[Senate Executive Report 110-11]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                              Exec. Rept.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                      110-11

======================================================================



 
                    INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST
                            DOPING IN SPORT

                                _______
                                

                  June 27, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Biden, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                                 REPORT

               [To accompany Treaty Doc. 110-14; EC 6772]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred 
the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, adopted 
on October 19, 2005 (the ``Convention'') (Treaty Doc. 110-14; 
EC 6772), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with one understanding, one declaration, and one condition as 
indicated in the resolution of advice and consent, and 
recommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to 
ratification thereof, as set forth in this report and the 
accompanying resolution of advice and consent.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary of Convention............................................3
 IV. Entry Into Force................................................11
  V. Implementing Legislation........................................11
 VI. Committee Action................................................11
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments...........................11
VIII.Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification........13

 IX. Annex I.--2008 Prohibited List and Annex I to the Convention (EC 
     6772)...........................................................15
  X. Annex II.--Transcript of May 22, 2008 Hearing...................25

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of the Convention, as provided for in Article 
1, is to ``promote the prevention of and the fight against 
doping in sport, with a view to its elimination.'' The 
Convention seeks to achieve this purpose by enhancing 
international cooperation in the fight against doping in sport 
and by building on the international community's efforts to 
develop common standards for equitable doping control and 
enforcement. The Convention will help to protect the integrity 
and spirit of sport by supporting efforts to ensure a fair and 
doping-free environment for athletes.

                             II. Background

    In 1998, a number of prohibited medical substances were 
found by police in a raid during the Tour de France. The 
scandal led to a major reappraisal of the role of public 
authorities in the prevention of doping in sport and 
highlighted the need for international cooperation on this 
issue. In February 1999, the International Olympic Committee 
convened a World Conference on Doping in Sport, which was 
attended by both sports federations and governments, to 
determine what might be done to address the problem through 
international cooperation. The result was the establishment of 
an independent organization known as the World Anti-Doping 
Agency (WADA) in November 1999.\1\ The United States played a 
leading role in the establishment of WADA, which is 
headquartered in Montreal, and has long been one of its 
strongest supporters.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport was adopted by the 
World Conference on Doping in Sport on February 4, 1999. The 
Declaration states that ``[a]n independent International Anti-Doping 
Agency shall be established so as to be fully operational [by] 2000. 
This institution will have as its mandate, notably, to coordinate the 
various programmes necessary to realize the objectives that shall be 
defined jointly by all the parties concerned.''
    \2\WADA's total budget in 2008 was approximately $25 million. The 
United States contribution in 2008 was $1.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WADA is a unique hybrid organization that is governed and 
funded equally by both the Olympic Movement and governments. 
From the beginning, the United States has served as a 
governmental representative on the WADA Foundation Board. 
Pursuant to an Executive Order, the Director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) serves as the 
representative of the United States on the board.\3\ The 
organization's basic purpose is to promote harmonized, 
coordinated, and effective anti-doping programs at the 
international and national level with regard to the detection, 
deterrence, and prevention of doping in international sport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The Director of ONDCP is authorized to serve as the U.S. 
representative on the WADA board pursuant to Executive Order 13165 
(2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of WADA's most significant achievements has been the 
development of a uniform set of anti-doping rules in the World 
Anti-Doping Code, which was adopted by the WADA Foundation 
Board in March 2003. The Code provides the framework for 
harmonized anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations for 
sports federations and governments. The Code works in 
conjunction with four ``International Standards'' aimed at 
harmonizing the practice of national anti-doping organizations 
in several key areas: Standards for testing, standards for 
accredited laboratories that conduct testing on doping-control 
samples, a list of prohibited substances and methods, and a 
list of therapeutic use exemptions. The harmonization of 
standards in these areas is intended to address the problems 
that previously arose from uneven and uncoordinated anti-doping 
efforts around the world.
    National anti-doping organizations and sports federations 
are expected to be the main implementers of doping controls 
that are consistent with the Code, including the testing and 
sanctioning of athletes that commit anti-doping rule 
violations. In the United States, the United States Anti-Doping 
Agency (USADA), headquartered in Colorado Springs, is the 
national anti-doping agency. USADA is an independent anti-
doping agency for Olympic-related sport in the United States 
and was originally created as the result of recommendations 
made by the United States Olympic Committee's Select Task Force 
on Externalization to uphold the Olympic ideal of fair play, 
and to represent the interests of Olympic Games, Pan American 
Games, and Paralympic athletes. USADA works closely with WADA 
to implement the Code effectively with respect to athletes in 
the U.S. Olympic Movement.
    WADA's role is to monitor anti-doping activities worldwide 
to ensure implementation of and compliance with the Code in 
cooperation with national anti-doping organizations, such as 
USADA. For example, WADA receives a certificate of analysis 
every time a WADA-accredited laboratory analyzes a doping-
control sample collected from an athlete that shows the 
presence of a prohibited substance or method. As a result, WADA 
is able to follow up with the relevant national anti-doping 
organization to ensure that it is following the established 
rules and procedures set forth in the Code.
    In March 2003, 51 nations, including the United States, 
signed the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport. The 
Declaration, among other things, endorsed the Code and 
supported the negotiation of a Convention on Doping in Sport. 
This was the beginning of the process that led to the 
Convention, which was negotiated under the auspices of the 
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO) with significant United States Government 
involvement and support. The Convention builds on the 
international community's efforts to develop a common approach 
and standards for equitable doping control and enforcement by 
providing a common instrument that countries can join to 
demonstrate their commitment to the Code as the basis for 
national anti-doping control and policy. The Convention goes 
beyond the Code and would harmonize and coordinate the 
activities of governments in a variety of areas that are 
essential to combating doping in sport, such as scientific and 
medical research, prevention and education, and doping-control 
rules regarding specific doping substances and methods. To 
date, 85 countries have ratified the Convention, including 
Australia, Canada, China, and almost every country in Europe.
    The Convention is not structured to secure changes to 
national law or regulation, but rather to secure commitments by 
States Parties to promote international collaboration, 
research, and education, and to support the principles of the 
Code and WADA's role in implementing the Code. What follows is 
a discussion of several key provisions of the Convention.

                       III. Summary of Convention


                          A. MAJOR PROVISIONS

    A detailed article-by-article analysis of the Convention 
may be found in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of 
State to the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty 
Document 110-14. A summary of key provisions is set forth 
below.

Commitment to the World Anti-Doping Code and to the World Anti-Doping 
        Agency

    The Convention obligates States Parties to ``adopt 
appropriate measures'' that are ``consistent with the 
principles of the Code'' and ``foster international cooperation 
between States Parties and leading organizations in the fight 
against doping in sport, in particular with [WADA].'' See 
Article 3. In addition, the Convention provides that States 
Parties ``commit themselves to the principles of the Code'' as 
the basis for measures undertaken to implement the Convention. 
See Articles 4 and 5.
    The Convention also reaffirms WADA's role in implementing 
the Code and further provides WADA with an important role in 
the context of the Convention. For example, Article 14 states 
that ``States Parties undertake to support the important 
mission of the World Anti-Doping Agency in the international 
fight against doping''; Article 16 provides for international 
cooperation with WADA in doping control efforts; Article 29 
provides that WADA ``shall be invited as an advisory 
organization to the Conference of the Parties'' of the 
Convention; and Article 32(2) provides that at the request of 
the parties, ``the Director-General of UNESCO shall use to the 
fullest extent possible the services of the World Anti-Doping 
Agency. . . .''
    Although it is somewhat unusual for a nongovernmental 
organization to have a formal role in assisting in the 
implementation of a treaty, it is not without precedent. For 
example, the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the 
World Cultural and Natural Heritage, to which the United States 
is a party, similarly provides a role for nongovernmental 
organizations in the implementation of the treaty. Moreover, in 
this particular circumstance, using WADA appears to be a cost-
effective and efficient option. In response to the committee's 
questions, the Office of National Drug Control Policy explained 
that ``given WADA's technical expertise and the unique nature 
of doping, it would be advantageous to utilize the existing 
resources available from WADA'' rather than provide 
``additional funding to UNESCO . . . to hire additional staff 
and develop the capacity and expertise to provide anti-doping 
services.'' Furthermore, in accordance with Article 32(2), 
WADA's role is defined by the Conference of Parties. If States 
Parties have any concerns regarding WADA's assistance, they 
have the option to substantially limit or terminate WADA's role 
in implementing the Convention.

Flexibility in Implementation

    A number of countries in Europe, such as France and Italy, 
address doping in sport through direct government regulation, 
which in some cases means legislation that requires compliance 
by the sports federations or individual athletes with anti-
doping rules in those countries. In the United States, and in 
other countries such as Canada, Australia, and Japan, doping in 
sport is approached from a different perspective: instead of 
directly regulating anti-doping in sports, the sports 
federations are provided with incentives to self-regulate. The 
Convention recognizes these different approaches in Article 5, 
which states that the measures used to implement the Convention 
``may include legislation, regulation, policies or 
administrative practices.''

Prohibited Substances and Methods

    Article 8 supports Anti-Doping efforts by requiring states 
to take certain measures to restrict the availability of 
``Prohibited Substances and Methods'' in order to restrict 
their use in sports by athletes unless the use is based on a 
``Therapeutic Use Exemption.'' The ``Prohibited Substances and 
Methods'' and the ``Therapeutic Use Exemptions'' that are 
referred to in this Article are listed in the two Annexes to 
the Convention and originate from the Code. The administration 
notes in its submittal letter that this Article can be 
implemented by the United States without changing existing U.S. 
law or policy.\4\ The Prohibited Substances and Methods are 
mainly controlled substances whose production, movement, 
importation, distribution, and sale are controlled by the 
Controlled Substances Act.\5\ A number of the noncontrolled 
substances on the Prohibited List are subject to provisions of 
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act\6\ that restrict their use to 
legitimate medical activities and prohibits trafficking of such 
substances. In addition, U.S. states have parallel laws that 
address the trafficking, possession, and use of many of the 
substances on the Prohibited List. Finally, an increasing 
number of U.S. states have implemented student drug testing 
programs and education initiatives to prevent the use of doping 
substances on the Prohibited List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Treaty Doc. 110-14 at X.
    \5\21 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq.
    \6\21 U.S.C. Sec. 301 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Athlete Support Personnel

     Article 9 requires States Parties to take measures, or to 
encourage sports organizations and anti-doping organizations to 
take anti-doping measures, aimed at athlete support personnel. 
Athlete support personnel are defined in Article 2 to be a 
``coach, trainer, manager, agent, team staff, official, medical 
or paramedical personnel working with or treating athletes 
participating in or preparing for sports competition.'' The 
United States satisfies this requirement through its support of 
USADA, which has policies and testing protocols that are 
consistent with the Code and which provide for specific 
sanctions and penalties for athlete support personnel if and 
when they violate the Code.

Nutritional Supplements

    Article 10 requires States Parties to encourage producers 
and distributors of nutritional supplements to establish best 
practices in the marketing and distribution of nutritional 
supplements, including by providing information regarding their 
analytic composition. The administration notes in its submittal 
letter that this Article can be implemented by the United 
States without changing existing U.S. law or policy.\7\ The 
Dietary Supplement Health Education Act of 1994\8\ requires 
that dietary supplement manufacturers ensure that a dietary 
supplement is safe before it is marketed, and that its product 
label information is truthful and not misleading. The law sets 
forth post-marketing requirements that include monitoring 
safety, such as adverse event reporting. In June 2007, the Food 
and Drug Administration established regulations requiring good 
manufacturing practices for dietary supplements that are 
designed to ensure that such supplements are produced in a 
quality manner, do not contain contaminants or impurities, and 
are accurately labeled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See Treaty Doc. 110-14 at XI.
    \8\Pub. L. 103-417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facilitating Doping Controls for Sports Competitions

    Article 12 obligates States Parties to facilitate the anti-
doping-control activities of sports organizations and anti-
doping organizations, such as the testing of athletes with no-
advance notice by duly authorized doping-control teams and 
access to accredited doping laboratories for the purpose of 
doping-control analysis. The United States would meet these 
obligations through its support of cooperation among anti-
doping organizations, such as the Association of National Anti-
Doping Organizations and WADA's Central American Regional Anti-
Doping Organization, and the United States' support of USADA, 
which works to facilitate the doping-control activities 
contemplated in this Article.

International Cooperation

    Article 16 obligates States Parties to take certain steps 
to facilitate international cooperation in anti-doping testing 
and control. Parties are only obligated to take steps under 
this Article to the extent that such steps are ``appropriate 
and in accordance with domestic law and procedures.'' No 
changes in existing U.S. law or policy would be necessary to 
meet the obligations that would arise under this Article. The 
United States currently facilitates such international 
cooperation through its support of the activities of USADA, 
which actively engages in anti-doping testing cooperation with 
appropriate anti-doping organizations in other countries that 
are compliant with the Code.

Education and Training

    Article 19 of the Convention obligates States Parties, 
within their means, to support, devise, or implement education 
and training programs on anti-doping. The United States 
currently funds a number of programs that would satisfy this 
requirement. For example, the United States supports two 
school-based steroid education programs: the ATLAS (Adolescents 
Training and Learning to Avoid Nutrition Alternatives) program 
and the ATHENA (Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise and 
Nutrition Alternatives) program. In addition, the United States 
supports anti-doping education through its support of USADA, 
which traditionally directs more than ten percent of its annual 
budget toward education programs targeting schoolchildren, 
emerging elite athletes, coaches, and parents. The United 
States also provides federal grant funds to operate student 
drug testing programs and education initiatives, such as 
activities undertaken by the Department of Education's Office 
of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

Voluntary Fund

    Article 17 establishes a Voluntary Fund, which can be used 
to assist States Parties with the implementation of their 
obligations under the Convention and for the functioning costs 
of the Convention, which includes the operational costs of the 
Secretariat. See Articles 18 and 32.

Research

    Many of the substances and methods used in doping can have 
a damaging impact on the health of athletes. As the executive 
branch explained in response to the committee's questions, 
``[t]he dangers of anabolic steroids for nonmedical use, for 
example, are becoming increasingly well known. As science 
evolves and athletes turn to substances such as human growth 
hormone and gene doping, the health consequences are not only 
potentially grave, but often not fully known.'' In order to 
understand the health risks involved and in order to be aware 
of the next generation of doping substances and methods, it is 
crucial that scientific research in this field be encouraged, 
conducted and shared.
    Articles 24-27 focus on research that is relevant to the 
fight against doping in sport. Article 24 requires States 
Parties ``within their means'' to encourage and promote anti-
doping research in cooperation with sports and other relevant 
organizations on (a) prevention, detection methods, behavioral 
and social aspects, and the health consequences of doping; (b) 
ways and means of devising scientifically based physiological 
and psychological training programs; and (c) the use of 
emerging substances and methods arising from scientific 
developments. Article 25 requires, among other things, that 
States Parties ensure that such research complies with 
internationally recognized ethical practices and is undertaken 
with adequate precautions to prevent the results of the 
research from being used for doping purposes. Article 26 
requires States Parties to share, where appropriate and subject 
to national and international law, the results of their 
research with other Parties and with WADA. Article 27 requires 
States Parties to encourage members of the scientific and 
medical communities to carry out sport science research in 
accordance with the principles of the Code and to encourage 
sports organizations and athlete support personnel within their 
jurisdiction to implement such research.
    The United States currently supports and promotes research 
on anti-doping consistent with the requirements laid out in 
these articles. For example, the United States already funds 
significant research related to anti-doping both directly and 
through USADA. The United States also supports anti-doping 
research activities through the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse (NIDA), which is one of the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH), and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The United 
States has also, through the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy, promoted the sharing of research results by 
coordinating research collaboration between WADA's Science and 
Research Development and officials from NIH, NIDA, and the Food 
and Drug Administration. Finally, the United States encourages 
and directly supports sports science research by organizations 
such as the American College of Sports Medicine, the American 
Medical Association, and other medical and public health 
groups.

Monitoring

    The monitoring mechanism for this Convention is minimal: 
States Parties are obligated to report to the Conference of 
Parties every two years on the measures taken by them to 
implement the Convention. The Conference of the Parties can 
expand the monitoring mechanism, but the Convention provides 
that ``[a]ny monitoring mechanism or measure that goes beyond 
[the biennial report] shall be funded through the Voluntary 
Fund. . . .'' As a result, it is unlikely that the monitoring 
mechanism will be expanded substantially beyond the reporting 
requirement described above.

                       B. ANNEXES AND APPENDICES

    The Convention consists of its main text, two annexes (The 
Prohibited List International Standards and the Therapeutic Use 
Exemptions), and three appendices (the World Anti-Doping Code, 
the International Standards for Laboratories, and International 
Standards for Testing).
    The two Annexes, the Prohibited List International 
Standards and the Therapeutic Use Exemptions, are technical 
documents that are an integral part of the Convention. There 
are two possible procedures through which the Annexes can be 
amended. States Parties may propose amendments through the 
standard amendment procedure set forth in Article 33 or WADA 
can, under certain circumstances, propose amendments to the 
Annexes through a fast-track amendment procedure as set forth 
in Article 34.

Fast-Track Procedure for Amending Annexes

    In accordance with Article 34, if WADA modifies its own 
Prohibited List or the Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use 
Exemptions, it may inform the Director-General of UNESCO of the 
changes adopted by WADA and the Director-General would then 
circulate to States Parties the changes as proposed amendments 
to the relevant Annexes to the Convention. States Parties have 
45 days within which to object to the adoption of such an 
amendment. Unless two-thirds of the States Parties express 
their objection, the proposed amendment that was circulated by 
the Director-General, will be deemed adopted or ``approved'' by 
the Conference of Parties and the States Parties will be so 
notified by the Director-General. States Parties then have 
another 45 days to opt out of the amendment, by notifying the 
Director-General that they don't accept the particular 
amendment. The amendment will enter into force at the end of 
the second 45-day period for every State Party that has not 
opted out. Although States Parties have only 90 days to decide 
whether to accept an amendment to the annexes under this 
procedure, the United States (along with other States that are 
members of WADA) will have significantly more notice of 
potential amendments to the annexes before they are formally 
proposed as amendments in accordance with Article 34.
    The executive branch has explained to the committee that 
the process utilized by WADA when amending the Prohibited List 
or the Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions is a 
lengthy one in which the United States plays an active role. In 
response to questions from the Committee, the U.S. 
Representative on the WADA Foundation Board described the 
process as follows:


          The Prohibited List is reviewed and updated annually by WADA 
        through a year-long consultative process involving stakeholder 
        feedback and input from groups of international scientific and 
        anti-doping experts. A Prohibited List Working Group is 
        specifically tasked with recommending changes to WADA's 
        Executive Committee and facilitating stakeholder input. A 
        representative from the United States chairs the seven-member 
        committee. In addition, a second member of the group is from 
        the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The United States has 
        one of 5 government votes on the Executive Committee to approve 
        any changes to the List.
          The International Standards for Granting Therapeutics (ISTUE) 
        is [structured] to ensure that the process of granting 
        Therapeutic Use Exemptions (a process to allow athletes to take 
        medicines on WADA's Prohibited List to treat an athlete's 
        illness or medical condition) is harmonized across sports and 
        countries. The ISTUE came into force in January 2004. 
        Concurrent to the revision of the Code, WADA launched a process 
        in 2006 for updating the ISTUE to build upon the experience 
        gained by WADA and its stakeholders and to improve the 
        protocols and processes.
          The [last] review process for updating the ISTUE involved 
        three formal rounds of consultation. Based on stakeholder 
        feedback and consultations with the legal and scientific 
        committees, a draft was circulated in 2007. After a period of 
        public comment and a series of meetings a second draft was 
        released. Subsequently, WADA's Executive Committee unanimously 
        voted to approve the revised ISTUE at its May 2008 meeting. The 
        United States, as a member of the Executive Committee, voted to 
        approve the ISTUE. Comments from USADA regarding the technical 
        revisions were accepted by WADA and incorporated into the 
        revised ISTUE.


