[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WAYS TO IMPROVE AND STRENGTHEN THE INTERNATIONAL ANTI-DOPING SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-9
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-165 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RAUL RUIZ, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
7_____
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
Chairman
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana PAUL TONKO, New York
CHRIS COLLINS, New York YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
TIM WALBERG, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
MIMI WALTERS, California SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia officio)
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Witnesses
Adam Nelson, American Shot Putter and Olympic Gold Medalist...... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Michael Phelps, American Swimmer and Olympic Gold Medalist....... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer, United States Anti-
Doping Agency.................................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions............................... 179
Rob Koehler, Deputy Director General, World Anti-Doping Agency... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Answers to submitted questions............................... 186
Richard Budgett, M.D., Medical and Scientific Director,
International Olympic Committee................................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Answers to submitted questions............................... 199
Submitted Material
Subcommittee memorandum.......................................... 75
Letter of February 23, 2017, from Christophe De Kepper, Director
General, International Olympic Committee, to IOC Honorary
President, et al., submitted by Ms. DeGette.................... 83
Statement of August 30, 2016, National Anti-Doping Organizations
Summit, submitted by Mr. Murphy................................ 86
List of National Anti-Doping Organizations Supporting the
Copenhagen Declaration of August 30, 2016, submitted by Mr.
Murphy......................................................... 89
Letter of December 8, 2014, from Travis T. Tygart, Chief
Executive Officer, and Dr. Edwin Moses, Chairman of the Board,
United States Anti-Doping Agency, to Sir Craig Reedie,
President, and David Howman, Director General, World Anti-
Doping Agency, submitted by Mr. Murphy......................... 90
Letter of December 9, 2015, from Cammile Adams, et al., USA
Swimming National Team, to Cornel Marculescu, Executive
Director, FINA, submitted by Mr. Murphy........................ 94
Letter of March 11, 2016, from Beckie Scott, Chair, World Anti-
Doping Agency Athlete Committee, to Sir Craig Reedie,
President, World Anti-Doping Agency, submitted by Mr. Murphy... 96
Letter of January 25, 2015, from Sarah Konrad, Chair, United
States Olympic Committee Athletes' Advisory Council, to Thomas
Bach, President, International Olympic Committee, and Sir Craig
Reedie, President, World Anti-Doping Agency, submitted by Mr.
Murphy......................................................... 97
Article of August 15, 2015, ``Russia could be let off the hook
BEFORE end of investigation by British drug-buster and WADA
president Sir Craig Reedie,'' by Nick Harris, The Mail on
Sunday, submitted by Mr. Murphy................................ 98
Article of August 23, 2015, ``WADA president Sir Craig Reedie's
`comfort' email to Russia's most senior drug-buster reveals
toothless clampdown on doping,'' by Nick Harris, The Mail on
Sunday, submitted by Mr. Murphy................................ 103
Article of July 31, 2016, ``Russia doping scandal: `When it
mattered most, the IOC failed to lead,''' by National Anti-
Doping Organizations, The Guardian, submitted by Mr. Murphy.... 108
Article of August 4, 2016, ``On Eve of Olympics, Top Investigator
Details Secret Efforts to Undermine Russian Doping Probe'' by
David Epstein, ProPublica, submitted by Mr. Murphy............. 111
Article of October 2, 2016, ``UKAD to control Russia tests,'' by
PA Sport, Sky Sports, submitted by Mr. Murphy.................. 122
International Convention against Doping in Sport 2005, adopted
October 19, 2005, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, submitted by Mr. Murphy................. 125
Financial Statements from ``IOC Annual Report 2015: Credibility,
Sustainability and Youth,'' International Olympic Committee,
submitted by Mr. Murphy........................................ 137
Report of the World Anti-Doping Agency, ``Report of the
Independent Observers: Games of the XXXI Olympiad, Rio de
Janeiro 2016,''\1\ submitted by Mr. Murphy
Report of the International Olympic Committee, ``IOC reanalysis
programme: Beijing 2008 and London 2012,'' submitted by Mr.
Murphy......................................................... 157
Report of the World Anti-Doping Agency, ``Contributions to WADA's
Budget 2017,'' February 8, 2017, submitted by Mr. Murphy....... 165
List, World Anti-Doping Agency Foundation Board Members,
submitted by Mr. Murphy........................................ 170
Statement of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, ``Conflict of Interest
Policy,'' submitted by Mr. Murphy.............................. 175
Article of July 11, 2013, ``Olympics: Tokyo pledges `model' drug-
free Games,'' The Straits Times, submitted by Mr. Murphy....... 177
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/
20170228/105613/HHRG-115-IF02-20170228-SD017.pdf.
WAYS TO IMPROVE AND STRENGTHEN THE INTERNATIONAL ANTI-DOPING SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Murphy
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Murphy, Griffith, Burgess,
Brooks, Collins, Walberg, Walters, Costello, Carter, Walden (ex
officio), DeGette, Schakowsky, Castor, Tonko, Clarke, Ruiz,
Peters, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Jennifer Barblan, Chief Counsel, Oversight
and Investigations; Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist,
Deputy Staff Director; Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk,
Oversight and Investigations; Karen Christian, General Counsel;
Jordan Davis, Director of Policy and External Affairs; Paige
Decker, Executive Assistant and Committee Clerk; Blair Ellis,
Press Secretary/Digital Coordinator; Adam Fromm, Director of
Outreach and Coalitions; Brittany Havens, Professional Staff
Member, Oversight and Investigations; Zach Hunter,
Communications Director; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and
Press Assistant; John Ohly, Professional Staff Member,
Oversight and Investigations; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary;
Jennifer Sherman, Press Secretary; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor
for External Affairs; Luke Wallwork, Staff Assistant; Jeff
Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Waverly Gordon, Minority
Counsel, Health; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff
Director and Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler, Minority
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment;
Christopher Knauer, Minority Oversight Staff Director; Una Lee,
Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Miles Lichtman, Minority
Staff Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant; Jon
Monger, Minority Counsel; Dino Papanastasiou, Minority GAO
Detailee; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; Matt
Schumacher, Minority Press Assistant; Andrew Souvall, Minority
Director of Communications, Member Services, and Outreach; and
C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Murphy. Good morning and welcome to this hearing of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on ``Ways to Improve
and Strengthen the International Anti-Doping System.''
The subcommittee convenes to examine the current state of
this system, the challenges it faces and areas for reform.
On the heels of the Summer Games in Rio and less than a
year away from the Winter Games in Pyeongchang, there is no
better time to evaluate progress made thus far in reforming the
international anti-doping system. How fitting that we are
holding this hearing on February the 28th, as we have the
greatest Olympic athlete of all time, who has won 28 medals,
before us today. And I wasn't referring to you, Mr. Griffith, I
was referring to Michael Phelps.
Every 2 years, nations are filled with excitement and pride
as they cheer on their athletes of the Summer and Winter Games.
It has been a longstanding tradition that should not be
tarnished by those that choose to cheat. Ultimately, I hope
that this hearing helps to highlight ways in which we can
strengthen clean competition and restore public confidence in
international sports.
Within the anti-doping community there are concerns
regarding organizational structure and how the current system
creates an environment where individuals are both policing and
promoting sport. Conflicts of interest stemming from the
composition of the World Anti-Doping Agency's, or WADA, senior
leadership currently exists as anti-doping decision makers
often simultaneously hold a policymaking position within a
sports organization. Such conflicts can have both real and
perceived effects on the rigorous investigations of possible
violations as well as the enforcement of anti-doping measures.
Several anti-doping experts have publicly stated that WADA
lacks sufficient independence from sports itself. Recent
proposals have suggested removing sports organizations from
governance structures to improve independence and operations.
Today we want to evaluate those concerns and discuss the
proposed reforms. Further, there needs to be an established
decision making process and body when it comes to
investigations and sanctions.
As we saw leading up to the Summer Games in Rio, the buck
was passed multiple times between the International Olympic
Committee, the national anti-doping organizations, and
international sports federations as to who was in charge of
making the decisions and whether or not athletes would be able
to participate in the Summer Games.
Sanctions and bans on athletes, coaches, NADOs, and anti-
doping laboratories vary from short term to lifetime, but there
does not appear to be a clear set of guidelines to aid the
appropriate organization in setting and imposing consistent
penalties. We need to ensure that the system is fair, and that
the punishment is appropriate, particularly when the athlete
knowingly cheated. The general public depends on the governing
bodies of international sports to ensure that cheating does not
become the accepted norm, and this is a particularly important
message for our youth.
Additionally, recent events highlight the need to examine
potential improvements with respect to utilizing athletes as
partners in the anti-doping effort as well as whistleblower
protections. There will always be athletes and institutions
that dope in an attempt to gain an unfair competitive
advantage.
Athletes and whistleblowers are oftentimes the first to see
the problems at the ground level and are critical to anti-
doping organizations' ability to identify and investigate
violations. Therefore, it bears questioning whether the current
system does enough to encourage, embrace, and protect those
fighting for clean sport.
While many summits, conferences, and meetings have occurred
since the Rio Games, challenges remain and progress towards
meaningful reform remains unclear. This hearing provides an
opportunity to learn from past mistakes and examine
opportunities to move forward in a way that will improve the
international anti-doping system so that it is effective, fair,
and nimble for the sake of athletes, clean sport, and integrity
of the international competition, including the Olympic Games.
Finally, some may ask why Congress is doing a hearing on
sports rules and is it because it is a matter of the
multibillion-dollar sports economy? Maybe. In part it may be
that. But for the most part, I believe that it is very
important that we send the right message to the youth and
future athletes of the world that cheating is not acceptable on
any level, whether it is in our economy, it is in trade, or it
is in sports.
We welcome our all-star panel of witnesses today. Your
appearance before this subcommittee is vital for us to have an
honest discussion with key decision makers. We are also excited
to have Mr. Phelps and Mr. Nelson with us today to share the
athletes' perspective. These gentlemen have competed at the
highest level and have invaluable insights into the problems
and challenges that face the current system as well as a unique
perspective on improvements that can be made.
I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing today and
look forward to an informative discussion.
[The statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Tim Murphy
The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine the
current state of the international anti-doping system, the
challenges it faces, and areas for reform. On the heels of the
Summer Games in Rio, and less than a year away from the Winter
Games in PyeongChang, there is no better time to evaluate
progress made thus far in reforming the international anti-
doping system. How fitting that we are holding this hearing on
February 28, as we have the greatest Olympic athlete of all
time, who has won 28 medals, before us today.
Every 2 years, nations are filled with excitement and pride
as they cheer on their athletes at the Summer and Winter Games.
It has been a long-standing tradition that should not be
tarnished by those that choose to cheat. Ultimately, I hope
that this hearing helps to highlight ways in which we can
strengthen clean competition and restore public confidence in
international sports.
Within the anti-doping community, there are concerns
regarding organizational structure and how the current system
creates an environment where individuals are both policing and
promoting sport. Conflicts of interest stemming from the
composition of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) senior
leadership currently exist, as anti-doping decision makers
often simultaneously hold a policymaking position within a
sports organization. Such conflicts can have both real and
perceived effects on the rigorous investigations of possible
violations as well as the enforcement of anti-doping measures.
Several anti-doping experts have publicly stated that WADA
lacks sufficient independence from sports itself. Recent
proposals have suggested removing sports organizations from
governance structures to improve independence and operations.
Today, we want to evaluate these concerns and discuss the
proposed reforms.
Further, there needs to be an established decision-making
process and body when it comes to investigations and sanctions.
As we saw leading up to the Summer Games in Rio, the buck was
passed multiple times between the International Olympic
Committee (IOC), the National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADO),
and International Sports Federations (IF), as to who was in
charge of making the decision as to whether or not athletes
would be allowed to participate in the Summer Games.
Sanctions and bans on athletes, coaches, NADOs, and anti-
doping laboratories vary from short-term to lifetime, but there
does not appear to be a clear set of guidelines to aid the
appropriate organization in setting and imposing consistent
penalties. We need to ensure that the system is fair and that
the punishment is appropriate, particularly when the athlete
knowingly cheated. The general public depends on the governing
bodies of international sports to ensure that cheating does not
become the accepted norm--this is a particularly important
message for our youth.
Additionally, recent events highlight the need to examine
potential improvements with respect to utilizing athletes as
partners in the anti-doping effort as well as whistleblower
protections. There will always be athletes or institutions that
dope in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. Athletes
and whistleblowers are often times the first to see the
problems at the ground level and are critical to anti-doping
organizations' ability to identify and investigate violations.
Therefore, it bears questioning whether the current system does
enough to encourage, embrace, and protect those fighting for
clean sport.
While many summits, conferences, and meetings have occurred
since the Rio Games, challenges, including but not limited to
the ones I previously mentioned, remain and progress towards
meaningful reform remains unclear. This hearing provides an
opportunity to learn from past mistakes and examine
opportunities to move forward in a way that will improve the
international anti-doping system so that it is effective, fair,
and nimble for the sake of athletes, clean sport, and the
integrity of the international competition, including the
Olympic Games.
We welcome our all-star panel of witnesses today. Your
appearance before the subcommittee is vital for us to have an
honest discussion with key decision makers. We are also excited
to have Mr. Phelps and Mr. Nelson with us today to share the
athlete's perspective. These gentlemen have competed at the
highest level and have invaluable insight into the problems and
challenges that face the current system as well as a unique
perspective on improvements that can be made. I would like to
thank our witnesses for appearing today, and look forward to an
informative discussion.
Mr. Murphy. With that, I now yield 5 minutes to Ms. DeGette
of Colorado.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Another
doping scandal has now shaken the sporting world. This time it
involves a wide-ranging Russian scheme to circumvent doping
controls relied on by the global sports community to ensure
clean sport. After unfortunate delays in investigating serious
claims made by courageous whistleblowers, the World Anti-Doping
Agency, or WADA, eventually launched investigations into
allegations that Russia was systematically involved in doping.
In July and December of last year, Professor Richard
McLaren, the person commissioned by WADA as the independent
expert tasked with looking into these allegations, released his
findings. What WADA's independent investigations reported was a
systematic effort by Russia to help its athletes both dope and
circumvent doping controls.
The doping was widespread according to WADA's report,
implicating the London Olympic Games, the Sochi Olympic Games,
the IAAF World Championships, and many other international
events. Frankly, we will probably never know the full extent of
the cheating and who benefited. As many as 1,000 Russian
athletes across at least 30 sports might have benefited from
this effort according to WADA's investigation.
WADA's inquiry also found that the very agencies created to
police sport from doping, including the Russian National Anti-
Doping Agency, were itself helping to cheat. Even Russia's
Federal Security Service, or FSB, played a role. Russia's
behavior raises troubling questions about how the global sports
community should sanction doping violators and whether they are
actually committed to that fact. For example, because WADA's
investigative findings were made weeks before the start of Rio
Games, confusion surfaced about whether Russia should
collectively be banned from Rio. WADA recommended to the IOC
that it prohibit the entire Russian delegation from
participating.
