Drug Screening in Sports

To the outside and casual observer, the way in which the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow have been both organised and competed in, appears a triumph. For those of us who participate from the sidelines and the comfort of our armchairs there has been much to savour.

The hours and hours of gruelling effort and self-sacrifice that so many of the athletes must endure in order to compete at that level is to be praised and respected. As one who moans about the prospect of walking to the local post office, I cannot imagine what it must take to train day after punishing day! As a result I feel very sorry that those dedicated men and women have to compete against some in their number (a minority I am certain) who seek to enhance their performance by the illegal use of drugs and other substances. Not only are they cheating clean athletes, but also they are guilty of raising doubts in the minds of those of us who spectate about the means by which those who do medal achieved their success.

As humans we are forever striving to reach further and further and push harder and harder; whether that's in technology, exploring the cosmos or pushing our physical limits which is what these athletes are doing. When this happens and limits are pushed (Usain Bolt or David Rudisha as examples) the status these people achieve is rightly deserved; however, if there is that cloud of suspicion and doubts in the mind of the audience due to others use of drugs, would that status ever be reached? Would people actively push themselves and break those limits if they were only to be greeted with suspicion from those who are watching and ultimately elevate them to a higher status? Unfortunately a number of athletes at the Glasgow Games have tested positive for drugs: Gareth Warburton and Rhys Williams from the Welsh team and gold medallist weightlifter Chika Amalaha, but how many haven't been caught?

This article by the British Medical Council is extremely interesting and covers both human boundaries and the issue of drug use.

The Commonwealth Games is not the only sporting spectacle to be put in this position. In spite of the existing drug testing regimes, there are clearly ways and means to work within and around the system; or at the very least provide the opportunity for those who believe the reward is worth the risk to take the chance. It would be naïve to believe that drug use in sports isn’t institutional in scale, given the numbers competing across the globe and the fact that bodies such as WADA exist to detect it. Do those competitors who use drugs believe they can act with impunity (the likelihood of detection being slim) or is their detection more to do with getting the timing wrong in the run-up to competition?

If the existing detection/deterrent value is not enough to eradicate the problem then is it time to consider a different approach by adding a new weapon to the arsenal? Polygraph testing has both detection and deterrent capabilities and when validated techniques are used by competent examiners, the success rates are very high. This is particularly the case when investigating historical crime or wrong-doing – abstinence in this case does not remove the evidence, or in this context the memory of the event! If those responsible for getting sport to clean up its act once and for all are serious, an in-depth consideration should be given to using this technique, and perhaps then that cloud of suspicion may be dispersed.

Consequences of Wrong Employee Selection

Does society accept lying as a part of everyday life? Is it true, as suggested (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reinvent-yourself/201406/lies-truth-and-compromises-are-we-hardwired-lie) that we are all 'hard-wired' for it and that society could not function without it? If that is the case why is there 'shock' and a public outcry associated with a revelation about an MP's wrongdoing, if the accepted belief is that politicians can't be trusted in the first place (a survey done by YouGov for RatedPeople.com http://www.ratedpeople.com/blog/what-profession-do-you-trust/ suggests that to be the case)? Why should we expect CEOs and Chairs of major corporations to be more trustworthy than the remainder of society? Why are we so upset and disappointed when loved ones lie to us?

One reason might be that the moment we give people responsibility for our well being (and our money!) we expect a different set of behaviours: we have as voters elected or as shareholders bought into a contract that has an implicit 'trust' clause in it. Take the historic position in France for example in which the public would be surprised if their political class were not cheating on their wives or partners. Is the cultural acceptance of lying a reason why organisations take a relatively soft approach to its detection in the workplace or during pre-employment processes? According to Experian, 71% of applicants lie on their CVs and 50% have to reverse job offers made. Why then is there so little relative investment in appointment processes, given the risk associated with making the wrong decision? Cost, time, awareness or lack of process or tools to sort it out before problems arise or mistakes made? Interestingly, the issue isn't just about organisational risk, making the wrong selection can put the individual's health, safety and well-being at risk too.

Looking at the direct financial cost associated with the process itself; according to the CIPD, the cost of a director-level appointment is about £8000, the current maximum payout for unfair dismissal £74,500. The indirect cost of making the wrong decision is far more and perhaps unquantifiable in relation to reputational damage and disruption. These are factors to take into account in any Appointment Process, Risk Assessment or HR Policy Development.

If in doubt, seek professional advice and support for any appointment process and consider the tools available to address the risk, including psychometric and polygraph testing where appropriate alongside the more widely used processes already in place. Prevention is always better than cure or, considered alternatively, shutting the stable door before the proverbial horse has bolted.

probitasltd.co.uk