Keep WADA out of cricket - Inbox at Cricinfo

A second kind of drug use is more familiar outside the world of elite sport. I’m talking about recreational drugs, like alcohol, cocaine and marijuana. Ed Giddins, a middling English bowler, got in trouble for taking cocaine. He said someone must have spiked his drink with cocaine, though of course in some parts of the world it would be the alcohol that would have landed him in hot water. Phil Tufnell and Ian Botham actually admitted to smoking pot. In many countries this is against the law, but it couldn’t possibly be described as performance enhancing, unless by ‘performance’ we mean the ability to taste the colour in Pink Floyd. Recreational drugs have brought pleasure to some and destroyed the lives of others, but they aren’t a problem special to cricket.

‘Performance enhancement’ is the third, and, we would assume, most important, use of drugs. It might be confused with the first; masking pain can surely improve performance but it is usually associated with a different purpose, namely, to build up one’s body in order to run faster, jump higher and lift greater weight. In sports like swimming, cycling, running and other athletic events this is a massive problem because triumph is decided by a stopwatch or a yardstick and the difference between glory and failure can be a millimetre or one hundredth of a second. Twitchier muscles or more highly oxygenated blood confer a clear advantage for the users of certain drugs, who are rightly called cheats. Yet such drugs are utterly irrelevant to the enhancement of cricket performance. In none of the salient dimensions of the game of cricket - bowling, batting, catching - do medicines enhance performance. No amount of steroids would have made Steve Harmison hit the cut strip on that fateful Brisbane morning in November 2006. It’s not for want of pseudoephedrine that Alistair Cook plays across his front pad. And a pill has yet to be invented that can lend Graeme Smith the effortless beauty of Mahela Jayawardene’s cover drive.

So much for the disease. What about the cure? WADA developed stringent and zealous procedures in the context of athletics, and rightly so. But one size does not fit all. To apply rules designed for athletics and apply them to cricket is disproportionate and potentially destructive. The ‘whereabouts’ clause, to which the BCCI objected, means that violations of the procedure of testing become grounds for a ban. That is, by not giving your whereabouts correctly you will be treated as though you have taken banned substances.

A word of warning. If WADA had their way, Shane Warne would have been struck from the game. Think about that. Because an unapproved chemical was found in Warne’s bloodstream, one of the all time great players would have been kept from the stage for far longer. There was never any suggestion he gained an unfair competitive advantage. He just broke a rule. If you think about it, he broke a lot of rules, and that’s one reason he’ll always be my favourite. But it never was, and could never have been, the case that drugs made him great. If you imagine a 1920s international sports council populated entirely by pious American prohibitionists trying to ban Jack Hobbs for drinking a beer, you might get a sense of what is at stake. Cricket is our game, and it should be us, not athletics administrators, who make the rules. While the BCCI’s motives may be murky, if they can keep WADA out of cricket, they will be doing the game a great service.

I agree, but perhaps for different reasons.

I think elite athletes including cricketers should be free to take whatever drugs they want to make themselves perform better. As long as information about consequences of each drug is known to the players and the fans, I see no problem. It's their bodies and they can harm it if they want to. They'll get bigger sponsorship deals, and we the fans get entertained.

Cricket would be more of a spectacle if fast bowlers were more powerful. If wicketkeepers could jump further to the left or the right. If batsmen could run faster singles. If fielders could sprint faster to the ball and throw further and catch higher. If players could push themselves beyond normal pain thresholds and keep entertaining us. If close in fielders had faster reflexes. And most importantly, if all players had much greater physical endurance so that it was only mental fatigue that would cause a good player to not have a long innings or bowling spell, not physical fatigue.

Agree with much of what you said but I do not think that drugs are "utterly irrelevant to the enhancement of cricket performance".
1)Drugs cannot make a fast bowler bowl consistently in the "avenue of apprehension" but drugs can certainly make a fast bowler bowl faster AND for longer.Ability to stay energetic on the field for longer periods is useful in any discipline.
2)Stimulants do not only have an effect on the muscles but on the Brain as well.Increased power of concentration is a very desirable effect of Stimulants. Unsurprisingly the sale of "Speed" increases significantly amongst students during the Exam season.
Having said all that,I do agree that as compared to sports like Cycling , Swimming, Bodybuilding etc Cricketers have less to gain.

