Inside secret world of sport’s drugbusters
The first rower to be tested is still in wet training kit, showers are rarely permitted
The car park of a remote Berkshire retail park is what doubles as both meeting point and briefing location for an assignment so secretive that, even upon arrival, I still have no idea where we are going.
“OK everyone,” says Craig*, who is taking the lead on this particular operation. “Paul, you stay in the car park at the exit when we arrive to ensure nobody leaves. Elaine, you get a list of everyone on site. Beverley, you already know the layout. Can you also keep an eye on the lake and cafe? Here are photographs of the four people we will be looking for. Is everyone clear?”
The purposeful nods provide their answer and, with that, the cars depart in convoy.
My instructions are definite. No Twitter postings about where we are going. No telling any third party what I am doing and do not, under any circumstances, say or write anything that will identify the people I am with. It is the first time that UK Anti-doping has allowed a journalist to witness the inner workings of a test and the rationale for the secrecy is simple: no athlete should have any prior notification.
As we draw up to the security gates, a large sign at least puts me out of my suspense. ‘Redgravepinsent Rowing Lake’, it says, adjacent to another sign that confirms we have entered British Rowing’s national training centre. It is 11am and everywhere you look are tall and extremely powerfullooking Olympic hopefuls.
Two male and two female athletes have been selected for testing. A request by one rower to know if he will be needed is politely declined but one of the required athletes is quickly spotted through a group of bodies in the gym. The athletes are first told of the imminent test either directly by a UKAD official or in full view of them. From that point, they do not leave the sight of at least one member of UKAD’S team. On this visit, there are two Doping Control Officers (DCOS) and two Chaperones. The actual moment of informing the athlete that they will be tested is when there is most chance of some confrontation. This remains rare even in the highlycharged aftermath of competition – although Arsenal’s Mesut Ozil did kick a door after the recent defeat at Tottenham – and is even less likely in the calmer environment of training. “You occasionally get a bit of stick – especially if they have just lost a big race or match – but they usually then apologise within a couple of minutes,” says Craig, the lead DCO.
One certainty of being selected for testing is that your day is about to change. Dr Ann Redgrave, British Rowing’s chief medical officer and Sir Steve’s wife, is one of several staff who soon introduces themselves to the testers and asks if there is anything they need.
“Sometimes athletes are initially surprised by how much they are tested but we educate them that it is part of what they signed up to; the same as getting into a boat and training every day,” says Ann.
“It’s disruptive only from the point of view that they don’t know. For example, they are going racing abroad tomorrow and so today was a rare opportunity to have the afternoon off and get some chores done. If they get picked, they must wait. We teach them to the extreme that, if they are in a regatta and there is not much time to the flight home, they may have to stay overnight and a member of staff will stay with them.”
The first rower who will be tested is still in wet training kit and, although she is told that she can get changed, showers are only permitted in exceptional circumstances. A series of forms are signed before the sample is given, including a declaration of any medication or supplements that are being taken.
Craig then opens a case of sealed jars and it is for the athlete to choose one. They are offered gloves or the chance to wash their hands and, when ready, escorted to a secure room where they will attempt to produce a urine sample. Past stories of male athletes, including the boxer Mike Tyson, hiding his recreational drug use with the aid of a fake penis – a so-called “whizzinator” – are well known and athletes must now lift their clothes and deliver the sample within a clear line of sight of the Chaperone. UKAD acknowledge that it can be “quite an invasive” experience.
“You try to build a rapport to make them feel comfortable,” says Craig. “You need to be able to talk to them about their sport. I do this because I am passionate about people being clean and the fairness of sport.” Mother nature makes it inevitable that there can be huge discrepancies in how quickly a sample is delivered.
The range on this day stretches three hours which, for a testing team who must be ready to clear a whole day if necessary, is about standard but still something of a relief. The samples must also meet two other requirements. At least 90ml is needed and the concentration level is also measured to ensure that it is not excessively diluted and they have not effectively just reproduced water. If that happens, everyone must simply wait for the athlete to become less hydrated. The next step is to securely seal the sample.
