Yahoo Sports 
CFL axes Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport: what's this mean for drug policy?
The CFL set a problematic precedent Friday, cutting ties with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport as part of the ongoing dispute over its drug policy. The league's current policy keeps the identities of first-time offenders and diverts them to a treatment and counseling program rather than suspending them, which critics feel is problematic. This indicates that the league is doubling down on its current strategy rather than responding to the concerns raised.
In practical terms, this doesn't alter the immediate situation, as Dr. Christiane Ayotte, the director of the only Canadian lab accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (which analyses samples for the CCES) had already said Monday that her lab wouldn't accept further samples without a policy change, and the CFL had already looked at U.S. alternatives. Thus, the CFL wasn't going to be doing CCES-supported testing in the near future anyway, and unless there are further developments, the CFL's current drug-testing policy should continue as planned. This does have some longer-term impacts, though. As president and CEO of CCES Paul Melia told Paul Friesen of The Winnipeg Sun Friday, though, the CFL has now become the first association that worked with CCES to ever part ways with it, and their approach flies in the face of much of the current anti-doping research:
“It's not just Dr. Ayotte that believes those changes are necessary,” Melia said. “We certainly believe they're necessary as well.”
“If you don't take them off the field of play, you're letting them compete with that performance advantage. And drugs like steroids and human growth hormone stay in the system and their benefits last a long time.”
The CFL has continually refused interviews on the subject, including Friday, instead releasing statements defending its drug policy as one that effectively deals with players who have problems by providing counseling.
Melia says that goes against what all the experts say.
“You can't treat doping like a drug addiction or a disease like alcoholism and say this poor individual is in the grips of this... and we need to put them in treatment and rehab,” he said. “This is more like a bank encountering an employee that has embezzled funds. We don't say to that employee, 'Oh, you poor thing, you made a mistake. We're not going to tell anybody about it, but we're going to give you some help.'
“I'm not sure where their expertise has come from in this area. Our expertise at the CCES in dealing with the doping issues has come from 25 years of working on this issue on all kinds of sports, all kinds of levels... and that's the kind of advice we've tried to provide to the CFL. And I'm deeply disappointed we've come to this place.”
There have been some good arguments made for the value of the CFL's focus on treatment and education, but as discussed earlier this week, those strategies don't necessarily mean there can't be punishment as well, and it's worth considering that performance-enhancing drugs are far different from other cases of substance abuse. The two approaches don't have to be mutually exclusive, and offering more significant punishments for first-time offenders could help serve as a deterrent to keep drugs out of the CFL in the first place. The decision to fight back so hard against this by cutting ties with CCES rather than negotiating to try and find something that worked for all sides hurts the CFL's reputation, and it indicates they're pretty set on largely sticking to their current drug policy strategy. That may not be the wisest idea, especially if the criticisms of it keep attracting attention. The CFL certainly doesn't want to get a reputation as a league that's soft on drugs, but that's the reputation it may wind up with if it sticks to the current approach despite the criticisms.
