[RC] Thoughts on FEI Drug Vote (from someone who was there) - Jay Randle
FEI General Assembly
Some of you will have kept up with developments at this year's Assembly in rainy Copenhagen and the controversy it caused in relation to the 'progressive list'.
It was certainly an unusual Assembly, the 11th (and probably last) I have attended, and the first for our new President Paul Cargill.
As usual, NFs are swamped with masses of documents in the lead-up to the Assembly, which was to introduce major reforms in governance and other areas. A number of the most important issues for decision underwent major revisions shortly before the Assembly, thus providing little opportunity to discuss key elements with stakeholders at home and overseas. As a result, votes often had unexpected results.
The Statutes
The Extraordinary General Assembly (EGA), during which changes to Statutes are approved, had been separated from the 'Ordinary General Assembly' and brought forward by two days. Subject to the approval of changes to the Statutes, the move was to enable the election of the new Board of 7 to replace the current Bureau of 17 members mainly representative of the FEI Regional Groups and the Technical Committees.
The Nomination Committee had put forward a list to fill the 6 vacancies on the new Board, including the Athlete Director. After receiving feedback from various National Federations (NFs), the FEI amended the proposed new Statutes allowing for all 13 Board nominees to be put to the vote and limiting the number of people from any one Group to 1. By coincidence, there were representatives from five Groups on the Ballot to fill five vacancies. It is, however, quite possible that the field of candidates would have looked different if the new provision had been in the draft Statutes before nominations closed.
The late change to the proposed Statutes led to intense discussion before and during the EGA. The vote was, however, quite clear. Not only did the new Statutes not reach the required two-third majority, they were actually rejected by a majority of NFs. There was, therefore, no election of a new FEI Board and my job as Chairman of Scrutineers for the Assembly became somewhat easier.
Had the late amendments been put to a separate vote first, they would have been rejected but there would have been a chance for the original version of the new Statutes to be adopted. I cannot understand why this path was not taken.
As it stands, new Statutes will, according to the FEI President, not be presented again to the General Assembly for another two years. In the meantime, plans and budgets will be adjusted to the continuation of present governance arrangements including the large Bureau.
'Clean Sport'
Following the FEI's Clean Sport campaign led by the Ljungqvist and Stevens Commissions, the 2009 FEI GA was supposed to be the culminating point at which a new Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication system was to be put in place. The new regulations more clearly separated 'Doping' substances from 'Medications' and new comprehensive lists made it easier to identify substances. Management processes and sanctions were brought more in line with those under the World Anti-Doping Code.
During a well-attended 'Clean Sport' workshop the day before the actual General Assembly, which was to vote on the new system, there was intense debate about the late notice the FEI had given of the so-called 'progressive list' of substances, which included threshold levels for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), and the fact that these drugs were to be allowed during competition within these limits. All major Equestrian NFs spoke against this list and warned that the introduction of limited use of medication during competition would completely overshadow any gains from the 'clean sport' campaign, harm the image of the sport and lose sponsorship. At the end of the session the general feeling was that the original list would be favoured by NFs over the 'progressive list'.
During the General Assembly, NFs first voted overwhelmingly for the new system and for the adoption of the recommendations of the Commissions.
When it came to the decision on which list to adopt, there was - amazingly - no further discussion of the pros and cons of the two lists before the vote was taken, not even in the form of a summary statement. The vote, a choice between the 'current list' and the 'progressive list', had 53 NFs vote for the 'progressive list' and 48 for the other. A change of three votes would have produced the opposite result.
The vote caused many NFs to stand up and deplore the decision. Various attempts ensued to have the vote re-taken, none of them successful. It became obvious, however, that many NFs had not attended the forum held the day before and were not aware of the strong opposition of European nations to the 'progressive list'. There had also been some lobbying and vote-trading by a group of NFs that supported the 'progressive list', and other factors may also have played a role. The fact is that a vote was taken and that the 'progressive list' was adopted, however narrowly. The joys of democracy.
The fall-out in the European press has been substantial. It remains to be seen what the real consequences of the 'list' are going to be. Let's hope that what started as a very positive process, namely to have a 'clean sport', will in the end deliver the right result. The FEI Bureau, FEI management and NFs all have a chance to influence the direction.
We in Australia will need to decide our own destiny regarding the 'progressive list' and allowing low levels of NSAID during competition, at least in National competition.
