope is that all governing bodies will use the new national anti-doping agency."

Concerns over independence of the police complaints mechanism has led to change. Water, energy, and the Post Office were all obliged to establish independent complaint procedures. Doping's turn is overdue.

The inevitable question arising on the back of Scott MacLeod's adverse finding is: Does Scottish rugby have a doping problem? On the available evidence, the answer is no.

A total of 2714 rugby anti-doping tests were conducted in Britain over three years to the end of 2007. These are summarised below for English, Scottish and Welsh rugby union.

These resulted in 31 "violations", from which 21 resulted in sanction. Five were like MacLeod's, where a warning was given. Seven each were for steroids and stimulants. Ten had no action taken, but UK Sport is obliged to report these violations.

Scotland had 627 tests and five positives (all with no case to answer) outwith the Six Nations. Tests round the Six Nations and World Cup are done on behalf of the International Rugby Board and these are listed under "others" which also includes those conducted in women's rugby.



Nation: Tests; Violations 2006-2007
Rugby Football Union: 372; 2
Scottish Rugby Union: 223; 2
Welsh Rugby Union: 228; 4
Other: 125; 1

2005-2006
Rugby Football Union: 435; 2
Scottish Rugby Union: 229; 3
Welsh Rugby Union: 196; 4
Other: 124; 1

2004-2005
Rugby Football Union: 340; 5
Scottish Rugby Union: 175; 0
Welsh Rugby Union: 173; 7
Other: 94; 0

This article was originally posted on 27-Feb-2008, 12:45 by Hugh Barrow.
Last updated by Hugh Barrow on 27-Feb-2008, 12:46.