MacLeod's ignorance could have ruined his career

SCOTT MacLeod's failure to understand stringent anti-doping rules almost cost him a year out of the game and a forever tarnished "drugs" image.

He had only last week forced his way back into Scotland's starting line-up for the first time since the spring of 2006, essentially – he started against New Zealand last year when others were rested – and, one of the team's top performers, is almost assured of starting against England on Saturday week.

He was, therefore, a very relieved man yesterday, and understandably quick to warn other players to pay more attention to exactly what it is they take to help cope with illnesses when competing in international sport. It is widely accepted that MacLeod's offence was at the bottom end of the scale, the 28-year-old forward having not realised he had to be specific about which asthma drugs he was taking, but different judging panels may have viewed his naivety in different ways.

The three Scots who sat in judgment on him felt it warranted no more than the minimum of a warning and reprimand, but the scale slid all the way up to a suspension period of 12 months. Had he suffered that fate, it would have mattered little to some people what drugs offence he had been guilty of and left a stain on his character. The chances of him resurrecting his professional playing career, at the age of 29, never mind adding to his current 17 Test caps would not have been great.

MacLeod admitted: "Obviously I was shocked (when told he had failed a test]. I couldn't believe it to be honest when they told me I had Terbutaline in my system, which I call Bricanyl, from my inhaler, because I've taken that all my life. I specified when I did my urine sample that I had taken Bricanyl, so I wasn't trying to hide it. I thought the main thing was specifying that I had asthma and took a reliever for it. I've had it since I was two I think and have never left the house since maybe five without an inhaler. I couldn't play sport without having it pretty much all the time. I was shocked, but I'm glad to get it over with now and I'll certainly not make the same mistake again."

No excuses would be accepted were he to repeat the error as the regulations state that MacLeod would face a mandatory two-year suspension were he to pick up a second violation. The SRU's international administration manager, Gregor Nicholson, insisted he felt it bizarre that players who suffer from asthma are subjected to this process, but MacLeod now needs to be even more clear about the minefield of medicines not permitted to sports performers.

Born in Hawick, the problem was perhaps aggravated because of his move from the now-defunct Border Reivers to Llanelli in 2006. The Borders doctor had passed his Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) with the inhaler change, and the Llanelli doctor was ignorant of the fact he used two, while Scotland doctor, James Robson, went along with the TUE as it stood now.

For this reason, Nicholson has also now decided to laminate a copy of all TUEs issued and will insist that players carry these with their kit bags to raise awareness of what drugs they have specified to the authorities. Dr Robson said: "I've known Scott MacLeod for several years now and like several members of our current international squad he is asthmatic. Asthma, as you may be aware, is normally a lifelong condition and can actually result in death, so it is a serious condition. There are a large number of people, however, despite their asthma, able to perform in sport at the very highest level, including the Olympic Games, as well as for Scottish rugby.

"Scott's medical knowledge is a little bit limited and he was under the mistaken apprehension that Bricanyl and Ventolin – two of several what are called Beta2-Agonists used to treat asthma – were one and the same thing. There are generic names we use in medicine and brand names, which occasionally gives rise to mistakes being made.

"I think Scott has made a very genuine mistake and I'm glad he has decided to come out publicly and help us emphasise how this mistake was made, but also to emphasise that despite this lifelong, chronic, debilitating illness he has managed to reach high levels."

Nicholson admitted that he was keen to push for asthma treatments to be taken off the prohibited list as scientific evidence has been produced to show that neither salbutamol nor Terbutaline can enhance performance when inhaled. Even in a case where Frankie Sheahan, the Ireland hooker, had been shown to have ingested very large amounts of the drug and was initially banned for two years, the appeal panel decided there had been no performance enhancement, and cut his suspension drastically.

Nicholson stated: "UK Sport have recommended to WADA that Beta2-agonists be removed the prohibited list as studies over the last ten years have consistently failed to demonstrate performance-enhancing effects of these medications. The time and money that is spent dealing with this issue for asthma sufferers – we have 75 just in Scotland how many are there globally – for something that is taken simply to help people breathe properly and take part in sport is a ridiculous waste in my opinion. But those are the rules at the moment and so we, and particularly players, have to be very diligent in including these on TUEs."

MacLeod added: "I was pretty unaware of the different types of asthma medication, but this has been a bit of a wake-up call. I'm not a cheat and I'm pleased that the panel accepted that I'd used Terbutaline inadvertently and that there had been no intention to enhance sports performance. Hopefully, other players will be a bit more savvy given what's happened to me. I want to put this behind me now and concentrate on the job in hand with the national team."

Independence of judging panel is compromised by rugby links

Stuart Bathgate

THE "independent judicial committee" which heard the Scott MacLeod case comprised three men. All are respected for their knowledge in their field, and are independent of the Scottish Rugby Union in the sense that none of them is beholden to the governing body for his living. To the wider world, though, there may be several ways in which they do not merit the "independent" tag.

The three men in question are Rod McKenzie, the chairman of the panel; Professor Donald Macleod; and Dr Brian Walker. All three heard the case of a Scottish international: all three are involved in Scottish rugby. No matter how impeccable their integrity, that simple fact leaves their composition open to suggestion that the panel will not be independent in everyone's eyes.

More specifically, the panellists were convened at the SRU's request, and each of the three has a long-lasting connection with Scottish rugby. McKenzie is one of the founders of Harper Macleod, the Glasgow-based law firm. He is head of the firm's litigation division, and specialises in sports law, employment, and betting and gaming.

