Time for ICC to address drugs issue with same fervour as match-fixing

No excuse in the world exists as to why the International Cricket Council has not adopted anti-doping regimes with the same fervour it applied to anti-match-fixing and gambling.

The very minimum standard that should apply to cricket internationally in its drug standards is an adherence to the laws imposed by the International Olympic Committee.

The Shane Warne saga over the use of diuretics has merely highlighted the inadequacy of doping laws in cricket.

To claim, as Warne did, that he was a victim of anti-drug hysteria, and to accept Tim May's claim that Warne's penalty was too harsh, defies belief.

No-one is too big for the game to escape punishment for infractions against the game's spirit.

Australian cricket authorities could not escape scrutiny over their actions in the Warne case. Their penalty, a halving of the minimum requirement of two years that most other sports apply, was lenient whatever Warne may think.

For what it is worth, the ICC Official Playing Regulations state (Rules of Conduct - Offences and Penalties - Clause C.6):

"Players and/or Team Officials shall not use or in any way be concerned in the use or distribution of illegal drugs. For the avoidance of doubt illegal drugs shall mean those drugs which are classified as unlawful in the Player's or Team Official's home country or in the country in which he is touring. Any such conduct prohibited by this clause shall constitute behaviour prohibited under Clause C.2 [conduct unbecoming or bringing the game into disrepute] above and shall be dealt with as such. Players and Team Officials shall also be subject to any doping policy which is applied by their Home Board and such policies which are is [sic] introduced for ICC Events from time to time. Any breach of such doping policy should be dealt with under the terms of such policy itself and not under this Code."

The penalties do allow, under the application of Clause C.2 for an adjudicator to take into account the prior record of the person charged, as has clearly been done under the procedures in the Warne case.

The criticism of this clause is that it is wide open to abuse however well intentioned it may be.

Just as speed cameras on the open road do not differentiate who is behind the wheel when trapping the errant driver, nor should cricket's attitude toward drug breaches be any different.

But, for better or worse, that is the conclusion that is going to be drawn in Warne's case.

The days of popping a pill and not being aware of the consequences died in the 1970s.

Any self-respecting sportsman knows that if he needs any medication for treatment of any kind then he should get a doctor to prescribe it, and it is up to that doctor to know whether the treatment is on the banned list or not. And such is the communication between most cricket organisations and their players, that a simple phone call to the team doctor would be enough to clarify issues.

That way there can be no excuses.

It is a pretty basic fact of modern day sport.

By comparison with the actions that followed the disclosures of match-fixing in cricket, the authorities have been inexcusably slow in reaching an accord on drug procedures.

Yet, drug-testing is a far more obvious way of dealing with the problem than those measures taken by the anti-corruption crowd to rid the game of match-fixing.

It is interesting that New Zealand Cricket, which is subject to the same drug testing procedures as all who participate in New Zealand sport, had the ICC adopt New Zealand's drug policy, mainly because there wasn't the time to adopt one of their own with the agreement of all member countries, for the ICC Under-19 World Cup here last year.

Twenty tests were done in New Zealand. They were all negative, but the fact remains there was no clear evidence that any transgressors would have been dealt with under an identifiable procedure.

The suspicion lurks that similar lack of an ICC-owned and identified drug-testing procedure is in place for the World Cup. While the teams may be subject to South African law, how does that stack up if a positive test is returned once the World Cup is over, the teams have all gone home and a member country tests the ruling in law?

This area is too important for such vagaries to exist. A clearly identifiable procedure among all countries needs to be in place.

A major world conference on drugs in sport is being held in Amsterdam next month but cricket is reportedly not among the attendees.

It is expected that the conference will update the banned drugs list, and through its commitment to the New Zealand scheme, NZC will be subject to those new rulings. But how many other countries will be doing the same?

How much will cricket be demeaned in the eyes of the rest of the sporting world for the sentence handed down to Warne when the matter is discussed, as it will be, at the conference?

What is the problem for the ICC in adopting the same drug guidelines as all the member nations of the IOC?

How many more drug scandals do there have to be?

Or will we simply not find out because some countries find it easier not to have a drug-testing regime?

As it exists at the moment, the last point will be the most likely because it appears as yet another addition to the ever-growing "too hard" basket.

And that, as the Warne case has shown, is simply not good enough.