    Since the Convention entered into force on February 1, 
2007, Annex I has been amended. Most recently, on January 1, 
2008, a new Annex I entered into force, which was transmitted 
to the Senate through an Executive Communication (EC 6772) and 
is to be considered in place of the now outdated Annex I 
included in Treaty Document 110-14. See Annex I of this Report. 
Annex II has not yet been amended; however, it is expected that 
the recently adopted revision by WADA of its International 
Standards for Granting Therapeutic Use Exemptions discussed 
above, will be accepted by States Parties and ultimately enter 
into force as a revised Annex II to the Convention on January 
1, 2009.

Appendices

    The Appendices are not an integral part of the Convention, 
but because of the unique relationship that this Convention has 
with the Code and the two standards that are included in the 
Appendices, it was deemed important to include them for 
informational purposes. By including the Code in the Appendix, 
it provides the context for, and clarifies the meaning of, 
provisions such as Article 4, which commit States Parties to 
the ``principles of the Code'' as the basis for measures 
undertaken to implement the Convention. Moreover, the Code can 
be changed by WADA, without the consent of the States Parties, 
and thus by defining the Code in Article 2 for purposes of the 
Convention as the Code that was adopted on March 5, 2003, it is 
clear that any subsequent changes to the Code by WADA have no 
affect on States Parties' rights or obligations under the 
Convention.

                                C. SCOPE

    The scope of the Convention's application is effectively 
established through two key definitions of terms used 
throughout the Convention: the definition of ``athlete'' and 
the definition of ``sports organization.'' Both terms are 
defined in Article 2 and are, according to the chapeau of 
Article 2, ``to be understood within the context of the World 
Anti-Doping Code.''

Athletes

    Article 2(4) contains two definitions of ``athlete.'' The 
first is for doping-control purposes and states as follows: 
``Athlete means . . . any person who participates in sport at 
the international or national level as defined by each national 
anti-doping organization and accepted by States Parties and any 
additional person who participates in a sport or event at a 
lower level accepted by States Parties.'' For the United 
States, USADA is the national anti-doping organization and 
thus, the term ``athlete'' for purposes of doping control in 
the United States means any athlete who is determined by USADA 
to be subject to or to have accepted the World Anti-Doping 
Code. This definition would not, for example, generally include 
athletes participating in U.S. professional leagues, unless the 
athlete in question has accepted the Code.
    The second, broader definition of athlete contained in 
Article 2(4) of the Convention is for purposes of education and 
training programs and includes ``any person who participates in 
sport under the authority of a sports organization.'' According 
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, this second 
definition of athlete can include athletes of all ages and was 
drafted with the intent of ``educat[ing] a larger number of 
participants [in sports] on the dangers of doping before they . 
. . reach the point where they may be competing nationally or 
internationally.''

Sports Organizations

    The term ``Sports Organization'' is defined in Article 
2(20) as ``any organization that serves as the ruling body for 
an event for one or several sports.'' An organization is a 
ruling body for an event if so determined by the relevant 
national Olympic Committee or the International Olympic 
Committee for each sport on the national and international 
level, respectively. The Committee has been assured by the 
Executive that this understanding is universally recognized and 
accepted by States and the international sport community. 
Moreover, Sports Organizations referred to in the Convention 
are ones that have accepted the Code. A Sports Organization 
indicates its acceptance of the Code through a formal written 
procedure to WADA and every sports organization that has done 
so, is listed on WADA's Web site at www.wada-ama.org.

           D. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

    Article 6 of the Convention clarifies the relationship 
between this Convention and other international instruments to 
which States might be a party. The first sentence of Article 6 
is akin to a savings clause and provides that ``[t]his 
Convention shall not alter the rights and obligations of States 
Parties which arise from other agreements previously concluded 
and consistent with the object and purpose of this 
Convention.'' As a result, States Parties to this Convention 
that are also a party to, for example, the Council of Europe's 
Anti-Doping Convention, may apply the earlier concluded Council 
of Europe Convention as amongst themselves, even if doing so 
would be a violation of this Convention. The second sentence of 
Article 6, however, limits the effect of the first sentence, by 
providing that States Parties can apply another instrument 
amongst themselves only insofar as doing so does not affect the 
enjoyment by third parties of their rights or the performance 
of their obligations under this Convention. Thus, as explained 
to the Committee by the Executive Branch, ``Article 6 would 
permit States that are a party to both this Convention and the 
Council of Europe's Anti-Doping Convention to apply the Council 
of Europe's Convention among themselves, but only insofar as 
that application does not affect the other States Parties' 
enjoyment of their rights and obligations under the UNESCO 
Convention.''

                          IV. Entry Into Force

    In accordance with Article 38, the Convention will enter 
into force for the United States on the first day of the month 
following the expiration of one month after the date on which 
the United States deposits its instrument of ratification with 
the Director-General of UNESCO.

                      V. Implementing Legislation

    As noted in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of 
State to the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty 
Document 110-14, U.S. ratification of the Convention would not 
require any changes to U.S. law, because the Convention's 
provisions are consistent with current U.S. law and practice, 
including the Controlled Substances Act, the Dietary Health 
Education Act of 1994, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act. As a result, no additional implementing legislation will 
be necessary, should the United States become a party to the 
Convention.

                          VI. Committee Action

    The committee held a public hearing on the Convention on 
May 22, 2008. Testimony was received by Mr. Scott M. Burns, 
Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; 
Ms. Joan Donoghue, Principal Deputy Legal Adviser at the 
Department of State; Mr. Jair K. Lynch, former U.S. Olympic 
athlete and Board Member on the U.S. Olympic Committee; and Mr. 
Travis Tygart, Executive Director of the U.S. Anti-Doping 
Agency. See Annex II of this Report.
    On June 24, 2008, the committee considered the Convention, 
and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a quorum 
present and without objection.

               VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The Committee on Foreign Relations views the purpose of the 
Convention as crucial in protecting the integrity and spirit of 
sport by supporting efforts to ensure a fair and doping-free 
environment for athletes. U.S. ratification is also important 
for a practical reason: The International Olympic Committee has 
stated that it will only award the Olympic Games to countries 
that are party to the Convention. The city of Chicago is among 
the finalists to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, but it would 
likely not be awarded the Games if the Convention is not 
ratified by the United States. Accordingly, the Committee urges 
the Senate to act promptly to give advice and consent to 
ratification of the Convention, as set forth in this report and 
the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. The 
committee has taken note, however, of certain issues raised by 
the Convention, which are addressed below.

                      A. TACIT AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

    As discussed previously, Article 34 of the Convention 
provides a fast-track procedure by which the Annexes to the 
Convention can be amended and, unless two-thirds of the States 
Parties to the Convention express their objection to a 
particular amendment proposed pursuant to this procedure, that 
amendment will enter into force for a State Party even absent 
its explicit consent if that State Party has not notified the 
Director-General that it does not accept the amendment at 
issue.
    The committee recognizes that such a tacit amendment 
procedure for the Annexes is sensible given that it is reserved 
for amendments that have already been subject to the 
modification process in place at WADA, even prior to their 
arrival as formal proposals to amend the Annexes to the 
Convention. Moreover, the committee recognizes that this fast-
track amendment procedure makes it possible for the Convention 
to evolve in step with scientific developments that have 
occurred and are being implemented by WADA through the Code. 
Thus, in the committee's view, an amendment to the Annexes done 
in accordance with Article 34 does not require the advice and 
consent of the Senate. Nevertheless, the committee has included 
a condition in the resolution of advice and consent to 
ratification, which requires the Secretary of State to transmit 
to this committee, and to the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
text of an amendment to either Annex done in accordance with 
Article 34 no later than 60 days after its entry into force. An 
amendment done in accordance with Article 33 would, of course, 
require the advice and consent of the Senate.

                             B. RESOLUTION

    The committee has included in the resolution of advice and 
consent an understanding, a declaration, and a condition.

Understanding

    The proposed understanding makes clear that although the 
Convention obligates States Parties to support WADA's mission 
and the principal of equal funding for WADA as between the 
Olympic Movement and governments, the Convention does not 
commit the United States to make a financial contribution to 
WADA.

Declaration

     The proposed declaration clarifies that the United States 
definition of ``athlete'' for purposes of doping control in the 
Convention, is any athlete determined by USADA to be subject to 
or to have accepted the Code. This declaration is consistent 
with the chapeau of Article 2, which states that every 
definition is ``to be understood within the context of the 
World Anti-Doping Code'' and will be included in the U.S. 
instrument of ratification in order to alert other States 
Parties to the definition used by the United States.

Condition

    As noted in relation to the tacit amendment procedure in 
Article 34, the Committee has included a reporting requirement 
regarding amendments to the Annexes of the Convention that are 
concluded through the Article 34 procedure.

     VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO AN UNDERSTANDING, A 
                    DECLARATION, AND A CONDITION

    The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
International Convention Against Doping in Sport (the 
``Convention''), adopted by the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization on October 19, 2005 
(Treaty Doc. 110-14; EC 6772), subject to the understanding of 
section 2, the declaration of section 3, and the condition of 
section 4.

SECTION. 2. UNDERSTANDING

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following understanding, which shall be included 
in the United States instrument of ratification:

          It is the understanding of the United States of 
        America that nothing in this Convention obligates the 
        United States to provide funding to the World Anti-
        Doping Agency.

SECTION. 3. DECLARATION

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declaration, which shall be included 
in the United States instrument of ratification:

          Pursuant to Article 2(4), which defines ``Athlete'' 
        for purposes of doping control as ``any person who 
        participates in sport at the international or national 
        level as defined by each national anti-doping 
        organization and accepted by States Parties and any 
        additional person who participates in a sport or event 
        at a lower level accepted by States Parties'', the 
        United States of America declares that ``Athlete'' for 
        purposes of doping control means any athlete determined 
        by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to be subject to or to 
        have accepted the World Anti-Doping Code.

SECTION. 4. CONDITION

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following condition:

          Not later than 60 days after an amendment to either 
        of the Annexes that was concluded in accordance with 
        the specific amendment procedure in Article 34 enters 
        into force for the United States, the Secretary of 
        State shall transmit the text of the amended Annex to 
        the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
        the Judiciary of the Senate.
 IX. Annex I.--2008 Prohibited List and Annex I to the Convention (EC 
                                 6772)































            X. Annex II.--Transcript of May 22, 2008 Hearing





 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST DOPING IN SPORT (TREATY DOC. 110-14)

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:22 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. 
Biden, Jr. (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Biden and Lugar.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.,
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

    The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Let me 
begin by welcoming our witnesses. Today the committee examines 
whether the United States should join the International 
Convention Against Doping in Sport. Throughout history, as our 
witnesses clearly know, athletes have always tried to improve 
their competitive advantage in their performance on the playing 
field, and there's always been a history of some use of 
improper substances to be able to do that.
    In the 20th century, governments even got into the act, 
such as when East Germany tried to build an Olympic powerhouse 
by the use of doping. As many as 2,000 former East German 
athletes are now suffering, we are told, from significant 
health problems associated with steroid use, including heart 
disease and other diseases.
    Today we continue to struggle with the problem of doping in 
sports. American athletes in both Olympic and professional 
sports, as well as college and high school at all levels, are 
not immune from the temptation to abuse steroids and other 
substances and the pressure, particularly at the very highest 
level, to be able to maintain your slot on the team and your 
job has increased exponentially when you look across the locker 
room and see somebody who has put on 20 extra pounds of muscle 
over the summer and you say: Well, wait a minute; it's my job 
or he or she gets the job.
    It's a giant problem. Profound medical advances have 
resulted in the development of a wide variety of drugs, some of 
which can be abused, that artificially advance muscle growth 
and rejuvenation on a level previously unimagined. A quick 
review of the World Anti-Doping Agency's list of prohibited 
substances indicates the breadth of performance-enhancing 
drugs: hormones, steroids, oxygen enhancements, beta blockers, 
even gene doping.
    While many of these drugs can be used for legitimate 
purposes, they can also be abused by athletes seeking to 
achieve a competitive advantage. I just call it flat cheating. 
It's a simple, basic proposition: It's cheating. For the last 
two decades, the United States and the world community have 
responded to these developments with an increasing commitment 
to curb doping in sport. Along with others, with many others, 
I've been closely involved in this effort. In 1990, I was the 
author, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, of the first 
Anabolic Steroid Control Act, which added anabolic steroids to 
Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances Act, and began to list 
a host of substances falling within that definition.
    In 2004 I updated the law--I proposed legislation to update 
the law--and added THG as well as Andro and other chemical 
cousins to the list of anabolic steroids. The reason for these 
changes
was simple. These substances not only pose great health risks, 
but they threaten the fundamental integrity of sport and send 
the wrong message to a kid that cheating--cheating to get 
ahead--is acceptable, no matter what the cost, as long as the 
ends had great promise.
    So I've worked hard, along with Senator Lugar and many 
others in the Senate, to ban these substances, educate our 
youth and professional athletes, and reduce this wrongful 
behavior in American sport.
    In the late 1990s, the international community came 
together and established the World Anti-Doping Agency to 
promote and coordinate the fight against doping in 
international sports competition. The United States at that 
time played a leading role in the establishment of the Agency 
and has long been one of its strongest supporters. One of the 
Agency's most significant achievements was the development of a 
uniform set of antidoping rules in what is known as the World 
Anti-Doping Code.
    The International Convention Against Doping in Sport, which 
commits parties to the principles of the Code and reaffirms the 
World Anti-Doping Agency's role in implementing the Code, is 
the next logical step in promoting harmonized, coordinated, and 
effective antidoping programs in international sport 
competition. On the eve of the Beijing Olympics, it's timely 
for the Senate to consider this issue of doping in sports.
    When I was leaving I told my wife that I was doing--we were 
having this hearing, and she said: You know, you do that in 
Judiciary; why are you doing this in the Foreign Relations 
Committee? How is that? Because most people would wonder why 
we, in the Foreign Relations Committee, are dealing with this. 
But the fact of the matter is that we're expediting the 
convention here for a very practical reason. The International 
Olympic Committee has made clear that nations seeking to host 
Olympic games must be parties to this convention and we are 
not. The city of Chicago is bidding to host the 2016 Summer 
Olympics. So we are acting promptly on this convention, just a 
few months after it was submitted to the Senate, at the request 
of our colleagues not only from the administration, but from 
Illinois and the mayor of the city of Chicago, Mayor Daley, and 
the Olympic Committee.
    We have two panels today. By the way, I might add, I have 
an ulterior motive for wanting to bring this--give this issue 
as much attention as we can. I believe that we should have the 
same code for all sports in America. It should be as tough as 
the Olympic standards, and it is not, whether it's professional 
sports or amateur sports. I think it should be a national 
standard as well.
    I've been a broken record on that. That's not why we're 
here, but I want full disclosure. I'm going to do all I can in 
my capacity in that other committee to try to get us to the 
point where this becomes the national standard as well as our 
standard when we compete in international competition.
    We have two very distinguished panels today. First we're 
going to hear from the Honorable Scott M. Burns and Ms. Joan 
Donoghue. Mr. Burns has served as Deputy Director of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy since December 2007 and is 
doing a good job, I might add, in my view. He has also worked 
extensively for the World Anti-Doping Agency, including as U.S. 
representative to the Agency in 2003 and as the regional 
representative for the Americas on the Agency's Executive 
Committee.
    Ms. Donoghue is the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser to the 
Department of State. She previously served as the Deputy 
General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury.
    On the second panel we'll have Mr. Lynch and Mr. Tygart. Am 
I pronouncing ``Tygart'' correctly?
    Mr. Tygart. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. If not, you can call me ``Bidden.''
    Mr. Lynch is a board member of the United States Olympic 
Committee and a two-time United States Olympic gymnast, and he 
has won the silver medal on the parallel bars, which I still 
cannot fathom anyone being able to do. I thought myself an 
athlete in high school and college, but I don't know how--you 
have to explain to me a little bit about how the hell you ever 
got into that, because it looks to me to be absolutely beyond 
physical--anyway, Mr. Lynch won a silver medal for the parallel 
bars in the Summer Olympics held in Atlanta in 1996.
    Mr. Tygart is the chief executive officer of the United 
States Anti-Doping Agency and has been with the Agency since 
2002 and served as the director of legal affairs before 
becoming the counsel general in 2004.
    Before we move to our witnesses, I yield to Chairman Lugar.

 STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Really, emboldened by your mention of Mayor Daley and Chicago, 
I would just mention that I'm celebrating with Mayor Ballard of 
Indianapolis the award of the Superbowl to Indianapolis in 
2012, and your thought that this ought to cover all sports is 
one that I cherish likewise.
    I appreciated particularly your leadership as chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, because the legislation and the 
hearings you had really were significant. But there is a good 
reason for our having this hearing here today, because of the 
action that you and the committee are trying to expedite.
    Therefore, I join you in welcoming our witnesses to this 
hearing on the International Convention Against Doping in 
Sport. The convention was negotiated with significant United 
States participation and thus far 85 nations have ratified it. 
The Foreign Relations Committee has been called on to evaluate 
this treaty and the impact of United States ratification on 
international and American antidoping efforts.
    The United States is passionate about athletics at every 
level, from the most elite professionals to our sons and 
daughters playing on school teams. We're hopeful that athletic 
competition is fair and, even more importantly, safe. 
Performance-enhancing drugs undercut fair competition and 
introduce a destructive element into endeavors that should be 
promoting good health and physical fitness. Athletes who use 
steroids or other drugs are placing their own health at serious 
risk and setting a damaging example for the millions of younger 
athletes who look up to them.
    For many young people participation in sports is a 
fundamental element of personal expression, social status, and 
self-worth. In some cases sports are a pathway to college, 
another means of personal advancement. In this context, the 
temptation of drugs that offer the prospect of improved 
performance can be very powerful, particularly when the safety 
and efficacy of that temptation seems to be validated by elite 
athletes.
    The Office of National Drug Control Policy found in 2006 
that 1.6 percent--1.6 percent of eighth grade students, and 2.7 
percent of 12th grade students reported using steroids at least 
once.
    The convention before us is not a panacea for that problem. 
Rather, it seeks to improve international coordination in 
preventing and responding to doping in sports generally. It 
requires commitments by parties to collaborate on research, 
education, and rules related to antidoping efforts.
    The executive branch has determined that U.S. laws and 
practice are already consistent with the convention. Thus, no 
further implementing legislation would be necessary for the 
United States to become a party.
    I look forward to this opportunity to study the convention 
in greater depth today, to hear the testimony of our witnesses 
about why it is needed and how it might be beneficial to United 
States interests.
    I thank you again for calling this hearing in such a timely 
way.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Burns, the floor is yours.

 STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT M. BURNS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 
     NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE 
                   PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Burns. Chairman Biden, Ranking Member Lugar, it's my 
pleasure to appear before you this morning, before the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations, and testify in strong support 
of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport. As you 
know, the convention was transmitted by the President on 
February 6 of this year and advances the interests of the 
United States in the fight against drug use and doping in 
sport.
    The convention develops a common approach and harmonizes, 
as you have outlined, standard for equitable antidoping 
measures in international competition. The convention is not 
structured to change national law or regulation, but will 
continue commitments by parties to promote international 
collaboration on antidoping research, education, and drug 
testing protocols.
    I join the President in urging timely ratification of the 
instrument. Doping poses significant risks to the health and 
well-being of athletes, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, as 
evidenced by your leadership on the steroid issue for many, 
many yours. The use of performance-enhancing drugs undermines 
the ideal of sport and devalues and debases the rewards of 
competition. The health and ethical consequences of doping 
particularly impact young people, who often emulate the 
behaviors of elite athletes.
    Governments from around the globe and the international 
Olympic movement recognize the importance of the international 
cooperation needed, as you have pointed out, by creating the 
World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, in 1999. It is the 
international independent organization designed to promote, 
coordinate, and monitor the fight against doping in sport in 
all of its forms. The agency is composed and funded equally by 
the Olympic movement and the governments of the world.
    The United States was a driving force in the inception of 
development of WADA and has increasingly played, I believe, a 
leadership role in the agency's governance. The most important 
achievement of WADA has been the drafting, acceptance, and 
implementation of a consistent set of antidoping rules for 
Olympic sport organization and international competitions, the 
World Anti-Doping Code.
    Prior to the creation of the code, there was myriad 
inconsistent, and at times contradictory, doping rules across 
nations and across sport. The code's development was the result 
of an unprecedented collaboration between governments and the 
Olympic movement and culminated when the document entered into 
force on January 1, 2004. To date more than 570 sport 
organizations have become signatories and adopted the code.
    Governments, including the United States, however, possess 
no legal ability to become signatories to a nongovernmental 
private legal instrument such as the code. Therefore, and 
consistent with the ideals upon which WADA was established, 
governments agreed to include a provision in the code whereby 
their antidoping commitment would be demonstrated by the 
signing of a nonbinding political declaration, to be followed 
by the development of an international convention. Thus the 
reason for us being here.
    Ratification of the convention, Mr. Chairman, as you've 
stated, is a priority. While the convention does not alter the 
manner in which sports operate and are regulated in the United 
States, ratification does send a clear message domestically and 
abroad about our commitment to eliminate doping in sport. The 
instrument was drafted with the clear recognition and included 
specific language to ensure that regulation of sport remains 
within the purview of national law and national policy. The 
convention respects and retains the various ways in which 
nations regulate sport.
    No provision in the convention requires any change to 
existing United States law, regulation, or policy. Moreover, no 
implementing legislation would be required and upon 
ratification of the convention the United States would be 
compliant as a party.
    Ratification of the convention will not impact the manner 
in which the United States professional sports are regulated. 
Consistent with its purpose, the definitions contained in the 
convention create obligations solely with respect to those 
individuals and entities engaged in internationally regulated 
competition.
    Ratification of the convention will not impact existing 
antidoping policies in the United States. The United States 
Anti-Doping Agency, or USADA, will remain the independent 
nongovernmental organization responsible for administering the 
antidoping program for Olympic and Pan American sport in the 
United States. Ratifying the convention will not change the 
relationship between the United States Government and USADA.
    As you have pointed out, in addition to this policy 
rationale, practical reasons exist to support the convention. 
The International Olympic Committee has mandated that in order 
to host the Olympic Games a nation must have ratified the 
UNESCO Anti-Doping Convention. As you are aware, the city of 
Chicago is one of the seven cities to have submitted an 
official bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Each of the 
other bidding nations has already ratified the convention and 
ratification of the convention is a critical step toward 
bringing the Olympic Games back to the United States.
    Mr. Chairman, it's been an honor to have represented the 
United States Government on WADA's governing executive 
committee and foundation board since 2004. I'm pleased to 
report that the efforts of the United States have resulted in a 
dramatic and positive change in international perception of our 
commitment to combatting drugs in sport. Congress deserves a 
significant amount of credit for its leadership, commitment, 
and vision. Congress has been invaluable as a partner in 
raising the awareness of this public health issue, providing 
the resources to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 
the United States Anti-Doping Agency to pursue the issue 
vigorously and amending the Controlled Substances Act to ensure 
that the law evolves with science and technology.
    The efforts to combat doping in the United States truly 
have been a team effort. While much progress has been made, 
additional actions are necessary. The next step in our shared 
fight to protect the public health and integrity of sport is 
the ratification of the Convention Against Doping in Sport. 
Becoming a party to this instrument is in our national 
interest. It will further demonstrate our commitment to working 
in the international arena to reduce the incidence of drug use 
in sport.
    I strongly urge the committee to give prompt and favorable 
consideration to the convention, and I thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott M. Burns, Deputy Director, Office of 
   National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, 
                             Washington, DC

                            i. introduction

    Chairman Biden, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the committee, it 
is my pleasure to appear this morning before the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations and testify in strong support of the International 
Convention Against Doping in Sport (Treaty Doc. 110-4). The Convention 
transmitted by President Bush to the Senate on February 6, 2008, 
advances the interests of the United States in the fight against drug 
use and doping in sport. The Convention develops a common approach and 
harmonizes standards for equitable antidoping controls in international 
competition. The Convention is not structured to change national law or 
regulation, but will continue commitments by parties to promote 
international collaboration on antidoping research, education, and drug 
testing protocols. On behalf of John Walters, Director, National Drug 
Control Policy, I join the President in urging the timely ratification 
of this instrument.

                             ii. discussion

a. Doping in Sport
    Doping is the use of a substance or method that artificially 
enhances athletic performance. Doping often poses a significant risk to 
the health and well-being of athletes. The use of performance enhancing 
drugs undermines the ideals of sport and devalues and debases the 
rewards of competition. The health and ethical consequences of doping 
particularly impact young people who often emulate the behaviors of 
elite athletes. As a result, the President highlighted the importance 
athletics play in our society and the pernicious nature of doping in 
his 2004 State of the Union Address. He observed that doping is 
dangerous and sends the wrong message to children that performance is 
more important than character.
    Neither the United States, nor any other single nation, can 
adequately confront and tackle the multifaceted challenges posed by 
doping alone. Sport continues to grow increasingly international in 
nature. Athletes and coaches compete and train internationally and are 
impacted by global trends. Recent high-profile steroid trafficking 
prosecutions in the United States confirm that the trafficking of 
performance-enhancing drugs is international in scope as well. The 
source of the steroids and the drug trafficking organizations involved 
in these prosecutions demonstrates the international nature of this 
problem. As a result, the 2008 National Drug Control Strategy 
identified international cooperation and partnership as a core element 
of the United States efforts in combating doping in sport.
b. The creation of an International Body to Combat Doping
    Governments from around the globe and the International Olympic 
Movement recognized the importance of international cooperation by 
creating the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999. WADA is the 
international, independent organization created to promote, coordinate, 
and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms. The 
agency is composed and funded equally by the Olympic Movement and 
governments of the world. Its key activities include scientific 
research, education, out-of-competition drug testing, and development 
of antidoping capacities.
    The United States was a driving force in the conception and 
development of WADA. Per Executive Orders 13165 (August 9, 2000) and 
13286 (February 28, 2003), the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
(ONDCP) serves as the United States representative to WADA. The United 
States has increasingly played a leadership role in the agency's 
governance. The United States has served as one of 18 nations on the 
agency's governing Foundation Board since WADA's inception. In 2004, 
the United States was elected to serve as one of five nations worldwide 
on WADA's executive committee. Moreover, a number of United States 
officials serve on various expert committees and technical working 
groups.
c. The World Anti-Doping Code
    The immediate challenge WADA faced following its creation was the 
myriad inconsistent and contradictory doping rules across nations and 
sport. Indeed, prior to 2000, antidoping rules and regulations, to the 
extent they even existed, commonly varied or contradicted each other. 
Often these rules were inconsistently applied and enforced. Thus, 
depending on the sport or nationality of an athlete, the antidoping 
framework varied.
    The most important achievement of WADA has been the drafting, 
acceptance, and implementation of a consistent set of antidoping 
rules--the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). The Code is the core document 
that provides the basis for harmonized antidoping rules and regulations 
within Olympic sport organizations and among governments. The Code also 
addresses the problems that previously arose from the disjointed and 
uncoordinated efforts in areas such as testing, adjudications, 
sanctions, antidoping prevention and education.
    The Code's development was the result of an unprecedented 
collaboration between governments and the Olympic Movement. The 
drafting and consultations lasted nearly 2 years. In fact, the United 
States and more than 80 governments actively participated in the World 
Conference on Doping in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2003 during which the 
Code was approved. The process culminated when the document entered 
into force on January 1, 2004.
    To date, more than 570 sport organizations have become signatories 
and adopted the Code. All the sport entities in the United States 
Olympic Movement, including United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and 
the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), have signed the Code. 
Governments, including the United States, however, possess no legal 
ability to become signatories to a nongovernmental, private legal 
instrument such as the Code.
    Therefore, consistent with the ideals upon which WADA was 
established, governments agreed to include a provision in the Code 
whereby their commitment to the Code would be demonstrated by the 
signing of a nonbinding political declaration. Thereafter, governments 
would pursue the development of an international antidoping convention 
to be implemented as appropriate to the constitutional and regulatory 
contexts of each government. The purpose of the Convention was to 
enable governments to align their domestic legislation and policies, to 
the extent possible, with the Code in order to harmonize sport rules 
and public law in the fight against doping in sport.
    Remarkably, 192 nations have signed the political statement (the 
so-called ``Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport'') 
expressing support for the principles contained in the Code. 
Governments subsequently concluded that the United Nations Education, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)--the U.N. agency with 
technical competence and responsibility in the areas of social and 
human science in addition to physical education and sport--was the most 
appropriate international organization to host such a convention. In 
January 2004, drafting of the international convention under the 
auspices of UNESCO was commenced.
d. The Drafting and Development of the International Convention
    The United States Government played an active leadership role 
throughout the development of the Convention. The drafting process 
afforded the United States with an extremely fair opportunity to shape 
the contents and format of the instrument. Our government was 
represented by senior officials from the Department of State and ONDCP 
at each of the drafting sessions and intergovernmental meetings. In 
addition, the United States was selected to serve on UNESCO's expert 
drafting group and chaired UNESCO's International Conference of 
Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and 
Sport during which senior governmental officials from nearly 100 
nations discussed the guiding principles of the Convention.
    During the drafting process, the State Department and ONDCP 
regularly conferred with senior officials from a wide range of Federal 
agencies with technical experience on issues contained in the 
Convention, such as the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health 
and Human Services. ONDCP was also in close contact with USADA and the 
USOC regarding the Convention's development. Moreover, in April 2004, a 
consultation letter, along with a copy of the draft Convention, was 
sent by ONDCP to nearly 100 potentially impacted nonfederal 
stakeholders. Not a single objection to a substantive provision of the 
Convention was received. The United States was pleased to support the 
Convention's unanimous adoption by the UNESCO General Assembly in 
October 2005.
    Consistent with UNESCO protocol, 30 countries were required to 
ratify the document prior to it entering into legal force. The 
requisite number was reached in February 2007. At present, 83 nations 
have become parties to the Convention.
    Ratification of the Convention remains an administration priority. 
As highlighted in the 2008 National Drug Control Strategy, while the 
Convention does not alter the manner in which sports operate and are 
regulated in the United States, ratification sends a clear message 
domestically and abroad about our commitment to eliminate doping in 
sport. To that end, we vigorously pursued the Department of State-led 
process to widely circulate the Convention for analysis on the 
document's potential impact, any changes in law or policy that may be 
required by ratification, as well as any unintended consequences that 
may result following ratification by the United States.
    The vetting process was complete in January 2008, at which time 
Secretary of State Rice forwarded the Convention to the President. On 
February 6, 2008, the President transmitted the Convention to the 
Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. That same day, the 
White House issued a public statement noting the administration's 
ongoing commitment to fighting the use of steroids and other 
performance-enhancing drugs in sport and urging speedy ratification of 
the Convention.
    While I would be pleased to discuss any particular provision of the 
Convention in greater detail, I would like to highlight a number of its 
most fundamental concepts.
e. Noteworthy Aspects of the Convention
            i. No change to U.S. law, regulation, or policy required
    The purpose of the Convention was to harmonize the international 
antidoping framework in order to promote public health and protect the 
integrity of sport. The instrument was drafted with a clear 
recognition, and included specific language, to ensure that regulation 
of sport remains within the purview of national law and policy. The 
Convention is careful to place obligations on particular governments 
only ``where appropriate'' in order to respect and retain the various 
ways in which nations regulate sport. The Convention's goal is to 
secure international commitments and collaboration on antidoping 
subjects such as drug-related research, education, and testing. The 
Code is included as an appendix to the Convention for information 
purposes, but does not create any binding legal obligations on 
governments.
    No provisions in the Convention require any change to existing 
United States law, regulation, or policy. Moreover, no implementing 
legislation would be required. Upon ratification of the Convention, the 
United States would be compliant with our obligations as a party.
    The Convention provides for minimum standards in order for nations 
to combat drug use in sport. While the Convention will not require 
changes in the United States, many other nations with less advanced and 
sophisticated antidoping regimes will be required to enact and amend 
laws and regulations to become compliant with the Convention. An 
important result of the Convention, therefore, will be a global 
framework that provides more equitable treatment of U.S. athletes 
competing internationally. United States athletes will compete on a 
more level playing field as athletes from around the world become 
subject to more consistent and stringent doping rules.
            ii. Professional sport leagues not within the Convention's 
                    scope
    Ratification of the Convention will not impact the manner in which 
U.S. professional sports are regulated or athletes participating in 
professional leagues are tested or sanctioned. Consistent with its 
purpose, the definitions contained in the Convention create obligations 
solely with respect to those individuals and entities engaged in 
internationally regulated competition. We intend to apply the 
Convention accordingly.
    By its explicit terms, the Convention defines which ``athletes'' 
fall under the instrument's jurisdiction. For the purposes of doping 
control, ``athlete'' is defined as a person who participates in sport 
at the international or national level as defined by the relevant 
national antidoping organization. Therefore, only athletes under 
USADA's testing program would be impacted by the Convention's doping 
control provisions. USADA has no authority to include athletes 
competing in non-Olympic professional sports without the consent and 
authorization of the professional player.
    Further, the Convention only governs the antidoping frameworks of 
``sport organizations'' which are specifically defined as the ``ruling 
body'' for a particular event or sport. According to that term of art, 
leagues such as the National Football League, National Basketball 
League, National Hockey League and Major League Baseball would not be 
within the Convention's scope. This limitation was intentionally 
included in the Convention.
            iii. No change in the relationship between the Government 
                    and USADA or USOC
    Ratification of the Convention will not impact existing antidoping 
policies in the United States. At present, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 2001, 
USADA is the independent, nongovernmental organization responsible for 
administering the antidoping program for Olympic and Pan American sport 
in the United States. USADA is a signatory to the Code and fully 
compliant with its provisions. Ratifying this Convention will not 
change the relationship between the United States Government and USADA.
    To the contrary, the Convention explicitly allows governments to 
utilize the efforts of antidoping organization (such as USADA) or other 
sports authorities and organizations (such as the USOC) to meet any 
obligations under the Convention. This will avoid any duplication of 
effort by the Government and private stakeholders. In fact, the 
Convention will likely have the positive impact of serving to further 
synergize and coordinate the drug prevention, education, and antidoping 
research efforts.
            iv. Financing and compliance monitoring mechanisms
    Two administrative aspects of the Convention are worthy of note. 
First, the Convention does not impose any new financial obligations on 
the United States. Any costs incurred by UNESCO in the administration 
of the Convention will be derived from that organization's existing 
operational budget. Further, we do not anticipate any additional costs 
to the United States Government as a result of ratification.
    Second, compliance by parties to the Convention is monitored via a 
self-reporting mechanism. Nations provide a report to the Convention's 
Conference of Parties every 2 years. The United States has already 
concluded that we are in compliance with all obligations in the 
Convention. In any event, the Convention does not set forth any formal 
action or sanctions that may be taken by UNESCO or the Convention's 
Conference of Parties as a result of the compliance reports.
            v. Practical considerations favoring ratification
    In addition to the aforementioned policy rationale, practical 
reasons exist to support the Convention. Pursuant to the terms of the 
Code, only representatives from sport organizations that are Code 
compliant and from national governments that have ratified the 
Convention by 2009 may continue to serve in WADA leadership positions. 
Consequently, failure to ratify the Convention jeopardizes our 
leadership standing internationally.
    The United States currently serves on WADA's governing executive 
committee and foundation board. By virtue of these posts, the United 
States has been at the forefront in shaping global antidoping policy 
and ensuring that our national interests are represented by this 
international agency. We have achieved a number of results that have 
positively impacted our efforts to reduce drug use in sport and ensure 
that our athletes compete on a level playing field in international 
competitions.
    For example, we have fought vigorously to ensure global balance 
exists in WADA's governance. We were pleased that the Honorable John 
Fahey of Australia was elected the new President of WADA beginning in 
January 2008. Mr. Fahey, the former Australian Finance Minister, has 
consistently and publicly recognized that the contributions the United 
States Government and our nongovernmental stakeholders have made in the 
global fight against doping. Mr. Fahey brings a sound understanding and 
appreciation of the manner in which sport is regulated in our country.
    In addition, our leadership positions have enabled us to 
successfully resist calls from some entities to weaken international 
drug control efforts by removing controlled illicit substances such as 
marijuana and MDMA from WADA's list of prohibited substances. Finally, 
the United States, consistent with the direction received from the 
appropriations committees, has also worked tirelessly to ensure that 
WADA utilized its funds in a prudent manner and increases to its 
operating budget are minimal.
    In addition, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has mandated 
that in order to host the Olympic Games, a nation must have ratified 
the UNESCO Anti-Doping Convention and the country's National Olympic 
Committee and national anti-doping organization must be Code compliant. 
As you are aware, the city of Chicago is one of seven cities to have 
submitted an official bid to the IOC to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. 
Each of the other bidding nations (Azerbaijan, Brazil, Czech Republic, 
Japan, Qatar, and Spain) has already ratified the Convention. As 
President Bush stated in January 2008 during his visit with the Chicago 
2016 Bid Committee and USOC leaders, the country strongly supports 
Chicago's bid to bring the Olympic Games to the United States. 
Ratification of the Convention will be a positive step toward achieving 
that goal.
                            iii. conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to have represented the United 
State Government on the WADA executive committee and foundation board 
since 2004. I am pleased to report that the efforts of our Government 
have resulted in a dramatic and positive change in international 
perception of our commitment to combating drugs in sport. Previously, 
some in the international community were skeptical of the intensity of 
our resolve to confront this issue. In recent years, however, we have 
gained the respect of governments worldwide and the International 
Olympic Movement based on an unwavering commitment to address doping in 
sport.
    Our government has assumed an unprecedented leadership role in WADA 
and in the international community. The President has highlighted the 
dangers of doping on several high profile occasions. USADA, with the 
enthusiastic support and partnership of the USOC, has developed into 
one of the world's most respected national antidoping doping agencies. 
Federal law enforcement agencies have successfully conducted criminal 
investigations into the illegal trafficking of steroids and other 
performance enhancing controlled substances. Operation Gear Grinder, 
Raw Deal, and BALCO are now part of the U.S. vernacular and symbolize 
our collective determination to combat steroid abuse and protect young 
people from the deleterious effects of these drugs.
    Congress also deserves a significant amount of credit for its 
leadership, commitment, and vision. Congress has been an invaluable 
partner in raising the awareness of this public health issue, providing 
the resources to ONDCP and USADA to pursue the issue vigorously, and 
amending the Controlled Substance Act to ensure the law evolves with 
science and technology.
    The efforts to combat doping in the United States truly have been a 
team effort. While much progress has been made, additional actions are 
necessary. The next step in our shared fight to protect the public 
health and integrity of sport is the ratification of the Convention 
Against Doping in Sport. Becoming a party to this instrument is in the 
U.S. national interest. It will further demonstrate our commitment to 
working in the international arena to reduce the incidence of drug use 
in sport. It will also enable the United States to continue to play a 
defining role within WADA and permit Chicago and the USOC the ability 
pursue its outstanding bid to bring the Summer Olympics back to our 
Nation for the first time since Atlanta hosted the Games in 1996.
    I urge the committee to take favorable action with respect to the 
Convention as soon as practical. ONDCP greatly appreciates the 
committee's interest in this topic. I would be pleased to answer any 
questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Donoghue.