He chairs the SRU's disciplinary appeals committee and is also a member of the IRB's disciplinary appeals panel. In football, he has acted for the Scottish Premier League in other issues. His co-founder at Harper Macleod is Professor Lorne Crerar, who is the independent disciplinary chairman for the RBS Six Nations Championship and the Heineken Cup.

Professor Macleod is the senior vice-president of Selkirk RFC. In common with Professor Crerar, he has been part of an "independent judicial tribunal" for European Rugby Cup Ltd. Among other cases, he and Crerar dealt with the suspension of the Ireland hooker Frankie Sheahan for a doping offence.

Dr Walker is the head of sports medicine at the Scottish Institute of Sport, where his duties include the medical profiling of athletes. He is also the current team doctor to the Scotland Under-19 squad.

When any rugby body is looking for individuals to sit on a panel, knowledge of the sport is clearly an advantage. Between them, the panel should also have legal and medical expertise.

Those criteria narrow down the number of people who might be eligible to sit on such a panel. What is more, given that Scottish rugby is a small pond, many – perhaps all – of those eligible could well be personally acquainted with one or more SRU employees.

Use of foreign panellists could easily lead to delays in the holding of judicial hearings. That minor inconvenience, however, would be significantly outweighed by the advantages, chief among which would be the evident disinterestedness of the foreign panellists themselves.

GREGOR NICHOLSON PROFILE

GREGOR NICHOLSON is the SRU's international administration manager. His job includes dealing with a number of issues which affect the national teams, and he is responsible for the union's anti-doping policy and programme.

A graduate of Edinburgh University, he has been employed by the SRU since January 1993, when rugby union was still an amateur pursuit throughout the world. His initial job title was administrative secretary, where he performed a wide range of official duties, including liaising with visiting teams.

The most troubled period of his time with the SRU came in 2000, when it was revealed that Scotland forward David Hilton was not eligible to play for the country as he had no blood line. Nicholson had played a significant role in player registration, and in the end the SRU had accepted – as it did again yesterday in the case of Scott MacLeod – that it would have to tighten up its procedures.

Nicholson continued to act as secretary to the national team until 2004, and was acting team manager during that season's Six Nations. He has been a member of the IRB's anti-doping advisory committee since it was established in 2000.

QUESTION & ANSWER

Q: Why did Scott MacLeod fail a drugs test?

A: As an asthma sufferer since childhood, MacLeod had sought and obtained a dispensation to use an inhaler, but changed to a different type of inhaler medication when his usual type was not available – without realising that each type of asthma medication requires separate dispensation.

Q: When did this happen?

A: The random test conducted by UK Sport took place on 25 January, and the result was communicated to the SRU on 14 February.

Q: What is the name of the banned substance found in MacLeod's test?

A: Terbutaline, which is found in the Bricanyl inhaler. MacLeod only had exemption for Salbutanol, found in the Ventolin inhaler.

Q: Why was MacLeod cleared?

A: He hasn't been cleared completely. Although he has not been banned from rugby, he has received a warning and reprimand after being found guilty of a violation of the anti-doping code. A warning and reprimand is the minimum punishment – the maximum is a 12-month ban.

Q: Isn't a sportsperson responsible for whatever substance is found in his body?

A: Yes, but in this case it has been decided that the player made a genuine mistake and ingested a substance that is deemed necessary for his condition and could not be considered to have enhanced his performance in rugby.

Q: Who decided on the punishment?

A: An independent judicial committee.

Q: How 'independent' is the committee?

A: Not as independent as it could be. The three members all have strong Scottish rugby connections: one is the vice-president of Selkirk RFC, one is the Scotland under-19 team doctor, and the third is the chairman of the SRU appeals committee.

Q: What drug did MacLeod test positive for?

A: Terbutaline, a medication used to treat conditions such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. It is often used in inhalers, because it allows those with breathing difficulties to get air to the lungs more freely.

Q: Why is it on the list of banned substances?

A: It can have an anabolic effect if injected, but the SRU points to studies that have failed to demonstrate a performance-enhancing effect. Some sporting bodies want the substance removed from the prohibited list.

Q: How tight are the SRU's procedures?

A: They were drawn up in line with and satisfy the regulations of the International Rugby Board, UK Sport and World Anti Doping Agency (WADA).

Q: How often are rugby players tested for drug use in Scotland?

A: A total of 264 tests were carried out last season – with no positive results – averaging five tests per week of the calendar year. This season, 171 tests have been conducted on Scottish players so far, taking the total number of tests to around 1,700 over the past ten years since Scottish rugby's last violation – a minor ephedrine finding on a club player.

Q: Who carries out the tests?

A: UK Sport, at the request of the Scottish Rugby Union. The SRU supplies a list of all Scotland squad sessions, which includes all age-groups and sevens, and UK Sport can turn up unannounced to test at any. Players must also provide the SRU with five one-hour windows each week, during which time they will be at a certain place and available for testing.

Q: Are players tested after international matches?

A: Yes, testers also take random samples after every match and tournament.

Q: Why was the news of the failed test announced one week after the SRU became aware of the situation?

A: The player had seven days in which he could appeal, and chose not to. The SRU was under no obligation to name him in any case.

Q: What happens now?

A: MacLeod is free to play rugby. The IRB and UK Sport have stated they are happy with how the case has been dealt with. But if MacLeod failed another test at any stage of his career, he would be banned from the sport for two years.

Q: Is this the end of the matter?

A: Almost, but not quite. WADA could refer the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.