But rather than implement that recommendation, the IOC
punted that decision to the international sports federations
who were not all equipped to take on that sudden task. In the
end, what ensued was a muddled process some viewed as sending a
very, very weak message to the cheaters. Even today, I am
frankly not sure whose job it was to hold Russia accountable
for the events conveyed in WADA's investigation.
Just last month, for example, several national anti-doping
organizations met in Dublin and petitioned that Russia be
banned from hosting existing and future international sporting
events until the country comes back into compliance with WADA's
recommendations. But what, if anything, will happen to those
recommendations? I understand that the IOC has created two
commissions to explore the findings of WADA's independent
investigation.
While I support due process when it comes to athletes
possibly implicated in the investigations, I believe there is
enough evidence reported in WADA's investigations to warrant a
strong message from the IOC: If you cheat, you do not play. Of
course, WADA's findings also raised concerns about WADA itself.
How did this cheating scheme persist for so long undetected,
for example? Is WADA organized to catch cheating going forward?
Does it have sufficient resources to police sport and prevent
such a conspiracy from happening again?
Following the Russian revelations, a number of national
anti-doping organizations met in Copenhagen late last year and
put forth some recommendations that could enhance WADA's
ability to keep sports clean. These recommendations include
addressing certain conflicts of interest within WADA and
clarifying the Agency's authority to investigate doping and
sanction violators. It is unclear what has happened to these
recommendations, but I do believe that they may be a possible
blueprint and route moving forward.
I also believe we have to examine whether WADA has the
resources to do the job. As I said before, WADA's entire budget
is a mere $30 million and the U.S., which is the largest
contributor, provides a mere $2 million. The McLaren
investigation alone will cost $2 million, so clearly we need
investigation into this.
I want to welcome our witnesses, in particular our two
athletes who are here, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps. I think your
perspective will really help us. I also think we should thank
WADA itself, including Richard Pound and Richard McLaren for
their work, and I especially want to commend Mr. Tygart and
USADA for the tireless work in this investigation. It is an
unfortunate set of events that has forced us into this room
today, but ultimately I think this panel, this Congress, and
the international sports community need to realize when dealing
with Russia and its approach to ensuring clean international
competitions the honor system is simply not going to be enough.
And I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Greg Walden of Oregon, for
5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome
all of our witnesses and our Olympians. Thank you for being
here to help us better understand what is going on in this
situation.
For centuries, athletes, cultures, nations have been
brought together by the spirit of competition. From the slopes
of Olympus to the stands of Autzen Stadium, home of the Oregon
Ducks, people from all walks of life have gathered to pursue
and celebrate athletic achievement. We relish with anticipation
the possibility of witnessing the impossible. We celebrate the
thrill of victory and agonize in defeat.
Whether through your own pursuits or those of others, I
suspect everyone in this room knows the emotion, collective
experience, and beauty of sport. Nothing embodies the spirit
and potential of sport more than the Olympic Games. It is the
hallmark of international competition, uniting people from
around the world regardless of social, political, or religious
differences in celebration of our greatest athletes. It evokes
national pride to the highest degree. It evokes a noble vision
of sport rooted in participation over individual achievement.
There is a lot of truth to that message, but we also cannot
be blind to reality. Athletes and nations compete to win. They
do not invest countless hours training to lose. They sacrifice
for success and their victories are rewarded. This is why for
centuries athletes have sought performance-enhancing substances
to gain an advantage on the competition. In fact, Greek
Olympians and Roman gladiators used herbs and wine and other
products to get an edge on their opponents.
In the early 1900s, mixtures of heroin, cocaine, and other
substances became prevalent among athletes. Over time,
especially following the introduction of anti-doping testing at
the Olympics in the 1970s, the drugs have become more
sophisticated and the cheaters more creative. Despite
improvements in global anti-doping efforts at the turn of the
century with the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency,
WADA, the fight for clean sport remains an uphill battle. The
temptation to cheat will always be present to those looking for
a shortcut.
Recent events, however, revealed a far more startling and a
difficult challenge. Thanks to the courage and tenacity of
whistleblowers, of journalists, and others, we were exposed to
a level of deception and cheating that felt more like a movie
script than reality of international sport. It was not a case
of individual athletes looking for an edge, this was a tale of
nation-state-sponsored doping.
Hundreds of athletes, knowingly or unknowingly, became part
of a widespread campaign to enhance performance, alter test
results, and evade detection by international anti-doping
authorities. Despite these shocking allegations later bolstered
by a series of independent commissions and reports, the
response from the respective governing bodies of international
sport has become a hodge-podge of indecisive and inconsistent
actions.
So what went wrong? It is one thing for an individual to
beat the system, but how could such a massive program go
undetected for so long and what has the response been? It has
been a quagmire. Clearly, these events point to larger
challenges in international anti-doping efforts. That is why we
are here today, to learn from the past in pursuit of a better
future for clean sport.
There will always be those who seek to gain an advantage--
the personal financial motivations are undeniable, the
opportunities afforded by scientific innovation too tempting.
The challenge is daunting and may never be totally solved, but
that is not an excuse for inaction. We can and must do better,
even if that requires some difficult and frankly some
uncomfortable reforms. Success in sport is not achieved sitting
on the sideline waiting for others to act. It requires
leadership, teamwork, and most of all it requires dedication as
our athletes have clearly shown.
The millions of clean athletes around the world who push
the limits of physical and mental exhaustion, who sacrifice so
much, don't they deserve a similar commitment from those
responsible for protecting the integrity of their sport? I
believe they do. That is why we are here today, to hear from
all of you.
Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
For centuries, athletes, cultures, and nations have been
brought together by the spirit of competition. From the slopes
of Olympus to the stands of Autzen Stadium-home of the Oregon
Ducks-people from all walks of life have gathered to pursue and
celebrate athletic achievement. We relish the anticipation, the
possibility of witnessing the impossible. We celebrate the
thrill of victory and agonize in defeat. Whether through your
own pursuits or those of others, I suspect everyone in this
room knows the emotion, collective experience, and beauty of
sport.
Nothing embodies the spirit and potential of sport more
than the Olympic Games. It is the hallmark of international
competition, uniting people from around the world-regardless of
social, political or religious differences-in celebration of
our greatest athletes. It envelops national pride to the
highest degree. It evokes a noble vision of sport rooted in
participation over individual achievement.
There is a lot of truth to that message but we also cannot
be blind to reality. Athletes and nations compete to win. They
do not invest countless hours training to lose. They sacrifice
for success and their victories are rewarded.
This is why, for centuries, athletes have sought
performance enhancing substances - to gain an advantage on the
competition. Greek Olympians and Roman Gladiators used herbs,
wine, and other products to get an edge on their opponents. In
the early 1900s, mixtures of heroin, cocaine and other
substances became prevalent among athletes. Over time,
especially following the introduction of anti-doping testing at
the Olympics in the 1970s, the drugs have become more
sophisticated and the cheaters more creative. Despite
improvements in global anti-doping efforts at the turn of the
century with the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA), the fight for clean sport remains an uphill battle. The
temptation to cheat will always be present to those looking for
a short-cut.
Recent events, however, revealed a far more startling and
difficult challenge. Thanks to the courage and tenacity of
whistleblowers, journalists, and others, we were exposed to a
level of deception and cheating that felt more like a movie
script than the reality of international sport. It was not a
case of individual athletes looking for an edge. This was a
tale of nation-state-sponsored doping. Hundreds of athletes--
knowingly or unknowingly--became part of a widespread campaign
to enhance performance, alter test results, and evade detection
by international antidoping authorities.
Despite these shocking allegations-later bolstered by a
series of independent commissions and reports-the response from
the respective governing bodies of international sport has
become a hodge-podge of indecisive and inconsistent actions.
So what went wrong? It is one thing for an individual to
beat the system but how could such a massive program go
undetected for so long? And what has the response been such a
quagmire? Clearly, these events point to larger challenges in
international anti-doping efforts.
That is why we are here today--to learn from the past in
pursuit of a better future for clean sport. There will always
be those who seek to gain an advantage- the personal and
financial motivations are undeniable and the opportunities
afforded by scientific innovation too tempting. The challenge
is daunting and may never be totally solved. But that is not an
excuse for inaction. We can and must do better, even if that
requires some difficult and uncomfortable reforms.
Success in sport is not achieved sitting on the sideline,
waiting for others to act. It requires leadership, teamwork and
most of all dedication. The millions of clean athletes around
the world, those who push the limits of physical and mental
exhaustion, who sacrifice so much, deserve a similar commitment
from those responsible for protecting the integrity of their
sport.
Mr. Murphy. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the
ranking member of the full committee, Frank Pallone of New
Jersey, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
thanking our witnesses today for their ongoing commitment to
the integrity of competitive sports, and I especially want to
thank our Olympic athletes who have faced circumstances outside
of their control when it comes to doping within their
individual sport. And I would like to single out Travis Tygart
and the United States Anti-Doping Agency who have aggressively
fought for those athletes demanding drug-free competition.
In July of last year, several of us on the committee sent a
letter to the president of the International Olympic Committee
expressing our strong interest in supporting efforts to ensure
the integrity of sports. When we wrote that letter, the World
Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, had begun releasing initial
findings from its independent investigation into whether Russia
had engaged in institutionalized doping.
WADA's investigation read like a Cold War novel. Tainted
urine samples had secretly passed through a wall and were
swapped for clean samples. Agencies responsible for policing
sport had actually helped athletes dope. Even the Russian
Federal Security Service, or FSB, had played a role in this
conspiracy according to WADA's investigation.
Upon the release of those findings, WADA recommended to the
International Olympic Committee that it ban Russia and Russian
athletes from participation in the 2016 Rio Games. However, the
IOC delegated that decision to the international sports
federations, organizations that may or may not have had the
independence and resources to undertake such a task, and some
critics believe the IOC's lack of decisiveness affected the
role and perceived authority of anti-doping agencies.
So even today it remains unclear that what sanctions the
IOC and other sports related organizations can or will take in
response to WADA's independent investigation. Collectively,
these organizations must take decisive action. They must send
an unambiguous message that they will punish doping and that
cheaters will no longer be rewarded for creating an unfair
advantage over clean athletes.
I think we are at a crossroads now, Mr. Chairman, at how
best to prevent and police doping in sport. WADA's independent
investigation raises serious concerns about the agencies
responsible for policing doping, including their ability to
sanction athletes, institutions, and even countries that
conspire to violate the world anti-doping code.
Despite these challenges, there are some hopeful signs of
reforming the anti-doping regulatory system. In particular, I
am encouraged by the recommendation made by a group of national
anti-doping agencies, or NADOs, that will strengthen WADA's
role as a global regulator in the doping fight. The group wants
to ensure that WADA has the authority to investigate suspected
doping violations. They also want to provide WADA additional
resources so it can develop better anti-doping monitoring
systems.
The group of agencies also recommended removing conflicts
of interest in WADA's governing structure and developing a
program to protect whistleblowers who may wish to bring doping
violations forward. And we all care about the international
sport community, but the integrity of the international
community will continue to be questioned until an effective
anti-doping system is in place.
So again I want to thank our witnesses for attending this
hearing so we can identify what actions are needed moving
forward to build a better anti-doping system, finding the
underlying cause of what happened, and then making real changes
to our anti-doping institutions based on those findings is
something we must do for the athletes and the integrity of
international sport.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our witnesses
today for their ongoing commitment to the integrity of
competitive sports. I especially want to thank our Olympic
athletes, who have faced circumstances outside of their control
when it comes to doping within their individual sport. I would
like to single out Travis Tygart and the United States Anti-
Doping Agency who has aggressively fought for those athletes
demanding drug-free competition.
In July of last year, several of us on the committee sent a
letter to the President of the International Olympic Committee
expressing our strong interest in supporting efforts to ensure
the integrity of sport. When we wrote that letter, the World
Anti-doping Agency (WADA) had begun releasing initial findings
from its independent investigation into whether Russia had
engaged in institutionalized doping.
WADA's investigation read like a cold war novel. Tainted
urine samples had secretly passed through a wall and were
swapped for clean samples. Agencies responsible for policing
sport had actually helped athletes dope. Even the Russian
Federal Security Service, or FSB, had played a role in this
conspiracy according to WADA's investigation.
Upon the release of those findings, WADA recommended to the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) that it ban Russia and
Russian athletes from participation in the 2016 Rio Games.
However, the IOC delegated that decision to the
international sports federations, organizations that may or may
not have had the independence and resources to undertake such a
task. Some critics believed the IOC's lack of decisiveness
affected the role and perceived authority of anti-doping
agencies.
Even today, it remains unclear what sanctions the IOC and
other sports-related organizations can or will take in response
to WADA's independent investigation. Collectively, these
organizations must take decisive action. They must send an
unambiguous message that they will punish doping and that
cheaters will no longer be rewarded for creating an unfair
advantage over clean athletes.
We are at a crossroads now at how best to prevent and
police doping in sport. WADA's independent investigation raises
serious concerns about the agencies responsible for policing
doping including their ability to sanction athletes,
institutions, and even countries that conspire to violate the
world anti-doping code.
Despite these challenges, there are some hopeful signs of
reforming the anti-doping regulatory system. In particular, I
am encouraged by the recommendations made by a group of
National Anti-Doping Agencies (NADOs) that could strengthen
WADA's role as a global regulator in the doping fight. The
group wants to ensure that WADA has the authority to
investigate suspected doping violations. They also want to
provide WADA additional resources so it can develop better
anti-doping monitoring systems. The group of agencies also
recommended removing conflicts of interest in WADA's governance
structure and developing a program to protect whistleblowers
who may wish to bring doping violations forward.
We all care about the international sport community, but
the integrity of the international community will continue to
be questioned until an effective anti-doping system is in
place.
I want to thank our witnesses here today for attending this
hearing so that we can identify what actions are needed moving
forward to build a better anti-doping system. Finding the
underlying cause of what happened and then making real changes
to our anti-doping institutions based on those findings is
something we must do for the athletes and the integrity of
international sport.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. The gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous
consent that the Members' written opening statements be
introduced into the record, and without objection, the dockets
will be entered into the record.
I would now like to introduce our all-star panel of
witnesses for today's hearing. First, we welcome Mr. Adam
Nelson, American shot putter and Olympic gold medalist. Three-
time Olympian and six-time world championship team member, Mr.
Nelson is currently the president of the Track and Field
Athletes Association.
As many of us know, Mr. Nelson was never properly awarded
his medal for his Olympic achievements. I would like to take a
moment right now to congratulate Mr. Nelson on his Olympic gold
medal and commend him for pursuing his achievements in the
spirit of clean and fair sport. It is a shame it had to happen
at a food court at an airport.
[Applause.]
Mr. Murphy. Next, we are honored to have with us today Mr.
Michael Phelps. Mr. Phelps is the most decorated Olympian of
all time, winning a total of 28 medals including 23 gold medals
over the course of five Olympic games. Both during and after
his Olympic career, Mr. Phelps has been a strong and outspoken
advocate for clean sport.