  STATEMENT OF JOAN DONOGHUE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER, 
              DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Donoghue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Director 
Burns has given you a good summary of the reasons for the 
widespread support for this convention in the United States. I 
won't repeat those, but on behalf of the State Department and 
as the mother of a high school athlete and someone with family 
ties to Chicago, I am pleased to join with Mr. Burns in 
encouraging the Senate's prompt provision of advice and consent 
to ratification of this convention, and we thank you for 
expediting your consideration of the convention.
    I'll just briefly touch on a couple of legal and 
institutional dimensions of the convention that raise issues 
that I know have been of interest to the committee in its 
consideration of treaties over the years.
    First, as Mr. Burns indicated, this convention is entirely 
consistent with U.S. laws and regulations and, as you 
indicated, Senator Lugar, it doesn't require any new 
legislation, and it specifically recognizes our federalism 
concerns, and addresses those appropriately. Also and 
unusually, it expressly recognizes that the parties may 
implement their responsibilities under the convention through 
nongovernmental entities. That's the way we do it now, that's 
the way we want to continue doing it, and the convention won't 
require us to change that, which is important.
    Next, the convention maintains the present structure and 
the administration of the World Anti-Doping Association. It 
doesn't interfere with that in any way. It ensures that WADA 
will maintain its ability to equitably address and oversee 
international antidoping issues. UNESCO will not have a role in 
WADA's structure or functions and the convention will not 
change the relationship between WADA and the individual 
national antidoping agencies.
    Finally, funding: The convention places no additional 
funding requirements on the United States. It doesn't change 
WADA's budgetary processes and there will be no need for 
additional appropriations as a consequence of ratification. 
Similarly, the ratification will not result in any mandatory 
increase in UNESCO's funding. Any required UNESCO resources 
will come out of a voluntary fund.
    As a result of these considerations and those you heard 
about from Mr. Burns, ratification will demonstrate the 
continuing partnership between the executive branch and the 
Congress in the fight against drug use in international sport, 
and therefore the State Department and the administration 
strongly support the timely ratification of the convention.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Donoghue follows:]

   Prepared Statement OF Hon. Joan Donoghue, Principal Deputy Legal 
           Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC

                              introduction
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear along with my colleague from the White House 
Office of National Drug Control Policy to testify in support of the 
International Convention against Doping in Sport. The Department of 
State and the administration strongly support the Senate's prompt 
provision of advice and consent to ratification of this Convention.
    As a tool in protecting the integrity of international sport, this 
Convention will advance international cooperation on doping-control 
efforts and will foster a fair and doping-free environment for 
athletes. The United States has been an active participant in and 
supporter of the development of this Convention from its inception.
                               background
    This Convention builds on the longstanding efforts of the 
international community to jointly develop an equitable approach to 
antidoping control and enforcement measures in international 
competition. These efforts resulted in the creation of the World Anti-
Doping Agency (``WADA'') in 1999, and, with the strong support of the 
United States, WADA's development of the World Anti-Doping Code in 
2003.
    The Anti-Doping Code was adopted by WADA's Foundation Board, and 
accepted worldwide, at the World Conference on Doping in Sport, held in 
Copenhagen in March 2003. The United States played an active role in 
the conference with the goal of further supporting WADA and 
international sport by encouraging parties to adopt and implement the 
Code's provisions within their own governments.
    At the conclusion of the conference, the participating governments 
adopted the Copenhagen Declaration, a political document whereby the 
participants demonstrate their commitment to WADA and the 
implementation of the Code in their countries. The Copenhagen 
Declaration further solidified the commitment of all participants to 
develop an international Convention that would legally obligate its 
parties to implement the Code and to support the efforts of WADA 
internationally.
    The United States was one of over 80 countries to sign the 
Copenhagen Declaration at the World Conference; and as of December 
2007, the Declaration has been signed by 192 governments. After signing 
the Copenhagen Declaration, the United States and other governments 
decided to utilize the forum and resources of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (``UNESCO'') to 
begin negotiating the proposed Anti-Doping Convention.
                           important factors
    This Convention represents the successful outcome of the United 
States intensive participation in both the development of the 
Convention and in the world antidoping community generally. The final 
text of this Convention accomplishes every negotiating goal that the 
United States hoped to achieve, and it avoids the possible pitfalls 
that the U.S. negotiators had identified. Additionally, by embodying 
U.S. undertakings in an advice and consent treaty, ratification of this 
Convention will demonstrate broad-based support by both the legislative 
and executive branches of the Federal Government for the national and 
international application of the principles of the World Anti-Doping 
Code.
    In supporting the World Anti-Doping Code, the Convention obligates 
each party to adopt appropriate measures at the national and 
international levels to implement the principles embodied in the code. 
Some of the United States primary objectives in participating in the 
negotiation of this Convention, beyond the substantive goal of 
promoting the purpose and principles of the World Anti-Doping Code, 
included:

          (1) Ensuring that the Convention did not alter the existing 
        substance or structure of sport or antidoping laws in the 
        United States, especially in light of any federalism 
        implications of national antidoping regulation;
          (2) Maintaining the status of the World Anti-Doping Agency 
        (WADA) as an independent and free-standing entity with primary 
        responsibility to oversee and monitor international antidoping 
        issues; and
          (3) Ensuring that there was no expansion of funding 
        requirements for the United States as a direct result of this 
        Convention.

    The negotiations met all of these objectives.
    The Convention is entirely consistent with U.S. antidoping laws and 
regulations. The Convention is not structured to secure changes to 
national law or regulation, but rather to secure commitments by parties 
to promote international collaboration, research, education, and their 
own national efforts and awareness of antidoping-control efforts. In 
other words, no new legislation will be required to implement this 
Convention. Importantly, Article 35 of the Convention specifically 
recognizes federalism limitations within certain parties' national 
legal structures, and allows those parties, such as the United States, 
to address implementation of the Convention in a manner consistent with 
those concerns.
    The Convention also maintains the present structure and 
administration of WADA. There was some concern at the negotiations that 
the Convention would enable UNESCO or other outside influences to have 
a role in WADA's funding and decisionmaking processes. However, the 
final text ensures that WADA maintains its present ability to equitably 
address and oversee international antidoping issues. UNESCO will have 
no role or oversight capacity in WADA's structure or functions. The 
Convention also does not change the relationship between WADA and 
individual national antidoping agencies.
    Finally, the Convention places no additional funding requirements 
on the United States. The WADA budgetary process will remain the same 
for all participating governments. There will be no need for additional 
appropriations for our participation in WADA as a result of 
ratification of this Convention. Similarly, U.S. ratification of the 
Convention will not result in any mandatory increase in UNESCO's 
funding. Any required UNESCO resources will come out of a voluntary 
fund.
    In sum, the United States achieved all of its objectives in the 
final text of the Anti-Doping Convention. The Convention provides 
strong, worldwide support for the antidoping code and for a fair and 
drug-free environment for athletes.
    The Convention was adopted by UNESCO on October 19, 2005, and it 
entered into force on February 1, 2007. As of May 2008, 85 countries 
have ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to the Convention.
    Ratification by the United States of the Anti-Doping Convention 
will affirm the United States longstanding dedication to the 
development of international antidoping controls and its commitment to 
apply and facilitate the application of these controls both 
internationally and within the United States. Timely ratification will 
also ensure that the United States will continue to remain eligible to 
host important upcoming international competitions.
    Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, the State Department and the 
administration strongly support early ratification of this treaty. The 
Department of State urges that the committee give prompt and favorable 
consideration to this Convention.

    Senator Lugar [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you very much, 
both of you, for your testimony.
    Let me just begin the questioning by asking, what is the 
role that the World Anti-Doping Agency has in implementing this 
convention? What kind of responsibilities do they have?
    Mr. Burns. The World Anti-Doping Agency, Senator Lugar, is 
the vehicle that brings together all of the parties.
    Senator Lugar. This is 85 parties that have ratified, plus 
others, like ourselves, that are about to do that?
    Mr. Burns. Yes.
    Senator Lugar. Do they have regular meetings, or can you 
describe the mechanism of how all this works?
    Mr. Burns. Certainly. There is a foundation board, where--
it's broken up into five regions of the world, and we are the 
North, South, Central, and Caribbean region. I'm privileged to 
represent 42 nations from that region on the executive 
committee, and there are five government people on the 
executive committee, and then there are five people from the 
International Olympic Committee on the executive committee. So 
everything is 50-50.
    Below that is a foundation board, kind of like, I would 
suppose, the House of Representatives, with about 32 members, 
representing again equally government and sport. The WADA's 
sole goal is to bring together some 182 nations together to 
oversee doping in sport.
    Senator Lugar. What level of confidence--you've been 
serving, as you pointed out, in this group. What level of 
confidence do we have as to how well other nations are 
administering the general doctrine? In other words, as our 
athletes approach the Olympics and the general public watches, 
do we have confidence that country X is adopting the same 
standards, the same degree of rigor, that we have in mind?
    Mr. Burns. I think that's one of the reasons it's so 
important that we adopt this convention and tell the world that 
we're on board. Frankly----
    Senator Lugar. They're asking that of us currently.
    Mr. Burns. They're currently asking that of us. One of the 
benefits to us is that it requires those countries that do not 
have the rigorous standards that we have. I would tell you that 
USADA, the United States Anti-Doping Agency, is the gold 
standard. We are, and have become, the best in the world, not 
only from a testing standpoint, but from coordinating with law 
enforcement in the United States and worldwide to catch 
cheaters.
    Senator Lugar. So already we've begun to establish a very 
sound record in this respect, even prior to this convention 
being adopted. But nevertheless, this is--the timeliness of 
this obviously is prior to the Olympic competition, to be on 
record having at least the United States as a member of this.
    Mr. Burns. That's absolutely correct, and we want to make a 
statement to the world that we don't condone cheating, that we 
are serious about this, and through USADA and also through the 
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in 
coordination with the State Department, who have been a great 
partner, that word has gone out, Senator.
    Senator Lugar. This is speculative, but what do you 
anticipate will be the impact of this action on professional 
sports in the United States? Congress has been involved 
recently about baseball, for example. The question arises in 
other situations. Granted, that is not a part of the Olympic 
movement, but it is a part of our own ethos, I would gather a 
reason why you have served and why our governmental officials 
feel this is important.
    Can you describe speculatively what impact this may have on 
sports in general, including professional sports in our 
country?
    Mr. Burns. As you know, we are unique. When I meet with 
sports ministers from around the world, I tell them that I am 
not a sports minister. I act in that capacity because our 
government doesn't oversee sport. They have Cabinet-level 
people that show up at these meetings and speak for and 
represent the government.
    I can tell you, however, that with FIFA, world soccer, 
having recently signed onto the code, it sent a loud message to 
every corner of the globe with respect to how serious they were 
about coming into compliance and not tolerating doping in 
sports. I believe that the professional leagues are listening. 
I believe that they understand that you and Senator Biden have 
been vocal and passionate about this issue, and I can't help 
but think that this will help.
    Senator Lugar. I thank you very much.
    I yield to the chairman.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you very much.
    Let me begin with you, Mr. Burns. I have several questions 
and I may, with your permission, submit to each of you a few in 
writing.
    Mr. Burns. Certainly.
    The Chairman. The convention has an Article 19 and it 
requires State Parties to, ``support, devise, or implement 
education and training,'' on antidoping for athletes. How is 
the United States going to meet that requirement, that 
obligation? Will our efforts be expanded if the United States 
becomes a party to this convention?
    In other words, talk about the mechanics of how this works. 
So you sign onto the convention, it requires the United States 
then to support, devise, and implement education and training. 
Is it going to be limited to those who are on the Olympic team 
or is there training--is this an obligation to have a broader 
program to get to athletes who are aspirants, Olympic 
aspirants? What does it mean?
    Mr. Burns. I would tell you, my interpretation of that, 
frankly, is a message to other countries around the world that 
do absolutely no education and no training of athletes. The 
United States is not only in full compliance, but we are 
leaders in the world. USADA pays for and implements a broad 
education program, not only with Olympic athletes, but with 
young people.
    You were present and spoke with the Atlas and Athena 
Program. I remember you were highlighted by Sports Illustrated 
and others. I was privileged to be there with you. That is 
something that is highlighted and supportive of what we do.
    Frankly, all of the training and the testing and the 
education programs that Congress funds also meets the 
requirement.
    The Chairman. So there's not likely to be any--there's no 
additional obligation that would be thrust on us that we're not 
already doing? I wouldn't mind additional, but we're in 
compliance now, even before ratifying the convention, correct? 
Is that what you're saying?
    Mr. Burns. Yes.
    The Chairman. The second question is, I'd like you to talk 
about--help me understand the decisionmaking process at the 
World Anti-Doping Agency, and describe for me the extent to 
which the United States has control over decisions to amend the 
World Anti-Doping Code? What role will we play in that? So as 
we move down the road, there are a lot of synthetic substances. 
How do we play in that game?
    Mr. Burns. We're at the table. There are five regions of 
the world represented by one person on the executive committee. 
The United States, and I'm privileged to hold that position, 
represents one of the five regions of the world, 42 countries. 
That executive committee has partners, five people from the 
IOC, and the decisions that are made by WADA come from that 
board and from recommendations by the foundation board, which 
represents a lot more countries.
    The code provides, Senator--and people in this room were 
adamant and vocal about that in the drafting process, and I 
will tell you we were there at every meeting, whether it was in 
Greece or it was in Paris or Copenhagen. Wherever they met, the 
United States was there--there early and there loud--to provide 
for a safety valve, which is what you spoke about, similar to--
--
    The Chairman. The second question I should know the answer 
to: Right now the United States has a seat at the table 
representing 42 nations in the region. Is that a permanent seat 
or does that get voted by the 42 nations in the region?
    Mr. Burns. Have to have the support of the 42 countries. 
People run for that position and if you have their trust and 
confidence you're selected.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Donoghue, I have a lot of questions for you, but I'll 
just limit it to one, or several parts of one question. Under 
the convention the World Anti-Doping Agency has obviously a 
leading role, and the countries that join the convention commit 
to the principles of the World Anti-Doping Code. This is a 
little unusual. We have a treaty that gives a significant role 
to a nongovernmental organization, which writes the code and 
which proposes amendments and annexes to the treaty, including 
the prohibited list of substances.
    Is there any reason--because I'm sure some will raise 
this--is there any reason we should be concerned about this 
structure and in having such an authority vested in a 
nongovernmental agency or a nongovernment organization, I 
should say? Could you speak to that from a legal perspective?
    Ms. Donoghue. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's a very interesting 
question and it's one that we have looked at within the Office 
of the Legal Adviser. What makes the convention unusual is the 
fact that it specifies that the parties can implement it 
through these nongovernmental organizations. Normally, a 
convention in the technical area is implemented through 
legislation, regulations, etc. Here, however, we have a 
situation where we are doing what we're doing now with a little 
bit of government help, but largely through nongovernment 
bodies, and we want to continue to do that in the future.
    As a technical legal matter, this works because the 
amendments to the annex, for example, which would be changes to 
``The Prohibited List'' as referenced in the WADA code, are 
amendments that as a technical treaty matter the United States 
can opt out of. If we don't want to be bound with respect to a 
substance that's added in the future, we don't need to be as a 
legal matter.
    But at the same time, as we've heard, in many respects the 
action in this area is really not in the governmental bodies, 
but rather domestically and internationally on the 
nongovernmental side, and we'll be able to continue to exercise 
our influence there, while at the same time preserving our 
legal flexibility on the more technical legal convention side.
    The Chairman. Can you think of any other treaty where we 
have done something like this? Is there any analogous treaty? 
``Like this'' meaning a nongovernmental organization that can 
write the regs, in effect, propose legislative implementation 
language.
    Ms. Donoghue. There are a variety of ways in technical 
areas in which scientific and other experts interact formally 
with the parties. For example, with respect to the Antarctic 
treaty there's the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, 
which is very actively engaged in shaping the activities of 
that body because scientific research is so important there.
    The RAMSAR convention on wetlands specifically refers to 
the role for the International Union on the Conservation of 
Nature, an NGO based in Switzerland. Its role is specified 
there.
    So there are examples that are similar to this, and again 
the amendment process does still preserve the role for 
governments to opt out.
    The Chairman. I don't think we're going to need much help 
on this in the Senate, but it may be that we come back to you 
to expand on those examples for us so we have them available to 
our colleagues who may raise a legal issue relating to the 
nature of the treaty and the nongovernmental organization.
    Ms. Donoghue. And we'll be happy to help in any way we can. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Well, I don't have any further questions. Do 
you, Senator?
    Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, just on that point while it's 
in front of us. Isn't one of the purposes of having the 
nongovernmental organization involved as really an audit on the 
government in some cases? Without getting into any accusations, 
sometimes governments, states, promote certain aspects of their 
national sovereignty or however they look at it. So apparently 
what you have devised, or those who are involved, is a 
situation in which there is somebody outside the government 
that could blow the whistle on people who become very excited 
in a nationalistic way and are prepared really to take steps, 
even at the expense of their athletes' health, so that they 
win.
    That would be the case, is it not, in the United States? 
Not that our Government is going to propose that people start 
using steroids in order to bulk up for the Olympics. But even 
if they were to think of such a thing, this is an outside group 
of people interested in health, integrity, and so forth who 
blow the whistle. And that's one reason why it's important to 
have this thing outside of government perhaps.
    Is that too much of an extrapolation of your own views?
    Mr. Burns. I think you've summarized it very well, Senator. 
That's not only the intent, but I can tell you that in the 4 
years that I've been there that's how it works.
    Senator Lugar. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    We thank the panel and we appreciate your hard work. With a 
little bit of luck, we'll be able to move this. Thank you.
    Our next panel, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Tygart, please come 
forward. Gentlemen, welcome. We truly appreciate your taking 
the time and having the concern to be here. Mr. Lynch, I invite 
you to make an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF JAIR K. LYNCH, BOARD MEMBER, U.S. OLYMPIC 
     COMMITTEE, AND FORMER OLYMPIC MEDALIST, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Lynch. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before 
this committee. My name is Jair Lynch and I'm a member of the 
United States Olympic Committee's Board of Directors. I'm also 
a two-time Olympian and have won a silver medal in gymnastics 
in 1996 in the Olympic Games in Atlanta. As such, I bring to 
this hearing a dual perspective, that of an Olympic policymaker 
as well as that of an athlete who has the tremendous honor of 
representing our country in the Olympic Games.
    I also bring to this hearing a profound appreciation for 
the privilege and responsibility of being associated with the 
Olympic movement. The Olympic Games are more than just a 
quadrennial gathering of athletes. The Olympic Games are the 
very manifestation of a movement that is rooted in the values 
of fair play, fundamental ethical principles, and the 
educational value of good example.
    By adhering to these values, the Olympic movement serves as 
an inspiration to millions throughout the world, particularly 
youth, who are influenced by the accomplishments of the 
athletes and by the manner in which their accomplishments are 
achieved.
    In Olympic competition it is not just the winning of the 
competition that is important. The manner in which the medal is 
won is equally important. Quite simply, the world expects a 
victory in the Olympic Games to be entirely the result of an 
individual's natural effort, rather than through manipulation 
or violation of the rules, whether they are rules of play or 
rules prohibiting performance enhancement through the use of 
illegal or banned substances or methods.
    I'm here this morning to speak briefly about the 
International Convention Against Doping in Sport, the 
expeditious ratification of which is important for a number of 
reasons. Among them is that such action will signal to the 
world the U.S. Government's continuing commitment to leadership 
and support in addressing the issue of doping in international 
sport.
    In addition, having governments affirmatively support the 
principles underlying the World Anti-Doping Code demonstrates 
the international cooperation necessary to make greater 
progress in the fight against doping in international sport. 
International cooperation is something that the USOC recognizes 
and embraces through many of its activities. as sport can serve 
as an ideal vehicle to enhance international diplomacy.
    When the United States decides to enter into an 
international treaty, concern is often raised that the United 
States will have to submit to international rules or 
obligations that are inconsistent with our own practices and 
values. That is not the case in this situation.
    Nearly a decade ago, the USOC created the United States 
Anti-Doping Agency, USADA, an independent antidoping testing 
and adjudication entity that helps protect the health and well-
being of athletes and the integrity of sport by administering 
one of the most rigorous testing programs in the world. The 
success of an externalized antidoping program and the progress 
made by USADA over the years has been significant. USADA has 
been recognized by the World Anti-Doping Agency as a leader in 
the fight against doping in international sport.
    One of the main reasons for the success of our antidoping 
program is the close partnership that was developed and the 
USOC, U.S. Congress, and the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy, and the full cooperation every step of the way. This 
relationship stands as a positive example of how the public and 
private sectors can and should work together in combatting a 
problem of national, indeed international, significance.
    With the opening of the 2008 Olympic Games fast 
approaching, Senate confirmation of this convention will 
represent an affirmation of the progress that is being made by 
USADA and the commitment the USOC and our Nation's Government 
has made to uphold the values of clean competition.
    Another important reason for the expeditious ratification 
of this convention has to do with the ability for cities from 
our Nation to host future Olympic and Paralympic Games. The IOC 
has mandated that in order to host the Olympic Games a nation 
must have ratified, accepted, and approved or acceded to the 
International Convention Against Doping in Sport. Specifically 
and more immediate is our Nation's bid from the city of Chicago 
to host the 2016 games. In addition to Chicago, there are six 
international cities vying for this honor. Each of the nations 
of each of these cities have already ratified and accepted the 
convention.
    Chicago has put forth what the USOC believes is a very 
strong bid to host the 2016 games. But without congressional 
ratification of the convention, the IOC will not accept a bid 
from the United States. Needless to say, prompt action enhances 
the prospects of America's bid.
    On behalf of the USOC and America's Olympic and Paralympic 
athletes who will be participating in the 2008 games this 
summer, I thank you for your attention and consideration to 
this important convention. I respectfully ask that you take 
whatever steps are necessary to ensure the convention is 
ratified at the earliest possible date. In doing so, you will 
be confirming our country's commitment to clean and drug-free 
competition and you will be protecting Chicago's bid for the 
privilege of hosting the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jair Lynch, Board Member, U.S. Olympic Committee, 
                Former Olympic Medalist, Washington, DC