Craig then produces a series of sealed cardboard boxes for the athlete to choose between. Inside are two more bottles and two
plastic bags, which are all checked by the athlete for any stray debris. It is for the athletes, in view of the tester, to create an ‘A’ and ‘B’ sample by separating the liquid into each bottle. They then themselves tightly lock the bottles with a ratchet and check that it is humanly impossible to reopen. A unique code is imprinted on the bottle and its lid which matches the cardboard box. A barcode sticker with the code is also stuck on the form that they sign.
The locked samples are placed in Craig’s case and will be transported by verified courier to the Wadaaccredited laboratory at King’s College in London. The lab has the specialised machinery to open the sample. A “chain of custody” form is signed in and out with the sample at each stage. No names are ever supplied and the labs literally have only the codes with which to identify the bottles. “They are designed as tamper-evident,” explains Hamish Coffey, UKAD’S head of testing. “That means it would be obvious if someone got into it. You would have to do some hard-core damage.”
There are approximately 30 accredited labs in the world and their performance is constantly monitored by Wada in a process which includes the “double blind” whereby testers like UKAD will be directed to send samples that are not from real athletes – but which may contain adverse findings – with a batch.
The standard turnaround from test to result is 10 days. National governing bodies are informed monthly of negative results. Any adverse findings are subjected to a further internal process of double-checking and crossreferencing before an athlete is contacted by the UKAD legal team to be notified of a charge.
So how does it feel on the other side of the fence? Dr Redgrave has the perspective of being an elite competitor herself going back to the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 when Sir Steve won the first of his five golds. It was an era when gender testing was also even deemed necessary and a conversation with an athlete from another country was a huge eye-opener. Ann says: “I was asked what medical aid I used? I was absolutely flabbergasted. They were very open about it and shocked when I said, ‘I don’t understand, I don’t use anything’. You don’t hear that kind of conversation any longer. The question the athletes ask now is: does everyone else get as many tests as we do? There are definitely areas in the world that are not as committed.”
The ongoing task to get ahead of the cheats remains two-fold, even if both elements largely relate to a level of anti-doping funding that in itself raises troubling questions about how seriously sport takes this issue.
“It’s not a lost battle but it’s a huge challenge when you look at the resource in sport, which possibly leads to pockets of very sophisticated levels of doping at extreme levels,” says Coffey.
Retrospective testing – which has caught cheats from the Beijing and London Olympics – is an increasingly powerful weapon and Wada also works with pharmaceutical companies to gather intelligence.
Urine tests are frozen and can be retested at any point in the next decade. Yet with annual government funding of just £5 million, UKAD’S limitations are placed into context when you consider that each of Britain’s 67 medals at the Rio Olympics came at a £4.2million cost.
They can theoretically test in as many as 50 sports, ranging from the obvious endurance events all the way to darts and the Highland Games. If sports themselves have concerns, they can independently contract UKAD and this has happened in amateur time-trial cycling. There is also no restriction on when and where UKAD can test, although between the hours of 11pm and 5am would, says Coffey, require “strong rationale”.
Each athlete in the international and national registered testing pools must also provide a daily hour of guaranteed availability. If they cannot be found at that time – Mo Farah famously said that his doorbell was not sufficiently audible after a missed test before London 2012 – UKAD protocol is that the DCO would try every 15 minutes during that hour.
The DCOS will also report back anything they deem relevant about a visit to an athlete’s home or a sport’s base in case something seemingly innocuous feeds into a wider intelligence picture. Craig says that it is the families or friends of athletes who are understandably most irritated by the inconvenience of a visit that might take place after dark or early in the morning, particularly if sleeping children are woken.
Testing, though, is targeted around intelligence-gathering. “High-risk sports during high-risk periods,” says Coffey. “We are publicly funded, have very finite resources and have a lot of sports. It is a massive balancing act. If we could do more that would be great.”
‘I do this because I am passionate about people being clean and the fairness of sport’