Dr Alain Garnier (France), Chair, opened the extraordinary meeting of the Monitoring Group and welcomed the participants. On behalf of the Monitoring Group, he was gratified by the presence of politicians and representatives of the European Commission and the IOC. The presence of the IOC representative reflected the continuation of a partnership which had been renewed at the Monitoring Group’s 9th meeting in May 1998, and testified to a mutual desire for effective co-operation.

Recent events had demonstrated above all how difficult it was to combat doping effectively. The Council of Europe deserved praise for having realised the extent of the problem as far back as the early 1960s and for having equipped itself with the tools necessary to counter this scourge.

The events of the summer had created a serious problem, not only because doping might become commonplace, which would be disastrous, but also because the public might reject sport altogether. This situation had brought to light several questions which the Monitoring Group should bear in mind in its future work:

- the failure of the sports bodies concerned to deal with the problem of doping;

- the need for a major review of the role of sportspeople’s entourage, including their medical supervisors;

- the attitude of sportsmen and women who tended to consider themselves above the law;

- finally, the success of repressive measures taken by customs, police and the courts.

The immediate consequences had been that traditional urine anti-doping tests had been discredited and existing anti-doping policies had been somewhat called into question.

Since current provisions were inadequate, efforts should be made to transform this partial failure into an opportunity by making relevant proposals and, in so doing, proving the value of the Anti-doping Convention as a legal instrument.

The need for a world-wide monitoring and regulatory body seemed to be universally recognised, but such an agency could only be effective if all sectors involved in sport were to help set it up and support it in the future. This would again re-open the debate over how the roles of state authorities and the sports movement could be properly shared. While national constitutions made states responsible for leading the fight against trafficking and for protecting the health of sportsmen and women, the sports movement still had a major role to play in preventing doping and punishing offenders. Informing or even educating sportsmen and women, a process in which the state should be involved, was not enough to prevent doping: prevention must also include action to tackle the frequency and number of events in which athletes competed. If sport were not adapted to the physiological capabilities of human beings, certain people would not hesitate to adapt human beings to the demands of modern sport, a process which would inevitably involve doping.

Following his introductory remarks, the Chair invited any politicians who wished to do so to take the floor.

Mr Tzviatko Bartchovski (Chair of the Committee for Youth, Physical Education and Sport to the Bulgarian Council of Ministers) spoke on behalf of his country, pledging his government’s support for the efforts of sports bodies from the Council of Europe member States to adopt new, decisive anti-doping measures. Bulgarian law on physical education and the amendments which were to be tabled in parliament by the end of the year contained provisions to combat the use of doping substances. These measures were in line with the Council of Europe’s Anti-doping Convention.

Mr Bartchovski described a recent example of how this Bulgarian law had been applied to football. A member of the national team had been found using anabolic steroids. The Bulgarian Football Union had failed to apply the provisions and penalties provided by law. In accordance with Bulgarian legislation, the National Doping Control Board had referred the case to the Committee for Youth, Physical Education and Sport, with the result that the committee had suspended the Bulgarian Football Union’s licence. The case was currently before the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria.

Finally, Mr Bartchovski proposed that the Monitoring Group draw up its own set of accreditation criteria for anti-doping laboratories.

Mr Jean Poczobut (Adviser to the French Ministry of Youth and Sports), speaking on behalf of the Minister, Ms M G Buffet, described France’s position with regard to anti-doping. The use, including any attempt at controlled use, of medicines for doping purposes was banned. The pursuit of money and medals was such that the time had come to review the number of events on the sporting calendar.

The new French bill aimed in particular to promote respect for sports ethics and to protect athletes’ health. Sports doctors could not look after a sportsman’s health and performance at the same time. The main objective in this field should be respect for medical ethics. Moreover, international federations must set up disciplinary procedures. To this end, an anti-doping committee, independent of political bodies and sports authorities, was to be set up under the new bill’s provisions. Another essential aim of the bill was to clamp down on producers and traffickers. In order to achieve these aims, France had decided to increase the level of resources, particularly financial resources, allocated to the fight against doping.

