Click Here to download this letter
in a printable adobe acrobat PDF file format.
|
New Barnet Herts EN4 8BA United Kingdom Tel: 020 8441 6908
Mr Peter Keen |
|
1st January 2012 |
|
Dear Peter, I am writing to bring closure to my failed attempt in using the freedom of information act, to reveal the training methods of UK Athletics (UKA). As the sport's governing body, UKA have a responsibility to put in place a coach education programme. How is it possible to have a coach education programme when the most effective coaching methods are a secret? During the two day freedom of information tribunal hearing on Wednesday 23rd March 2011, you dismissed as wrong, the conclusions of the world's largest ever investigation into drugs cheating in sport, Canada's Dubin Enquiry. The Dubin Enquiry followed the Ben Johnson drugs scandal, when he was stripped of the 1988 Olympic title and world record for the 100 metres. The Dubin Enquiry concluded that setting Olympic medal targets by government in return for funding had encouraged a culture of drugs cheating. For you to reject the conclusions of the Dubin Enquiry is understandable because UK Sport operate the same system which allocates funding based on medal targets. During the Dubin Enquiry, in Toronto on 1st March 1989, it was reported by the New York Times that Charlie Francis named Kevin Tyler as someone who started to use drugs after the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics [source]. Kevin Tyler is currently head of coach education at UK Athletics. It is known that UKA has had, and possibly still has, a coaching relationship with Dr Ekkart Arbeit who has been identified as the architect behind the East German systematic drugs cheating programme of the 1970's and 1980's [source]. Such details do not inspire confidence in the values of UKA and UK Sport. The British Olympic Association (BOA) eligibility bye-law is a rule which prevents drugs cheats from ever representing Great Britain at an Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee Rule 45 has a similar purpose to prevent drugs cheats from competing at the next Olympic Games following their return from suspension. These rules are becoming overwhelmed by a flood of calls for their removal, causing them to look like isolated beacons of integrity on the landscape of British sport. It does appear that the calls challenging the legality of these important rules, originate from UK Sport. Many decent sports people think your energy would be better spent persuading the courts that the "restraint of trade" argument against these rules is ludicrous. Drugs cheats are being encouraged to demand access to the very competitions they have proven themselves unfit to grace. It is as ridiculous as a child molester demanding he be allowed to return to work with children after having served his sentence. The idea that an honest athlete can be denied the opportunity to represent Great Britain at an Olympic Games, in favour of a "former" drugs cheat is offensive to any right minded individual. In August 2009 Andy Parkinson, the head of UK Sport's anti doping unit was approved to lead the new UK Anti Doping agency. It did not take him long to attack the BOA eligibility bye-law. On 14th December 2010, Andy Parkinson wrote: "If, as is the case with the eligibility rules of the International Olympic Committee and here in the UK the British Olympic Association, we remove all incentives for athletes to share their stories and information with us, then we will continue to struggle to catch those who are supplying performance enhancing substances". He also wrote in the same article: "We will continue to push to ensure our views are heard both through our European forums and directly to WADA." [source]. It is ridiculous that someone in the position of Andy Parkinson cannot see the difference between a pusher of recreational drugs, and someone who is providing a service to individuals who choose to cheat at sport. For recreational drugs, the pusher is the villain, but for performance enhancing drugs, the cheating athlete is clearly the villain. You can take the man out of UK Sport, but you can't take UK Sport out of the man. I understand that UK Sport have a policy of training up "high flying administrators" to occupy places on international sports federations. Your literature indicates that 15 such individuals are dispatched around the world annually to promote the interests of UK Sport. [source]. Thanks to the patronage of UK Sport, David Millar, the cyclist and convicted drugs cheat, who it was reported you once coached, is currently a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) athlete committee. Surely UK Sport could have found someone in Great Britain who had not been caught with two syringes containing the banned blood booster erythropoietin (EPO) in his bedroom! [source]. Incredibly, WADA has written to the BOA asking if they would consider testing the legality of their eligibility bye-law. I hope the BOA treat that request with the contempt it deserves. Under the circumstances, it should not have come as a big surprise to me that UK Sport were prepared to spend 2 days at a freedom of information tribunal hearing on 22nd and 23rd March 2011 ensuring that the coaching methods of UKA remain a secret. UK Sport wrote in a letter to the Information