Background

1. On 5 August 2017, the Minister for Health and Aged Care announced a review of Australia’s sport integrity arrangements. The Report of the Review of Australia’s Sport Integrity Arrangements (the Wood Review) was presented to the government in March 2018 and made 52 recommendations, including the establishment of a national sports integrity commission.¹ In its February 2019 response to the Wood Review², the Australian Government agreed, agreed in part, agreed in principle or noted all recommendations. Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) was established on 1 July 2020 by the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (SIA Act).

2. The object of the SIA Act is to establish SIA to prevent and address threats to sports integrity and to coordinate a national approach to matters relating to sports integrity in Australia. A National Anti-Doping Scheme is required under section 3 of the SIA Act and is set out in Schedule 1 of the Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020 (SIA Regulations). The SIA Regulations outline the powers and functions of the SIA Chief Executive Officer, which include having the role and responsibility of a ‘national anti-doping organisation’ for Australia under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Anti-Doping Convention and the World Anti-Doping Code.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

3. In its response to the Wood Review, the Australian Government committed to ‘comprehensively protecting the integrity of Australian sport for the benefit of the entire Australian community’ and to establishing a national sports integrity commission (SIA). The government also noted the importance of effective anti-doping measures to protect the integrity of Australian sport.

4. The audit provides assurance to the Parliament as to whether SIA has established effective governance arrangements for anti-doping and is effectively managing the National Anti-Doping Scheme.

Audit objective and criteria

5. The purpose of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Sport Integrity Australia’s management of the National Anti-doping Scheme.

6. To form a conclusion against the objective, the following high-level criteria were adopted:

• Has Sport Integrity Australia established fit-for-purpose governance arrangements?
• Has Sport Integrity Australia established effective arrangements to prevent and detect anti-doping rule violations?
• Has Sport Integrity Australia established effective arrangements to investigate and respond to possible anti-doping rule violations?

7. The period covered by the audit is 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024. Anti-doping matters prior to the establishment of Sport Integrity Australia on 1 July 2020 are not within the scope of this audit.

Conclusion

8. Sport Integrity Australia’s management of the National Anti-Doping Scheme is partly effective. SIA has adopted a different approach to anti-doping regulation, depending on how anti-doping samples and testing are paid for. Regulatory responsibilities are more effectively carried out for sports that receive government funded anti-doping testing. For sports where testing costs are partially recovered from the sport, regulation is not demonstrably risk-based and data driven — a key principle of good regulation. There are deficiencies in anti-doping investigation practices.

9. SIA’s governance arrangements for the National Anti-Doping Scheme are partly fit for purpose. There are largely fit-for-purpose oversight and assurance arrangements. Risk management, including for regulatory capture risks, is not fit for purpose.

10. SIA’s arrangements for preventing and detecting doping are largely effective for sports that have mainly government funded anti-doping sample collection arrangements, and partly effective for the major professional sports that have mainly ‘user pays’ anti-doping sample collection arrangements, due to the way SIA has chosen to administer ‘user pays’ arrangements.

• There is a fit-for-purpose national anti-doping framework, which is supported by a national anti-doping policy that is adopted by 87 national sporting organisations. Another three national sporting organisations have an SIA-approved anti-doping policy.
• SIA has effective arrangements to prevent anti-doping rule violations through anti-doping education plans that are implemented and evaluated.
• For sports that have mainly government funded testing arrangements, test distribution planning is generally risk-based. Transparency could be enhanced through more comprehensive documentation of planning methodology and record keeping.
• For the six major sports that have mainly user pays testing arrangements, test distribution planning is not demonstrably risk-based. The number and distribution of tests are negotiated with national sporting organisations under a service agreement. This is not consistent with World Anti-Doping Code principles or SIA’s responsibilities as a regulator of these sports.

11. SIA’s arrangements to investigate and respond to anti-doping rule violations are partly effective. The procedural framework for investigations is partly fit for purpose, including processes related to quality assurance. There were irregularities in the triage and conduct of 38 investigations commenced in the three years to 30 June 2024, when compared to existing procedures. Investigations did not consistently meet timeliness targets. SIA’s actions in response to proven anti-doping violations were appropriate.

Supporting findings

Governance arrangements

12. SIA has responded to the Minister for Sport’s statement of expectations with an appropriate statement of intent. There are management arrangements and governance bodies that give consideration to anti-doping matters. These include advisory bodies that have been established in accordance with the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020. Governance bodies operate in accordance with legislative requirements or terms of reference, except for the declaration of interests on two key advisory bodies. SIA’s public performance reporting includes measures related to anti-doping. There is no performance reporting specifically related to anti-doping testing and investigations — a key regulatory function. There is no measure that goes to the effectiveness or efficiency of SIA’s anti-doping activities. Performance reporting on anti-doping in 2023–24 was not fully accurate. SIA reports integrity and anti-doping matters of significance to the Minister for Sport. (see paragraphs 2.2 to 2.20)