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today 
before this committee.
    My name is Jair Lynch and I am a member of the United States 
Olympic Committee's Board of Directors. I am also a two-time Olympian, 
having won a silver medal in gymnastics at the 1996 Olympic Games in 
Atlanta. As such, I bring to this hearing a dual perspective: That of 
an Olympic policymaker as well as that of an athlete who had the 
tremendous honor of representing our country in the Olympic Games. I 
also bring to this hearing a profound appreciation for the privilege 
and responsibility of being associated with the Olympic Movement.
    The Olympic Games are more than just a quadrennial gathering of 
elite athletes. The Olympic Games are the very manifestation of a 
movement that is rooted in the values of fair play, fundamental ethical 
principles, and the educational value of good example. By adhering to 
these values, the Olympic Movement serves as an inspiration to millions 
throughout the world, particularly youth, who are influenced both by 
the accomplishments of the athletes, and by the manner in which their 
accomplishments are achieved. In Olympic competition, it is not just 
winning the competition that is important; the manner in which the 
medal is won is equally important.
    Quite simply, the world expects a victory in the Olympic Games to 
be entirely the result of an individual's natural effort rather than 
through manipulation or violation of the rules, whether they are rules 
of play or rules prohibiting performance enhancement through the use of 
illegal or banned substances or methods.
    I am here this morning to speak briefly about the International 
Convention Against Doping in Sport, the expeditious ratification of 
which is important for a number of reasons. Among them is that such 
action will signal to the world the U.S. Government's continuing 
commitment, leadership, and support in addressing the issue of doping 
in international sport. In addition, having governments affirmatively 
support the principles underlying the World Anti-Doping Code 
demonstrates the international cooperation necessary to make greater 
progress in the fight against doping in international sport. 
International cooperation is something that the USOC recognizes and 
embraces through many of its activities--as sport can serve as an ideal 
vehicle to enhance international diplomacy.
    When the United States decides to enter into an international 
treaty, concern is often raised that the United States will have to 
submit to international rules or obligations that are inconsistent with 
our own practices or values. That is not the case in this situation. 
Nearly a decade ago, the USOC created the United States Anti-Doping 
Agency (``USADA''), an independent antidoping testing and adjudication 
entity that helps protect the health and well-being of athletes and the 
integrity of sport by administering one of the most rigorous testing 
programs in the world. The success of an externalized antidoping 
program and the progress made by USADA over the years has been 
significant, and USADA has been recognized by the World Anti-Doping 
Agency as a leader in the fight against doping in international sport. 
One of the main reasons for the success of our antidoping program is 
the close partnership that was developed between the USOC, the U.S. 
Congress, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and their 
full cooperation every step of the way. This relationship stands as a 
positive example of how the public and private sectors can and should 
work together in combating a problem of national, indeed, international 
significance.
    With the opening of the 2008 Olympic Games fast approaching, Senate 
confirmation of this Convention will represent an affirmation of the 
progress that is being made by USADA and the commitment the USOC and 
our Nation's Government has made to uphold the values of clean 
competition.
    Another important reason for the expeditious ratification of this 
Convention has to do with the ability for cities from our Nation to 
host future Olympic and Paralympic Games. The International Olympic 
Committee has mandated that in order to host the Olympic and Paralympic 
Games, a nation must have ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to 
the International Convention Against Doping in Sport.
    Specifically and more immediate is our Nation's bid from the city 
of Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. In addition 
to Chicago, there are six international cities vying for the honor of 
hosting the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games which are: Baku 
(Azerbaijan), Doha (Qatar), Madrid (Spain), Prague (Czech Republic), 
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and Tokyo (Japan). Each of the nations for each 
of these cities have already ratified, accepted, or acceded the 
Convention.
    Chicago has put forth what the USOC believes is a very strong bid 
to host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. But without 
congressional ratification of the Convention, the IOC will not accept a 
bid from the United States. Needless to say, prompt action enhances the 
prospects of America's bid.
    On behalf of the United States Olympic Committee and America's 
Olympic and Paralympic athletes who will be participating in the 2008 
Games this summer, I thank you for your attention and consideration of 
this important Convention. I respectfully ask that you take whatever 
steps are necessary to ensure this Convention is ratified at the 
earliest possible date. In so doing you will be confirming our 
country's commitment to clean and drug-free competition, and you will 
be protecting Chicago's bid for the privilege of hosting the 2016 
Olympic and Paralympic Games.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Tygart.

STATEMENT OF TRAVIS TYGART, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. ANTI-
              DOPING AGENCY, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO

    Mr. Tygart. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the 
committee, good morning. My name is Travis Tygart and I'm the 
CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. I want to thank 
this committee for its interest in clean sport and for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.N. 
Scientific and Cultural Organization's International Convention 
Against Doping in Sport, or the convention.
    In its purest form, as we know, sport builds character and 
promotes the virtues of selfless teamwork, honest dedication, 
and commitment to a greater cause. The use of performance-
enhancing drugs eats away at these important attributes and 
compromises everything valuable about sport.
    USADA's interest in this discussion is driven by a motive 
to not only protect the rights of today's Olympic athletes to 
play drug-free, but, just as important, to protect America's 
next generation of athletes. Doping is an ethical and a public 
health problem that reaches right to the core of our collective 
values and our future. Put simply, doping is dangerous cheating 
that can only be truly eradicated through the collective 
efforts of both government and sport organizations.
    Accordingly, we welcome and appreciate the committee's 
leadership on this topic and strongly support the convention 
and its passage. With the commencement of the 2008 Olympic 
Games in Beijing, China, only a few months away, quick action 
will further demonstrate the United States Government's 
commitment to a strong antidoping policy in this area.
    Governments of the world play a critical role alongside and 
in cooperation with sports organizations to ensure a level 
playing field for all athletes. The U.S. Congress along with 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, other Federal 
agencies, deserve a significant amount of credit and praise for 
being at the forefront of the antidoping efforts since the late 
1990s. There are many important instances of the U.S. 
Government's support for antidoping efforts and the following 
highlight a few of those.
    In 1998 the Senate Commerce Committee spearheaded the 
antidoping movement in Congress by holding hearings questioning 
the prevalence of anabolic steroid use and their precursors in 
Olympic sport. In February 1999, as you've heard already this 
morning, the United States participated in the first World 
Conference on Doping in Sport. The U.S. has continued to play a 
leadership role in the formation of the World Anti-Doping 
Agency and, most importantly, with formulating and passing its 
uniform global code that applies to all athletes in the Olympic 
movement.
    In 2000, the United States Anti-Doping Agency was formed to 
remove the conflict of interest that was faced by the 
international governing bodies within the United States. 
Congress determined and recognized USADA as the independent 
national antidoping agency for Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan 
American sports. The creation of USADA, frankly, triggered a 
radical transformation in the world's perception of the United 
States effort in the antidoping arena. Because of this, the 
U.S. is now viewed as the world leader in Olympic antidoping 
policy.
    With the leadership of Senator Biden, Senator McCain, and 
Senator Stevens, Congress again demonstrated its commitment in 
this area by passing the 2004 Anabolic Steroid Control Act that 
amended the Controlled Substances Act to place certain 
prohibited substances, like tetrahydrogestrinone, norbolethone, 
and androstenedione, on the Schedule III along with penalties 
appropriate for use of those drugs.
    In May 2004 the Senate exhibited one of its strongest acts 
of support for clean sport when by unanimous consent the Senate 
agreed to provide to USADA approximately 9,300 pages of 
documentary evidence seized by U.S. law enforcement at the 
BALCO raid and provided it to USADA in order to aid our 
investigation of the BALCO doping conspiracy. Our investigation 
resulted in the uncovering of one of the most sophisticated 
international performance- enhancing drug conspiracies and to 
date has led to the successful discipline of 16 people, 
including Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery, for cheating their 
sport through doping. Today all of the U.S. efforts in BALCO 
are viewed by the world as a model for success in best 
antidoping operation.
    The U.S. has made great strides in the arena of Olympic 
competition. Our athletic successes have been reinforced by our 
success in leading the world in doping intolerance. Congress 
deserves its recognition as an integral piece of this puzzle. 
However, we cannot let complacency dull the sharp edges of the 
doping problem. If the convention is not ratified, it is 
plausible that the U.S. may look as though it no longer takes 
the antidoping issue seriously. In order for the U.S. to 
maintain its reputation as a world leader, it must also ratify 
the convention. This treaty in our opinion does not place a 
burden on the Nation that does not already exist. It simply 
solidifies the principle, still followed by millions of our 
kids on playgrounds around the country, that cheaters never 
win.
    The convention encourages the implementation of the basic 
elements of the most effective antidoping programs. The tenets 
of an effective program have been in place in the U.S. Olympic 
movement since late 2000 when USADA took over and is now 
codified in the WADA code and in the USADA Protocol for Olympic 
Movement Testing. Interestingly, you saw them well vetted in 
the Mitchell report that recently came out.
    In addition to true independence and transparency, these 
elements include:
    Effective out of season and out of competition, no advanced 
notice testing;
    A full list of prohibited substances and methods that would 
capture new designer drugs such as THG as they become 
available;
    Implementation of best legal and scientific policies and 
practices as they evolve;
    Investments into education to truly change the hearts and 
minds of would-be cheaters and to teach the lessons of life 
that we all can learn from ethical competition;
    Investments into scientific research for the detection of 
new doping substances and techniques for the pursuit of 
scientific excellence into antidoping;
    And most importantly, partnerships with government, 
particularly law enforcement, to ensure that, in addition to 
holding athletes accountable, those who illegally manufacture, 
traffic, and distribute these dangerous drugs and who are 
typically outside of sports jurisdiction are also held 
accountable for their illegal behavior.
    It is the success of this very cooperation, seen here in 
the U.S. through the BALCO investigation and others like it 
such as Gear Grinder and Operation Raw Deal, that has 
demonstrated to the world the importance of sport and 
government partnership in fighting doping.
    The U.S. Olympic movement is fortunate to have a strong 
group of athletes who recognize the importance of this issue 
and are looking for ways to become even more involved. Our 
Olympic athletes support our efforts, including passage of this 
convention, because they want us to protect their right to 
compete clean and they want American sports fans to be able to 
once again believe in our Olympic heroes. Ultimately this is a 
fight for the soul of sport and this fight most directly 
impacts our clean athletes.
    I want to thank this committee for its time and its 
interest in this important ethical and public health issue and 
for inviting me to share USADA's experiences and perspectives. 
We strongly support your passage of the international 
convention and remain willing to assist you in any way possible 
in moving forward.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tygart follows:]

Prepared Statement of Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer, United 
            States Anti-Doping Agency, Colorado Springs, CO

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. My name is 
Travis Tygart and I am the CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency 
(USADA). I want to thank this committee for its interest in clean sport 
and for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 
United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization 
International Convention Against Doping in Sport (Convention).
    In its purest form, sport builds character and promotes the virtues 
of selfless teamwork, honest dedication and commitment to a greater 
cause. The use of performance enhancing drugs eats away at these 
important attributes and compromises everything valuable about sport. 
USADA's interest in this discussion is driven by a motive to not only 
protect the rights of today's Olympic athletes to play drug free but 
just as important to protect America's next generation of athletes. 
Doping is an ethical and public health problem that reaches right to 
the core of our collective values and our future.
    Put simply, doping is dangerous cheating that can only be truly 
eradicated through the collective efforts of both government and sport 
organizations.
    Accordingly, we welcome and appreciate this committee's leadership 
on this topic and strongly support the Convention. USADA strongly urges 
the committee to vote this treaty out as expeditiously as possible. 
With the commencement of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China, only 
a few months away, quick action will further demonstrate the U.S. 
Government's commitment to a strong antidoping policy.
    Governments of the world play a critical role alongside and in 
cooperation with sport organizations to ensure a level playing field 
for all athletes. This treaty will help ensure cooperation among 
nations, and help ensure that international sporting events are played 
without the use of performance enhancing drugs.
    The U.S Congress along with the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy and other Federal agencies deserve a significant amount of 
credit for being at the forefront of the antidoping efforts since the 
late 1990s. There are many important instances of the U.S. Government's 
support for antidoping efforts and the following highlight a few of 
them.

