October 19, 2007
Bookmark and Share

WADA President Richard Pound Clarifies Misinformation Regarding Candidacy for Future WADA President

In a press conference on October 16, 2007, Jean-François Lamour announced his withdrawal from the race for WADA president and his resignation as its Vice President. In response to the attacks that Mr. Lamour has made on WADA, its current leadership and the process by which the next president will be selected, I wish to clarify the following facts:

  1. WADA’s statutes are clear and have been firmly adhered to throughout the process for nominating the Agency’s next president. 
    • The World Anti-Doing Agency is an equal partnership between the Sport Movement and Governments of the world. 
    • The principle of rotation between the Sport Movement and Governments in holding the leadership position of WADA is formalized in WADA Statutes: 
      • Article 7, paragraph 2: the position of WADA president is held on an alternating basis by a representative of the Olympic Movement and a representative of the public authorities
      • Article 7, paragraph 3: the president and the vice-president must be “nominated” by the Olympic Movement or the public authorities 
    • The WADA Statutes do not contain any other rules in respect to how each entity (the Olympic Movement on the one hand, and the public authorities on the other) “nominate” their respective positions. 
    • It is therefore up to the public authorities, and the Olympic Movement, to designate, in accordance with their own methods or protocols, the candidate or candidates to be appointed president and vice-president, representing the public authorities or the Olympic Movement, in accordance with article 7, paragraph 2 of the Statutes.  
    • As previously agreed between the Sport Movement and Governments, and in accordance with the principle of rotation in WADA’s statutes, I, a representative of the Sport Movement, will step down from my position as WADA President at the end of my third term on December 31, 2007, to allow governments to hold the leadership position. 
       
  2. Nowhere in WADA’s statutes or policies is it stated (or assumed) that the WADA Vice President will automatically become the President of WADA. 
    • While Mr. Lamour had been selected by government members of WADA’s Foundation Board in November 2006 to serve as the government representative in the position of WADA Vice President for the calendar year 2007, there was no guarantee that the governments, which are represented on the WADA Foundation Board on a continental basis, would nominate him as their sole candidate to WADA’s presidency.  
       
  3. WADA received two nominations from governments for WADA president within the designated deadline for nominations (September 20, 2007): Jean-François Lamour (France) and John Fahey (Australia). 
    • WADA did not partake in any process development leading to a “primary.” Rather the governments met to discuss how they would select one of the two nominees to be the representative from public authorities to be put forward as president. 
    • Mr. Lamour’s suggestion that there is an “anglo-saxon” conspiracy against him is incorrect, inappropriate and neglects the fact that represented in the decision-making are representatives of all five continents.  
       
  4. Governments have been entirely responsible for nominations and the process for electing a representative to be put forward as President. 
    • Mr. Lamour’s suggestion that WADA management and I have been involved in the discussions on the election of the future WADA president is completely false and defamatory in nature.  
       
  5. Mr. Lamour’s withdrawal from the government selection process indicates his unwillingness to participate in a democratic process decided by the Governments themselves. 
    • Mr. Lamour has confused “lobbies” with the simple democratic process of elections.
    • If Mr. Lamour is unable or unwilling to campaign to convince the governments (whom he was supposed to be representing in his position - until his resignation - as WADA Vice President) that he should continue to represent them as WADA’s next president, then perhaps he is not the right person to be entrusted with the leadership.      
       
  6. Lamour’s criticism of WADA is unfounded. 
  • He has served on the Foundation Board and Executive Committee since 2005, and has served as its vice president for one year. 
  • Not once during that time has he raised any concerns about the leadership and direction of the fight against doping that had been led by WADA.
  • His sudden about-face in his public enunciations regarding WADA is astounding, unfortunate and suspect, in view of his previous support and commitment.
  • The whole purpose to this international agency is to harmonize rules and policies, yet Lamour’s recent proposals go counter to the entire premise behind the organization of which he was an active vice president until his resignation this week. 
  • Mr. Lamour's claim that his withdrawal is a set back for WADA and the fight against doping is a most unfortunate and ill-considered comment. It is difficult to comprehend how the significant advances in harmonization, research and education in the fight against doping in sport, led by WADA Committees and effected by WADA management, under the direction of the WADA Executive Commitee and Foundation Board should cease or alter as a result of Mr. Lamour's  precipitate change of mind, in the face of an electoral challenge.   

Click here for the correspondence between Mr. Lamour and Mr. Pound.