Next, we want to welcome Mr. Travis Tygart who serves as
the chief executive officer for the United States Anti-Doping
Agency. With 15 years of experience working at USADA in various
leadership roles, Mr. Tygart works closely with the USADA board
of directors to carry out the organization's mission of
preserving the integrity of competition, inspiring true sport,
and protecting the rights of U.S. athletes.
Now we also welcome Rob Koehler, Deputy Director General of
the World Anti-Doping Agency. Mr. Koehler comes to us with
almost two decades of experience working in the anti-doping
field at WADA and the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sports. In
his role as Deputy Director General at WADA, Mr. Koehler is
responsible for the oversight of all U.S. national anti-doping
organizations as well as global anti-doping education
initiatives.
And lastly, we welcome Dr. Richard Budgett, medical and
scientific director for the International Olympic Committee. In
this capacity, Dr. Budgett is responsible for ensuring that the
organizing committees of each edition of the Olympic Games
delivers excellent medical and doping control services, working
closely with the World Anti-Doping Agency.
So thank you to all our witnesses for being here today and
partaking in what we are hoping will be a very informative and
insightful discussion on this important international issue.
You are all aware that this committee is holding an
investigative hearing and when doing so has had the practice of
taking testimony under oath. Do any of you object to giving
testimony under oath? Seeing no objections, the Chair then
advises you that under the rules of the House and rules of the
committee you are entitled to be advised by counsel. Do any of
you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony
today? And seeing none, in that case will you all please rise,
raise your right hand, and I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. All our witnesses have answered in
the affirmative and so you are now under oath and subject to
the penalties set forth in Title 18 Section 1001 of the United
States Code. I call upon you each to give a 5-minute statement.
This timer is not like in the games, Mr. Nelson, so nothing bad
is going to happen if it turns red on you, but we ask you to do
5 minutes only.
Mr. Nelson.
STATEMENTS OF ADAM NELSON, AMERICAN SHOT PUTTER AND OLYMPIC
GOLD MEDALIST; MICHAEL PHELPS, AMERICAN SWIMMER AND OLYMPIC
GOLD MEDALIST; TRAVIS T. TYGART, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
UNITED STATES ANTI-DOPING AGENCY; ROB KOEHLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
GENERAL, WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY; AND RICHARD BUDGETT, M.D.,
MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF ADAM NELSON
Mr. Nelson. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and
the members of this committee, for hosting this event and
hopefully supporting clean sport. As a 9-year-old, I remember
watching athletes like Mary Lou Retton and Edwin Moses
represent the United States of America in the 1984 Olympic
Games. Their performances inspired a generation of childhood
dreamers like me, at least for a moment, to imagine what it
would be like to compete at the greatest stage in the world
culminating in an unforgettable medal ceremony accompanied by
my flag and my national anthem.
Twelve years later, I competed in my first Olympic trials
as a shotputter, finishing last in an effort that fueled the
dream for 4 more years. ``Four more years'' has been a mantra
for most of my adult life. The 2004 Olympic shotput competition
was contested in the ancient Olympic Stadium in Olympia,
Greece. More than 20,000 spectators visited the competition
venue for the first time in nearly 3,000 years. For 58 of 60
throws, I led that competition. On the 59th throw, the athlete
from the Ukraine tied my best mark. As the leader going into
the final rounds, I had the privilege to take the last and
final throw of the competition.
As a child, my imagination could have never dreamed of a
moment quite like this, but these are the moments that make the
Olympics great and I can remember everything about that moment.
I remember the faces in the crowd, I remember the heat, the sun
baking my skin, and I remember the mixture of cheers and boos
for one American athlete as he was competing for the gold
medal. These are the moments that change the trajectory of your
life and make the struggle worthwhile.
When I stepped into the ring for the last and final throw
of the competition, the world went quiet. I felt the coolness
of the shotput touch my neck, and then I felt a surge of
adrenalin and watched as the shotput sailed farther and farther
than any other throw of the day. I raised my hands and sure of
victory, realizing that I had just won the Olympic gold medal,
only to look left and see the red flag raised, indicating that
I'd fouled. Then I saw as another athlete started his victory
lap and listened as they played another national anthem and
raised another flag, celebrating him and in his honor.
For 8 years I lived with that result. Eight years later, I
received a phone call from a reporter informing me that five
athletes had tested positive in a retroactive drug testing from
samples from 2004. The last 8 years of my life had apparently
been based on a falsehood. A month later, the same reporter
called me to inform me that the IOC was meeting that day to
discuss whether or not to vacate his position or reallocate
those medals.
While on that call, the news hit the wires and the reporter
informed me that I was now the Olympic gold medalist. A year
later, I picked up my medal in the food court at the Atlanta
airport. It came with a side of fries and a free toy, don't
worry about it. Look, it was an afterthought assigned to a USOC
official who could swing through Atlanta on his way home 9
years after the moment had passed.
The color and timing of a medal matter, folks. Silver does
not hold the same value, and gold loses its shine over time.
There's no small bit of irony in me winning a medal in this
fashion. As an athlete, I rejected the notion that you needed
drugs to compete. I was vocal in my opinions about clean sport
and often criticized by competitors or peers for my position. I
was often told not to comment on the current state of anti-
doping or doping in sport at major events for fear that it
would be a distraction.
See, doping in sports is seen by some as a distraction for
the athletes and an obstacle for the business of sport. It's a
stain on an otherwise beautiful set of ideals that we know as
the spirit of Olympism. As a result, we have a system that's
interested in seeing progress but not truly committed to
achieving the outcome.
My story illustrates only part of the damage caused by
doping in sport, but I'm not here to invoke sympathy. Sympathy
is a thought, an emotion devoid of action. I'm here today to
ask you all to give meaning to my medal, this medal right here.
I'm here today to ask for action on behalf of millions of
dreamers like me who believe in fair play and aspire for gold
medals to be won and celebrated in the moment after a clean and
fair competition.
Since 2012, I've become a student of international sports
organizations. I've advocated for clean sports, I've spoken
with athletes from around the world about this subject. I've
heard their voices, the voices of the clean athletes. They ask
for more, but those voices continue to fall on deaf ears, so
they resort to social media. They wag fingers and they create a
petition that has already garnered almost 500 athlete
signatures in support of structural reform.
Athletes want action, not words. Structural reform is only
part of the solution. You cannot change a culture strictly by
changing policy. You have to engage the athletes. So I ask as
an athlete, an Olympic gold medalist, and as someone personally
and financially impacted by doping in sport that you consider
clean athletes as a shared owner in this all-important fight.
We will stand with you as a partner if you empower us to do so.
The time and the moment is now. Thank you very much for your
time.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Mr. Phelps, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PHELPS
Mr. Phelps. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good
morning. My name is Michael Phelps. I'm a retired professional
swimmer and an Olympian. I want to thank the committee for the
opportunity to appear here before you today. It's a privilege
to be here to share my thoughts and perspective on the issue of
clean sport, which is important to so many athletes and to
sport in general.
I competed internationally for over 15 years and had the
tremendous honor to represent the United States in five Olympic
Games and six world championships. Without question, many of my
proudest moments have been representing my country in
international competition. There's no greater feeling than
standing on top of the podium watching the Stars and Stripes
rise as the national anthem plays.
The Rio Olympics were special for me because it gave me the
opportunity to end my career on my terms and to do it with my
wife Nicole and son Boomer watching. Rio was also unique
because of increased doping concerns. I watched how this
affected my teammates and fellow competitors. We all felt
frustration. Looking back over my career and knowing how
difficult it is to get to the highest levels of sport, I can't
help but wonder how the next generation of athletes will be
able to do it if this uncertainty continues.
As a child I found school difficult. I had ADHD, which
probably contributed to my restlessness. I'll never forget
being told by one of my teachers that I'd never amount to
anything. It was swimming that enabled me to see past those
challenges and not be defined by them. My mom put my sisters
and me in the pool so we'd be water safe. At first, like many
children, I was afraid to put my head under the water, but by
overcoming that fear I got my first taste of self-confidence.
As it turned out, I was pretty good in the water and I
quickly realized the harder I worked the quicker I improved. I
found a focus and a purpose I had never felt before. I would
set goals for myself and work like crazy until I accomplished
them. Dreams would just pop into my head whenever I got into
the pool. I dreamed about becoming a gold medalist, a world
record holder. I wanted to be the best. I talked with my coach
so we could come up with a plan, not just for what I was doing
in the pool but also how I could better myself away from the
pool.
I made my mind to do everything I could to make my dream a
reality. In school I had friends but I wasn't that social. I
focused on swimming. At times I was made fun of for what I was
doing because it was different. I was in love with challenging
myself to become the best athlete that I could be. I felt that
every single day was an opportunity for me to do something
special when I went to the pool. I always felt that the kids
who worked the hardest got the best results, that's why I
pushed myself as hard as I could.
Over a 5-year period I trained every single day without a
day off. I figured by training on holidays I'd be able to get
that extra edge. As my hard work and sacrifice began to pay
off, my confidence grew and I began to feel that if I could
dream something and gave everything I had that anything was
possible. The strength of that belief drove me to set goals
that others might have thought were unrealistic.
That's one amazing thing about competitive sport, it
demands that you believe in yourself. This isn't always easy.
There were so many times I could have quit and walked away.
Sticking with it required me to dig deep, especially knowing
that after all the work and sacrifice success might be
determined by just a hundredth of a second. In those critical
moments that you really test your commitment and that can
ultimately define your career, you need to believe that if you
push on you'll get the opportunity to measure yourself, your
preparation, your desire, your talent against others who have
prepared themselves in the same exact way.
Throughout my career I've thought that some athletes were
cheating and in some cases those suspicions were confirmed.
Given all the testing I and so many others have been through, I
have a hard time understanding this. In addition to the tests
in the competitions, I had to notify USADA as to where I was
every day so they would be able to conduct random tests outside
of competition.
This whole process takes a toll, but it's absolutely worth
it to keep the sport clean and fair. I can't describe how
frustrating it is to see other athletes break through
performance barriers in unrealistic time frames knowing what I
had to do to go through that. I watched how this affected my
teammates as well.
Even the suspicion of doping is disillusioning for clean
athletes. To believe in yourself through sport you need to be
able to believe in the system that safeguards clean sport and
fair play. All athletes must be held to the same standards,
which need to be implemented and enforced with consistency and
independence.
For years now I've worked closely with kids. Most of these
kids aren't swimmers but they're eager to sit down and talk
with me and they're always full of questions. It's when I talk
about being a kid like them and how this all started with a
dream you see their eyes lighten up. We talk about how I did it
and I tell them that they can do it too. To look into a child's
eyes and tell them if they dare to dream and do the work they
can succeed, the power to believe in yourself and inspire
others through sport depends upon fair play.
Now that I'm retired I'm frequently asked if I think
anybody will ever win more medals than me in my lifetime. My
answer to that question is I hope so. I'd like to think there's
some little boy or girl out there now with an even bigger dream
and even stronger drive to work harder than I ever did to do
something that's never been done before. But for that to
happen, he or she must believe they will get a fair opportunity
to compete.
If we allow our confidence in fair play to erode, we will
undermine the power of sport and the goals and dreams of future
generations. The time to act is now. We must do what is
necessary to ensure the system is fair and reliable so we all
can believe in it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phelps follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. We rarely have applause after testimony, so I
thank both of you.
Mr. Tygart, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TRAVIS T. TYGART
Mr. Tygart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
other members of the committee. I'm Travis Tygart from the U.S.
Anti-Doping Agency, and really appreciate the invitation to be
here today to discuss this very important topic.
We find ourselves at a critical juncture for the soul of
sport. Fairness and integrity in athletic competition, two
principles at the very heart of why we play sports, hang in the
balance. You just heard powerful testimony from Adam Nelson and
Michael Phelps on why this matters. We view clean athletes and
their powerful stories as our guiding light, our North Star.
Their stories give us hope, they provide us the fuel to
continue to advocate for their right to clean and fair
competition.
In order to do this today I think we must understand how
and why the system is under threat. There's no timelier example
than the uncovering of Russia's widespread state-supported
doping system. Over a thousand Russian athletes from over 30
sports have been implicated in this drug program that was
proven to have been orchestrated by Russian officials. At least
two Olympic Games were corrupted, and at the Rio Games this
past August scores of Russian athletes competed despite not
being subject to credible anti-doping programs.
When the moment came, despite mountains of evidence and
vocal opposition from anti-doping leaders and clean athletes
from around the world, the IOC chose to welcome the Russian
Olympic Committee to Rio and did not enforce any meaningful
sanctions against the Russian Olympic Committee. The IOC missed
or ignored a defining moment to confront in the clearest way
possible this win-at-all-costs culture of doping in global
sport. It was a chance to draw an unambiguous line in the sand
to stand up for clean athletes of the world.
Despite this, however, two silver linings have emerged. The
first, more than ever before, as you've heard today, athletes
are mobilizing, voicing their opinions, and fighting more than
ever before for a level playing field. And second, we all have
a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to disrupt entrenched
positions for the good of sport to make sure that the kind of
state-supported doping is never allowed to rear its ugly head
again.
To get there, the road to reform starts and ends with
independence. We have long advocated in front of this Congress
for a clear separation between those who promote sport and
those who police sport, because to do so otherwise is to have
the fox guarding the henhouse. You cannot both promote and
police your own sport.
We, along with 22 other national anti-doping agencies that
were referenced earlier from around the world, support a strong
and independent WADA. But we also agree that WADA needs reform
to become a truly independent global regulator, not merely the
sport service organization that many hope it remains. The good
news, Mr. Chairman, is that WADA's conflicted governance model
could be easily solved by removing sport leaders from the WADA
board. Let's take the blindfolds off, let's take the handcuffs
off and let WADA do the job that clean athletes deserve.
I read the testimony of both Richard and Rob prior to
coming today, and let me just preface this by saying that we
know both of them well and have great respect on a personal
level for their efforts to fight within the system for change.
But, unfortunately. today they are simply to some extent just
carrying out the instructions from their sport bosses who
aren't here, unfortunately. But in regard to their positions,
we agree with much of it.
In fact, that's why national anti-doping agencies,
including us here in the U.S., have implemented many of the
same strategies years ago, but unfortunately, their submissions
are silent on the crux of the real reform solution, which is to
remove the fox from guarding the henhouse. In our world we hear
that term a lot, fox in the henhouse. You'll see quite clearly
that while the IOC and WADA may be advocating to deputize the
fox, to educate the fox, and even equip the fox with the
appropriate resources to do the job, it's still the fox. There
is still a conflict of interest, and clean athletes around the
world are still being let down by sports control of these
critical anti-doping functions.
What's also so frustrating for us, and you've heard our
athletes' frustration in the athletes that we serve, is that
the solutions are relatively easy but the determination to
implement them is lacking, yet we remain optimistic. National
anti-doping agencies from around the world as it's been cited
today have come together and put forth the Copenhagen reform
declaration that number one, remove sports' control of anti-
doping; number two, strengthen WADA through improved
independence and increased investment; number three, increase
and make clear WADA's ability to investigate, monitor
compliance, and impose sanctions; number four, provide
meaningful athletes who have been robbed the recognition they
deserve.