   In 1998 the Senate Commerce Committee spearheaded the 
        antidoping movement in Congress by holding hearings questioning 
        the prevalence of anabolic steroids and their precursors in 
        Olympic sport. The hearing concluded that the National 
        Governing Bodies of Olympic sport, such as USA Track and Field 
        and USA Weighlifting, had the impossible task of both promoting 
        their sport and policing their sport.
   In February 1999 the United States participated in the first 
        World Conference on Doping in Sport. The United States played a 
        leadership role in the formation of the World Anti-Doping 
        Agency, a world-level antidoping organization tasked with 
        promoting and coordinating a uniform global approach to 
        fighting doping in sport. As a member of WADA's executive 
        committee, the United States continues to have a strong 
        influence in WADA's governance and policy-setting including the 
        WADA Code, the uniform set of antidoping rules that has applied 
        to the global Olympic sports movement since August 2004.
   In October 2000, the United States Anti-Doping Agency was 
        formed to remove the conflict of interest that was faced by the 
        NGBs within the United States. Congress determined and 
        recognized USADA as the independent, national antidoping agency 
        for Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan American sport in the United 
        States. The creation of USADA triggered a radical 
        transformation in the world's perception of antidoping efforts 
        by the United States. USADA subjects our athletes to the most 
        rigorous antidoping programs in the world. Because of this, the 
        United States is now viewed as the world leader in Olympic 
        antidoping, drawing other national antidoping agencies--such as 
        Russia and Australia--to the United States in order to learn 
        from our policies and programs.
   In 2003, with the leadership of Senator Biden, Senator 
        McCain, and Senator Stevens, Congress again demonstrated its 
        commitment in this arena by passing the 2004 Anabolic Steroid 
        Control Act that amended the Controlled Substances Act to 
        schedule many pro hormones and other dangerous steroids such as 
        androstenedione, norbolethone and THG as Schedule III drugs.
   In May 2004 the Senate exhibited one of its strongest acts 
        of support for clean sport when, by unanimous consent, it 
        agreed to provide approximately 9,300 pages of documentary 
        evidence seized at BALCO by U.S. law enforcement to USADA in 
        order to aid in its investigation of the BALCO doping 
        conspiracy. This investigation resulted in the uncovering of 
        one of the most sophisticated international performance 
        enhancing drug conspiracies and to date has led to the 
        successful discipline of 16 people including Marion Jones and 
        Tim Montgomery for cheating their sport through doping. Today, 
        all of the U.S.'s efforts in BALCO are viewed by the world as 
        the model for success in best antidoping operation.

    The United States has made great strides in the arena of Olympic 
competition. Our athletic successes have been reinforced by our success 
in leading the world in doping intolerance. Congress deserves its 
recognition as an integral piece of this puzzle. However, we cannot now 
let complacency dull the sharp edges of the doping problem. If the 
Convention is not ratified it is plausible that the United States may 
look as though it no longer takes the antidoping issue seriously. In 
order for the United States to maintain its reputation as a world 
leader, it must also ratify the Convention. This treaty does not place 
a burden on the nation that does not already exist; it simply 
solidifies the principle still followed by millions of kids on today's 
playgrounds that winners never cheat and cheaters never win.
    The Convention encourages the implementation of the basic elements 
of the most effective antidoping programs. The tenets of an effective 
program have been in place in the U.S. Olympic movement since late 2000 
and are now codified into the WADA Code and the USADA Protocol for 
Olympic Movement Testing. In addition to true independence and 
transparency, these elements include:

   Effective out of season and out of competition, no advanced 
        notice testing;
   A full list of prohibited substances and methods that would 
        capture new, designer drugs such as THG as they are developed;
   Implementation of the best legal and scientific policies and 
        practices as they evolve which must include adequate sanctions 
        and due process protections for those accused of doping 
        violations;
   Investments into education to truly change the hearts and 
        minds of would-be cheaters and to teach the lessons of life 
        that can be learned only from ethical competition;
   Investments into scientific research for the detection of 
        new doping substances and techniques and for the pursuit of 
        scientific excellence into antidoping;
   And most importantly, partnerships with law enforcement to 
        ensure that in addition to holding athletes accountable, those 
        who illegally manufacture, traffic, and distribute these 
        dangerous drugs and who are typically outside of sports 
        jurisdiction are also held accountable for their illegal 
        behavior. It is the success of this very cooperation seen here 
        in the United States through the BALCO investigation and others 
        like it such as Gear Grinder and Operation Raw Deal that has 
        demonstrated to the world the importance of sport and 
        government partnership in fighting doping.

    The U.S. Olympic movement is fortunate to have a strong group of 
athletes who recognize the importance of this issue and are looking for 
ways to become even more involved. Our Olympic athletes support all of 
our efforts including passage of the Convention because they want us to 
protect their right to compete clean and they want American sports fans 
to be able to once again believe in their Olympic heroes. Ultimately, 
this is a fight for the soul of sport and this fight most directly 
impacts the clean athletes.
    I would like to thank this committee for its time and its interest 
in this important ethical and public health issue and for inviting me 
to share USADA's experience and perspectives. We strongly support your 
passage of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport and 
remain willing to assist you in this effort in any manner possible.

    The Chairman. Thank you. Let me begin by thanking you both 
for being here and for the work you've done.
    I will say in advance--I've discussed this with the 
chairman--I'm going to have to go to the Judiciary Committee. I 
have a child pornography piece of legislation that we're about 
to vote on in a few minutes. So after I finish my questioning, 
I apologize, my leaving is not out of a lack of interest. And I 
thank the chairman for staying.
    I have a question for you, Mr. Lynch. Way back in the 1990s 
when I started this thing about dealing with steroids, quite 
frankly, it was because I was angry. I was angry--and I am 
nothing like a world class athlete, but as an athlete who tried 
to compete in high school and college--I was angry that in the 
sports that I was playing--baseball and football--that someone 
like me would be put at a disadvantage by someone who maybe had 
no more talent than I had, but was literally able to in a 
matter of months add on 20 pounds of muscle. I particularly 
thought about it in terms of playing football. I was 6-1, 155 
pounds, and they'd lie on the program because they'd weigh me 
with my uniform on, literally, and say I was 175.
    But it used to be thought, back 100 years ago when I was 
playing, that raw talent was enough--it used to be it's not the 
size of the dog, it's the fight, it's the amount of the fight 
in the dog, et cetera, and all those expressions from my 
generation. And it just really frustrated me to see all of a 
sudden--imagining lining up on the flank, looking at a 
linebacker that was 240 pounds, knowing that probably 35 of 
those pounds were because he was--it wasn't illegal then--was 
using steroids. So it was prompted just from almost gut 
reaction, just anger.
    I'd like you to talk with me for just a second about when 
you were competing, whether or not you, or friends of yours, 
would literally look at a competitor and wonder, in order for 
me to make this team--I'm not asking for any names or anything, 
and I'm just talking about international competitions. When I 
spoke to some professional ball players, baseball players, off 
the record, a couple pointed out that their ticket out of 
poverty and out of particularly, the Dominican Republic, very 
poor Latin American countries, was baseball, that was their 
ticket; and that when they were picked in a farm club they'd 
look around and say: Wait a minute; if I don't want to do this, 
but if I don't do what these other guys are doing--I go home. 
My ticket is gone.
    So the pressure--I'd like you to talk to me about the 
pressure, if it is, the pressure that exists on the part of 
someone who wants to stay clean, does not want to pollute his 
or her body, wants to stay clean, but looks at it and says: 
Wait a minute; this simply isn't fair. If I don't engage in 
enhancements, I'm going to lose my job, I'm not going to make 
the team.
    Can you talk to me about that? Is that a conscious thing 
that athletes talk about? And I'm not suggesting those who 
raise that question then go ahead and dope. I don't mean that. 
I mean, talk to us about the pressures so average people 
understand what goes on when you're at the level of world 
competition like you were and did so well?
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you for the opportunity to express my 
opinion of the values that were placed upon me, not only by my 
parents, but by this country and by the USOC when I was growing 
up. That was about clean sport, that was about integrity and 
hard work. I felt that if I stayed close to those values the 
temptations of rapid ascension through the sport through 
illegal means, circumventing what hard work teaches you, 
circumventing what trial and error and perseverance teaches 
you, really is moving away from your value structure.
    I was never willing to move away from our value structure. 
I was never willing to move away from those ideals that we 
embody in the Olympic movement. Once I was able to do that, I 
was able to put to bed any desire to step out, to move faster, 
to circumvent the process. I used my talent, I used my hard 
work, I used my perseverance, and if that took me to the top 
then I was very satisfied. If that didn't take me to the top--
--
    The Chairman. What about people who have the talent and 
work hard and say, you know, but, two people of equal talent, 
equal dedication to hard work, equal dedication to trial and 
error, the one using the performance drug is going to beat the 
one not using the performance drug, assuming they both have 
equal talent.
    So what I'm trying to get at is, were there days in 
international competitions when you looked across at someone 
else who was putting the chalk on their hands there, you look 
and say, geez, that guy, that ain't real? How am I going to--
this is more colloquial, I apologize, than anything else. But 
I'm just curious about the attitudes of competitors at your 
level because, although we have been leading the world since 
the late 1990s and I would argue before that, we know the 
history of how prevalent. I gave the East German example, which 
wasn't the only example.
    Our athletes must have sat there and said: Wait a minute; 
this game's rigged; the only way I can win is to get engaged. 
That's what I'm trying to get at. And I don't doubt for a 
minute what you said, that you had this value set, you stuck to 
the value set, and you were rewarded for having stuck to the 
value set. But I just wondered what is the kind of discussion 
among your colleagues that you'd have in the locker room. Or 
maybe you never looked at anybody and said, hey, I think 
they're using enhancement drugs; I've never competed with 
anybody I thought was using enhancement drugs.
    Mr. Lynch. I think you described a fire, a fire in your 
belly, and by all means I had that fire in the belly, not only 
about competing but about what I saw with things that could be 
questionable. The difference was that that fire in the belly 
always got me back to working harder and not to be obsessed 
about the code and what people were taking. I left that to the 
leaders inside the U.S. Olympic Committee, and that's one of 
the reasons I've now come back to work on the U.S. Olympic 
Committee, to be able to take that off the shoulders of the 
current athletes, so they can keep their fire focused on the 
sport and the work that they're doing, while we take the 
responsibility of making sure that we can put a clean team on 
the field.
    The Chairman. Well, I'm glad you're doing that.
    Mr. Tygart, thank you for your work, for real. You've made 
a great contribution. I'd like you to--I'm just going to ask 
you one question. You talked about HGH. You mentioned it, the 
human growth hormone, which is increasingly, there are reports, 
being used by athletes, not necessarily by Olympic athletes, by 
athletes, to gain competitive advantage, in part because it's 
more difficult to test for and to, in turn, detect than more 
traditional steroids.
    Could you describe briefly the current availability of 
commercial testing capabilities for HGH and how it's being 
tested for the Olympic, and whether you think regular testing 
for HGH would reduce the use in professional sports here in the 
United States?
    Mr. Tygart. Yes, sir, and thank you for that question. The 
HGH test is a blood-based test and it is available and it has 
been used. It was used in the 2004 Athens games, used in the 
2006 Torino games. All expectations are that it will be used in 
the 2008 Beijing games.
    It is not yet available worldwide, because there is a kit 
that goes along with that test in order for the laboratory once 
the blood is received to run that test. It's an immunoassay 
kit. And those kits unfortunately had delayed production and 
there was a limited supply of those kits that were originally 
made used at the games.
    Our expectation is those kits will be available in the 
coming weeks. Our lab at Salt Lake just went through its 
training and it's got preparations to have the test in place as 
soon as those kits are available and our hope, as I said, is to 
have that test available prior to sending our team off to the 
Olympic Games. And then once it's there and the test is 
validated within the lab, it'll be used throughout our efforts 
and then will be available to other entities, whether it's a 
professional sports league here in the U.S. or others around 
the world, to utilize that test.
    The Chairman. Well, that would be good. The reason I ask 
the question is I've done a lot of work in DNA testing relating 
to violence against women and these. We now provide to most 
police departments through Federal subsidies these kits for 
police officers at the scene of an alleged rape to be able to 
gather information and that allows for testing. But we have 
well over 80,000 of them sitting on a shelf somewhere because 
we don't have a sufficient number of laboratories.
    Now, the technology is not quite what you need for HGH, 
although it is complicated. So what we've been trying to push 
is the accreditation of, and the establishment of, additional 
laboratories for forensic purposes in this case.
    So you're confident--or are you confident that here in the 
United States there's enough ability for the kits to be 
available, as you indicated, but that the reading of the 
results from the kit that is used to employ the test, that 
there is sufficient confidence there's enough of them and that 
it's reliable?
    Mr. Tygart. I am, once it's in the lab and validated. And 
then, your second point, the capacity of the lab will not be a 
problem, given the nature of the test.
    As an aside, a strategy for deterring and ultimately 
detecting HGH, one element of it is the testing aspect.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Mr. Tygart. There's other elements to it, such as a 
nonanalytical positive, where you can bring discipline against 
an athlete. We've disciplined athletes for HGH use. It hasn't 
been through a test result, but it's been through other 
evidence that indicates clearly their use and possession of 
human growth hormone. So you have to approach it from a broader 
perspective than just the narrow testing.
    The Chairman. Again I apologize for going over, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The reason I raise that as well, as I told you, an ulterior 
motive I have in addition to the necessity and the efficacy and 
the ethical requirement to us to sign onto this convention, is 
I hope it sets the tone, as George Mitchell did in his report, 
that this becomes the gold standard. As you well know, it's 
highly unlikely in professional sports that those objective but 
subjective tests of whether human growth hormone is being used 
would be ever agreed to by the athletes, the unions, or the 
owners of these teams. So I think we're going to end up with 
HGH needing, ``the blood test,'' because you have more latitude 
under your regulations that we've signed onto to discipline 
Olympic athletes, unless I'm misunderstanding.
    Mr. Tygart. No; I think you're absolutely right, with one 
exception, in that 12 months before the Olympic Games all of 
the professional athletes in, let's say NBA for example, do 
fall under our jurisdiction. And we've heard no complaints 
about any of the strict standards that they are held to 12 
months before those games.
    The Chairman. Well, that's good stuff. That's good stuff. I 
want more professional athletes. I used to be opposed to 
professional athletes competing in the Olympics, to reveal my 
total bias and prejudice, but I've changed my mind if it puts 
them into the testing regime.
    At any rate, I thank you both. I thank all the witnesses, 
and I particularly thank you, Senator Lugar, for allowing me to 
head off. I just got a note, my amendment is up in the other 
committee.
    Thank you, gentlemen. We'll move as rapidly as we can.
    Senator Lugar. I wish you the best of luck in Judiciary.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Lugar [presiding]. And that you do as well as here.
    Let me continue the questioning by asking you, Mr. Tygart, 
how many countries have independent antidoping entities? Is 
this common practice in the other countries we've been 
discussing today or are there major exceptions to that rule?
    Mr. Tygart. There are certainly exceptions, but U.K., for 
example, Australia, Canada. The trend, as the world now knows 
and again reflected in Senator Mitchell's report, is that true 
independence is the most successful and effective way to handle 
this problem of doping in sport. Really, that was the model 
under which WADA took over, as an independent agency outside of 
the International Olympic Committee, to fully separate the 
obligations of sport to both promote and police itself, because 
it's awfully difficult to do both. When you have a direct 
financial interest in the performance of athletes' 
performances, it becomes very difficult in certain situations 
when you're also asked to police and potentially bring 
discipline against those players that directly impact your 
bottom line.
    Senator Lugar. Has there been publication of a list or 
lists of those countries that have independent antidoping 
agencies?
    Mr. Tygart. We can provide that for you.
    Senator Lugar. As opposed to those who do not.
    Mr. Tygart. Yes. We'll do some research and can provide 
that for you, Senator.
    Senator Lugar. That would be helpful for our record.
    Mr. Tygart. We will do that.
    [The written information supplied by Mr. Tygart follows:]

    Below is a recent list from the World Anti-Doping Agency of all the 
National Anti-Doping Organizations that have signed the WADA Code. I 
understand this is a list of those entities independent from sport that 
handle antidoping matters in that country. These may or may not be 
government entities and/or receive government funding.