Totally agree that cricket should not be part of WADA.
The ICC do have their own Code of Conduct for players and officials which probibits players going out of line while playing the game of cricket.
They should introduce a WADA like sytem,more cricket oriented, in their Code of Conduct and enforce it strictly.
Cricket is not a wrestling or a boxing game. Any player who tries to enhance his physical fitness will not be able to play good cricket as he one needs to be mentally and technically balanced to play well.

Hats off to the BCCI for standing up for a right cause.Its not the question of players whereabouts, its a question of bringing things in line while keeping the traditions of game in tact.

Several good points made in this article. Good job Alfred.

If a fast bowler can bowl quicker because of drugs then that ought to be prevented. Also drugs which increase endurance should be kept out of the game as well. For both cases testing during the tournaments will be sufficient. So I see no necessity of random testing.

Just like BCCI has its own motives for not agreeing to WADA rules, WADA has its motives for forcing incongruous regulations down ICC's throat. Clearly they are looking to expand their tentacles into Asian region where funding is fairly low. What better way to get into India than by cricket. If they are impervious to the demands of non-athletic sports agencies, it is time we had another drug testing agency.

You make drug testing sound like it is the most horrible thing in the world and that it will constantly result in innocent cricketers being found 'guilty' of taking drugs.
Firstly, I have been drug tested numerous times and it is extremely simple and no where near as invasive as people believe.
Secondly the rules are extremely easy to follow - there is nothing wrong with taking alcohol and players should not be taking recreational drugs anyhow as they CAN enhance performance. If you take speed it can speed up your reactions and depressant drugs can make you more relaxed. Thirdly the performance enhancing drugs are not so much a problem DURING the game of cricket but during training. This is the time that they are used to allow the players to get stronger faster and work at higher intensities than possible. They could also use blood doping so that they wouldn't get tired during a long game (ie - a test!).
Lastly cortisone injections are not illegal as you imply. Terribly researched

Indeed drug is not a major problem in cricket. And cricket should never have joined the WADA bandwagon. Shane Warne tested positive for a diuretic and was suspended as per the rules of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency. At that time, the ICC did not have any anti-doping rule, but Cricket Australia was bound by its country's anti-doping agency. It was a known drug. There aren't any unknown drugs that are tested by WADA. If a drug is unknown then obviously it cannot be tested and they are commonly known as designer drugs. Instead of keeping WADA out of cricket, it should be that cricket is kept out of WADA. And that is a choice that the ICC has to make. No one is forcing it to follow any doping rules.

Nice article. But then, at the very end, you say that BCCI's motives may be murky! Just be cerebral and not emotional and think what BCCI would gain in this. They agreed that if you want to test anyone, they will provide their whereabouts in 24 hours. Is that not enough? BCCI may be wrong in other issues but to even suggest that BCCI's motives "may" be murky in this issue is, well, I am afraid, bringing the worst prejudice in you against India out. Another example. Everyone likes to bash the BCCI because they support Zimbabwe in return for their vote. True. A few years ago, England refused to tour Zimbabwe saying that they were taking a symbolic stand. But immediately, the next month there was a return tour of Zimbabwe to England. England did not have ANY problems with it. Reason: Money. Where has all the smbolism gone? Every board is selfish, why single out BCCI?

I agree in essence with the article, that cricket will be best served by its own regime instead of WADA. However there are two things to add: 1) the article implies that it's difficult to use drugs for performance enhancement in cricket. This, however, is patently untrue. Fast bowlers in particular (but also batsmen - compare baseball) can benefit significantly from drug use that makes them stronger and gives them greater stamina. Cricket therefore does need a transparent and uniform system for protecting itself against such cheats. 2) The problem is the toothlessness of the ICC. That's where the BCCI's vested interests in opposing the WADA proposal are worrying - what's to stop them under the current system from protecting their stars from being banned (as Pakistan has already tried to do)? Cricket, if it doesn't need WADA, certainly does need an independent body with the same kind of freedom and authority as WADA enjoys.

