Does Scottish Football Have A Drug Problem?

Having written about the SFA and their testing regimen with UKAD, it sort of forces me to ask and attempt to put forward and try to answer this question.

It’s a difficult one as I’d quite like to not get sued and openly saying that Scottish football has a big drug problem would leave me quite open to someone doing that. On the other hand, I want to be honest in my assessment and simply saying no would be ignorant of the multiple positive tests that have occurred in the past.

As such, we have to actually ask what a drug problem is, because that in itself isn’t black and white.

The list of prohibited substances is long and, doubtless, the amount of pfaffing done whenever a player goes to Boots to get cough medicine is laborious. It covers things people wouldn’t even consider - for instance, Scotland’s most recent “catch”, Jordan McMillan wasn’t caught because of finding the substance itself, he was caught by finding a trace of what the substance had metabolised into. The level of science, while it will always be a step behind the most advanced doping, is simply staggering. The list of prohibited substances (available to view at https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-prohibited-list-en.pdf) is full of drugs and traces of drugs and manners of doping the likes of which you didn’t even know existed. More than that, it covers a range of substances that are both traditionally performance enhancing (steroids, EPO, etc) and traditionally recreational (Cocaine, Heroin, etc).

The rules, of course, don’t really distinguish between whether you’re injecting steroids or simply taking a harmless toke of a joint. There is good reason - even recreational drugs can impact performance (it is worth a read of the amazing story of Dock Ellis’ MLB No Hitter while tripping on LSD to see why). It it probably an uncontroversial view, however, that we would perceive someone failing for a recreational drug differently to how we would perceive a “cheater” using EPO, for example.

This is further complicated by TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions) which essentially say that you can take certain substances if there is a valid reason for it. Chris Froome, most famously, was allowed to take a small amount of a steroid under one.

So, once you’re caught, you then have the choice of how to defend yourself. For example, the English FA recently let Jake Livermore get away with a ban for cocaine owing to accepting his argument that it had been a one off occurrence due to the loss of his newborn child and the ensuing trauma that that had caused (and is still causing).

But, given as it’s recent, pertinent and that the judgement is publicly available, the best example to look at is that of Jordan McMillan. should you wish to view the full judgement, it’s available in the “Sanctions” section of the UKAD website and it’s a great resource to show how UKAD and the SFA conducted themselves.

McMillan tested positive from an in-competition test on 3rd December 2014. The sample was split into 2 (A sample and B sample) and the A sample tested positive for a metabolite of Cocaine. At this point, McMillan could have requested the B sample to be tested (as that may have tested negative if it was contaminated in transit, etc) but chose not to.

This was the culmination of a process that had begun with a tip off from Crimestoppers given to UKAD on 31st March 2014. They were advised that McMillan was a regular social cocaine user. A month later, this was passed on to the SFA. A second tip off was received on 13th September claiming the same thing and that McMillan allegedly bragged about passing tests. This tip off was not passed to the SFA.

A week after receiving the information from UKAD, the SFA contacted Partick Thistle to advise them of this both at board level and also to the club doctor.

I’ll choose not to go in to McMillan’s defence solely because I’m more interested in the process in this case but it’s all in the judgement for people to read. What’s important to realise, however, is that McMillan was only on the subs bench for the game in question and was called to test randomly. Based on testimony from McMillan and Alan Archibald, the player had been unwell and was only on the bench due to an injury crisis. We should recognise that McMillan wasn’t caught out because UKAD or the SFA went out looking to get him, but because he was called to an in-competition test which, had he not chosen to fill the bench that day, he would have avoided.

With regard to the tip offs, no relevance was attributed to them owing to the anonymous nature and due to the fact that McMillan was caught in a random test not because UKAD or the SFA went looking. McMillan was, however you look at it, somewhat unfortunate to be caught.

This does not excuse a couple of questions that arise (in my eyes) procedurally. This would primarily cover one factor - that in the April 2014-March 2015 “doping year”, no out of competition tests were conducted for the SFA. I can’t claim to know exactly how UKAD or the SFA deal with tip-offs, but common sense would make most think “Hey, it’s cheap so let’s just test him just in case”. If a player is accused of taking cocaine socially and you know it takes a few days to clear the system, pop round his house on a Monday morning and you’ll know for sure.

Secondly, should the SFA really be giving the clubs a quiet word about it? One can imagine the process, the SFA tell the club, the club tell the player, he keeps his nose clean for a bit (literally) until it all blows over and then it likely all resumes again. If we’re aiming to catch drug users rather than simply hope they stop themselves, then the SFA’s actions would appear counterproductive.

Finally, is the reporting process stringent enough itself? For two tip-offs to go by and not acted on with a test would suggest the quality of the tip offs received isn’t good enough for either UKAD or the SFA to place faith in them. No-one wants a Wild West situation where anyone can just pick a name from the air and call them a dope cheat, but nor should tip-offs be disregarded.

That took a while to explain, but it does go some way to actually answering our question because we should differentiate between recreational drug use and steroids, etc.