Albania (ALB)--Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports of 
        Albania
Algeria (ALG)--Algeria Anti-Doping Agency
Argentina (ARG)--Comision Nacional Antidoping
Australia (AUS)--Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Austria (AUT)--Austrian Anti-Doping Committee
Bahamas (BAH)--Bahamas National Anti-Doping Committee
Bahrain (BRN)--General Organization for Youth and Sports
Barbados (BAR)--National Anti-Doping Commission
Bermuda (BER)--Bermuda Council for Drug-Free Sport
Brazil (BRA)--Brazilian Agency for Doping Control--Brazilian Olympic 
        Committee
Bulgaria (BUL)--National Anti-Doping Commission
Cameroon (CMR)--Organisation for the Fight Against Doping in Sports
Canada (CAN)--Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
Chile (CHI)--Comision Nacional de Control de Dopaje
China (CHN)--Chinese Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Commission
Chinese Taipei (TPE)--Anti-Doping Commission of NOC
Colombia (COL)--COLDEPORTES
Congo-Brazzaville (CGO)--National Anti-Doping Committee
Congo, Dem. Republic of (COD)--Comite national antidopage congolais
Cook Islands (COK)--Medical and Anti-Doping Committee
Comoros (COM)--National Anti-Doping Organization
Costa Rica (CRC)--Instituto Costarricense del Deporte y la Recreacion
Croatia (CRO)--Croatian Anti-Doping Agency
Cyprus (CYP)--Cyprus National Anti Doping Committee
Czech Republic (CZE)--Anti-Doping Committee
Denmark (DEN)--Anti-Doping Denmark
Ecuador (ECU)--Comision Nacional de Control Antidopaje del Ecuador 
        (CONCADE)
El Salvador (ESA)--Instituto Nacional de los Deportes
Estonia (EST)--Estonian Anti-Doping Agency
Fiji (FIJ)--Fiji Sports Drug Agency
Finland (FIN)--Finnish Antidoping Agency
France (FRA)--French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD)
Georgia (GEO)--Georgian National Anti-Doping Agency
Germany (GER)--National Anti-Doping Agency
Great Britain (GBR)--UK Sport
Greece (GRE)--Hellenic National Council for Combating Doping
Guatemala (GUA)--Agencia Nacional Antidopaje de Guatemala
Guinea (GUI)--National Committee for the Fight Against Doping
Hungary (HUN)--Hungarian Antidoping Coordination Body
Iceland (ISL)--National Olympic and Sports Association
India (IND)--National Anti Doping Agency, India
Indonesia (INA)--Indonesian Antidoping Agency
Iran (IRI)--Iran Anti-Doping Agency
Ireland (IRL)--Irish Sports Council
Israel (ISR)--Anti Doping Committee Israel NOC
Italy (ITA)--Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI)
Ivory Coast (CIV)--Comite National Lutte Antidopage
Jamaica (JAM)--Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO)
Japan (JPN)--Japan Anti-Doping Agency
Jordan (JOR)--Jordan Anti-Doping Organization
Kenya (KEN)--Kenya Anti-Doping Agency
Korea (KOR)--Korea Anti-Doping Agency
Latvia (LAT)--Ministry of Health, Republic of Latvia
Lithuania (LTU)--Anti-Doping Agency of Lithuania
Luxembourg (LUX)--National Anti-Doping Agency
Macedonia (MKD)--National Anti-Doping Commission--Macedonia
Malaysia (MAS)--Anti-Doping Agency of Malaysia (ADAMAS)
Mali (MLI)--National Anti-Doping Commission
Mauritius (MRI)--Ministry of Youth & Sports Anti-Doping Unit
Mexico (MEX)--Comite nacional antidopaje de Mexico
Monaco (MON)--Anti-Doping Committee
Mongolia (MGL)--Mongolian National Anti-Doping Organization
Netherlands (NED)--Anti-Doping Authority of the Netherlands
New Zealand (NZL)--Drug Free Sport New Zealand
Nicaragua (NCA)--Instituto Nicaraguense de Deportes (I.N.D.)
Nigeria (NGR)--Anti-Doping Unit, Federal Ministry of Sports and Social 
        Development
Norway (NOR)--Anti-Doping Norway
Pakistan (PAK)--Anti-Doping Organization of Pakistan (ADOP)
Panama (PAN)--Instituto Panameno de Deportes
Papua New Guinea (PNG)--Papua New Guinea Sports Anti-Doping 
        Organization
Peru (PER)--Comision Nacional Antidopaje del Peru
Philippines (PHI)--Philippine Sports Commission
Poland (POL)--Polish Commission Against Doping in Sport
Portugal (POR)--National Anti-Doping Council
Puerto Rico (PUR)--Puerto Rico Anti-Doping Commission
Qatar (QAT)--Qatar National Anti-Doping Commission
Romania (ROM)--National Anti-Doping Agency of Romania
Russia (RUS)--National Anti-Doping Organization ``RUSADA''
Samoa (SAM)--Samoa Antidoping Agency
San Marino (SMR)--San Marino Anti-Doping Committee
Senegal (SEN)--National Anti-Doping Commission
Serbia (SRB)--Antidoping Agency of Serbia (ADAS)
Seychelles (SEY)--Seychelles Anti-Doping Commission
Singapore (SIN)--Singapore National Olympic Anti-Doping in Sports 
        Commission
Slovakia (SVK)--Slovakian Anti-Doping Committee
Slovenia (SLO)--National Antidoping Commission
South Africa (RSA)--South African Inst. for Drug-Free Sport
Spain (ESP)--Spanish National Anti-Doping Commission
Sri Lanka (SRI)--NADO Sri Lanka
Sudan (SUD)--Sudanese Anti-Doping Agency
Sweden (SWE)--Swedish Sports Confederation
Switzerland (SUI)--Swiss Olympic Committee
Tunisia (TUN)--Anti-Doping Organization of Tunisia
Turkey (TUR)--Turkish Doping Control Center
Ukraine (UKR)--National Anti-Doping Organization of Ukraine
Uganda (UGA)--Uganda National Anti-Doping Organization
United Arab Emirates (UAE)--UAE Anti-Doping Committee
United States of America (USA)--US Anti-Doping Agency
Uruguay (URU)--Direccion Nacional de Deporte--Ministerio de Turismo y 
        Deporte
Venezuela (VEN)--Comision antidopaje de la Republica Bolivariana de 
        Venezuela

    Senator Lugar. What, Mr. Tygart, is the process for drug 
testing at the Olympic Games, or maybe I should expand the 
question on the basis of what you have mentioned, that the NBA 
basketball athletes would come under the regime the year before 
the Olympic? So describe what is the testing regime or 
procedure for Olympic athletes?
    Mr. Tygart. Well, we've got several initiatives leading 
into the Beijing Olympic Games that you might find of interest. 
One is what we call our 120-day testing program, where all 
athletes who will be representing the United States in the 
Olympic Games will be tested and have declared negative tests, 
so if there's any positives they will be resolved.
    Senator Lugar. Across all sports?
    Mr. Tygart. All sports----
    Senator Lugar. Professional, amateur, whoever?
    Mr. Tygart. Anyone who will represent the U.S. in the 
Olympic Games.
    Second, the 12-month rule I mentioned. All athletes who are 
candidates for the Olympic team, including professional sports, 
NBA players going into the Summer Games, but similarly the NHL 
players going into the Winter Games, are encompassed and fall 
under our jurisdiction. That means they're providing us their 
whereabouts for no advance notice, out of competition testing, 
out of season testing, things that they're not normally used to 
under their own regimes.
    Senator Lugar. Does a person declare himself or herself 
candidates some 12 months out? In other words, this is sort of 
an interesting concept because the actual representatives of 
our country are determined in various trials or tests for track 
and field or for swimming or what have you at various stages. 
So for instance, people who are interested in running the 400-
meter dash, 12 months out, do they declare this so that they 
come under your jurisdiction?
    Mr. Tygart. They do. There's a good faith effort. I mean, 
my 6-year-old wouldn't be named as a potential Olympic 
candidate. So there is a good faith effort to name only those 
that most likely are going to be successful when those trials 
come up. But the goal is to have all of those athletes in the 
pool. And we've had situations where a true dark horse comes 
out of nowhere and ends up being on the team, but they have 
been subject to that 120-day testing policy that I've 
mentioned.
    Senator Lugar. Finally, the chairman asked about the human 
growth hormone, HGH, situation. Philosophically or medically, 
is there a case to be made as to why human growth hormone might 
be helpful to a human being, let's say outside the realm of 
athletics, although today we are concentrating in athletics 
because of the competitive elements, the integrity of the 
sport? I'm not that familiar with human growth hormone and its 
effects or what the medical findings are. But is this 
prescribed on occasion by physicians to patients for purposes 
of their own longevity or vitality?
    Mr. Tygart. There is. Human growth hormone is a 
prescription drug. It falls under the Food, Drug, Cosmetics 
Act. There's really three--unlike other drugs, there is no 
ability to use it, as I understand it, off-label, but there are 
three primary areas where it can be prescribed. One is for 
short stature disease, so dwarfism essentially. Another is 
wasting disease, which can be caused by HIV and AIDS. Another 
is suppression of human growth hormone.
    Importantly, there's no off-label use for it and whether 
that occurs in the future is just something that will have to 
be studied. But those are the three areas where it can be 
legitimately prescribed for those diagnosed diseases.
    Senator Lugar. So the dilemma for not only the Olympic 
athletes, but then the growing discussion among all 
professional athletes, is one in which I gather we would say in 
common sense the three conditions you have suggested are not a 
part of professional athletics or Olympic athletics and 
therefore the human growth hormone would not only be 
inappropriate, but we might even move to say illegal.
    Can you sort of describe this process as it's evolving 
legally in our country?
    Mr. Tygart. I think that's absolutely right. Importantly, 
we do have a process by which athletes who have a legitimate 
medical problem can get permission through an independent 
review process to use a legitimate medication. We obviously 
want our athletes to be able to do that. But I absolutely agree 
with you that it is illegal.
    Senator Lugar. That would be a transparent process, through 
this request by the athlete?
    Mr. Tygart. Absolutely.
    Senator Lugar. Let me just follow along, Mr. Lynch, Senator 
Biden's questioning, because from your experience as an athlete 
and now one working continuously with athletes in your capacity 
with the Olympic Committee, what is the challenge that the 
antidoping commission or anyone else faces with athletes? 
Senator Biden has indicated obviously somebody might want to 
grow stronger, heavier, so forth. But is this a more subtle and 
complex process?
    In other words, if you were working, as both of you are, to 
eradicate doping, how do you progress on this, given your 
knowledge of the psychology of athletes at the very highest 
level and the sorts of pressures, temptations, motivations that 
they may face?
    Mr. Lynch. Well, as Travis indicated, the approach is 
broad. The approach is broad. The approach begins with 
layering, with education.
    Senator Lugar. What do you mean by that? What do you mean 
by ``education''?
    Mr. Lynch. Well, Travis can get into the specific 
educational policies that are in USADA's court. But as a 
benchmark, there is always an explanation of the Olympic 
process in terms of the responsibilities of the athletes as not 
only competitors during the competition, but also as role 
models for the country. And that layers in the sense of 
responsibility for the athlete to recognize that they not only 
should be very proud to represent our country, but they have a 
strong responsibility to do so in a clean fashion.
    Senator Lugar. Can you describe any further the education 
process?
    Mr. Tygart. Yes; we can. We see it as really twofold. One, 
we're going to do our best to change the hearts and minds of 
the elite-level athletes who are competing and representing 
this country in international competition; and it's giving them 
more tools. If we tell them not to use steroids to get bigger, 
we have to give them the practical tools as to how to get 
bigger and better and more competitive, that's fair under the 
rules and that all competitors are allowed.
    Senator Lugar. You have to give alternatives.
    Mr. Tygart. That's right, to give alternatives, and 
certainly testimonials, to try to change the hearts and minds, 
because at the end of the day our experience has been, whether 
it's Marion Jones or Kelly White, they just don't feel good 
about their cheating. And this still is a value issue, that if 
we can tap into that core of the ethos and the moral reasoning 
we feel like we can change those hearts and minds to cause 
cheaters not to want to cheat any more.
    Second, we have to approach it from a community level, 
because we all acknowledge our youth of today are our Olympians 
of tomorrow and we have to give them the same message of making 
good ethical decisions, healthy lifestyle, and staying away 
from these dangerous drugs.
    Senator Lugar. Well, we thank you both for coming, and 
likewise our previous panel of witnesses. I think we have 
established a good committee record in preparation for our full 
committee consideration of this. I know the chairman's intent 
is to move promptly and this is the reason he called the 
hearing today and has asked you to come to it, and we 
appreciate your being with us.
    Having given this appreciation to you, I will adjourn the 
hearing and look forward to the Olympics.
    Mr. Tygart. Thank you.
    Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
    [Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


Responses of Principal Deputy Legal Adviser Joan Donoghue to Questions 
                   Submitted by Senator Joseph Biden

    Question. Article 6 of the Convention clarifies the relationship 
between the Convention and other international instruments. Can you 
confirm that the second sentence of this article limits the impact of 
the first sentence? In other words, if there were a conflict as between 
this Convention and the Council of Europe's Anti-Doping Convention, is 
it correct to assume that article 6 would permit States that are party 
to both instruments to apply the Council of Europe's Anti-Doping 
Convention among themselves, but only insofar as doing so does not 
affect the enjoyment by third parties (that are not parties to the 
Council of Europe's Anti-Doping Convention) of their rights or the 
performance of their obligations under the UNESCO Convention?

    Answer. Yes. Article 6 would permit States that are party to both 
this Convention and the Council of Europe's Anti-Doping Convention to 
apply the Council of Europe's Convention among themselves, but only 
insofar as that application does not affect the other States Parties' 
enjoyment of their rights and obligations under the UNESCO Convention. 
The United States is a party to several agreements with similar 
provisions. For example, Article 44(1) of the Agreement for the 
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on 
the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and 
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and highly Migratory Fish Stocks 
(S. Treaty Doc. 104-24); Article 39 of the 2000 Convention Concerning 
Migratory Fish Stock in the Pacific Ocean (S. Treaty Doc. 109-1); and 
Article 39(2) of the Convention on Cybercrime (S. Treaty Doc. 108-11).

    Question. Article 14 of the Convention states that parties 
``undertake to support the important mission of the World Anti-Doping 
Agency . . .'' Article 15 states that parties ``support the principle 
of equal funding of the World Anti-Doping Agency's approved annual core 
budget by public authorities and the Olympic Movement.'' Does the 
Department view either of these articles as committing the United 
States to make a financial contribution to WADA?

    Answer. No. The Convention does not commit the United States to 
make a financial contribution to WADA. The Convention was drafted in 
part to solidify governmental support for WADA. It recognizes the 
existing financial structure and important mission of WADA. However, 
nothing in the Convention legally obligates the United States to 
provide funding or other resources to WADA.

    Question. Article 17(3) states that ``[c]ontributions to the 
Voluntary Fund [established in the Convention] by States Parties shall 
not be considered to be a replacement for States Parties' commitment to 
pay their share of the World Anti-Doping Agency's annual budget.'' To 
what commitment is this provision referring?

    Answer. The commitment to which article 17(3) is referring is the 
political commitment of the States Parties as embodied in the 
Copenhagen Declaration, adopted by the World Conference on Doping in 
Sport in 2003. In that Declaration, the participants reaffirmed their 
commitment to continue funding and supporting WADA. Part three of the 
Declaration\1\ specifically provides for a 50-percent split of WADA's 
funding between the governments and the World Olympic Movement. Through 
this political document, the participants endorsed a particular 
approach to the funding for WADA. Article 17(3) of the Convention 
confirms that any additional resources the States Parties voluntarily 
contribute under the Convention would in no way off set their portion 
of funding for WADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See part 3 of the Copenhagen Declaration, at http://www.wada-
ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?page
Category.id=272:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each Participant:

3.1. Recognises the role of, and supports, WADA;
3.2. GSubject to modification through appropriate intergovernmental 
cooperation, declares its intention to continue the practices public 
authorities have followed in the governance and financing of WADA and, 
within this framework:

        3.2.1. GSupports the following allocation of public authority 
        delegates to the WADA Foundation Board according to Olympic 
        regions:

                      4 representatives from the Americas;
                      3 representatives from Africa;
                      5 representatives from Europe;
                      4 representatives from Asia;
                      2 representatives from Oceania.

        3.2.2. GSupports the co-funding of WADA by public authorities 
        and the Olympic movement as follows:

                  3.2.2.1. GPublic authorities contribute collectively 
                50 percent of the approved WADA annual core budget;
                  3.2.2.2. Public authority payments to WADA according 
                to Olympic regions:
                          GAfrica: 0.50 percent; Americas: 29 percent; 
                Asia: 20.46 percent; Europe: 47.5 percent; Oceania: 
                2.54 percent

    Question. Article 32(2) of the Convention states that at the 
request of the Conference of Parties, the Director-General of UNESCO 
``shall use to the fullest extent possible the services of the World 
Anti-Doping Agency . . .'' This is a bit unusual. Do you have any 
examples of other treaties to which the United States is a party, in 
which it is explicitly stated that a nongovernmental organization can, 
or should, be employed in implementing the treaty?

    Answer. Yes. Article 14(2) of the 1972 Convention Concerning the 
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (T.I.A.S. 8226), 
to which the United States is a party, uses very similar language to 
Article 32(2) of the Anti-Doping Convention. Article 14(2) of the 1972 
Convention provides: ``The Director-General of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, utilizing to the 
fullest extent possible the services of the International Centre for 
the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property 
(the Rome Centre), the International Council of Monuments and Sites 
(ICOMOS) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (IUCN) in their respective areas of competence and 
capability, shall prepare the committee's documentation and the agenda 
of its meetings and shall have the responsibility for the 
implementation of its decisions.'' This article relies on several 
nongovernmental bodies to assist the Secretariat in preparing for 
meetings and in implementing decisions ``to the fullest extent 
possible.''
    There are other treaties that operate with support from 
nongovernmental bodies or scientific and technical organizations. As 
mentioned at the hearing and as further discussed in the answer to the 
sixth Question for the Record, both the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and the 
1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as 
Waterfowl Habitat, provide good examples of the importance of such 
expert bodies in treaty regimes.

    Question. Since the Convention was adopted in 2005, there have been 
changes made to the World Anti-Doping Code.

   a. Given the unique relationship this Convention has with 
        WADA and the Code, do changes made to the Code by WADA affect 
        States Parties rights or obligations under the Convention?
   b. Have any of the current States Parties proposed amending 
        Appendix 1 of the Convention to reflect the changes made to the 
        Code by WADA?
   c. Is it the intent of the United States to propose amending 
        Appendix I of the Convention to reflect the changes that have 
        been made to the Code? Please explain your answer.

    Answer. The Convention does have a unique relationship with the 
Code in several respects. Most notably, while the Convention was 
negotiated in large part to support the principles and spirit of the 
Code, the Code itself is not an integral part of the Convention. There 
is no specific provision for amending the appendices to the Convention, 
including the Code, as these are included for informational purposes 
only.
    In answer to your specific questions:
    a. The Convention does not make the Code legally enforceable 
against the States Parties to the Convention. Accordingly, changes made 
to the Code by WADA do not affect States Parties' rights or obligations 
under the Convention.
    b. None of the current States Parties have proposed amending 
Appendix 1 to the Convention. The most recent changes made by WADA will 
not come into force until 2009, but even when that event occurs, there 
will be no change with respect to the rights and obligations of the 
States Parties under the Convention.
    c. It is not the intent of the United States to propose any 
amendments to the appendices. As explained, the Code is not an integral 
part of the Convention; rather it is included as an appendix for 
informational purposes only. The Convention supports the principles and 
spirit of the Code, but any changes or amendments to the Code itself 
will not change the States Parties' rights or obligations under the 
Convention. Accordingly, even if WADA amends the Code further, there is 
no need for the United States to propose an amendment to Appendix 1. 
The objectives and purposes of the Convention remain unchanged and will 
still be accomplished even if the version of the Code in Appendix 1 is 
not the most up-to-date version.