In support with you!
I don't think the BCCI's reasons for standing up against WADA is any murky than FIFA standing up against WADA.
I also would encourage the use of drugs to assist players recover from injury. I mean how many of us would like to watch Ian Bell replace KP? Or for that matter Suresh Raina replace Virendra Sehwag due to injury? In fact it is for the betterment of our sport that drugs be made free to use for recovering from injuries.
Why don't the other boards think about the obvious nonsense that drug testing requirements have on cricket? What can these drugs do potentially? They cannot make a Rohit Sharma play like Sachin or Adil Rashid play like Flintoff, can they? If they did, then that would be the definition of "performance enhancing drug" in cricket.

Well, this article seems to be more of an emotional outburst from an ardent cricket fan, rather than a rational or logical one, as the writer would want the readers to believe by listing points why drug use in Cricket does not enhance performance or give the user any undue advantage.
The writer has mentioned how taking drugs would not make Graeme Smith more skilful than Mahela Jaywardhane. Now, consider the case of a fragile fast bowler, who can not sustain himself in Test Cricket despite being highly talented and skilful, as his fragile body would not allow that. Now, if the same bowler uses some banned drug that builds his muscles and enhances his stamina - he can excel in his chosen sport. If a banned drug enhances the stamina of a fast bowler to allow him to bowl long spells, then is it not undue advantage? Some food for thought ...

This article does not make sense neither is there any concern for the welfare of sportsmen.Drug abuse is an evil which must be discouraged in all sports.I am appalled by the comments of one 'John' who advocates free usage of banned drugs simply for the entertainment with no regard to the cricketers' well being.The one thing i dislike about the rules of WADA is that a sportsman has to tell about his whereabouts in advance.That is a grave violation of privacy and should be erased from the restricitions.Sportsmen need to be taught throughly about the drugs in all aspects and fines and puinshment made harder.This is far better than intruding into one's personal life.Also cricketers should be prepared to be tested whenever their relative cricket boards think it necessary and if found guilty puinshed for their errors.Free usage of drugs will lead to a trend in future generations and eventually a breed of 'junkie' sportsmen.

To WADA's apologists. Bureaucracies have an insatiable appetite for power. Such power derives from protecting and implementing arbitrary laws. These rules may have been voted into place but they are arbitrary. As I have pointed out on other Cricinfo blogs, why isn't LASIK eye surgery cheating? Why are sportspersons allowed to use trainers, equipment and in the event of injury, doctors and surgeons? Because these rules and laws are arbitrary. And consider the absurdity of WADA trying to ban chess grandmaster Vassily Ivanchuk for two years for not responding to a drug test. FIDE is a WADA signatory only because it needs it to get funding from certain European governments. It's a typical case of bureaucracies watching out for each other's interests. These parasites cannot produce anything original so they need such ploys to gain a locus standi. BCCI hasn't signed anything so why should it be bound?

Thanks for your comments. Just to clarify one point: when I said BCCI's motives were murky, all I meant is that I don't know exactly what went into their decision, not that I thought their motives were in any way disreputable. Also, I didn't mean to suggest that doping can make no conceivable difference to cricket performance - with bigger muscles you might indeed hit the ball further. My point was that doping does not confer a decisive advantage to winning and losing, in stark contrast to the stopwatch and yardstick sports. Finally, my central point was not so much about the rights and wrongs of drug use in general or in sport (I'm probably more libertarian than most), but about the importance of cricket developing its own rules to respond to its own problems. Why cricket should need the approval of the curtain-twitching busybodies of the 'globally recognised' doping authority recognised by the UN is quite beyond me. Cricket is just a game. It's our game. It's up to us how to run it.