Mr Poczobut made the following proposals concerning international measures:

- each country should adopt appropriate legislation in line with the provisions of the Anti-doping Convention;

- research was another field of activity;

- international co-operation against trafficking in doping agents was vital: a kind of "Interpol" to hunt traffickers should be set up;

- the sports movement should shoulder its responsibilities, particularly with regard to disciplinary procedures, prevention and overcrowded competition schedules;

- the Monitoring Group could lay down common standards for anti-doping laboratories;

- the Monitoring Group should also help draw up the list of banned substances;

- the Monitoring Group, as representative of the member States, should be actively involved in the work of the future international agency proposed by the IOC.

Dr Alain Garnier thanked Mr Bartchovski and Mr Poczobut for their valued support and for the highly relevant proposals they had made to the Monitoring Group.

The representatives of Australia, Italy and France briefly summarised recent events in their respective countries.

Ms N Howson (Australia) said that Australian customs officers had discovered a large quantity of growth hormones in the suitcases of Chinese swimmers entering Australia to take part in the World Swimming Championships organised in Perth by the FINA. These products were banned under Australian law. As a result, the Chinese team had been sent home and the FINA had also taken disciplinary action.

Under an agreement signed with the FINA, the ASDA (Australian Sports Drug Agency) had been in charge of anti-doping tests at the World Championships. Ms N Howson stressed that, following this event, the Australian authorities had taken the necessary steps to clarify each body’s role in the fight against doping.

Mr Mariano Ravazzolo (Italy) said that recent events in Italy had been triggered by the comments of a football club trainer concerned about footballers’ health. Following these remarks, the investigative committee of the CONI (Italian National Olympic Committee) had carried out an enquiry and had set off alarm bells concerning the use of doping agents by footballers. The Italian Penal Code prohibited the use of medicines for any reason other than medical treatment proper. The courts had discovered that the tests carried out by the anti-doping laboratory in Rome had not been comprehensive or systematic. Only some of the urine samples had been subjected to more thorough testing for doping agents. In fact, the laboratory scarcely tested a third of footballers’ samples for the presence of anabolic steroids. The result was that virtually no footballers had ever been found guilty of using anabolic steroids. Furthermore, the register of anti-doping tests, which was supposed to be kept for 3 to 5 years, had been systematically destroyed.

These events had undermined confidence not only in the laboratory but also in the national sports movement.

Since the case was currently the subject of legal proceedings, it was difficult to go into greater detail on these issues at present. Nevertheless, all this had once again shown how important it was to have quality laboratory testing and to follow the relevant test procedures. A bill designed to clarify the Penal Code’s provisions by making doping a criminal offence was currently before the Italian Senate. These provisions sought to punish suppliers.

Mr Jean Poczobut (France) said that Ms Buffet had declared her political determination to fight doping in sport the previous year, well before the events of the Tour de France. To that end, she had doubled the anti-doping budget. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the year regional interdepartmental working groups, comprising representatives from the Ministries of Sport, Justice, Health, Finance (customs and fraud), the Interior (police) and Defence (gendarmerie), had been made aware of the urgent need to combat doping. One result had been that in March, Reims customs officers had stopped a car belonging to the Dutch TVM cycling team and found that it contained 104 doses of EPO.

The Tour de France affair, meanwhile, had begun when customs officers in the north of France had stopped a car being driven by the Belgian Willy Voet, the Festina team physio, near the Franco-Belgian border. The car, on its way to Dublin for the start of the race two days later, was carrying 400 doses of doping agents (EPO, anabolic steroids, etc). The physio had claimed he was following the orders of Festina’s sporting director. Both had been taken into police custody.

Since there was no proof that doping had taken place, it was legally difficult to punish the cyclists themselves. Some had publicly admitted being involved. The federation concerned, which had access to the case file as a party claiming damages in the legal proceedings, had wanted to punish the cyclists involved. However, the public prosecutor in charge of the case would not allow evidence from the case file to be used to punish cyclists in sporting terms. Any punishment would therefore depend on the court’s final verdict.

The Chair thanked the speakers for their informative contributions and gave the floor to Dr Patrick Schamasch, IOC medical director.

Dr Schamasch began by saying that he was already aware of the Tour de France affair, since the IOC Executive Committee had met on 20 August 1998 to assess the situation.

He pointed out that the IOC had decided to hold a world conference on doping in Lausanne from 2 to 4 February 1999. The Council of Europe would be taking part. The IOC had set up 4 working groups to help prepare the conference. They would be considering the following subjects: (1) protection of athletes, (2) legal questions, (3) education, ethics and prevention, (4) financial questions. Each working group comprised around twenty members, generally from the sporting world or civil society.