    Question. In your testimony, you mentioned two examples of treaties 
in which scientific and other experts interact formally with the States 
Parties and the intergovernmental bodies established in those treaties. 
Can you expand on those two examples or others, if you think they are 
more relevant?

    Answer. In my testimony, I mentioned the Convention on Wetlands of 
International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, done at 
Ramsar, Iran, February 2, 1971 (``Ramsar Convention''). TIAS 11084. I 
also mentioned the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. TIAS 4780. These two treaties 
utilize the resources and expertise of nongovernmental scientific 
bodies as important participants in the treaty implementation regime.
    Specifically, Article 8 of the Ramsar Convention provides that the 
International Union for Conservation and Natural Resources shall be 
responsible for, among other things, maintaining a list of 
internationally important wetlands and convening and organizing 
Conferences under the Treaty. Both of these tasks are of great 
significance to the Treaty's implementation. Article 8 of that 
Convention states:

          1. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and 
        Natural Resources shall perform the continuing bureau duties 
        under this Convention until such time as another organization 
        or government is appointed by a majority of two-thirds of all 
        Contracting Parties.
          2. The continuing bureau duties shall be, inter alia:
                  a. to assist in the convening and organizing of 
                Conferences specified in Article 6;
                  b. to maintain the List of Wetlands of International 
                Importance and to be informed by the Contracting 
                Parties of any additions, extensions, deletions or 
                restrictions concerning wetlands included in the List 
                provided in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2;
                  c. to be informed by the Contracting Parties of any 
                changes in the ecological character of wetlands 
                included in the List provided in accordance with 
                paragraph 2 of Article 3;
                  d. to forward notification of any alterations to the 
                List, or changes in character of wetlands included 
                therein, to all Contracting Parties and to arrange for 
                these matters to be discussed at the next Conference;
                  e. to make known to the Contracting Party concerned, 
                the recommendations of the Conferences in respect of 
                such alterations to the List or of changes in the 
                character of wetlands included therein.

    The Parties to the Antarctic Treaty and its 1991 Environmental 
Protocol (S. Treaty Doc. 102-22) also actively engage with scientific 
bodies in the implementation of those instruments. The Scientific 
Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), a subentity of the 
International Council for Science (ICSU), is an observer at Antarctic 
Treaty and Environmental Protocol meetings and provides independent 
scientific advice as requested in a variety of fields, particularly on 
environmental and conservation matters. SCAR is able to play an active 
and crucial role in the scientific collaboration between government and 
private organizations to implement the Antarctic Treaty.
    In addition, Annex V, Articles 5 and 6, to the Environmental 
Protocol specifically grants SCAR a formal role in the designation and 
review of specially protected and managed areas. The Protocol also 
specifically grants SCAR observer status.
                                 ______
                                 

 Responses of Deputy Director Scott M. Burns to Questions Submitted by 
                      Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

    Question. Do you believe that there should be one national 
antidoping standard for all professional sports? Will this Convention 
contribute to the establishment of a uniform standard for professional 
sports despite the fact that the doping-control provisions do not apply 
to professional sports in the United States? If so, how?

    Answer. The antidoping policies of the professional sport leagues 
in the United States are not regulated by the Federal Government. As 
private sector enterprises, the leagues are responsible for 
establishing policies to combat and deter drug use among players. 
Consequently, the Convention does not apply to professional sport 
leagues in the United States.
    Nevertheless, the administration has clearly stated that drug use 
among professional athletes in the United States is a serious issue and 
the leagues have an obligation, particularly to young people, to make 
efforts to curb drug use in sport. Further, the administration has 
consistently indicated that the World Anti-Doping Code and the 
principles articulated in the Convention represent the ``gold 
standard'' in combating drug use in sport. The professional leagues are 
encouraged to adopt the balanced principles set forth in the Code and 
Convention.
    As an increasing number of sport organizations and governments 
around the world agree to harmonize antidoping standards, the 
professional leagues in the United States may be inclined to adopt the 
standard that is currently accepted by nearly 600 sport organizations 
worldwide, including all the Olympic and Pan American Sports in the 
United States. Hence, we believe the Convention does contribute to 
establishing uniform standards for professional sports.

    Questions. Article 2(4) of the Convention defines Athlete for 
education and training programs to be ``any person who participates in 
sport under the authority of a sports organization.'' The term ``Sports 
Organization'' is then defined in Article 2(20) as ``any organization 
that serves as the ruling body for an event for one or several 
sports.''

          a. Can you explain what this means? Please explain how one 
        evaluates whether an organization is a ruling body or not.

          Answer. The national Olympic Committee (e.g., United States 
        Olympic Committee) or International Olympic Committee 
        determines what entity is the ruling organization for each 
        sport on the national and international level, respectively.

          b. Do other countries share this understanding of what a 
        ``ruling body'' is?

          Answer. Yes, this is a universally recognized and accepted 
        decision in the international sport community.

          c. Could this definition include, for example, high school 
        athletes?

          Answer. Yes.

          d. Is it correct that this definition of athlete (i.e., for 
        education and training programs) is intended to be broader than 
        the definition of athlete that also appears in Article 2(4), 
        which is for the purposes of doping control? If so, explain 
        which athletes are covered in the broader definition of athlete 
        (i.e., for education and training programs), which are not 
        covered in the definition of athlete for purposes of doping 
        control.

          Answer. Yes. The definitions were drafted so that a larger 
        pool of participants receives antidoping education and 
        training. This approach will help educate a larger number of 
        participants on the dangers of doping before they potentially 
        reach the point where they may be competing nationally or 
        internationally.
          In the United States, for example, the Government is not 
        responsible for drug testing athletes or providing antidoping 
        training. Consistent with Article 7 of the Convention, we 
        intend to utilize the efforts of a nongovernmental agency, the 
        United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), to meet such 
        obligations. Under USADA protocols, only athletes that are 
        likely to compete at the national or international level of 
        competition are placed in a USADA registered testing pool and 
        subject to drug testing. However, the scope of athletes that 
        receive antidoping education is far broader and includes 
        participants who compete in sport events or programs sponsored 
        by a sport authority. Thus, for example, amateur athletes 
        competing in USA Wrestling-sponsored tournaments may receive 
        antidoping education. However, unless the athletes have been 
        identified as national or international-level competitors, they 
        would not be subject to USADA's doping controls.

    Question. Appendix I of the World Anti-Doping Code defines a 
variety of terms including ``Athlete.'' In relevant part this 
definition states that ``for purposes of antidoping information and 
education, any Person who participates in sport under the authority of 
any Signatory, government, or other sports organization accepting the 
Code is an Athlete. How does a sports organization formally accept the 
Code?

    Answer. A sports organization commits in writing to the World Anti-
Doping Agency that it has accepted the Code and agrees to implement the 
applicable provisions of the Code in its policies, statutes, rules, and 
regulations. A copy of a draft ``acceptance'' form is attached hereto.

    Question. Is there a list of sports organizations that have 
accepted the Code? If so, who manages this list and is this list 
readily available?

    Answer. Yes, the list is managed by WADA and available on the 
agency's Web site: www.wada-ama.org. A copy of the list of the nearly 
600 organizations that have accepted the Code to date is attached.

    Question. When the term ``sports organization'' is used in the 
Convention, is it understood that the term is only referring to sports 
organizations that have accepted the Code?

    Answer. Yes.

    Question. Article 3 of the Convention obligates States Parties to 
``adopt appropriate measures'' that are ``consistent with the 
principles of the Code.'' Article 16 provides that parties ``undertake 
to support the important mission of the World Anti-Doping Agency.'' 
Yet, there are critics of WADA and the Code, who argue that the Code 
imposes excessively stringent punishments, including potentially 
career-ending suspensions that offer little distinction between 
intentional doping and the detection of trace levels of prohibited 
substances originating from the consumption of contaminated or 
mislabelled nutritional supplements.\1\ What is your response to these 
criticisms?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See, e.g., Michael A. Hiltzik, ``Athletes' Unbeatable Foe,'' Los 
Angeles Times, December 10, 2006, available at http://www.latimes.com/
news/nationworld/nation/la-sp-doping10dec10.0.262
7563.full.story?coll-la-home-headlines.

    Answer. The United States Government, as well as the United States 
Olympic Movement, played a significant role in drafting the first 
version of the Code which came into force on January 1, 2004, and the 
second version which was adopted in November 2007 and will come into 
force on January 1, 2009. We believe that the Code is tough on drug 
cheats, but equally importantly, the Code's principles are fair. Some 
stakeholders argue that the Code's sanctions and the measures required 
of signatories are too weak and do not go far enough to deter and 
combat doping in sport. Still others maintain that the Code is too 
harsh and is excessively stringent. We believe that the Code strikes a 
careful and appropriate balance. Further, ONDCP has served in 
leadership roles in WADA since the agency was created and has closely 
observed the manner in which the Code has been applied. We do not share 
these criticisms regarding the excessive nature of punishments being 
dispensed as a result of the Code.
    It is also important to note that the revised version of the Code 
that the WADA Foundation Board unanimously adopted in November 2007 at 
the Third International Conference on Doping in Sport includes a 
greater flexibility as it relates to sanctions. This added flexibility 
is designed to further promote fairness. For example, cases involving 
aggravated circumstances (large doping scheme, multiple prohibited 
substances, athlete engaged in obstructive conduct) are now subject to 
enhanced sanctions. Lessened sanctions are now possible where an 
athlete can establish that the substance involved was not intended to 
enhance performance. Furthermore, the revised Code states that the 
``Prohibited List'' may identify specified substances which are 
particularly susceptible to unintentional antidoping violations because 
of their general availability in medicinal and other products or which 
are less likely to be successfully used as doping agents. Where an 
athlete establishes that use of such a specified substance was not 
intended to enhance sport performance, a doping violation may result in 
a reduced sanction (at a minimum a warning and reprimand and no period 
of ineligibility, and at a maximum a 1-year ban). The United States 
Government supports this increased flexibility.

    Question. Given WADA's role in implementing the Convention it is 
important that WADA be seen as sufficiently independent and transparent 
in its decisionmaking. Is it your view that there is sufficient 
independence and transparency in WADA's decisionmaking?

    Answer. Yes. The decisionmaking process at WADA is balanced, 
deliberative, and transparent. The United States believes that it has 
been fairly included in the decisionmaking process and fully expects 
that independence and transparency will only increase during the 6-year 
term of recently elected WADA President John Fahey, of Australia.

    Question. What was the U.S. contribution to WADA for calendar years 
2005, 2006, and 2007? What is the U.S. contribution to WADA for 
calendar year 2008? Do you expect a significant increase in the U.S. 
assessed contribution to WADA in future years, because of the entry 
into force of the Convention?

    Answer. The United States Government has made the following 
contributions to WADA: CY 2005--$1,450,179; CY 2006--$1,620,821; CY 
2007--$1,669,446; CY 2008--$1,700,000.
    The WADA budget process is separate from the UNESCO budgetary 
process. WADA's annual budget is approved by the agency's Executive 
Committee and Foundation Board. The Convention entered into force in 
2007. Since that time, the WADA budget has not significantly increased. 
We do not expect significant increases in the future. Much of WADA's 
role involving the Convention is ongoing and already funded within 
WADA's budget. The United States would use its leadership positions on 
the Finance Committee, Executive Committee, and Foundation Board to 
resist and oppose any unnecessary and reckless budget increases.

    Questions. Article 34 of the Convention sets forth a fast-track 
amendment procedure for the two annexes to the Convention--Annex I is 
the Prohibited List and Annex II is the Standards for Granting 
Therapeutic Use Exemptions. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) also 
has a ``Prohibited List'' and a list of ``Standards for Granting 
Therapeutic Use Exemptions.'' Paragraph 1 of Article 34 states that if 
WADA modifies either of these lists for its purposes, it may inform the 
Director General of UNESCO, who in turn will propose to the States 
Parties amendments to the annexes of the Convention that reflect the 
modifications made by WADA. A State Party then has 90 days within which 
to inform the Director General that it does not accept an amendment or 
it will enter into force for that State Party, if the amendment has not 
been obiected to by two-thirds of the States Parties.

          a. Please explain in detail the process by which the lists 
        maintained by WADA are modified. In your explanation, be sure 
        to include how long this process generally takes and to what 
        extent the United States participates in the process.

          Answer. The International Standards are aimed at bringing 
        harmonization among antidoping organizations responsible for 
        specific technical and operational parts of antidoping 
        programs.
          The Prohibited List is reviewed and updated annually by WADA 
        through a year-long consultative process involving stakeholder 
        feedback and input from groups of international scientific and 
        antidoping experts. A Prohibited List Working Group is 
        specifically tasked with recommending changes to WADA's 
        Executive Committee and facilitating stakeholder input. A 
        representative from the United States chairs the seven-member 
        committee. In addition, a second member of the group is from 
        the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The United States has 
        one of five government votes on the Executive Committee to 
        approve any changes to the List.
          The International Standards for Granting Therapeutic 
        Exemptions (ISTUE) is to ensure that the process of granting 
        Therapeutic Use Exemptions (a process to alloy athletes to take 
        medicines on WADA's Prohibited List to treat an athlete's 
        illnesses or medical condition) is harmonized across sports and 
        countries. The ISTUE came into force in January 2004. 
        Concurrent to the revision of the Code, WADA launched a process 
        in 2006 for updating the ISTUE to build upon the experience 
        gained by WADA and its stakeholders and to improve the 
        protocols and processes.
          The review process for updating the ISTUE involved three 
        formal rounds of consultation. Based on stakeholder feedback 
        and consultations with the legal and scientific committees, a 
        draft was circulated in 2007. After a period of public comment 
        and a series of meetings a second draft was released. 
        Subsequently, WADA's Executive Committee unanimously voted to 
        approve the revised ISTUE at its May 2008 meeting. The United 
        States, as a member of the Executive Committee, voted to 
        approve the ISTUE. Comments from USADA regarding the technical 
        revisions were accepted by WADA and incorporated into the 
        revised ISTUE.
          The revised standard will come into force on January 1, 2009. 
        WADA has no plans to revise the ISTUE in the next several 
        years.

          b. Given the short time period for rejecting proposed 
        amenndments to the annexes that have been proposed pursuant to 
        the procedure in Article 34, what is the process that the U.S. 
        Government intends to follow in responding to such proposed 
        amendments?

          Answer. The U.S. Government believes 45 days will be 
        sufficient to coordinate with relevant Federal agencies and 
        assess amendments to the annexes. Nevertheless, given the U.S. 
        Government's active participation in WADA, we will receive 
        notice of any potential amendment many months in advance of 
        when the 45-day clock will begin to toll. Given the number and 
        diversity of WADA's stakeholders, WADA procedures provide 
        several months of consultations prior to any proposal and 
        enactment of any amendments to the documents contained in the 
        annex.

          c. Have the lists maintained by WADA been modified since the 
        Convention was initially adopted in 2005?

          Answer. The Prohibited List is updated annually. The World 
        Anti-Doping Code, International Standards for Laboratories, and 
        the International Standards for Testing have not been modified 
        since coming into force on January 1, 2004. Each of these 
        documents was updated during a year-long process in 2007 and 
        revised versions will take effect on January 1, 2009. No plans 
        exist to modify these standards in the next several years.

          d. Have the two annexes to the Convention been amended since 
        the Convention entered into force?

          Answer. The International Standards for Therapeutic 
        Exemptions has not been modified since coming into force on 
        January 1, 2004. A revised ISTUE will come into force on 
        January 1, 2009. As previously described, the Prohibited List 
        is updated annually.

          e. If the annexes to the Convention have been amended:

                  i. How many times have the annexes been amended?

                  Answer. The International Standards for Therapeutic 
                Exemptions has not been modified since coming into 
                force on January 1, 2004. A revised ISTUE will come 
                into force on January 1, 2009. As previously described, 
                the Prohibited List is updated annually.

                  ii. Were the amendments done in accordance with 
                Article 34?

                  Answer. Yes.

                  iii. Are the two annexes that were transmitted to the 
                Senate the current version of the annexes in force for 
                States Parties to the Convention?

                  Answer. The version of the International Standards 
                for Therapeutic Exemptions provided to the Senate is 
                currently in force for States Parties.
                  The version of the Prohibited List provided to the 
                Senate was the version in force for States Parties at 
                the time it was transmitted. Subsequently, a 2008 
                version came into force on January 1, 2008. The current 
                version of the list is attached hereto. [See Annex I of 
                the Report.]

    Question. Article 32(2) of the Convention states that at the 
request of the Conference of Parties, the Director General of UNESCO 
``shall use to the fullest extent possible the services of the World 
Anti-Doping Agency. . . .'' It is not common for a nongovernmental 
organization to play such a crucial role in implementing a treaty. 
Please explain why this arrangement is advantageous.

    Answer. Governments, including the United States, pressed for the 
creation of a world antidoping organization because they believed that 
the best opportunity to combat drug use in sport involved governments 
and the sport movement combining their expertise and resources and 
working collaboratively and cooperatively. Governments and the Olympic 
Movement govern and fund WADA on an equal basis. The current WADA 
President is a government representative, and all working committees 
are comprised of 50 percent membership from the governments.
    Governments, in drafting the Convention, believed that given WADA's 
technical expertise and the unique nature of doping, it would he 
advantageous to utilize the existing resources available from WADA. 
Governments believed that utilizing WADA was more effective and 
efficient than providing additional funding to UNESCO for that agency 
to hire additional staff and develop the capacity and expertise to 
provide antidoping services. It is important to note that the nature 
and scope of WADA's involvement is at the request of the Conference of 
Parties to the Convention. WADA has no independent authority relating 
to the Convention.

    Question. As medical advances have been made and more performance-
enhancing substances have emerged, how have the potential health risks 
associated with doping in sport changed, if at all?

    Answer. Many doping substances have pernicious health effects on 
athletes. The dangers of anabolic steroids for nonmedical use, for 
example, are becoming increasingly well known. As science evolves and 
athletes turn to substances such as human growth hormone and gene 
doping, the health consequences are not only potentially grave, but 
often not fully known.
    As a result, Articles 24, 25, and 26 of the Convention address 
antidoping research. In order to learn about the potential health 
risks, innovative research is essential. The Convention calls upon 
Parties to share research results among governments, where appropriate.
    The United States fully supports vigorous research activities as 
part of a balanced antidoping program. Government funds to support WADA 
and USADA are directed to support research activities of both those 
organizations. In addition, the National Institute on Drug Abuse also 
expends significant resources on research involving doping substances.
ATTACHMENT A


ATTACHMENT B


                                  
