The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) is currently revising the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP) to reflect the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code implemented by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The CCES invites you to complete this survey to ensure the drafting process reflects feedback from the Canadian sport system. Thank you for providing your opinions.

This survey will be open until Friday July 31, 2020.

DISCLAIMER: Your answers to this survey are anonymous. CCES staff will use the data solely as part of the 2021 CADP consultation process and for program improvements.

Changes in the 2021 CADP

Question Title

* 1. The jurisdiction of the CADP applies primarily to athletes by way of their membership in a sport organization that has adopted the CADP. If or when membership lapses, it often means the CADP no longer applies to that athlete. This could be addressed by adding a new clause to the Athlete Contract that National Athlete Pool (NAP) athletes must sign, indicating that the CADP applies, regardless of membership status, until the athlete is either removed from the NAP or retires [CADP Part B, Sections 6.4.1 and 5.3.c)]. Do you agree with this solution?

Question Title

* 2. The CADP requires an athlete to be subject to testing for a substantial period of time prior to international participation, currently six months. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure an athlete cannot avoid being subject to testing by joining a sport organization on the eve of a competition. The 2021 CADP contains a revised requirement to include granting exemptions in circumstances where the requirement is otherwise unfair or unreasonable [CADP Part B, Section 4.4]. Does this seems reasonable?

Question Title

* 3. Following an anti-doping rule violation, there is a requirement in the 2021 CADP for the relevant sport organization to review and identify circumstances or factors specific to the sport, the athlete or the sport organization that may have contributed to the violation. The goal of the review is not to investigate the anti-doping rule violation, rather to identity lessons learned, if any, from the violation and improvements to undertake in an attempt to prevent similar occurrences. The sport organization will share all relevant factors and circumstances with the CCES together with any required steps for improvement [CADP Part B section 6.4.6 and section 5.3 i)]. Is this a manageable and sensible step for a sport organization to take?

Question Title

* 4. The scope of the 2021 CADP’s jurisdiction will reach beyond athletes who are members of adopting sport organizations to include certain designated athlete support personnel who assist NAP-level athletes and above in each sport or at a Canadian Sport Centre or Canadian Sport Institute to prepare for competitions. In the past, athlete support personnel (defined very broadly) has been a well understood term but it was an open question whether all such individuals were actually subject to the CADP as many are not members of an adopting sport organization. For example, trainers or doctors may have no formal ties to the sport organization but they treat elite athletes. For 2021, selected athlete support personnel in each sport will be identified and asked to sign a contract with the sport organization (as NAP athletes do) confirming that this sub-set of athlete support personnel working with NAP or elite athletes are indeed subject to the CADP [CADP Part B section 5.3 f) and Comment and section 6.4.2]. Can sport organizations manage this identification and administrative task?

Question Title

* 5. The scope of the 2021 CADP’s jurisdiction will now include a sport organization’s, and the CCES’s, board members, directors and staff if these individuals work in an area directly related to anti-doping efforts [CADP Part B section 5.3 b) and rule 1.3.1.2]. How will the sport organization identify these individuals and confirm unequivocally that they are indeed subject to the CADP?

Question Title

* 6. In an effort to hold sport organizations more accountable for their participants, the 2021 CADP incorporates a fine if significant doping is occurring in that sport and the organization fails to conduct internal reviews. For example, if three athletes in one sport receive the maximum sanctions for an anti-doping rule violation in a rolling 12-month period, and the organization fails to conduct an internal review, or fails to implement the recommended actions stemming from such a review, the sport organization may have to pay a fine [CADP Part C Rule 10.12]. Is this reasonable?

Question Title

* 7. The factors that will be evaluated by an arbitrator when a party’s expenses are sought to be reimbursed after a doping arbitration have been significantly revised. The primary focus will now be on the party’s conduct (if deemed unreasonable) rather than the outcome of the dispute or other criteria that were found in the SDRCC rules on costs [CADP Part C Rule 8.2.4]. Is this a suitable arrangement for both athletes and the CCES?

Question Title

* 8. In your opinion, how can anti-doping be more effective?

Question Title

* 9. If you could change a thing or two about the way CCES administers anti-doping, what would they be?

Question Title

* 10. Please share any additional information or feedback.

T