If we were involved with Adam's situation, not a chance
that medal gets handed to him in a food court. But sport, it's
an obstacle. They don't want to care about it. Let it be done
right and let's have swift reallocation of any medals that have
been stolen. Five, increased support for whistleblowers around
the world.
Mr. Chairman, and those of you on the committee who value
this clean sport, this is our moment. Importantly, this is not
just about elite Olympic athletes, but about every child on a
playground who has a dream and asks themselves what does it
take to have this dream come true. The truth is, if we don't
push, if we don't win, we will likely find ourselves right back
in this same situation years from now, staring at another
state-supported doping system in the face that has abused its
own athletes, that has robbed other athletes from around the
world, and we'll all be wondering why we didn't do more.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
committee.
[The prepared statement Mr. Tygart follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Tygart.
Mr. Koehler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROB KOEHLER
Mr. Koehler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. My name is Rob Koehler, Deputy Director of the World
Anti-Doping Agency. First of all, thank you for inviting me to
testify today about anti-doping issues in sport, an issue that
I and my organization are passionate about.
The World Anti-Doping Agency was established in 1999 to
promote, coordinate, and monitor the fight against doping in
sport. WADA is an independent agency responsible for the
development and implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code.
The Code harmonizes anti-doping policies in all sports in all
countries. WADA both oversees and works with cooperation and a
network of stakeholders in governments and in sports movements.
Each has its own specific roles and responsibility.
WADA is funded by the sports movement and the governments
of the world. We heard today that the United States is the
largest national contributor to WADA who funds WADA on an
annual basis at $2.15 million of our $27.5 million annual
budget. WADA has come a long way in 18 years on very modest
resources. The World Anti-Doping Code is in its third
iteration. The Code has introduced consistencies to the anti-
doping rules and processes where previously there was
disparity. One should not look past the importance of
consistent rules and procedures, as without them anti-doping
efforts are merely unstructured aspirations.
WADA has also introduced a U.N. treaty called the UNESCO
International Convention Against Doping in Sport. This treaty
was ratified in record time by 183 states of 195. Relationships
are also crucial to run effectively as a small organization.
For example, we've established lasting relationships with
INTERPOL, with the world's custom organizations, and our
relationships with the pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer,
Roche, GlaxoSmithKline are also very helpful in terms of our
research initiatives.
While WADA has come a long way in its inception, the past 2
years have placed the Agency in uncharted waters, the Agency
and the broader anti-doping community. The widespread anti-
doping, or doping conspiracy in Russia as described in the
Pound Report and subsequent McLaren Report, both funded and
sponsored by WADA, forced a global period of reflection on how
better to fight doping in sport. WADA has listened to a series
of proposals made by its stakeholders in the wake of the
Russian doping conspiracy.
WADA's board as you know is comprised of representatives
from the sport movement and from governments. Our board in its
November meeting took action on a set of recommendations that
we believe will both enhance WADA's role and capacity to help
foster clean sport and to help protect the rights of clean
athletes worldwide. We're moving forward in three main
priorities.
One, we recognize the need to enhance WADA's investigations
and intelligence gathering capacity. This work has already
begun with the arrival of our new chief investigative officer
whose team will and is entirely independent from WADA's
management. Second, WADA's new whistleblower policy--we've
named it Speak Up--has been approved and will be launched in
the coming days. As the last couple of years have shown,
informants and whistleblowers are invaluable to the fight
against doping in sport.
Third, and perhaps the most important, is WADA's new
compliance monitoring which will be the most thorough review of
our stakeholders' anti-doping programs that has ever taken
place in the anti-doping movement. It will raise the standards
of the entire clean sport community. We recognize, however,
that this compliance monitoring program will only be effective
if supported by meaningful, predictable, and proportionate
sanctions for those organizations that subvert anti-doping
rules.
Our Foundation Board endorsed principled, new graded
sanction framework moving forward to ensure that people are
made accountable for making mistakes. WADA is focused on these
three priorities. We are all conscious that these new strategic
undertakings will require a significant level of funding if we
are to realize our mission to protect the clean athlete. We
will present to our board a clean slate draft of our 2018
budget to reflect this new level of work. Simply put, to
increase our capacity in the broader anti-doping community
we'll need additional funding from both sport and government to
be more successful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koehler follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Koehler.
Dr. Budgett, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BUDGETT
Dr. Budgett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
members of the subcommittee. My name is Richard Budgett. I'm
the medical and scientific director of the IOC, and I'm very
pleased to have the opportunity to present to you on behalf of
the IOC on strengthening the international anti-doping system.
Clearly, the cooperation between sport and government is
extremely important. The protection of clean athletes has been
an absolute priority for the IOC.
Primarily, we are responsible for anti-doping at the Games,
but our responsibility is broader than that across the whole
Olympic family. And perhaps the most important thing the IOC
ever did in the field of anti-doping was to found WADA in 1999.
For the first 2 years it was totally funded by the IOC, and
then as you've heard it became a partnership 50/50 between
government and sport.
And now the IOC fund WADA to the tune of 14 million a year,
and of course the sporting community as a whole spends hundreds
of millions of dollars a year on anti-doping. Now more recently
with Agenda 2020, the importance of protecting the clean
athlete was really put central within the IOC's strategy and
since then there have been two Olympic Summits which have
called for an increase in independence, increased
harmonization, and increased transparency.
Now my own personal and professional commitment to this
really began in 1984 when as a rowing athlete I won an Olympic
gold medal in Los Angeles. Since then I've been a sport
medicine doctor and looked after Olympic athletes all around
the world for more than 25 years. And that's given me a
passionate commitment that we have to do everything we possibly
can to ensure that Olympic athletes like the two fantastic
Olympic athletes we have with us today can be as sure as
possible that they are competing on a level playing field.
Now in 2012 I became chief medical officer for the London
Olympics, and then since 2012 I've been the IOC medical and
scientific director responsible for the prevention of injuries
and illness in athletes, for education research, and of course
for anti-doping which of course is a threat to health.
As we've heard, there's a small silver lining in the recent
scandals, which is this acceptance amongst the anti-doping
community that we have to strengthen the world anti-doping
system. And I really appreciate you calling this hearing and
giving the platform for us to make changes and for the support
of WADA from the U.S. For the IOC's part, we strongly support
the regulatory role of WADA, standards, compliance as you've
heard, and assessment of anti-doping organizations. But this
will only succeed if it's seen as fair. So there must be
respect for individual justice and we mustn't sanction or
punish athletes for the failure of others.
As part of governance, the IOC have called for leaders of
WADA to be independent, so we're in agreement on that--
independent from sport and government--and we've called for
further independence through the whole system, separating
legislation from policing and from sanctioning so you don't
have the same body setting the rules, enforcing the rules, and
actually determining the punishment.
In order to avoid conflict of interest or any perception of
conflict of interest, the IOC have called for anti-doping
testing to be independent all around the world. And as a
result, the independent testing authority could do everything
from the testing and analysis through to the storing of samples
for up to 10 years and the reanalysis through to the
prosecution of cases in the same way as the IOC did in Rio,
where it made that independent from the IOC through a CAS
arbitration panel. This way, with an independent testing
authority, athletes can be confident that their peers
throughout the world are also being tested to a similar
standard.
As regards to the McLaren Report, this was a shocking
institutional conspiracy. The IOC have taken it extremely
seriously. As you've heard, there were two commissions, an
inquiry commission under Samuel Schmid, past President of
Switzerland, looking at the whole, and a disciplinary
commission under Denis Oswald looking at individual cases. As
Professor McLaren has acknowledged, there are challenges there
because the evidence he gathered is not designed to be used to
prosecute individual cases.
But we're working hard with further forensic analysis,
further reanalysis, and gathering of evidence so these cases
can be pursued with the cooperation of WADA, of the independent
person and his team, and also the international federations.
These commissions are ongoing and should finish in time for the
Pyongchang Games. They must finish by then.
Ultimately, the goal of the IOC is the protection of the
clean athlete, and we are fully determined to work with all
those involved in this fight as WADA, the international
federations, the athletes and their entourage, and with
governments. So thank you for this opportunity to address you,
and I'm ready to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Budgett follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you to all of our witnesses today. I will
recognize myself for 5 minute of questions.
So recently, nearly two dozen national anti-doping agencies
have voiced support for a number of reforms they believe are
necessary to strengthen international anti-doping oversight and
enforcement. Central to these reforms is the removal of sports
organizations from the governance of anti-doping organizations
including WADA. This would eliminate what many view as a
glaring conflict of interest, in Mr. Tygart's words, the fox
guarding the henhouse.
So Mr. Koehler, based on your experience at WADA, would the
removal of sports organizations from your governance structure
improve your independence and operations?
Mr. Koehler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the first thing
I want to draw back is we hear the word, WADA is broken, WADA
needs to be fixed. And we're here today for the simple reason
that WADA did a lot to expose doping in Russia and it brought
to the forefront the major issues.
Mr. Murphy. Right, but would removal of sports
organizations from your governance structure improve your
independence and operations? Would it improve it?
Mr. Koehler. I'm not sure if it will improve it. I think
there's a process going on right now where we're doing a
complete governance review on how we can strengthen the
organization and we are open to any suggestions on the way
forward.
Mr. Murphy. Well, Dr. Budgett, do you and the IOC support
this type of reform?
Dr. Budgett. Yes, we do support this reform and we----
Mr. Murphy. Are you taking steps to invoke this change?
Dr. Budgett. Yes. So and in fact WADA, to be honest, have
taken steps to invoke that change with this governance review
which has independent experts as well as representatives from
sport and from government to look at the total governance of
WADA, and particularly the executive board should be
independent of both sport and government.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Tygart, do you have anything to add to
those comments?
Mr. Tygart. I would just say if in fact that's now the
position that's wonderful. We'll see if it happens. We've had
2-plus years for that move to be made and athletes are still
waiting for some change and that sport today, frankly, could
remove themselves from the governance of WADA, but we haven't
seen it. We've heard discussion of separation of powers and we
certainly agree with that basic principle.
And you can have sport involved in the legislative branch,
but when it comes time to the most important functions to
protecting clean athletes is to have an executive function that
is free of the fox attempting to guard itself and not
conflicted by that. And we've yet to have a definitive
statement or position by the IOC to remove themselves from
that.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Mr. Tygart. So if that's the position, we fully agree and
we're thrilled.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Mr. Tygart. If that's now the position.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Phelps, in your testimony you write that--
it is an important quote--``To believe in yourself through
sport, you need to be able to believe in the system that
safeguards clean sport and fair play. All athletes must be held
to the same standards, which need to be implemented and
enforced with consistency and independence.''
So given these recent events, what effect does a doping
scheme of this magnitude have upon you as an athlete?
Mr. Phelps. I mean, one of the kind of craziest things and
biggest things that comes to my mind when I think of
international sports is--and I've said this to Travis--I don't
believe that I've stood up at an international competition and
the rest of the field has been clean. I don't believe that. I
don't think I've ever felt that.
And I know that when I do stand up in the U.S., I know
we're all clean because we're going through the same thing.
We're going through the whereabouts, we're going through the
out of competition tests, we're doing all of that stuff. So I
think for me in terms of internationally, I think there has to
be something done, and like I said it has to be done now.
Mr. Murphy. And Mr. Nelson, how about you? And what effect
does this have on our youth, especially those that also have
dreams about being the best and competing on Olympic level?
Mr. Nelson. This notion of trust is really important. As
athletes we trust that these organizations that are looking out
for our best interests, our competitive interests, our
integrity, are doing their jobs to the best of their abilities
and being open and honest and transparent with how things are
going.
Last year, or 2015, I think there was a major violation in
that trust and things that we used to as athletes maybe not pay
as close attention to or say someone else is looking after it.
Now I think we see a change in the culture of athletes that
says they're not doing their job appropriately yet, we have to
do it for them. And I think that that's a big shift in the
culture of athletics going on right now.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I am just going to recognize Ms.
DeGette now for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tygart, I found
your written and also your oral testimony to be refreshingly
honest, and I want to talk about a few of the findings that you
made. You referred in your written testimony to the Russian
cheating scheme as shockingly pervasive and noted that it,
quote, spread across more than 30 sports from at least 2011 to
2015; is that correct?
Mr. Tygart. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. And you also said, quote, Russia's methods of
cheating went from abhorrent to something out of a spy novel.
Samples passed through walls, government intelligence officers,
male DNA in female samples, and emails to the Russian Ministry
of Sport looking for guidance on which doped athletes to
protect and which to satisfy; is that correct?
Mr. Tygart. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. Now also in your testimony you describe this
as a, quote, nightmare realized, and you point out that
whistleblowers and journalists played a major role in
unearthing this scheme. Now Mr. Tygart, some of these
whistleblowers feared for their own safety; is that correct?
Mr. Tygart. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. In fact some of those folks are still in
hiding in the United States; is that right?
Mr. Tygart. That's right.
Ms. DeGette. Also WADA's independent investigation
determined that the Russian Security Service, also known as the
FSB, took part in this cheating scheme; is that correct?
Mr. Tygart. That's right.
Ms. DeGette. Now WADA's independent investigation found
that over 1,000 Russian athletes might have benefited from the
Russian doping scheme; is that correct?
Mr. Tygart. Yes, it is.
Ms. DeGette. And you also said in your testimony that,
quote, despite mountains of evidence, the IOC chose not to
stand up for clean athletes and against institutionalized
doping. You said that the IOC's decision not to ban Russia was,
quote, defining moment and, quote, the IOC failed to lead.
Finally, you said, history will not judge the IOC's decision
kindly. Is that an accurate----
Mr. Tygart. It is.
Ms. DeGette. So I want to ask you, Mr. Tygart, what should
the IOC and the anti-doping community be doing now to address
the findings of WADA's independent investigation?
Mr. Tygart. I think outside of the reform proposals that
we've put forward, which we think are critically important and
the 22-plus NADOs from around the world have agreed, you have
to, the silver bullet if there is one to curing this is
removing the fox from guarding the henhouse.
Now while it wasn't in the IOC's prepared remarks that were
submitted yesterday, I think I heard that that is something
they're prepared to do, remove sport leaders from the WADA
governance board, and if that's the case that goes a long way
in solving the concerns. They also have to finish the
investigation and ensure that the individual cases are followed
up on and any athletes from around the world that were robbed
get their rightful place on the podium and are given a
meaningful celebration.
Ms. DeGette. And just to ask, are you familiar with this
letter that the Director General of the IOC sent on February
23rd, 2017?
Mr. Tygart. I am.
Ms. DeGette. And in that letter he says, ``The Schmid
Commission, which has to address the substantial allegations
about the potential systematic manipulation of the anti-doping
samples, is also continuing its work.'' And then it says they
are talking about a, quote, state-sponsored system, whilst in
the final full report in December they talked about an
``institutional conspiracy.'' And they said now they are going
to have to, quote, consider what this change means and what
individuals, organizations, or government authorities may have
been involved. Do you have any idea what they are talking about
there?
Mr. Tygart. I'm not exactly sure.