The main objectives of the conference were as follows:

- to define doping;

- to protect athletes’ health;

- to set up an information and education programme;

- to draw up a list of sanctions which were being or could be applied;

- to set up an international anti-doping agency.

The principal means of protecting athletes’ health was the series of medical check-ups carried out from the very outset of their career. However, the athlete's entourage should also be targeted. If doping was to be fought effectively, financial resources were particularly necessary. The IOC had already spent large amounts on anti-doping and was conducting over 110,000 tests per year.

The following would be invited to the world conference:

- governments with coherent anti-doping policies;

- international sports federations;

- international organisations (Council of Europe, European Union, United Nations, etc).

The first day of the conference would be devoted to political speeches. The second and third days would be split into four sessions, each working group having half a day to present its conclusions. Between 600 and 700 participants were expected.

The fight against doping had to involve co-operation between governments and the sports movement. The conference would also try to determine how responsibilities should be split between the two.

At the end of November 1998, the IOC would be bringing together all the international federations in order to adopt a medical code for the sports movement. This would be the highest common denominator under which the sports movement could stand together when the conference began.

The Secretariat said that the CDDS Bureau had decided to include the doping issue on the agenda of the 9th Conference of Ministers, to be held in Bratislava (Slovakia) in spring 2000. The proposed title was "Clean and healthy sport for the third millennium". Whatever the outcome of the IOC Conference, it would have implications for the Monitoring Group’s work. In particular, it would be appropriate to examine the convention in the light of the current needs of the fight against doping. Although it was still too early to talk of revising the convention, steps should be taken to consider evaluating it.

The Secretariat said that the Multidisciplinary Group had held its first meeting in Strasbourg on 19 and 20 October. It had discussed the three studies carried out by the experts of three Council of Europe bodies (Monitoring Group, Pompidou Group and Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field) and had drawn up a number of proposals for action in this field. These studies showed that non-sport use of doping agents was widespread and was posing a serious threat to young people’s health. The fight against drug addiction was also a part of this. The Multidisciplinary Group’s proposals were similar to the conclusions which the Monitoring Group had just adopted.

* * *

A press conference was held at 5 pm by Dr Alain Garnier, Chair of the Monitoring Group, Mr Hans Holdhaus, Vice-Chair, Mr George Walker and Mr Mesut Özyavuz, members of the Secretariat.

1.    Opening of the meeting

2.    Adoption of the agenda

3.    Assessment of recent events

4.    Conclusions and proposals of the Monitoring Group

5.    9e Conference of the European Ministers responsible for sport

6.    Multidisciplinary Group on "non sport use of prohibited substances"

7.    Close of the meeting

 

Ms Natalie HOWSON, Chief Executive, Australian Sports Drug Agency

Mr Hans HOLDHAUS, Vice-Chair of the Monitoring Group / Vice-président du Groupe de suivi, IMSB

Mag Dr Karlheinz DEMEL, Österreichisches Anti-Doping Comité

Mr Tsviatko BARCHOVSKI, President, Committee for Youth, Physical Education and Sports of the Council of Ministers

Mrs Zina IVANOVA

Mr Joseph de PENCIER, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

Dr Jan PREROVSKÝ, Department of Sport, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

Mr Pavel JURAK, M.D., Chairman of the NOC Medical Commission

Mr Søren RIISKJÆR, Special Adviser, Ministry of Culture

Mr Finn MIKKELSEN, Anti-Doping Committee

Mr Jesper Frigast LARSEN, Head of International Department, The National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation of Denmark

Ms Reet JOANDI

Mr Timo HAUKILAHTI, Special Government Advisor, Ministry of Education

Ms Pirjo KROUVILA, Executive Director, LIITE ry

Dr Alain GARNIER, Chair of the Monitoring Group / Président du Group de suivi,

Chef de la Médecine du Sport, Chargé de la Lutte contre le Dopage

M. Jean POCZOBUT, Conseiller auprès de Madame BUFFET, Ministre de la Jeunesse et des Sports

M. Nam TRAN, Pharmacien à la mission de la Médecine du Sport, Ministère de la Jeunesse et des Sports

Dr Katia COLLOMP, Pharmacien, chargée de recherche au laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage

Mr Peter GLASS, Ministerialrat, Bundesministerium des Innern

Prof. Dr. R. Klaus MÜLLER, Institut für Dopinganalytik und Sportbiochemie

Mr György BAKANEK, Doping Control Officer, Division of Sport Science and Sport Medicine, National Office for Physical Education and Sport

Dr. Birgir Gudjonsson, MD, The National Olympic and Sports Association of Iceland

ITALY / ITALIE

M. Mariano RAVAZZOLO, Dirigente Superiore, CONI

Mrs Liene KOZLOWSKA, Latvian Sports Department

Ms Rima GIRSKYTE, Secretary of the Lithuanian Anti-Doping Commission

M. George LANNERS, Commissaire du Gouvernement à l’Education Physique et aux Sports, Ministère de l’Education Physique et des Sports

Mr Maarten KOORNEEF, Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Sports Division

Mr Anders SOLHEIM, Senior Executive Officer, Ministry of Cultural Affairs

Mr Hans B. SKASET, Director General, Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs

Mr Rune ANDERSEN, Head of the Doping Section, Norwegian Confederation of Sport

Pr Jerzy SMORAWINSKI, Rector of the Academy of Physical Education

Dr Luis HORTA, Directeur Médecine Sportive

Mr Kazimír FERIENCIK, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Slovak Anti-Doping Committee

Dr Joško OSREDKAR, President of the Anti-Doping Commission

Dr. Cecilia RODRIGUEZ BUENO, Ph. D., Directrice, Laboratorio de Control de Dopaje, Consejo Superior de Deportes

Mr Antonio GUERRERO OLEA, Consejo Superior de Deportes

Mrs Helena SANTESSON KURTI, Head of Section, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs

Mr Håkan NYBERG, Anti-Doping Programme Manager, Swedish Sports Confederation

Dr Matthias KAMBER, Institut des Sciences du Sport, Ecole Fédérale du Sport

Prof. Dr. Aytekin TEMIZER, Director of Doping Control Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy

Dr Kaya LIVANELIOGLU, General Directorate of Youth and Sports (GSGM)

Mrs Michele VERROKEN, Director, Ethics and Anti-Doping Directorate, United Kingdom Sports Council

Mr Claude BENET MAS, Directeur des Sports, Ministère de l’Education, de la Jeunesse et des Sports

Dr Willy BRUNSON, Directeur Général, Ministère de la Communauté française

Mr Patrick GHELEN, Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Dr Una MAY, Irish Sports Council

Mrs Liliana PASA, Permanent Representation of Romania to the Council of Europe

Dr Wade EXUM,USOC, Director of Drug Control Administration

M. Rudy MATHIJS, Administrateur, Direction Générale DG X/C/6

Dr Ismail JAKOET, Chairman of the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport

Mr Raymond HACK, South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport

Dr Patrick SCHAMASCH, Directeur Médical, International Olympic Committee

CHINA / CHINE

CROATIA / CROATIE

GREECE / GRECE

NEW ZEALAND / NOUVELLE ZELANDE

SAN MARINO / SAINT MARIN

Sports Division / Division du Sport, Directorate of Education, Culture and Sport / Direction de l'Enseignement, de la Culture et du Sport, F- 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX

Mr George WALKER, Head of the Sports Division,      Tel. (33) 3 88 41 26 37

Mr Ivar BERG-SORENSEN     Tel. (33) 3 90 21 49 97

Mrs Diane MURRAY, Administrator Tel. (33) 3 88 41 30 27

Mr Mesut ÖZYAVUZ, Administrator Tel. (33) 3 88 41 26 30

Ms Odile LAUGEL, Principal Administrative Assistant Tel. (33) 3 88 41 22 51

Ms Suzanne LITTLE, Secretary to Mr Walker    Tel. (33) 3 88 41 33 07

Mlle Dominique HUBER, Secretary      Tel. (33) 3 88 41 35 42

Mlle Diane PENEAU, Secretary     Tel. (33) 3 88 41 35 80

FAX: (33) 3 88 41 27 55 or 37 83

E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://culture.coe.fr

Mr Chairman,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to pledge the support of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria for the work of sports bodies from the Council of Europe member States to adopt new, decisive anti-doping measures. Doping represents one of the most serious threats to the future of sport, a unique phenomenon which we believe is of great importance to society.

