The cyber hackers group, Fancy Bears, have released a document alleging 25 players from 12 countries were allowed to use prohibited substances during the 2010 World Cup.
According to the leaked document, published on Tuesday, 25 footballers were given therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) during the tournament in South Africa, which was won by Spain.
The group also claims more than 150 players failed drugs tests in 2015 in the latest leaked documents. This is the first time Fancy Bears have released details about football, having previously released medical records of athletes.
Argentina had five players on the list while four members of the Germany squad were named in the document. No England players were named in the report.
“Today Fancy Bears’ hack team is publishing the material leaked from various sources related to football,” read a statement on the group’s website. “Football players and officials unanimously affirm that this kind of sport is free of doping.
“You can have a look at Wada documents revealing that more than 150 players were caught doping in 2015. The next year this number increased up to 200 athletes.”
Three key questions
What is a TUE?
It is an exemption that allows an athlete to use medication that is on Wada’s prohibited substances list because of an illness or condition.
What is the issue with TUEs?
Some believe that athletes are granted TUEs when they are not needed, allowing them an edge in performance. Dr Ross Tucker, an exercise physiologist and high performance sports science consultant, points to the high use of corticosteroids, which are given to athletes to help them breathe better yet can also be performance-enhancing.
How can we be sure that TUEs are being assessed accurately?
In theory an athlete should get a TUE only after an independent committee – which, according to Wada, should have at least three sports medicine physicians on it – has met and made a recommendation to a sporting body or a national anti-doping organisation, which then either approves or refuses the request. When making their ruling, the doctors must take into account a number of factors – including the need to protect a competitor’s health, ensure a substance is not performance-enhancing and that there is no other reasonable non-banned alternative. Sean Ingle
No comments:
Post a Comment