Ms. DeGette. Because this is what I am concerned about. You
know, this committee, we did an investigation many years ago
around the Salt Lake City Olympics, and this is the same kind
of gobbledygook we got from the IOC then. They have these
unending investigations. They are looking at angels dancing on
the head of a pin. I don't even know what they are talking
about, but you are saying you don't, either.
Mr. Tygart. I'm not sure.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I want to ask you, Mr. Phelps, and you,
Mr. Nelson, just briefly, what structural changes need to be
made to the global anti-doping system to prevent this kind of
activity from happening again?
Mr. Phelps. For me, I can say from spending and working a
lot of time with USADA, look at the independence that they
have. I think that's something that's so powerful, that us as
American athletes know that we're doing the right thing and
they're doing the right thing as well. So I mean, I think if
you could change something like that I think it would be great.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson. I think the first change has to be holding all
the different stakeholders in this mess to the same level of
accountability that they hold the athletes to. If you strictly
enforce the rules for compliance at a national level or a
federation level, you'll see people hop in line very quickly,
because they will lose the opportunity to compete and their
athletes will lose the opportunity to compete.
The second thing is also transparency in reporting. As an
athlete, I've always struggled to figure out how well this
group is doing because the information's not necessarily
readily available. Now there's been some steps I think in the
last few years to help with that, but the number of adverse
findings given the number of samples that are actually
collected each year suggest that either the problem is not as
pervasive as they think or that the testing isn't quite there
yet.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put this
February 23rd letter from the IOC into the record.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Without objection, that will happen.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Murphy. I now recognize Mr. Walden for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again thanks
to all of our witnesses, your testimony has been most helpful
in our work. And I want to just ask our Olympians again to make
this clear, you don't think you have ever competed in a clean
Olympics; is that right?
Mr. Phelps. Internationally, whether it's world
championships or the Olympic Games, I don't feel that. No.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Nelson?
Mr. Nelson. No.
Mr. Walden. OK. Now Dr. Budgett, I have a question for you.
I just want to clarify to make sure we all heard this the same
way that your organization now would support removing sport
leaders from the WADA board; is that true?
Dr. Budgett. That's absolutely correct, obviously within a
structure of governance that will be developed through this
governance working part that the WADA have put together. It
should happen within the year.
Mr. Walden. Within the year, OK, so I want to go back. Here
is why I think a lot of us are concerned. There are
whistleblowers as far back as 2010 who probably risked more
than just their ability to compete to come forward and share
with the organization what was going on. And it strikes me that
it wasn't until there were investigative press reports that
anything happened. And so the question is do you have a process
that we can trust that whistleblowers who take great risk could
trust to come forward and actually have some action taken on
what they share? Because clearly people are at great risk when
they come forward and they are not going to do it if they think
they are just going to get blown off. And so I mean, you have
got to convince us that something is going to really change
here.
Dr. Budgett. Yes. I mean that is why WADA is in place, so I
would refer that question to my colleague on my right. But just
to reiterate that the IOC is in the process of removing the fox
from the henhouse, and I think it's a good analogy. So we are
actually in the process, we're relinquishing all control over
anti-doping.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Dr. Budgett. And I'm going to pass it to this independent
testing authority.
Mr. Walden. Because, you know, I have a degree in
journalism. I was in the radio business--sources matter.
Sources matter, it is how organizations and the press can do
their job effectively, but if they are ignored they go away and
we lose out.
Mr. Koehler, whistle----
Mr. Koehler. I fully agree--sorry.
Mr. Walden. Go ahead.
Mr. Koehler. Thank you. It is so important to protect the
whistleblowers, and I think it's the right time to recognize
two very brave whistleblowers, the Stepanovas, who came forward
in early 2010. Yes, we didn't have the power to investigate it,
but what I can tell you during that time is that when the
Stepanovas came forward our ultimate goal was to protect their
safety. We had information from them that came from the IAAF
about corruption, from Russia about corruption. We didn't know
who to hand it to, so we were in a difficult position and we
had no power to investigate. There's no question when the
Stepanovas came forward.
Mr. Walden. So who had the power to investigate?
Mr. Koehler. Nobody except the national federations, so the
Government or the International Athletics Federation, and it
wasn't until 2015 that the Code changed and gave us that power
to investigate.
Mr. Walden. What a broken system. What a broken system up
to that point. I mean how else can you look at this? Now you
have got these new reports. You have the--thank God for the
investigative journalists that blew the doors open on this. So
now you have got the reports, now you are going to give us
confidence that you are going to reorganize this operation and
get to the point where we don't have conflicts of interest and
where our athletes, especially U.S. athletes that play by the
rules, can compete against other athletes that play by the
rules, right?
Mr. Koehler. I can tell you that, categorically, that any
whistleblower that comes forward to this day as of 2015, that
our number-one priority is to protect them, to protect their
rights. Even when we didn't have the investigative power we
took it upon ourselves to protect the Stepanovas to make sure
they were safe.
Mr. Walden. So are you aware of any whistleblowers who have
come forth recently and made additional allegations?
Mr. Koehler. We are, yes.
Mr. Walden. And are those allegations being investigated in
any manner, or do you still lack that authority?
Mr. Koehler. Absolutely, all are being investigated.
Mr. Walden. So what happens, I mean once you complete your
investigation? Who rules, walk me through that part.
Mr. Koehler. Any time there's a whistleblower that comes
forward our investigative team which again is going to be six
people, not nearly enough for a global organization.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Koehler. They have an independent role to bring forward
and to research and investigate anti-doping rule violations.
Should they have evidence, then they will bring it forward to
the WADA management and to the WADA committees and to the WADA
Foundation Board to report and determine what sanctions should
be required.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Tygart is shaking his head.
Mr. Tygart. I'm sorry.
Mr. Walden. Go ahead.
Mr. Tygart. I just think there's a really important point
here and it's what I said in my oral testimony about deputizing
the fox. If the WADA Foundation Board that is making
determinations and overseeing investigations or testing, and
Dr. Budgett talked about removing sport from the WADA
Governance Board and not just from a testing organization, that
is a critical point because if you continue to have sport
overseeing investigations, determining compliance, acting as a
global regulator of itself, it's no different than the current
status quo which is the fox guarding the henhouse.
And so we have to, it would be great to have a definitive
conclusion if the IOC's position today is at the WADA
governance level, the global regulator, they are going to
remove themselves from that board which they could do today. It
doesn't take another Summit to do that. They could do it today.
Mr. Walden. All right, my time is expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses.
Mr. Murphy. I now recognize Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to discuss the
role of the athletes in addressing the challenges we face with
doping. And Mr. Tygart, in an article you wrote called The
Athletes Voice: A Force For Change you say, and I quote, At the
end of the day, it's the athletes, not the suits, who billions
of people around the world tune in to watch. It's the athletes
who leave us holding our breath. Without them, there is no
sport. And without them, there is no true and lasting change,
unquote.
So you say in your testimony that now more than ever
athletes are mobilizing and voicing their opinions. My question
is what role should athletes play in terms of policing their
own sports specifically and the anti-doping structure more
broadly?
Mr. Tygart. Well, it starts with the athletes. I mean they
own the culture of sport and it's wonderful. It's sad it took
this scandal to mobilize them in the way that it has, but it's
wonderful that they're now mobilizing and realizing how
important this right is to them. But they also have to have
confidence in the system, should have a clear voice in the
system, but just like the sports organizations they can't play
a role as active athletes in testing themselves. That would be
like the fox guarding the henhouse.
There has to be an independent organization that does it on
behalf of those athletes, but them protecting that field that
they exist in is absolutely critical. And we won't ultimately
be successful without their buy-in to the program, faith and
trust in the system, and willingness to do everything possible
to win, but do it by playing by the rules.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks. I am going to ask Mr. Phelps the same
question. What is the role that athletes should be playing in
terms of ensuring their sports are free from doping?
Mr. Phelps. For me, as an athlete I have always made sure
that I take care of myself and prepare myself the best way
possible. That's what I've always done. I've never voiced
opinions. I've always kept in, I've stayed in my lane, so to
say, all the time. Because it's, you know, for me it takes away
what I'm doing. You know, it takes away what I'm trying to
accomplish, and I think that's just one thing for me that I
never did. I never voiced opinions, really, before this year.
And, you know, obviously, as an athlete who's been around
for a couple of Olympics and seen a lot of things happen, it
gets frustrating. And we want to be, you know, for me I would
like to stand up on the block in an international competition
and know that the other seven competitors that I'm racing
against prepared just like I did. They went through the exact
same hard work that I did. They dedicated themselves to doing
what nobody has done before, or, you know, to accomplishing
their goal. And that would be a dream for me, and I hope to be
able to see that one day.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks.
Mr. Nelson, should athletes be more vocal going forward and
demand reform so that we can better ensure the systems in place
will guarantee clean play?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, I believe they should be more vocal. But
more than just using their words, I think they need to be
integrated into the solution, as well. Right now, the way
athletes' voices are integrated into the solution of Olympic
sports is through the internal athletes' advisory committees.
Those committees very rarely have the power to influence, to do
anything other than influence policy with people coming to them
by asking questions. It's a reactive force, not a proactive
force.
With this particular issue, considering that it invades on
so many athletes, it invades on the privacy of so many
athletes, it's a huge burden that these athletes bear, we
accept this burden with open arms but we have no input into it.
So if you really are about building trust for the athletes and
changing the culture, you have to find a way to insert their
voice into the leadership and the actual structure of the
solution.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks. I am just going to go back to
Mr. Tygart for one more question. Given the findings of WADA's
independent investigation regarding widespread cheating, it was
my understanding that the athletes were prepared to boycott the
international bobsled and skeleton championship that were set
to take place in Sochi this month. In your testimony you state
that athletes around the world have taken up this cause.
So my question is, What can you tell us about the potential
athlete boycott of that event? Are we going to see more
instances of that, where athletes put their feet down and, you
know, participate in boycotts?
Mr. Tygart. I hope not. And I say that because I know--and
I've talked to athletes about that very issue and talked with
many of those bobsled athletes about it--that's an untenable
position to put an athlete, that your sports organization is
not going to enforce the decision it made to bar events from
Russia, you're concerned about your own sample security in the
testing regime to go to Russia, or you decide to boycott.
That's not fair to those athletes, and we should not put
athletes in those positions to even have to make that decision.
And we don't have to, because sport and the anti-doping
system can determine to enforce the decisions that have been
made, not have events in Russia until they clean up their act,
become WADA Code-compliant, and then you alleviate that concern
from athletes' minds. But I don't for a second hope that any
athletes have to boycott. That said, they're frustrated, and I
think that's a very good example, when they're willing to even
consider that option, that they're frustrated and they want
change and they want change now.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Well, thank you. I am out of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I will recognize the vice chairman
of the subcommittee, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
all of you all for being here. I know that the folks assembled
here today are the good guys. We are just trying to figure out
how we get it where it is right. So with that being said, I
think I am hearing some meeting of the minds going on. So Dr.
Budgett, am I hearing you say that the IOC is prepared to not
only relinquish the Governance Board or the direct contact with
the Governance Board, but also investigations in testing, or
have I gone a bridge too far?
Dr. Budgett. You're actually correct about the
investigation testing and that is something the IOC have called
for since the Olympic Summit and it's very important. We
certainly want to do it for sport and I think actually there's
a conflict of interest with government as well, because
actually that's what was happening in Russia. So we need to
look across the whole of anti-doping. And when it comes to the
governance of WADA, I think that has to go through due process.
And so I don't know exactly what structure will come out,
what representation there will be from sport, whether it will
be a minority representation so there's some link, but that is
for the people in charge of governance to sort out. But
certainly on the actual testing and the whole structure around
that, that will be completely independent.
Mr. Griffith. And then the Governance Board is in question,
but you anticipate some reforms before the end of this year?
Dr. Budgett. I certainly hope so. The first meeting's in a
week or so.
Mr. Griffith. All right, I appreciate that. Let me ask you
this question as long as I have got you, and it may be what Mr.
Koehler touched on earlier. Mr. Nelson showed us his medal
earlier and, you know, that was really a special moment, but a
food court in Atlanta is not appropriate. I would just say as
somebody who tries to problem solve, and I know a lot of us up
here do that. Even when we have disagreements we try to problem
solve.
Why not weave in any medals that are given late, because
somebody cheated, at the opening ceremonies of the next
Olympics for that particular sport? It seems to me that would
make Mr. Nelson's experience much more special. I wasn't going
to ask you if you thought that was good, but do you think that
sounds like a better way than getting it with a Happy Meal?
Mr. Nelson. It was a really cool toy.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nelson. Yes, I think that's a big step forward and
would certainly recognize the issue and not sort of try to
sweep it under the rug, which I think is important as well.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. Mr. Phelps, I think the entire American
swimming team brought this up maybe accidentally, but with
Lilly King and others talking about this openly at the Olympics
last summer it became an issue that most Americans are now
aware of and probably millions more around the world. I
appreciate you all doing that and appreciate you being here
today and taking out your time to join us. Is there anything
that you want to touch on that you haven't had an opportunity
to speak on thus far?
Mr. Phelps. I mean, not today. I mean, I will say I agree
with what you're saying about going to the next Olympics. You
know, for me, as I said in my testimony, there's nothing better
than watching your flag rise, listening to the national anthem.
You know, for me that's one of the greatest things that I will
miss the most. And to be able to represent your country and
have that moment, that special moment, I feel he deserves that.
Mr. Griffith. And I completely agree. I will take you back
in time a little bit. How long did it take you when you started
complaining about the long swimming suits before the IOC
changed those? Because we have been working on drugs for 30, 40
years, didn't it only take swimming, the swimming suits got
changed in a couple years?
Mr. Phelps. It wasn't long.
Mr. Griffith. Yes.
Mr. Phelps. I know, I think the larger suits probably came
out in '07-ish, and by world championships of '09 that was the
last chance that anyone had the opportunity to swim in them.
And like I said then, that took away from the actual sport.
That wasn't the sport, it was swimming manufacturers trying to
come up with a suit that they think is the fastest, and some of
them were different than others.
And you can go into a lot of technical parts there but--and
quickly we got that removed, so hopefully we can get this
resolved, as well.
Mr. Griffith. Yes, and I hope so too.
Mr. Tygart, I know you have indicated some frustration, but
what you are hearing today does that give you some hope that we
are in fact on the right path to getting this situation--look,
there is always going to be cheaters, but getting it to a point
where we are actually governing?
Mr. Tygart. Our position along with 22 other national anti-
doping organizations around the world is crystal clear that we
have to remove the fox from the governance. So if WADA's
governing board still determines the consequence, for example,
of an investigation and still determines what testing plans are
acceptable, still is responsible ultimately for determining who
is in compliance with the rules, who is not, that's no
different than what we currently have.
And so we're not in agreement with that and we'll continue
to push because we recognize the solution is to remove the fox
from guarding the henhouse because you can't effectively
promote and police. And athletes can't believe in a system when
sport still determines what's in its best interest and controls
the material aspects of anti-doping.
Mr. Griffith. And just quickly going back to Mr. Nelson's
situation, don't you think we can do this a little faster than
8 years in finding out who the cheaters are?
