MacLeod test a warning sign for SRU

Published on Monday 25 February 2008 22:33

THE Scottish Rugby Union is to tighten up its procedure for allowing asthma sufferers dispensation to take a banned substance, after Scotland internationalist Scott MacLeod failed a drugs test because his paperwork was not in order.

MacLeod has been warned and reprimanded after failing a drugs test last month, but an independent judicial committee has allowed him to continue playing rugby on the basis that the player made an administrative mistake.

The SRU called a press conference at Murrayfield to reveal that the Scotland lock forward, who played against Ireland on Saturday, had tested positive for a substance called Terbutaline, a drug found in the asthma inhaler Bricanyl, in a random UK Sport drugs test a month ago. The reason for the announcement was two-fold – to make public the issue as soon as the possibility of an appeal from the player had ended, and to raise awareness of the mistake he had made.

In an environment of suspicion, stirred by sporting drugs cheats such as recently-returned sprinter Dwain Chambers, claims of innocence are routinely dismissed by the public. However, it was clear as MacLeod's story unfolded yesterday that there was official support for the SRU over what appears to have been a simple, but foolish oversight on the part of the Hawick-born Llanelli player.

Terbutaline is a drug banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), but permitted for treating asthma if the player seeks and is granted an exemption. MacLeod had used Bricanyl to treat chronic asthma until 2006, and then changed to a different type of inhaler which the authorities also permitted if an exemption was granted. But when MacLeod returned to Bricanyl recently he failed to inform the SRU, IRB and UK Sport, and this turned a random drugs test into the panic of a positive result.

The SRU said yesterday that it had followed its own antidoping code by giving MacLeod the minimum punishment of a warning and reprimand; the maximum for such an offence was a year's suspension. Questions will be raised over the fact the independent judicial committee that determined his fate featured three individuals connected to the SRU – as is customary in such cases – but no objections have been raised so far.

The committee's verdict is a huge relief for the SRU, with a failed drugs test having threatened to turn a poor Six Nations campaign into a disaster. However, the union has acknowledged the need for greater clarity in the exemption procedure to help its players, and is amending the documentation sent to players who are granted an exemption to take a banned substance by stating clearly that the exemption is for the specific named drug only, and not for general treatment of the medical condition with any alternative drugs. The SRU will also urge the IRB to consider a similar change to its documentation.

All Scottish rugby players with exemptions – known as therapeutic use exemptions, or TUEs – are to be checked this week to ensure they have stipulated exactly what drug it is they are taking. MacLeod admitted that he had been naive in believing the TUE simply covered the fact that treatment was being taken for asthma, as opposed to every drug taken. "I thought that the TUE form specified that I have asthma and that I take an asthma reliever for it," said MacLeod. "I was shocked and I'm glad it is all over now. I won't make the same mistake again."

MacLeod was joined at yesterday's press conference by Gregor Nicholson, the SRU's international administration manager, and Scotland team doctor James Robson.

Nicholson said: "We were under no regulatory requirement to name Scott, but given that he feels this has been a salutary lesson he has agreed not only to his name being released but also to appear here (before the media]. Dr James Robson and I have discussed an action plan arising put of this incident. We thought we had procedures in place which would have covered this sort of situation, but things can always probably be tightened up.

"Aspects of that plan have been put in place, including making it perfectly clear to players that when they receive a TUE it is only for the specific prohibited substance.

"Ultimately, in terms of the WADA code, the IRB and SRU regulations, responsibility rests with the players to ensure he is not ingesting anything which is on the prohibited substance list. Having said that, there is a degree of support given to the players and part of the action plan is to make sure that it is as good as it can be, whilst not taking away the ultimate responsibility of the players to make sure they have the correct TUE in place for medication they are taking."

Dope bodies back verdict

THE decision to give Scott MacLeod the minimum punishment of a warning and reprimand for failing a drugs test has been given the backing of the International Rugby Board and UK Sport.

Both organisations have confirmed that they were kept informed throughout the process and they are satisfied with the Scottish Rugby Union's handling of MacLeod's anti-doping offence, which appears to rule out further ramifications from Scottish rugby's first major drugs issue.

Andy Parkinson, UK Sport's head of operations for drug-free sport, said: "This case provides a useful reminder to all athletes of the process they must go through to be able to use prescribed medicines that contain prohibited substances. The rules are designed to ensure all athletes can compete on a level playing field, but the process must be adhered to properly to ensure it is not open to abuse.

"We are satisfied the player involved needed the substance for his particular medical condition, and the SRU have dealt with this correctly in line with the regulations set out in the World Anti-Doping code."

The World Anti Doping Agency is another body with the power to take the matter further, and a spokesman from its Lausanne headquarters told The Scotsman that it had not yet received the report and so could make no comment on how it might respond.

"The IRB is signed up to WADA's code, however, and its processes are in line with what we set down," he said. "WADA would review the decision and determine whether it was in compliance with the code. If WADA decided it was not then we could appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but we have still to review the committee's decision."