Drugs in sport: Samaranch encircled by dissenters

THE BELEAGUERED International Olympic Committee president, Juan Antonio Samaranch, faced serious challenges both from outside and within the organisation yesterday.

European sports ministers at the World Conference on Doping in Sport objected to the composition of the IOC's proposed independent drug-testing agency and requested urgent consultations, to which the IOC agreed.

Earlier in the day, Samaranch had to deal with an internal revolt as a group 50 IOC members forced him to re-think proposals for reforming the process of selecting cities to host the Games.

The establishment of the $25m (pounds 16m) drug-testing agency is one of the main proposals of a conference at which the IOC had hoped to restore its public image following the recent scandals over bribery and corruption. The IOC vice president, Dick Pound, said that the agency would be directed by a 15-strong group comprising members of the IOC, national Olympic committees and representatives from sponsors and the pharmaceutical industry.

However, the suggestion was immediately criticised by Britain's Minister for Sport, Tony Banks, who spoke on behalf of all the European sports ministers. "It is our unanimous opinion that we cannot at present accept the composition of the agency," he said, adding that its compositions and functions "be the subject of urgent consultation with the European Union and other interested bodies." Banks hinted that funding of the body would be affected by the outcome of such discussions, and defended the rights of ministers to speak out on IOC matters. "When we have criticised we have criticised as friends of the IOC, because real friends tell you the truth," he said.

Pound later admitted that the ministers had been unhappy with representation from sponsors and the drug industry.

The vice president, seen as a likely successor to Samaranch, went on to cast doubt on whether the IOC president would chair the agency body. "Even the chairmanship of the council is now to be discussed. We have no set view on this."

The protest meeting of IOC members took place at 7am in the Palace Hotel, where strong views were expressed over the proposal to remove their voting right over which cities should hold the Games.

In the wake of the corruption scandal surrounding Salt Lake City's successful bid for the 2002 Winter Olympics, the IOC executive board proposed last month that the host of the 2006 event should be decided by a 15-strong commission, including just eight of the 106 IOC members. But that proposal has to be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the IOC membership at their extraordinary session next month, and yesterday's breakfast gathering, which included Britain's IOC representative, Craig Reedie, presented a clear warning to the IOC president that the change would not be accepted.

The executive board will meet today to consider the rank-and-file members' counter-proposal that they should retain the right to choose between the top two rival cities after the 15-strong commission had whittled down the six bidders for the 2006 Games.

"Stripping us of our right to vote is creating the impression that we cannot be trusted," said one member, who asked not to be identified. "Some bad apples do not make the whole barrel rotten." There were further complications yesterday for the IOC leadership, as their hopes of standardising the penalty for serious doping offences to a two-year ban throughout the range of Olympic sports was resisted by cycling and football.

Sebastian Coe, Britain's double Olympic champion, delivered a rebuff to the US delegates who had stressed the need for a stringent, independent IOC doping controls on the opening day of the conference.

Referring to recent doping cases in the US, including the exoneration of sprinter Dennis Mitchell on the grounds that his apparently illegal levels of testosterone were a result of drinking beer and having sex, Coe said: "Some of the cases we have seen recently have stretched credibility to breaking point. We welcome contributions from all parties to this debate, but you can contribute better if you know that what is going on in your own back yard is beyond reproach."

Asked by American journalists if he regarded the judgement on Mitchell as comical, he responded: "Well, it's not a touchstone of grace and elegance, is it?"