Mr. Tygart. We should prevent them from coming to begin
with. And in Rio there were 1,913 athletes--1,913 athletes out
of the 11,000 athletes in Rio--from 10 high-risk sports that
had no tests of record prior to the Rio Games. Ten high-risk
sports, how unacceptable is that? That's what happens when
sport--and it's the IOC's responsibility for the Games--that's
what happens when sport attempts to protect it and police
itself. And the announcement following that report was that the
integrity of the Games was upheld. I'm not sure it was, but at
the end of the day we need to stop that from happening, to
ensure that we prevent dopers from going to the Games to begin
with.
Mr. Griffith. And my time is up, so I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Phelps, were you going to----
Mr. Phelps. Travis, what did we say the number was for six
months leading into the Games that I was tested, was it a
baker's dozen?
Mr. Tygart. It was a baker's dozen.
Mr. Phelps. It was a baker's dozen. So you're saying there
were over 1,900 athletes in the top 10 sports that weren't
tested?
Mr. Murphy. And you were tested a dozen times.
Mr. Phelps. Thirteen, yes.
Mr. Murphy. Baker's dozen. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I really want to thank the
witnesses and actually the athletes. I find it so shocking that
you both said that in the Olympic Games and in international
competitions you can't feel confident, that you don't feel
confident that someone hasn't been doped.
And so I am hopeful that in this very bipartisan hearing
today that we are having that we are going to be able to
contribute to alleviating that lack of confidence so that when
the kids that you work with now have their dreams that they can
believe. And I want to thank you too, Mr. Tygart, and hopefully
all of you for restoring that confidence to Americans.
I did want to requote. Congresswoman DeGette quoted you,
Mr. Tygart, saying that despite mountains of evidence and vocal
opposition from anti-doping groups, the IOC chose not to stand
up for clean athletes and against institutionalized doping. And
that you pointed out that the IOC, quote, punted, unquote, the
decision to the international sports federations, and they
missed an opportunity to stand for clean athletes and send a
clear message.
So how should the IOC at the time have held Russia
accountable for its deception as described in WADA's
independent investigation?
Mr. Tygart. And thank you for the question. And we were
very clear along with 13 other national anti-doping
organizations, literally from around the world, who sent a
letter to the IOC after the McLaren Report and it exposed
Russia, institutionalized doping was established, and said
listen, you can't reward the Olympic committee whose
responsibility it is as a member of the IOC who was complicit
in it, according to some of the evidence, as well as has
responsibility in their own country to ensure nothing like that
ever happens. This is the antithesis of the Olympic movement
and the values, so don't allow them to come.
They've done it in other circumstances, not on doping but
Apartheid, for example, wouldn't let the South African NOC come
because of actions by the state and things that were going on,
so they have the power to do it. They chose not to do it. Our
recommendation was don't let the Russian Olympic Committee
there, but have a uniform and consistent application by
individual athletes who might not have been part of the system,
if there are any, and who weren't tainted by that system. But
don't just hand it off to 38 different sport federations who
don't have the time, the money, the resources, the expertise
and days before Rio--it's a mess.
Ms. Schakowsky. So do you believe that Russia has been
sufficiently held accountable for this corruption?
Mr. Tygart. We don't.
Ms. Schakowsky. I understand that the IOC has formed these
two committees to look further into the evidence presented in
WADA's independent investigation. Do you have confidence in
those two committees?
Mr. Tygart. Again without beating my drum too much, it's
the fox guarding the henhouse. You have a sport-run
investigation who's going to make determinations at this point
in the ball game, and you can't have trust in the outcomes of
those investigations unfortunately because the perception is
what we all know that you can't both promote and police your
sport particularly on the heels of allowing the athletes to go
and the Russia Olympic Committee to go.
So there is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, right, that
you don't want to be successful in those cases to justify your
decision to let them in to begin with. And I'm not saying
they're going to do that. I'm just saying that's the perception
that is out there that we hear from athletes all the time who
are concerned about that.
Ms. Schakowsky. Based on what you heard today at this
hearing and if those promises are implemented would you then
have confidence?
Mr. Tygart. Still the governance piece is still troubling
and will not allow it, the full independence free from that
promoting and policing aspect that it needs to regain the
confidence in the way that it could. And that model has worked
in other parts of the country, and there's no good reason not
to other than to control the outcomes. Why wouldn't you let go
of the governance if you know athletes will have more
confidence in it, national anti-doping agencies will have more
confidence in it? The only reason is so you can continue to
control it. There's no other good reason.
Ms. Schakowsky. And all the fans and all the people who are
inspired by it would have more confidence. Let me just ask you
finally, how did the Russian situation go undetected for so
long? What failed?
Mr. Tygart. And I disagree with Mr. Koehler on WADA's
ability to investigate going back to 2010. Many of us believe
they have the power to do it. But what's unquestioned ,and I
don't think he would disagree with, is that they did have the
clear powers to hold organizations compliant. And this issue of
countries and sports, whether they were compliant with the
rules or not frequently came to their board, and it was
determined they weren't going to make decisions on compliance.
And that is the fox saying we're not going to hold
ourselves accountable because of the bad PR that would result
if we said these organizations aren't accountable. So we have
to remove that fox to ensure the authority they have clearly
now to investigate we think they had in the past, and what they
had in the past and clearly have today to do compliance is
actually done in a way that's free of the sport influence and
for the good of clean athletes and for no other reason.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I recognize Mrs. Brooks of Indiana
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all so
very much for being here and sharing with us, educating us all
on the challenges that you face.
Mr. Tygart, besides removing the fox, the sports
organizations from the governance of anti-doping organizations,
what are some of the other reforms that you believe are
necessary that have been advocated by other NADOs to enhance
WADA's authorities and to enhance maybe even their resources to
investigate?
Mr. Tygart. I think it's improved independence and
transparency, board limits, clear process for how board members
are appointed and voted and of course increased investment. We
think they have and have had the authority to investigate, but
if there's any question about that and their position is
different on it make that absolutely clear. Actually do the job
of monitoring compliance and have a clear plan for how you're
going to do that.
Mrs. Brooks. And do you believe then that based on those
types of reforms it could actually address an issue as large as
nation-state-sponsored doping?
Mr. Tygart. I do. I think you can have--it all came back to
whistleblowers. The media put it out there. If we had the same
will and determination free of any conflict not to do the right
thing, it's not holding governments accountable. What it's
doing is investigating sport and holding sport accountable. And
the IOC through its Olympic charter then can hold national
Olympic committees accountable and that easily can be done, I
think, if the process is determined to make sure clean athletes
around the world happen and that these types of institutional
doping situations don't ever happen again.
Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Koehler, can you please, if you would
please respond to what Mr. Tygart's suggestions are,
particularly with respect to WADA's view of its authority to
hold nation-states responsible, and have you ever done so?
Mr. Koehler. Well, I'd first like to clarify that it's fact
that prior to 2015 WADA did not have the powers to investigate
and that didn't come into force until the World Anti-Doping
Code was established with the revision. We are----
Mrs. Brooks. Just out of curiosity, you have been in
existence though since 1999?
Mr. Koehler. That's correct.
Mrs. Brooks. And so how and why is it that you did not get
investigative authority until 2015?
Mr. Koehler. The first Code came into force in 2003 and
there's been three iterations since. The Code is not WADA's
code. The Code has been developed by stakeholder consultation
and everybody feeds into it. It was an evolving system. And to
be honest, the reason the investigation came in was we saw the
power of the whistleblowers coming forward and they needed an
independent body to investigate.
Mrs. Brooks. So when WADA was created in 1999--forgive me,
I don't know all the history--it was never intended to be an
investigative authority when it has to do with the anti-doping?
Mr. Koehler. That's correct.
Mrs. Brooks. And so it wasn't until then '03 all the
different codes come to be, but then so what is it besides
educating and besides testing, what is it that you would
attribute as WADA's successes, what is it you have done if you
weren't able to investigate until 2015?
Mr. Koehler. There's been evolution in the anti-doping
system. We've done a lot in fact. The first thing we did was
harmonize anti-doping rules. Prior to the Code, an athlete in
Russia and an athlete in the United States could potentially
have different sanctions, so one could have 2 years and one
could have 4 years. And different sports had different
sanctions, so we harmonized that process.
Mrs. Brooks. Excuse me, but how do you then have 1,900
athletes out of 11,000 not being subject to doping testing at
all?
Mr. Koehler. I fully agree with Mr. Tygart's comment. This
should not happen, this cannot happen, and there needs to be a
further investment in anti-doping to ensure it doesn't happen.
One thing I raised earlier was we are now moving into a system
of noncompliance and compliance review. In the past it hasn't
been as rigorous as it should have been. Now there's a call by
athletes, by the anti-doping community, to go in and audit, to
go in and make people accountable, and if they are not doing it
we have appointed an independent compliance review committee to
make a call on countries, on sports that are deemed not doing
the work to make them compliant. It's time to change and those
countries that are not doing the amount of testing they need to
be made accountable.
Mrs. Brooks. And would it be your request that maybe six
investigators to investigate the world of athletes might not be
sufficient, and what percentage of your budget is allocated
towards investigations?
Mr. Koehler. It's an understatement. Six is definitely not
enough, but we're working on it a very minimal budget. As was
mentioned for the two reports, the independent reports that
we've covered, we spent over $2 1A\1/2\ million just on two
reports. So out of a $27.5 million budget we simply do not have
enough to continue to really react to the needs of the
athletes.
Mrs. Brooks. But maybe the budget should be reallocated to
increase the amount of funds on investigations relative to your
other duties. With that I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. I recognize Ms. Castor for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here. International sports' anti-doping
enforcement is flawed and it is clear that the tools to enforce
sanctions on athletes and countries who cheat have to be
strengthened. Look no further than July 2016, the World Anti-
Doping Agency executive committee recommended to the IOC that
it ban Russian athletes from the 2016 Games, and despite that
recommendation the IOC decided to allow Russian athletes to
participate in the Rio Games.
If the Russian Sports Federation carried out an analysis on
their own and looked at the individuals' anti-doping records
then they could, Russia could approve them to participate. But
then at the end of the year there were press reports. The
Acting Director General of Russia's national anti-doping agency
said no, actually what has been going on in Russia for a long
time is an institutional conspiracy, years' worth of cheating
schemes, while emphasizing that the Government's top officials
were not involved.
But the New York Times reported a lab director tampered
with urine samples at the Olympics and provided cocktails of
performance-enhancing drugs, corrupting some of the world's
most prestigious competitions. Members of the Federal Security
Services, a successor to the Russian KGB, broke into sample
bottles holding urine, and a deputy sports minister, for years,
ordered coverups of top athletes' use of banned substances. Now
I want everyone to know the Russians have kind of disputed this
in the following weeks.
But Mr. Phelps, Mr. Nelson, how frustrating is it for
athletes? What did you all, what is the feeling like for, as
you go into these competitions can you screen all of this out
when you are going in to compete and you know that other
countries are sanctioning this type of cheating?
Mr. Phelps. For me, I think, you know, as I said earlier,
for me having the chance to represent my country was a
tremendous honor. And you can't do anything about, you know, I
can't really go at that point and do anything about any other
athletes. The only person I can take care of is myself. So at
that point it's, you know, we try to stick together as a team
and we know that we're going to get up on the block and fight
as hard as we can.
Ms. Castor. And meanwhile, what kind of testing are you
going through and American athletes?
Mr. Phelps. I can tell you with some of the things that
I've gone through with filling out paperwork of my whereabouts
of every single day of where I am so USADA can do out-of-comp
tests. I mean I've done it for 16 years. I've filled out these
forms quarterly, right, quarterly. I mean there's stacks of
paper, and now it's online.
Ms. Castor. What kind of physical tests?
Mr. Phelps. Blood tests, urine tests, whenever, I mean it's
all the time. I mean it was monthly, multiple times a month for
me and especially when I'm in the U.S. And I mean even when I'm
overseas. I mean if you go Olympic Games where, I mean, I guess
the last four I was tested almost every day. So are there
people going through the same things that I'm going through?
Ms. Castor. Apparently not.
Mr. Phelps. I hope so.
Ms. Castor. Well, apparently not. There are 1,900 athletes
who competed in the Rio Games that were never tested at all.
So Mr. Tygart, you have heard Mr. Budgett say that some
changes are in process to actually take IOC influence out of
the enforcement side of anti-doping. What does that mean,
really? Get specific. What has to happen in process to take the
fox out of the henhouse at this point over the coming months?
Mr. Tygart. We'll see how it gets fleshed out. It's good
that we're finally seeing it on Friday and in the testimony at
that level of detail.
Ms. Castor. Is this is the governance structure of the IOC
itself or in the----
Mr. Tygart. I think the model is just what we know as the
principle of separation of powers. You've got a legislative
body that makes the rules, and athletes, even active athletes,
should play a huge part in that. Sport, governments should do
that. NADOs should do that. That legislative body ought to
establish the law and then it should come time to, and totally
independent, free of sport influence, to have an executive
branch that then enforces the law. And then of course we have
to have a judicial branch.
And the executive branch should have no sport member on it
and no active athlete because they would be subject to the laws
that they're supposed to be enforcing. And it should make the
determination of who's compliant, investigate, ensure that
testing at national levels by us here at USADA is done in the
same fashion in the same level of integrity and in compliance
with the same rules. We will volunteer to be the first one
audited under that new compliance program as long as everyone
else is also being audited and held accountable under that new
program.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you for having the intestinal
fortitude to stand up for our athletes and clean competition
around the world. I yield back my time.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Collins of New
York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
the witnesses and especially Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps. Just
curious, Mr. Nelson, did the fourth place winner in the shot
put, was he awarded then the bronze medal? As somebody who
didn't even have a medal, did he get one?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, he was.
Mr. Collins. Well, that is good to hear. I hope it--was it
too in a food court in Atlanta, or was he even American?
Mr. Nelson. He was an American, but I don't know where the
medal was actually given to him.
Mr. Collins. OK. I am still trying to get my head around
what you went through. I mean at least you were on a platform
getting the silver medal, but we all do tend to focus on the
winner of the gold medal, the winner of the Super Bowl and so
forth, just amazing.
So, you know, it is a great hearing. So I am kind of
curious, Dr. Budgett, as we look at the IOC and I have at least
read where you are looking at an independent testing agency.
Overall, you know, I am assuming then that would mean the U.S.,
the U.K., Japan, Canada, some nations that I think, and I will
ask the athletes, are actually doing the job, would they then
be replaced with this independent testing?
Dr. Budgett. Yes. I think I'd like to say that obviously at
the Olympic Games there's more testing than at any other event
in the world. But we all recognize that far more important than
that is the testing that goes on in the lead-up to the Games
and we've heard how that's not adequate everywhere. That's a
function of both NADOs like USADA and the international
federations. So we're working very hard with WADA and a group
of NADOs including USADA to actually put in place a program of
testing leading up to the next Games that will be
comprehensive, targeted, intelligent, all the things we talk
about now. So that's one aspect.