The Republic of Bulgaria ratified the Council of Europe’s Anti-doping Convention in 1992. Since then, we have taken many new legislative measures to prevent and monitor doping, because the use of banned medicines and unauthorised methods is a threat not only to young people’s health but also to the good name of sport.

The Bulgarian law on physical education and the amendments which are to be brought before parliament by the end of 1998 contain provisions against the use of doping agents. These provisions include standards which have to be met by athletes, technical staff and sports managers, who are obliged to respect fully the Council of Europe’s Anti-doping Convention.

The government has adopted regulations on the work of the National Doping Control Board and a decree on dope testing during sports activities, competitions and training within the Republic of Bulgaria. I share the concern expressed by sports ministers from the majority of Council of Europe member States and, although Bulgaria was not among the examples given to illustrate the need for this extraordinary meeting, I would like to draw your attention to the way Bulgaria has implemented anti-doping legislation in recent months.

A member of the Bulgarian national football team was found to have used anabolic steroids. Under current legislation, the Bulgarian Football Union is responsible for taking legal steps, in particular by making a detailed examination of the offence committed by the footballer, investigating who the guilty parties are and then taking the sanctions which are applicable in similar cases.

The Bulgarian Football Union did not take these sanctions within the time limit prescribed by law. Consequently, in accordance with Bulgarian legislation, the National Doping Control Board referred the case to the administrative body responsible for sport, ie the Committee for Youth, Physical Education and Sports, which reports to the Bulgarian Council of Ministers.

The committee, which I have the honour of chairing, issued an official appeal to the Bulgarian Football Union, expressly urging it to take appropriate action in accordance with Bulgarian and European legislation. As no action was taken on that request, the committee suspended the Bulgarian Football Union’s licence, withdrawing its rights as the national organisation responsible for the development of football at national level and as the representative of Bulgarian football vis-à-vis the international football authorities.

The Bulgarian Football Union has appealed against the committee’s decision, and the case is to be settled by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria.

I would like to stress that the body I represent is currently finding it extremely hard to exercise its rights and obligations to apply anti-doping legislation. Some people in Bulgarian and international sporting circles have described this affair as an example of state intervention in the activities of an independent, autonomous, non-governmental organisation.

We have made an official statement to the Bulgarian public, FIFA and UEFA, saying that we did seek to intervene. We would like to make it clear that, in our democratic country, domestic and international legislation is binding and applicable not only to public bodies but also to non-governmental voluntary organisations and to all citizens.

During the SPRINT seminar on anti-doping policies held in Sofia from 8 to 10 October, I suggested that the Council of Europe take the initiative of laying down its own accreditation criteria for anti-doping laboratories, while observing the requirements of the International Olympic Committee.

This step will enable countries such as Bulgaria, which do not have laboratories approved by the International Olympic Committee, to develop these structures and play a more active part in the fight against doping and in studying the harmful effects of medical substances on a growing number of young people who abuse them within and outside the sporting arena.

I would like to know my colleagues' views on what I have said. I firmly believe that governments must not hesitate to intervene to keep sport "clean", in the interests of the health of future Europeans. That is one of the foremost prerogatives of our sports organisations.

The Meeting was called:

- to discuss the events of the summer and autumn and their implications for the work of the Monitoring Group;

- to prepare the Monitoring Group’s contribution to the World Conference on Doping convened by the International Olympic Committee in February 1999.

The fight against doping in sport has entered a new phase, and faces serious new challenges. All Parties and partners in sport need to find new ways of working - in their own sphere and together - and to establish more effective programmes to counter this scourge.

The Parties to the Convention agreed a number of priority issues for action by the Monitoring Group or at national level:

a)    to undertake a review of national laws affecting anti-doping work (anti-doping laws, laws on medical or banned substances, etc) with a view to examining the scope for possible improvements and for greater consistency in the framework of the Anti-doping Convention;

b)    to help provide information for national sports bodies on how the rule of law – including the Anti-doping Convention – affects sport.

to improve the medical care and health protection of sportspeople, and to provide better information and education for those working - medically and otherwise - in their entourage, for example, through codes of professional conduct. National Medical Associations should be invited to draw up clear rules (with sanctions) on this matter. In this context, the Monitoring Group welcomes the co-operation of the IOC in the production of a CD-Rom and Internet versions of the Clean Sports Guide.

to seek, through the appropriate channels at national level, closer co-operation with police, customs and other relevant authorities with a view to reducing the supply of doping agents to sport and their use/demand within it. Research into the sociological aspects of the doping phenomenon could also help such reduction.