Commissioner on 31st March 2010 "It is accepted in the world of high performance sport that competitor nations will attempt to find out the sporting performance 'secrets' of other nations who are seen to be successful on the world stage". The Information Commissioner also revealed that UKA wrote a letter to UK Sport, dated 23rd March 2010, in which they stated categorically that releasing the withheld information would be detrimental to their aim to create a competitive sporting advantage over other nations. On the 18th July 2006, Parliament's Public Accounts Committee produced a report implying that UK Sport were serial liars when it came to exaggerating their own successes. [source - page 11, paragraph 15]. I was amazed to receive a letter dated 19th November 2010 from the Legal Services Office of the House of Commons threatening me with a 1689 act of Parliament if I were to bring this fact to the attention of the Freedom of Information Tribunal Hearing. The legacy of UK Sport and UKA can be summarised in three simple words. Standards have slipped. Having now spent 7 years scrutinising the quangos UK Sport and Sport England, and the corrosive impact that they have had on British Athletics, it is with great sadness I must say I am alarmed at the possibility that British Sport is embroiled in systematic state sponsored cheating. As you determinedly pursue the objective of winning medals at the 2012 Olympic Games under your banner of "no compromise", I consider it important to bring my concerns to the attention of the "competitor nations", who you say wish to steal our secrets. For this reason I am copying this letter to every National Olympic Association in the world, and asking them to understand that the government funded quangos UK Sport and UK Athletics do not represent the values of British Athletics. We wish our competitors well at the 2012 London Olympiad. When our guests start competing on Saturday 27th July 2012, subject to the accepted standards of sporting behaviour, may the best man win. Yours Faithfully
C.Zacharides Webmaster: www.british-athletics.co.uk |
UK Athletics are contracted to provide UK Sport with quarterly reports outlining how public funding is being used to achieve higher standards in athletics (running, jumping and throwing) which will ultimately achieve the government target to win medals at the Olympic Games.
On 6th May 2008, a Freedom of Information request was submitted to UK Sport to provide 6 quarterly reports, received from UK Athletics for the period from 1st October 2006 to 31st March 2008.
| |
UK Sport declined to provide the reports, so the matter was referred to the Information Commissioner, who ruled on 9th September 2010 that UK Sport and UK Athletics can keep the reports hidden from public view. |
Click Here to view the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice document. Refer to paragraph 22 for reference to the UK Athletics needing to keep training methods a secret. |
Notice of an appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision was submitted on 17th September 2010 to the Tribunal for Information Rights. |
Click Here to view the appeal document. The documents supporting the appeal can viewed by Clicking Here |
On 27th September 2010, a letter was sent Theresa Villiers MP summarising the decision to uphold the right of UK Sport and UK Athletics to keep secrets about running, jumping and throwing. |
Click Here to view the letter. |
The Information Commissioner issued a response to the appeal, thereby giving notice they intended to defend their decision to uphold the secrecy between UK Sport and UK Athletics. As the public body who are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, UK Sport joined the defence as the "Additional Party", ready to stand alongside the Information Commissioner in defending against the appeal. |
Click Here to view the Information Commissioner's formal defence of their decision. Click Here to view UK Sport's formal response supporting the Information Commissioner's decision to allow secrecy to be maintained. |
On 11th November 2010, a detailed appeal document was submitted to the Tribunal as a reply to the Information Commissioner's and UK Sport's response documents. |
Click Here to view the appeal document in a printable PDF file format. Alternatively Click Here to view the document as a webpage with comprehensive links to the sources of information supporting the appeal. |
On 18th November 2010, all parties were issued with Directions about how to proceed, indicating time-frames to be followed and documents to be exchanged. |
Click Here to view the "Directions" issued to all parties by the Tribunal. |
It is believed that UK Sport working hand in hand with the Department for Culture Media and Sport demonstrated their knowledge of the system by orchestrating the House of Common Legal Services Office to issue an instruction to ensure that UK Sport's established dishonesty was not discussed in open court. For example On 12th December 2006, Minister for Sport Richard Caborne MP said in parliament: "UK Sport is also actively involved in senior appointments, including the current recruitment of the new CEO and chair for UK Athletics. In addition it has a member of staff with responsibility for monitoring progress in the sport and intervening where appropriate”.