The other aspect is to say as we've talked about is the
independent testing authority which would certainly do all the
testing that sport's currently doing, and ultimately we have to
talk to our NADO colleagues, could do the testing for the
national anti-doping organizations because they have an equal
conflict of interest when it comes to national interest.
Mr. Collins. Yes, I am just concerned on the budgetary
piece, you know, it would appear there are nations the U.S.,
U.K., Japan, and Canada that I would ask maybe Mr. Phelps, are
actually doing the job. Would you think that those five
national testing agencies are serious?
Mr. Phelps. I don't know specifics of what country is
following the same exact method as we are here in the U.S., and
I know Travis could answer that a lot better. But, you know, I
do believe there are countries out there that are going through
the same process that we are. And, you know, for me, we all
should be fair and we all should play on the same field.
And for me as a father now, like I said in my presentation,
you know, I don't know what I, or how I would even talk to my
son about doping in sports. Like I would hope to never have
that conversation and I hope we can get it clear and cleaned up
by then. You know, for me going through everything I've done
and, you know, that's probably a question that I could get
asked from him and I don't know how I would answer it.
Mr. Collins. Well, it is the win at any cost and certainly
we are seeing, you know, the health, what is happening to the
health of athletes who did cheat, you know, and even in
football, while it wasn't cheating, the concussions and what
that leads to later in life.
So Mr. Koehler, on WADA do you have concerns about the
national anti-doping in certain countries, again like the U.S.,
Canada?
Mr. Koehler. I wouldn't say we have concerns with the U.S.
and Canada, but we do have concerns. And I wanted to step back
if you allow me, Mr. Collins. We can have all the governance
review in the world, which we welcome and we want. I have been
in this business for 20 years and it's time for change. It's
time to put investment into this business. If I look globally,
amount of money being put into national anti-dope
organizations, simply insufficient, and there's the crux of the
issue that more investment needs to be put. This is to protect
sport, to protect clean athletes. It is so important, and we
need to start putting that investment in and not just saying it
but doing it, and until that happens, we'll never see change.
Mr. Collins. So on the sanctions piece, let me ask the
athletes. You know, right now we are talking about somebody is
caught cheating and they are given a 2-year suspension or a 4-
year suspension. Do you think that is adequate, or should we be
as draconian as a lifetime ban, one-and-done? It would just
show that, you know, trying to skirt the rules, one-and-done.
What do you think?
Mr. Nelson. That's a very good question, sir. To answer it
I think that you have to have some ability for the athletes to
protect their own rights in the process as well. And so if
you're going to increase the level of the penalties associated
with it, you have to increase the investment and their ability
to protect themselves as well. A lot of athletes, we're the
lowest common denominator in this whole big pyramid, right, but
we're also trusted to make the most critical part of the
decision making process. We're also the least informed and
often the least prepared to make it.
So I'm OK with increasing the penalties and doing something
like a one-and-done provided there's a provision for some--
there is a gray area here, unfortunately. Emergency therapeutic
use exemption forms, medical conditions, sometimes require
certain actions. But I'm OK with a one-and-done. I'm OK with
financial penalties associated with it. This is a business. We
treat it a little bit differently because it's Olympic sports,
but at the end of the day it is a business, so you can hold
them to the same standard that you might hold people in other
traditional businesses.
Mr. Collins. I appreciate that. I know my time is expired
and I yield back. Thank you very much, all of you, for your
testimony.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Tonko of New
York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our
panelists. And before I begin I would like to offer my welcome
to Travis Tygart, as we have done a lot of work together in
addressing the issue of doping, in this case in the sport of
horse racing. This is a critically important issue for both the
health of the equine athlete and the integrity of the sport,
which contributes approximately $4 billion to the New York
State economy each year and supports some 380,000 domestic jobs
nationwide.
If this committee is truly interested in supporting anti-
doping efforts across the board, I would encourage us to
schedule a hearing on doping in horse racing and the
legislation I have introduced with my colleague, Representative
Andy Barr, which would restore integrity back to the sport of
kings. So back to this particular focus.
Today we have heard about investigations that revealed
Russia's efforts to manipulate drug-doping controls. The former
chief investigator for WADA, Jack Robertson, who was a former
special agent for our United States Drug Enforcement Agency,
helped investigate some of the allegations involving Russian
doping. On August 4th of 2016, Pro Publica ran a story quoting
Mr. Robertson about his time at WADA. In the piece, Mr.
Robertson implied that the Agency lacked adequate resources to
investigate doping allegations and he said, and I quote, this
cannot be Jack versus Russia. I need manpower. When money
became available, WADA beefed up every department, but never
investigations. I was working 11 hours a day, sometimes 18
hours.
So Mr. Tygart, you are a seasoned investigator. Does WADA
have what it needs to investigate doping allegations when they
arise, particularly when they involve complex cases such as
Russia and allegations of state-sponsored or state-supported
doping?
Mr. Tygart. Clearly, resources is a question. I think the
resources there in the budget could be better utilized to
ensure investigations are done in the manner that they ought
to, to get to the bottom of them and then hold those entities
or organizations that cheat accountable under the rules.
Mr. Tonko. And I am informed that WADA operates on a
roughly $30 million budget, half of which is from the Olympic
movement and half of which is from nations and states. So Mr.
Tygart, again based on your expertise, is a $30 million budget
enough to police the world anti-doping Code and should the U.S.
be contributing more?
Mr. Tygart. You know, I don't know the answer. Clearly,
there's enough money in sport, at least. You saw in my
testimony the funds the IOC has: a $1.4 billion fund, total
assets of $3.9 billion 2015. The money's there, I think,
whether it's sport, whether it's government. The question is,
is protecting the integrity of the property that we put out to
the marketplace important enough to spend more than, you know,
one or two percent on? And I think absolutely it is, and we
ought to ensure that WADA has those resources to do the job
that they need to do however it ultimately is supported,
whether directly through sport or additional funds from
government.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Mr. Koehler, do you believe you
have enough money to do your job?
Mr. Koehler. No, I don't. And to give an exact figure
today, I would be remiss to do that. What I can say is that in
my opening remarks that we are developing a clean-slate budget
based on the new reforms, based on the new capacities that we
have to identify where and how much funding is needed. I will,
however, say that we talk about WADA increased funding, but I
think more importantly, or equally as important, is the
injection of funds into the national anti-doping organizations.
The national anti-doping organizations are the ones in the
field day to day carrying out the business. And if they're not
equipped to protect the clean athletes, then we're so far
behind we'll never win this game.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And according to news reports, the
International Olympic Committee has a $1.4 billion fund, so out
of a $1.4 billion fund the IOC currently provides WADA about
$15 million a year. Mr. Phelps, given the extensive evidence we
have heard today detailing state-sponsored doping control and
manipulation, should the IOC provide more resources to WADA?
Mr. Phelps. I mean, in my opinion, I think this is
something that needs to be handled today and I think we need to
find whatever way to take care of this issue we need to figure
out and if that's more money, it's more money. You know, I
mean, I think for me growing up in sports, I always looked at
the greats and how they did it and that was my dream to be one
of the best.
And, you know, it is through hard work and dedication and
it's sad to see that there are other athletes that choose to
take different routes to get there. And they not only will
sometimes test positive once, but multiple times, and they're
still allowed to compete at an international level. And I don't
think that's fair to the other athletes who are going in, then
going to the grind every single day to try to make sure we
accomplish our goals and dreams that we have.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I see my time is over.
I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. I now recognize Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Budgett, I understand the IOC established a commission
to reanalyze all samples of Russian athletes from the 2014
Winter Olympics. Can you explain what testing is being
conducted on these samples and does it include testing on both
A and B samples?
Dr. Budgett. Yes. The reanalysis program has been a huge
success if you want to look at it that way. And as you know,
before Rio we had over 100 adverse analytical findings from
London and Beijing. As regards to the samples from Sochi, all
the samples from the Russian athletes have been reanalyzed and
the results of those are in case management at the moment.
Also--and that was the A sample being reanalyzed.
Also, all the samples are in the process of being
forensically examined to look for evidence of manipulation.
Some of that was done by McLaren. This is being done on a much
more comprehensive and recordable way that can be used to bring
an anti-doping rule violation to those individual athletes.
Mr. Costello. And you may have answered that within this
answer, but if you didn't, does the testing include a forensic
analysis of the sample bottles to identify any scratches or
marks that suggest they may have been tampered with?
Dr. Budgett. Exactly. That's one of the, and to document
that very exactly so that it can be used in a case.
Mr. Costello. Question for all panelists, thank you for
your time. I particularly want to thank the athletes for your
testimony. I think that it is a great way to raise awareness
about the need for even more integrity in the testing process,
and certainly you are both American heroes and we recognize you
as such and I think it is very worthy that you both took the
time to prepare and be here today.
Having said that I will ask you both first, but then I
would like to open it up to all panelists, what would you deem
to be appropriate progress 1 year from now or 2 years from now,
you pick a time in the future, toward achieving a more
independent and honest system?
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps and then whomever else would like
to answer.
Mr. Nelson. I think the first thing that has to happen is
to hold all the stakeholders to the same level of
accountability that you hold the athletes to. If we can
accomplish that I think that will go a long way towards
cleaning up sport. The second thing is I think you actually
really do need to find a way to change the culture that allows
this. We've talked about the differences between this area of
the world and some other areas of the world. I still know for a
fact that there are certain areas of the world where doping is
just part of the culture.
So you have to find out, there has to be some education and
reeducation of the key players in those areas. So to me, if I
could see those two changes, education and then the structural
reforms that would implement the compliance, that would be a
huge change.
Mr. Phelps. I agree completely with everything he said. And
for me it's kind of hard to, I think that we were talking
earlier, somebody said it was 20 years to get to this point. It
took us this long to get here, who knows how long it's going to
take us to get forward. That's what's frustrating to me, you
know, as an athlete who's spent over 20 years in the pool. This
is something that needs to happen now and I'm glad people are
actually starting to take us seriously and take this in a
serious matter, because it is crushing sports for our youth and
for everybody else around the world. So I mean, can you put a
time limit on a year, can you put a time frame on a year? I
don't know. It's hard hearing what I'm hearing and trying to
put a time frame on it, I just have no clue.
Mr. Tygart. I would say--and thank you for your question--
it doesn't take a year. These allegations first came out in
December of 2014. We've had well over 2 years to deal with
them. Today is the day. What could happen today is, WADA
governance structure could happen. Remove sport from the
executive functions because you can't promote and police. The
IOC could take 500 million of its $1.4 billion fund, set it in
a blind trust to fund WADA in its efforts moving forward. That
could be done today.
Mr. Costello. Well, and if I could just add, I think all
three of those answers are spot on both in terms of exposing
the frustration that athletes feel as well as what can
technically be done to show a measurable impact.
The final point that I just want to say is I do find it to
be extremely important to note how a system that lacks the
integrity, or a system that can be improved but yet has not yet
been improved, what that does in terms of disillusionment to
our athletes and what decisions athletes may be confronted with
when they realize the reality of this situation. And certainly
as an American we want to make sure that we are encouraging
those in youth sports to conduct themselves in an ethical way
and also to make sure that they aren't doing anything to their
body that could cause them long-term health impacts. And to not
have a system that reinforces that should be a cause for
concern for every parent and every coach and every athletic
trainer, and I don't think that we want to put our children in
that sort of position or that conundrum. So I will thank you
all for your time. I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Now Ms. Clarke is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
panelists, in particular Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps, for putting
a face to the athletic advocacy and demonstrating the courage
to call out the unethical, disgraceful conduct of those who
permit doping to continue to plague and to cheat the integrity
of our international competitions. I truly appreciate, we truly
appreciate your testimony here today.
Mr. Chairman, the scope and scale of the allegations of
doping against Russia presented in WADA's independent
investigations are extremely troubling, and I would like to
understand what sanctions Russia will face as a result of the
findings. Subsequent to the release of Mr. McLaren's
investigation in July of last year, WADA's executive committee
recommended to the IOC that it decline entry for Rio 2016 of
all athletes submitted by the Russian Olympic Committee and the
Russia Paralympic Committee.
Mr. Koehler, why did WADA recommend to the IOC that it
decline all Russian entries for these two events?
Mr. Koehler. I can't speak on behalf of our executive
committee, however I can tell you that they reviewed the
McLaren Report and deemed it appropriate to make those
recommendations based on a call for the clean athletes.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Tygart, as you know the IOC did not order a
collective ban of the Russian team, instead it deferred to the
international sports federations to determine which athletes
should or should not compete. In your piece, The Athletes
Voice: A Force for Change, you stated, quote, at the Summer
Games in Rio in 2016, scores of athletes competed despite not
having been subject to credible anti-doping programs, end
quote.
You also pointed out in your testimony that the sports
federations with few exceptions had neither the time nor
expertise to deal effectively with the fallout from WADA's
independent investigation. Mr. Tygart, can you elaborate on why
moving this decision to the international sports federations
may not have resulted in the credible deliberative process
where only clean athletes were allowed to compete?
Mr. Tygart. I'm not sure why it was done. The justification
for not banning and following WADA's recommendation, the
Russian Olympic Committee, was some justification on collective
justice versus individual responsibility which really makes no
sense, I don't think, when if that's your reasoning to then
hand the decision on individual justice to 38 different sports
organizations, that's not going to result in a consistent
application in individual cases.
So I think the justification that's been given doesn't hold
up once it's scrutinized, and I think it ultimately resulted in
shaking the system like it's never been shaken before. If the
IOC would have done what the International Paralympic Committee
did and what the IAAF, the international track and field did,
to ban those athletes and the Russian federations from their
games, we're not here today, quite frankly.
Ms. Clarke. So my final question is for Dr. Budgett, but
Mr. Koehler and Mr. Tygart please feel free to answer as well
if either of you can speak to this. Dr. Budgett, can you
describe for us any jurisdictional overlap at the IOC whether
direct or indirect between those tasked with imposing sanctions
for doping charges and those with a vote in determining future
Olympic host cities?
Dr. Budgett. I'm not sure I completely understand your
question.
Ms. Clarke. OK, let me repeat it again. Can you describe
for us any jurisdictional overlap at the IOC whether direct or
indirect between those tasked with imposing sanctions for
doping charges and those with a vote in determining future
Olympic host cities?
Dr. Budgett. Yes, thank you. I think that's beyond my
jurisdiction to answer. But to say at Rio as I mentioned, the
jurisdiction over the sanctions was handed over to the Court of
Arbitration of Sport so it was not within the IOC. And so the
IOC have started the process of this independent testing
authority by handing over the actual sanctioning process to an
independent body and so it should be independent from any other
function.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Tygart, do you have a sense of whether
there are personnel in common in both entities?
Mr. Tygart. Absolutely there is. In fact, WADA recommended
to ban the Russians. There were members of that executive
decision that also sit on the IOC that when the decision came
to the IOC voted opposite of how they voted on the WADA
decision. They wear two hats. They made two different outcomes
on the determination. And then yes, it's the IOC that
ultimately votes for who is awarded the Olympic Games.
Mr. Murphy. I now recognize Mr. Carter of Georgia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Clarke. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here. It is commendable that you would take time out
to be with us. And I especially want to thank you, Mr. Nelson.
