Why have the SFA conducted fewer tests for doping for each of the past five years?

Sometimes I have to start off a piece with a clarification. The things presented here are facts and figures obtained from relevant authorities via FOI requests or are publicly available so they are entirely legitimate. None of what is about to follow is made up and there is very little speculation.

So, without further ado, the information to spread here comes from UKAD, which are a public body who oversee doping tests in the UK. Part one of this was asking the question if any testing was carried out independently of UKAD - UKAD have the sole responsibility for carrying out tests on behalf of the SFA but noted that UEFA and FIFA carry out tests entirely independently and figures are not available from either. That isn’t entirely relevant but it’s important to recognise that it’s UKAD who are the only show in town when it comes to testing people’s pee.

Part two of this, and certainly the more important part of this, was that UKAD were asked how many tests were missed by Scottish players. Since 2009, a grand total of three tests have been missed - all of which were between April 2010 and March 2011.

Between April 2010 and end June 2010, 24 tests were carried out for the SFA, 4 of which were out of competition. Between July and September, that was 29 and 11 respectively. October to December was 38 and 6 and January to March was 77 and 25. In this period, that means there were 172 tests in total with 46 of these out of competition. Three of these 46 tests were missed and, in the whole year, there was one positive test which was Simon Mensing for Methylhexeanamine, a performance enhancing dietary supplement for which he received a 4 week ban.

(One should note, with Mensing, that three other athletes in the last quarter of the 2011/12 season tested positive for Methylhexeanamine. Mensing’s ban of 4 weeks was three times shorter than any other athlete testing positive for Methylhexeanamine)

Oddly enough, in the entirety of the 2014-15 testing year, only 44 tests were conducted on behalf of the SFA, nearly a quarter of the tests that were conducted 5 years ago and less than a sixth of the amount of tests carried out by the English FA each quarter. In 2013-14, this was 56 tests (including the Sep-Dec quarter where no testing happened at all). In 2012-13, 144 and in 2011-12, 166.

Those statistics speak for themselves. The SFA must come under severe scrutiny for a consistent reduction in the amount of drug testing taking place in Scottish Football. The SFA carried out 44 tests last season, the English FA carried out over 2000. That is under 2.5% the amount of tests of England carried out by the SFA. Choose whatever measure you like of success, that is far from rigorous.

When combined with the recent articles from the German media and the Sunday Times which revealed that, of 879 players tested in the Champions League and the Europa League from over 4,000 urine samples between 2008 and 2013, 7.7% of these had suspicious levels of testosterone. These samples appear to have been retests done on a wide selection of samples from different laboratories that UEFA had ordered after seeing the fallout of Operation Puerto.

While it is, of course, hard to join the dots with total accuracy, there are certain elements we can take from this if you look at the data with a suspicious mind, as any cycling fan for whom doping is a regularly seen infringement would do. We know for a fact that three tests were missed in a single season and that 7.7% of tests for European competition look suspicious it would then seem that there is a higher possibility that the players missing tests were both only in the league for one season and also playing in Europe primarily as they would be more likely to be tested, have more reason to take performance enhancing substances (or be earning enough to take other illegal substances) and, therefore have more incentive to avoid domestic testing if you are expecting to be tested by UEFA. It is no smoking gun, but it would certainly mean that there is an increased likelihood that those players would be Rangers players given that they were the only side to actually progress in Europe and that one would imagine testing would primarily take place at the higher levels of the game. That is by no means an accusation of guilt, simply that there is statistically a higher chance.

Regardless, it goes without saying that players missing tests should be subject to some sort of repercussions. Looking back to English football, since Rio Ferdinand’s missed test, two other bans have been given out for failing to attend tests (albeit names weren’t published) - one received a two year ban, the other was banned sine die (albeit with good reason - on hearing about the test, the player fled the country!).

That we didn’t only not know about these missed tests but also there appears to have been no sanction of any kind for them would suggest that the SFA isn’t running the tightest ship when it comes to anti-doping, particularly given the vast reduction in testing that clearly shows Jordan McMillan’s Cocaine metabolite ban was a lucky break rather than evidence of a rigorous testing regime.

This isn’t a “let’s give the SFA a good kicking” issue. If people want to gleefully stick the boot in on the SFA hierarchy, they have a wide range of topics to choose to do it on. This is a hell of a lot more serious than that. In the last recorded quarter, fewer drugs tests were carried out by the SFA than were on professional darts players. It was equal to the amount of tests carried out on Highland games competitors. Considering the disparity in participation, it is not unfair to see such statistics and be pretty scared that our athletes are more likely to get busted for steroids caber tossing than they are playing in the Scottish Premiership week in, week out.

Give the SFA a kicking? For such blatant dereliction of duty, Stewart Regan ought to be shot from a cannon. No doubt the SFA will claim that they take doping seriously, which would, I’m sure, explain why the advice given to players on their website about how testing is done is over two and a half years out of date having been put up in May 2012 and the WADA guidelines UKAD follows being released in January 2015.

Doping is a serious issue and it deserves to be debated seriously. For each of the past 5 years the SFA’s revenues have increased. For each of the past 5 years, the amount of drug testing done by The SFA with UKAD has fallen.

How can the public have a serious debate about doping when it seems clear that doping isn’t taken seriously by those running our game?

The debate needs to start at Hampden.