In contrast UK Sport wrote in a letter dated 1st February 2007:
|
Click Here to view the letter received from the House of Commons Legal Services, and the Parliamentary evidence which was excluded from the appeal. |
On 20th December 2010, an application was submitted to the Tribunal to comply with the House of Commons Legal Services requirements. These changes were made reluctantly to avoid being dragged by UK Sport and the Department for Culture Media and Sport into matters which would distract from the key issues. It is a well established tactic of quangos to throw plumes of smoke into the air to ensure that the details they are seeking to hide remain hidden. |
Click Here to view the application to the Tribunal asking them to accept the changes demanded by the House of Commons Legal Services. |
On 26th January 2011 six witness statements were submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of the Appellant supporting the case for releasing the requested information.
Witnesses
This is a good opportunity to express sincere thanks to the witnesses named who came together at the Tribunal to express concerns, and a reasoned explanation why the Government controlled body, UK Athletics Limited, have been so harmful for the sport in the UK. Thanks are also extended to others who supported the case but were not able to attend the hearing. |
Click Here to view all six witness statements, which include a comprehensive historical analysis of standards in British athletics between 1958 and 2010. |
On 9th February 2011, UK Sport submitted a witness statement from Peter Keen, the Performance Director. |
Click Here to view Peter Keen's witness statement. UK Sport also submitted to exhibit files linked below to support the witness statement. |
On 23rd February 2011 Mr Zacharides submitted a script of his argumentation to the Tribunal, in accordance with the directions. |
Click Here to view the argumentation submitted in favour of the appeal. |
On 23rd February 2011 The Information Commissioner submitted a script of his argumentation to the Tribunal, in accordance with the directions. |
Click Here to view the argumentation defending the decision to maintain secrecy. |
On 28th February 2011 UK Sport submitted a script of its argumentation to the Tribunal, in accordance with the directions. |
Click Here to view the argumentation of UK Sport, supporting the Information Commissioner's efforts to defend the decision to maintain secrecy. |
On 4th March 2011 Mr Zacharides submitted a reply to the argumentation from both The Information Commissioner and UK Sport. |
Click Here to view Mr Zacharides's argumentation in reply to the other parties. |
On 17th March 2011 The Tribunal issued revised directions about how to proceed, indicating time-frames to be followed and documents to be exchanged. |
Click Here to view the revised directions. |
On 18th March 2011 UK Sport submitted further argumentation to the Tribunal as a reply to the argumentation of Mr Zacharides. |
Click Here to view the further argumentation from UK Sport. |
On 18th March 2011 The Information Commissioner submitted the final timetable to be followed at the hearing. |
Click Here to view the proposed timetable. |
On 4th April 2011 The Tribunal issued its judgement allowing UK Sport and UK Athletics to maintain their secrecy. Paragraph 37 of this decision indicates that all parties agree the disputed information was 2 quarterly reports between 1st October 2007 and 31st March 2008. This is wrong. Six quarterly reports were requested from 1st October 2006 to 31st March 2008, and one annual report, as indicated in paragraph 50 of the appeal document. The fact that UK Sport did not even admit to possessing these reports was missed by the Tribunal. Such detail should have confirmed that UK Athletics spending of public money was not being monitored and that the relationship between the two parties was a sham. |
Click Here to view the Tribunal Decision Notice. |