I am a fellow Georgian, so welcome. We are glad to have you
here. What the people here don't recognize or don't realize I
don't think is that we have got some really nice food courts in
Georgia, but certainly not nice enough to warrant you being
awarded a medal on that food court and I am very sorry that you
had to receive it that way.
Did I understand? I was reading and researching a little
bit that you first heard about this through a reporter?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. I had no official contact from the
IOC or any other movement within the Olympic movement.
Mr. Carter. Dr. Budgett, I mean----
Dr. Budgett. What I can say is that the process is an awful
lot better now and there's been some fantastic medal ceremonies
for athletes who have been re-awarded medals as a result of
reanalysis.
Mr. Carter. OK, and I am glad to hear that. But what about
notifying them? Do you notify them before you notify the press?
Dr. Budgett. The notification should come through the
National Olympic Committee.
Mr. Carter. OK, before the press is notified you would have
notified the individual?
Dr. Budgett. Of course.
Mr. Carter. OK, thank you. I am glad we got that straight,
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Nelson, you impress me and I have read your
resume. I mean you are kind of the traditional Olympian. You
just worked jobs and trained and just like I think most
Olympians have, so I feel like I can relate to you. I will be
quite honest with you and full disclosure here, I wanted to be
an Olympian too. I did. And I will say more about that in just
a minute, but unfortunately I ended up being not only short but
slow, but nevertheless I had those same dreams.
But my question is this. You seem to be as I said the
traditional Olympian, the drug testing that you had to go
through I am sure it was quite laborious and that it really
impacted your personal life a lot.
Mr. Nelson. I think Michael has probably had more tests
than I've experienced in my lifetime, but I can tell you they
show up at the most inopportune moments without apologies. Over
time you build relationships with your collection officers and
it's important because they learn a lot about you in the
process. But yes, it's extraordinarily invasive, absolutely.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Phelps, do you want to share some stories
with us on that as well?
Mr. Phelps. I mean, I'll agree it's the wildest times. I
mean for me I would have, you know, training trips to Colorado
Springs to train at altitude and I would have a morning off,
but I would be woken up at 6:05 by the drug testers and I
wouldn't be able to go back to sleep. So it's like, you know,
those are the things that we're doing as athletes to make sure
the sport's clean and I wish I could say that about everybody
else.
Mr. Carter. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? I am
sure you have interacted with your competitors and your
international competitors. What kind of experiences have they
had? Do they have similar experiences or----
Mr. Phelps. They don't bring it up. They don't talk about
it.
Mr. Carter. They don't talk about it.
Mr. Phelps. No.
Mr. Carter. But I suspect they aren't being woken up at, at
least some of them maybe. I would like to think that some are.
Mr. Phelps. Right. I mean you'd like to think that there's
a number of the top ten, whatever it might be, top 20, top
hundred in the world might be. I think, what is it, the IT, the
International Testing Pool has a number of athletes who are
usually under the same standards that, that we're all held
under the same standards. And I mean for me it would be, I
mean, I literally have to fill out every single day exactly
where I am at that time. And if I leave, I mean now it's easy
enough to where I can just get on the phone or get on the app
and say my whereabouts are changing, this is where I'm going.
You have to say what plane you're on, what hotel you're staying
in, what your room is under, everything yada yada yada. So
that's what we've gone through, I've gone through for 15, 16
years.
Mr. Carter. Right. You want to see time fly, you ought to
get up here and wait for 5 minutes, and it flies. But
nevertheless, Mr. Koehler, you mentioned something about
working with the pharmaceutical manufacturers and being
notified when, and working with them to figure out what drugs
it is that you should be looking for. Can you just elaborate on
that very quickly?
Mr. Koehler. Very quickly, we have an arrangement with
them, an agreement in a memorandum of understanding where
they'll share information on preclinical trial substances so we
can find a way to detect methods of when athletes or should
they be taking them.
Mr. Carter. Great. I am encouraged to hear that. I am a
pharmacist by profession so that is important to me. I have
just got a couple more seconds and I want to say this, and I am
not trying to be dramatic here, but I think it is important.
Obviously you have two world class athletes here who we are
very proud of and are doing more than just competing. They are
here testifying about a problem and trying to fix it, and thank
you for doing that. This is important that it is fair to them,
being world class athletes, but it is important to a lot of
kids around the world. It was important to me.
There was a time when the three of us were the same. We
were all in the backyard. We were dreaming. I was standing on
that cinder block and I was looking down at Michael Phelps and
I was looking down at Adam Nelson and I was the Olympic
champion. And we owe it to those kids, we owe it to those
dreamers to make sure it is fair, to make sure they have the
opportunity to compete. Thank you both. Thank you all for being
here.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Ruiz for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
panelists. The testimony that I have heard today is disturbing
on a number of levels. I am outraged that Russian officials
cheated, broken the rules, attacked the integrity of the
Olympics to influence the outcome of the Olympics for their
benefits. Kind of sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Russia's widespread doping endangered the health of their
own athletes. Not only did they put their own athletes at risk,
but they also cheated the millions of athletes across the globe
that work hard and play clean. It also violates the trust
between nations who put their faith in a system and work toward
the same goal, which is an even playing field for all athletes.
We must have the proper checks and balances in place to ensure
that no one athlete or one country cheats to have an unfair
advantage.
I am a physician. Dr. Budgett, we know that doping is the
use of hormones, whether natural hormones or synthetic or blood
transfusions, in order to increase the capacity to carry
oxygen, meaning increasing the red blood cells which could
cause an increase in viscosity, high risk for strokes,
pulmonary emboli, and other serious, life-threatening health
problems, and we are seeing this in the emergency departments
with young athletes.
What are the symptoms that you can tell a parent or a
coach, somebody out there in the community to watch for in case
a youth is using these type of performance-enhancing drugs?
Dr. Budgett. Thank you. As I said in my statement this is a
health attack on athletes and so often they are the victims.
And it often goes from supplements then through, and there's a
widespread abuse of supplements in sport, and then on through
the use of prohibitive substances.
Mr. Ruiz. So what are the signs and symptoms for parents
and coaches to look out for?
Dr. Budgett. Well, there can be also the side effects
particularly from anabolic steroids of masculinization in
females is the most obvious sign, but also severe acne. And
then those hidden signs that you wouldn't see, cardiac, liver
disease, and other things like that.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Since I am halfway through my time I
am going to direct my questions to our Nation's heroes, Mr.
Nelson and Mr. Phelps. You are a recent father, Boomer. I am a
recent father, twin daughters Sky and Sage. You know, I just
can't wait until they identify what their dreams are. And I
know that there are a lot of kids out there who look up to you,
who in my district who want to accomplish greatness, their
greatness.
What do you tell them when they are pressured to use drugs
that will enhance their performance, Mr. Phelps? Look at them
now and speak to them on camera.
Mr. Phelps. My biggest thing is my whole journey started
with a dream. That was it. And as I said earlier, my coach and
I decided that we were going to come up with a plan and we were
going to train on holidays. We were going to train every day of
the year. You know, we were never going to take a day off for
an extended period of time and get those 52 extra days for
Sundays, for example, because nobody trained on Sunday. We'd
get those 52 extra days than anybody else would, so we'd have
that one step ahead of everybody. And I think that's like, you
know, if you want to be great you have to do things that other
people aren't willing to do.
And for me, yes, it wasn't always fun getting up at 7
o'clock on a Sunday and going to swim, but you know what, I
wanted to accomplish my goal bad enough that nothing's going to
stand in my way. And I think that, you know, like I said in the
end, like I hope somebody breaks my record. I hope I have the
chance to see that because it shows you that kids are truly,
they're going to attack their dreams and their goals and
they're going to go through hard times of course, we all do.
But they're not going to give up.
And that was something that I did in my career, I never,
ever, ever gave up no matter how hard it got, and it got pretty
hard at times. It got challenging for me. And for me, I would
just love to see that in kids and the future of sport to be
able to have that power that you can get from your mind and not
being afraid to dream.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, what would you tell the
kids that are being pressured or are flirting with the idea of
use doping to enhance their performance?
Mr. Nelson. Well, the first thing I would say to the
parents is that it's OK to have this conversation. My dad sat
down with me when I was 16 years old because I was a big guy
and I was already lifting weights at the time, and he said,
quite honestly he said, ``I'm going to disown you if you ever
do this.'' That was enough for me. We had a conversation about
it. So set their expectations early.
The second piece is to talk about what the spirit of an
Olympian really is. So we focus on the medals, but the medals
are a reward for the work to get there. Most of what happens as
an Olympic athlete happens when nobody else is watching. You
have to have a gold medal process, and those processes must be
based on principles. That's up to the parents. That's up to the
people to decide what those principles are. If you allow for
this to come into your life at any level, you're promoting this
particular issue in a negative light. So that's what I would
say.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Walberg of
Michigan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here. I appreciate this discussion.
Mr. Koehler, how does WADA evaluate the role of other
individuals in the anti-doping violations, for example, a
coach, when it is found out that an athlete has tested positive
and then ultimately find out it was a coach that encouraged him
or her to dope, what happens? What is the punishment for the
coach?
Mr. Koehler. That's the responsibility of the national
anti-doping organizations and the international federations.
But when an athlete does test positive and is sanctioned, there
is a requirement for the national anti-doping organizations,
the international sport federations to look at and investigate
the entourage and to see if there was an influence. Is it being
done comprehensively now? I don't believe so. Should it be done
more? Absolutely.
Mr. Walberg. So if we find out there was really no
punishment following up this, we know then the coaches have the
potential of going on and training other athletes the same way.
I mean are we doing something to get at that?
Mr. Koehler. If a coach is found to be complicit in
assisting an athlete they will be sanctioned, but there has to
be the mechanisms to explore that.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Tygart, do you want to respond?
Mr. Tygart. I would just say it's critically important to
break down the systems in place that as we heard earlier abuse
their own athletes like in Russia. And let's be clear, those
athletes had no, they had very little choice, if any choice,
but to participate in this sport system and state system to
dope, that's abuse of those Russian athlete, and we ought to do
everything possible to stop the abuse by systems of individual
athletes. And it's exactly why we were so frustrated that the
IOC refused to take any meaningful sanctions against the system
that abused their own athletes in this process.
Mr. Walberg. And that is where it has to stand from the
world community to do that and ultimately sanctions have to be
sure and complete or otherwise, Mr. Budgett, there will be more
and more people like me that refuse to watch the figure skating
going on, just sensing something is wrong there. But I wish you
well on that Mr. Nelson and Mr. Phelps.
And Mr. Phelps, Go Blue. Got to get that in. I was a
wrestler in high school and college and I don't think doping
would have changed my outcomes in any way, shape or form from
my opponent or myself. But I never, I never will forget
watching Dan Gable who was a contemporary of mine. I never
wrestled him and there were many reasons why I never did. But
at the NCAA finals watching him, 1970-71, against the guy he
had defeated before from Washington and coming to the last
seconds of the final period and Gable lost by one point as the
result of a reversal.
And knowing that Dan Gable had never lost high school or
college ever, and this was the first loss in his career, and
spent the next time before the Olympics beating his body into
submission and he won a gold in the Olympics, and that is the
sport. That is the thrill you were talking about that only most
of us will ever experience by watching it, someone else do it.
And Mr. Nelson, you have given me hope that that final second
reversal that I had against Chicago Vocational, maybe I will
get that point and win it.
But let me ask the two of you, in your opinion what
motivates athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs beyond
just to win? What motivates them?
Mr. Phelps. I don't know. I mean, that's the only thing I
can say. I mean, as somebody who has competed clean for over 20
years, I have no clue why somebody would do that.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson. So I'm a little older, so I can remember having
conversations with some of the older athletes back in the '90s.
And one of the things that was very common then at that time,
and I can remember having a conversation with one specific
athlete, he said you can't throw 20 meters clean. They had a
prejudgment on what they could do by themselves. They never
gave themselves enough time to develop the skill sets necessary
to do that. My response to them was, no, you can't throw 20
meters clean.
Mr. Walberg. But you could.
Mr. Nelson. What's that?
Mr. Walberg. But you could.
Mr. Nelson. I believed so, and I did.
Mr. Walberg. Yes.
Mr. Nelson. Not at the time, but I believed I could. So to
answer the question specifically, I think it's a combination of
insecurity and at some level the culture that they surround
themselves in that says this is the answer, this is the way
forward.
Mr. Walberg. So until we find the answer to that question
and able to deal with the athletes to a conclusion, we have to
have sanctioning bodies that are resolute in doing whatever it
takes to go above that evil nature as it were and make it fair
for guys who will not do that at any cost. Thank you for being
part of this panel. I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Ms.
DeGette for a wrap-up, 30 seconds if you could.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to again thank everybody for coming today and illuminating
this. I was really encouraged both Mr. Koehler and Dr. Budgett
to hear you say that your organizations are interested in
making change.
Mr. Tygart, I think your direct testimony has been very
helpful. I was on this subcommittee in 2003 when we did the
investigations on Salt Lake and the bid rigging, and we had the
same kind of a situation where the IOC, you know, the
intentions were good but they just weren't getting there. And I
think because of illumination that we had and another hearing
that it kind of nudged people around. I agree with you, Mr.
Tygart. You know, we have been investigating this for a long
time. We can figure out what we need to do about the rules and
the funding and we can do it soon.
So the chairman and I were just talking, I am hoping we
will have another hearing soon, and I am hoping that the
various organizations will come to that hearing and tell us the
changes they are going to make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Murphy. I thank the gentlelady. You know, as I listen
to everything you say I am thinking of where my office is in
Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania, three gold medalists from there. A
guy named Kurt Angle, he used to run up the hill with other
students on his back, or Suzie McConnell, a basketball player,
or this new swimmer, Leah Smith, outstanding people.
And it is amazing to think with all the other things going
on that people like that can still shine and get their gold
medal and not have to get it in a food court. And Mr. Nelson, I
hope you get ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' played for you
sometime with that.
We have heard a lot of commitments to reform the system
today, but particularly, Mr. Koehler and Dr. Budgett, will you
commit to this committee to keep us informed of your progress
on these reforms and to reappear before the committee once
these reforms are completed?
Mr. Koehler. On behalf of the World Anti-Doping Agency, we
would be pleased to keep this committee up to date on the
reforms and the actions that are moving forward. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Dr. Budgett.
Dr. Budgett. I can echo that.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Tygart submitted additional
documents to support his testimony, so I ask unanimous consent
to enter those documents into the hearing record, and, without
objection, we will do that.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.]\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Report of the World Anti-Doping Agency, ``Report of the
Independent Observers: Games of the XXXI Olympiad, Rio de Janeiro
2016,'' has been retained in committee files and also is available at
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20170228/105613/HHRG-115-IF02-
20170228-SD017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Murphy. Finally, in conclusion, I want to thank all the
witnesses and Members that participated in today's hearing. I
remind Members they have 10 business days to submit questions
for the record. I ask that the witnesses all agree to respond
promptly to the questions. With that, again thank you for
attending this hearing, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]