To give some time to the latter first of all, because of football’s team nature, there has often been a complacency about drugs taken specifically to enhance performance. It is more difficult to see a footballer having taken a drug as he is covered by team mates than it is to see a cyclist on EPO who is performing way ahead of what he should. Those who have taken the time to read such excellent books as those by Tyler Hamilton and David Millar will know how prevalent drug use was in cycling and the regular chatter of how so and so’s performance was “not normal”. Seeing previously middling cyclists suddenly become world class climbers was “not normal” and it was plain for all to see that it was “not normal”. A footballer being able to cover a little more ground or being able to go harder for longer is far more difficult to pin down as “not normal” simply because most players can go for 90 minutes and a player who consistently does a little bit more doesn’t stand out as much. For example, George Boyd was the hardest working player in the EPL last season covering an average of over 12km per game but, with the greatest respect to him, no-one is accusing him of his physical performances being anything out of the ordinary. Football is seen as unique in terms of team sports in that it is perceived that performance enhancing substances don’t actually have that much of an impact.

That doesn’t mean they don’t happen - a quick scroll through UKAD’s sanctions will reveal that a lot of sanctions are simply from carelessness. Players will hear about a new dietary supplement, take it without fully understanding what it contains and then find themselves hauled before the doping authorities because it had a prohibited substance in. This will always occur either because of a lack of education or, more likely, a lack of attention and, if we’re entirely honest with ourselves, this sort of violation is impossible to stop completely because people will not always go to the most reputable source to get their supplements.

There are hardened cheats out there, but they are very much in the minority and, if cycling is any example, either arrogance, carelessness or sheer dogged determination will catch them out eventually.

So, does Scottish Football have a performance enhancing drug problem? It’s unlikely but the only way to find out is increasing the amount of out of competition testing from zero. No player who is setting out to intentionally cheat is going to be stupid enough to get caught by an occasional random in-competition test because they will be micro-dosing or using another method to get around it. An increase in in-competition testing will only catch out the players who are careless or didn’t properly look at their supplements and those aren’t the people UKAD or the SFA are really trying to catch.

But then we must look at recreational drugs as this is where things become even less black and white. McMillan, for example, got caught for a cocaine metabolite and was reported as a cocaine user in his tip offs. That is no reason to call Jordan McMillan a regular hard drug user but it does highlight an issue. Young people with disposable income who may not have had the best upbringings or know people who aren’t entirely trustworthy are likely to come into contact with drugs at some point in their lives.

I like to think that my readers are intelligent people and I accept that some people reading this will have, at some point in their youth, had a funny smelling roll-up or a cheeky wee line. Many people would accept that, as long as it’s not hurting anyone else or becoming an addiction, occasional drug use isn’t really that big a deal. Footballers go to pubs to watch games. Footballers go out clubbing. Footballers even sometimes go out on the lash. It is naive to expect them to not come into contact with drugs.

It is even more naive to think that a player who plays on the Saturday, goes out that night and then doesn’t have a game for a week wouldn’t be tempted. Urine tests for cocaine are generally effective for only up to 72 hours. It therefore stands to reason that if you only do in-competition testing, unless a player is particularly careless or unfortunate, you are never going to catch recreational drug users.

No out of competition tests have been performed by UKAD on behalf of the SFA since March 2013 - two and a half years ago.

That is two and a half years where any footballer with any sense could take recreational drugs and get away scot free.

So does Scottish football have a drugs problem?

I can only give you a complete cop out answer, the worst of all, and that’s maybe.

In competition testing catches only the careless, the stupid or the unfortunate. If Jordan McMillan woke up on the 3rd of December last year and said to Alan Archibald that he was too under the weather to even sit on the bench, he would not have been caught and whether he ingested cocaine on purpose or by accident, he would still be playing football right now.

I don’t know Jordan McMillan personally but I do believe he was unlucky. I am also glad he was caught. The stain on his character will never wash away, and it should serve as a warning to every player the potential ramifications drug use can have on your career. He can use this himself to turn from being a scapegoat into a poster boy for reformed clean living as many have before him.

But Jordan McMillan was unlucky. Each gameweek, 42 league clubs name 11 players and 7 subs to their matchday squads constituting 756 players who can potentially be tested every game week. 44 players were tested in competition in the entirety of the 2014-15 doping year. The chances of McMillan even getting tested once in a season are well over 600/1.

It would therefore be the height of hypocrisy for the SFA to tell players the risks of drug use are too high to make it worth it while at the same time tolerating an anti doping scheme that not only does zero out of competition testing but also does so little in competition testing too.

I have no wish to sound like I mistrust players in Scotland but if UKAD sent testers round to the house of every player on the SFA’s database on a Monday morning I would be astonished if there wasn’t at least one test failed for recreational drugs because the current system is that easy to avoid and players are, at the end of the day, only human.

The SFA having a firm stance on doping is laudable only if it’s followed through with testing and lots of it. We should not compare ourselves to other FAs and sports, we should act in our best interests in isolation. The higher the likelihood players are to be tested, the lower the likelihood is that they take the risk of taking performance enhancing or recreational drugs in the first place. 44 tests a year doesn’t put anyone off doing anything.

But more than just increasing the amount of tests, the real takeaway from all of this is that out of competition testing needs to happen. If you were inclined to accept the worst rumour and gossip of Jordan McMillan’s cocaine usage and that he may have been using it pretty much every weekend (and even UKAD didn’t accept that as substantiated), he would still have only been caught because he was unfortunate. The fear factor of a tester knocking on the door at 6:30am on a Monday morning could have prevented that if it was happening in the first place. You cannot catch everyone - even Lance Armstrong only came clean after a decade of being turned on by every corner of the cycling community - but by catching some, you would do more to dissuade people than any handbook, training course or media campaign ever could.

In competition testing catches the unlucky. Out of competition testing catches the people you actually want to catch.

As such, I’m going to revise my answer. Does Scottish football have a drug problem?

Yes, and the problem is that we don’t know if it does or not.