* * * * *

The Monitoring Group also stresses the need for national anti-doping agencies to increase the number of, and to reduce to a minimum the notice given for, out-of-competition controls. Another priority is to seek methods better to detect and to control the use of doping substances, EPO and other peptide hormones in particular. Regulations to prevent over production of these substances should also be introduced.

The Extraordinary Meeting also agreed to five proposals that would form the basis for the Monitoring Group’s delegations’ submissions to the IOC Conference with the aim of boosting the effectiveness of anti-doping work in general and of improving co-operation and harmonisation between the sports movement and that of the public authorities active in this field. Participation by the Monitoring Group in anti-doping during major international competitions could also help ensure consistency and transparency.

The Monitoring Group supports the creation of such an agency, which should help to integrate the strategies and the activities already carried out by international sports federations and agencies. It could play an important role in inaugurating world-wide out-of-competition testing, especially in regions and countries without effective anti-doping programmes at the moment. Its activities would also need to complement those of existing national anti-doping agencies which presently carry out approximately 85% of anti-doping work. The agency should be authoritative, independent, international, transparent and non-profit making. It should have a research component. The Monitoring Group, which consistently seeks a better harmonisation and co-ordination of anti-doping work at international and national levels, would wish to play an active part in it, and will make proposals for its work in due course.

The Monitoring Group will encourage the IOC, the IFs and NOCs to supervise more closely the entourage (medical and other) of athletes and teams.

The Monitoring Group will ask the IOC to ensure that only those international federations adopting and effectively applying the common Medical Code proposed by the IOC, (including in particular the application of recommended sanctions in case of infractions, and the protection of the rights of sportsmen and sportswomen), can participate in the programmes of the Olympic Games.

The Monitoring Group – which, as a contribution to harmonisation, adopts the same list of prohibited classes of substances and prohibited methods as the IOC’s list - will ask the IOC to make concrete proposals on ways in which it can be associated with the drawing up this list.

In accordance with Article 11.1.b of the Convention, and as most accredited laboratories are financed by public funds in the country concerned, the Monitoring Group would like to be associated with the IOC in establishing quality systems and standards for anti-doping laboratories.

Tel: +33/3 88 41 25 74 Fax: +33/3 88 41 27 89

Email: [email protected]

STRASBOURG, 09.11.98 – At the close of their extraordinary meeting in Strasbourg on Thursday 5 November 1998, the members of the Monitoring Group of the COUNCIL OF EUROPE's Anti-Doping Convention decided on a series of measures to combat doping.

They expressed their support for the establishment of an Olympic anti-doping agency, which will be proposed at the World Conference of the IOC in Lausanne in February 1999. The participants made the point that this agency, in which the Council of Europe wishes to be actively involved, should be "authoritative, independent, international, transparent and non-profit making".

They will also encourage the IOC to monitor more closely those working – medically and otherwise – in the entourage of athletes and teams and will ask it to ensure that only international federations that actually apply the common Medical Code suggested by the IOC can take part in Olympic games programmes.

The Council of Europe experts will ask the IOC to be actively involved in future in drawing up the list of prohibited substances and methods prepared by the IOC, which they currently adopt to achieve harmonisation.

Pointing out that most anti-doping laboratories are financed with public money, the participants decided to ask the IOC to involve them in establishing quality systems and standards for these laboratories.

The Monitoring Group, chaired by Alain GARNIER (France), also agreed on areas for priority action in connection with the Anti-Doping Convention. It decided to undertake a review of national anti-doping laws and laws on banned drugs and substances so as to ensure greater consistency in its work. It also plans to help provide information for national sports bodies on how legislation affects sport.

The Group wants to improve the medical care and health protection of athletes and to provide better information and education for those working in their entourage.

With regard to banned substances, it will seek to co-operate more closely with the police and customs and other relevant authorities with a view to reducing the availability of doping agents in sporting circles.

Lastly, the Monitoring Group stressed that national anti-doping agencies should increase the number of, and reduce to a minimum the notice given for, out-of-competition controls. Another priority is to seek new methods that are more efficient for detecting and controlling the use of doping substances, in particular EPO and other peptide hormones.