This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Houlihan, B. Articles by Preece, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Independence and Accountability

The Case of the Drug Free Sport Directorate, the UK's National Anti-Doping Organisation

Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, Loughborough University, UK, b.m.j.houlihan{at}lboro.ac.uk

Andrew Preece

PMP, UK, AndyPreece{at}pmpconsult.com

The UK National Anti-Doping Organisation (NADO), the Drug Free Sport Directorate (DFSD), is located within the same organization, UK Sport, which is responsible for maximizing elite sport success. This article evaluates the demand for an independent NADO, which comes not only from within the UK but also from international anti-doping agencies. The concept of independence is examined within the context of broader concerns with accountability and the relationship between the NADO and its stakeholders. Using data from a survey of both National Governing Bodies of sport (NGBs) and elite athletes and interviews with major policy actors it is argued that the concern of elite athletes and NGBs is less with the location of the NADO within UK Sport, but with questions of accountability and communication. It is argued that enhanced independence would, in itself, be no guarantee of either neutrality or of greater effectiveness and may well be counter productive. Moreover, using Hood's rationale for administrative reform there is little evidence that a more independent NADO would be more efficient, equitable or robust. However, it is also argued that the current network of accountability relationships is focused on secondary stakeholders and those primary stakeholders, such as elite athletes and their NGBs, are marginal thus risking an erosion of the current high level of trust.

Key Words: accountability • anti-doping policy • organizational independence • stakeholders • UK Sport

Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 22, No. 4, 381-402 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0952076707081584


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?