13. Sport Integrity Australia established a risk management policy in 2021, which was updated in 2023. Risk appetite statements provided in different documents are inconsistent. There is an enterprise risk register, which was last updated in November 2021. Operational risk registers for specific business areas or activities, including for anti-doping, are not maintained. SIA undertook a review of its risk management framework in 2024, which concluded that the risk management framework required ‘significant’ work to comply with the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy. SIA commenced a body of work to improve SIA’s risk management framework. There is a largely fit-for-purpose policy framework for regulatory capture risks, including risks arising from conflicts of interest; external employment; gifts, benefits and hospitality; and sports betting. The policies are poorly implemented. (see paragraphs 2.21 to 2.43)

Anti-doping prevention and detection

14. The Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020 establish the SIA CEO’s functions and powers in relation to anti-doping, which include sample collection and results management for ‘sporting administration bodies’, defined as ‘national sporting organisations for Australia’. SIA has established an Australian National Anti-Doping Policy (NAD Policy) that aligns with the World Anti-Doping Code and which, as of September 2024 had been adopted by 98 sporting organisations in Australia, including 87 national sporting organisations for Australia. Anti-doping policies for the remaining three national sporting organisations that have adopted alternative policies were not approved by SIA in a timely way using documented criteria.

15. SIA’s annual anti-doping activities are supported by approximately 300 full-time equivalent (FTE) and casual employees. Budgeted average staffing levels increased by six per cent for FTE staff and 17 per cent for casual staff between 2022–23 and 2024–25. The total number of anti-doping samples collected by SIA declined by 34 per cent between 2010–11 and 2022–23.

16. SIA provides anti-doping sample collection and analysis under two general funding models: government-funded and user pays. User pays arrangements involve partial cost recovery, an approach which was approved by government in March 2024. Six professional sports (Australian football, cricket, football (soccer), rugby league, rugby union and basketball) have mainly user pays arrangements. There are no documented criteria for when to apply which funding model, however SIA has advised that it depends in part on the sporting organisation’s ability to pay for its own anti-doping testing.

17. The average cost of testing increased in the five years to 2022–23 and decreased in 2023–24. SIA has assessed the value-for-money of its laboratory testing arrangements. (see paragraphs 3.7 to 3.24)

18. SIA has developed national anti-doping education plans in each year between 2021–22 and 2023–24, as required by the World Anti-Doping (WAD) Code and SIA Regulations. SIA’s 2023–24 national education plan is consistent with requirements of the WAD Code. Sport specific education plans were developed for all sampled sports except one in 2023–24, following failure to develop sport-specific education plans for one sampled government funded sport and most sampled user pays sports in 2021–22 and 2022–23. SIA has fit for purpose arrangements to evaluate the effectiveness of the national education plan. Evaluations have found that most deliverables and outcomes relating to the national education plan were met. SIA has evaluated sport-specific education plans. (see paragraphs 3.25 to 3.42)

19. SIA undertakes an annual anti-doping test distribution planning process that is consistent with the World Anti-Doping (WAD) Code for sports with mainly government funded testing arrangements. Evaluation of previous years’ plans (one component of the WAD Code requirements) to inform improvements to current year planning is not supported by a clear methodology and could be better documented. SIA alters (moderates) the results of the risk-based test planning process using an undocumented methodology.

20. SIA’s test distribution planning for sports with mainly user pays testing arrangements is deficient in terms of systematic risk analysis informing the total number and distribution of planned tests. The total number and distribution of tests are negotiated with national sporting organisations representing user pays sports under a service agreement. Testing arrangements for user pays sports do not fully cover the off-season and pre-season.

21. In a sample of 25 government funded and user pays sports/disciplines, SIA’s testing activities for 2023–24 were mostly consistent with its planned test distribution planning. The minimum levels of analysis required under the WAD Code were achieved for all but one government funded and one user pays sport. (see paragraphs 3.43 to 3.85)

Anti-doping investigations and response

22. SIA established an investigations manual in 2020, which as of September 2024 had not been updated to align with the Australian Government Investigations Standard 2022. Elements of AGIS requirements related to information and evidence management, investigative personnel and investigative practices could be better reflected in SIA’s framework for conducting investigations. Quality assurance processes for investigations have largely not been established.

23. Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, 144 anti-doping rule violation cases were recorded in SIA’s case management system, and 38 proceeded to an investigation or ‘administrative’ treatment. There is a lack of documented procedures for a type of case (non-analytical findings) and treatment of these cases was inconsistent.

24. Six of 38 investigations commenced between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 lacked investigation plans, with no documented reason for five. SIA does not have a procedure for the preparation and service of disclosure notices to athletes, and disclosure notice practices were inconsistent. SIA did not follow up using established mechanisms on athlete non-compliance with disclosure notices. A brief of evidence adjudication was appropriately prepared for 19 of 26 investigations involving a brief of evidence. Of the 38 investigations commenced since 1 July 2021, 21 were finalised by 30 June 2024 (15 resulting in a sanction). SIA states that it prepares closure reports only for matters where the decision is ‘no further action’. Three of five investigations resulting in ‘no further action’ had a closure report. Closed investigations did not meet timeliness benchmarks. (see paragraphs 4.2 to 4.54)

25. Anti-doping rule violation sanctions imposed by SIA between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 were largely consistent with WADA requirements. (see paragraphs 4.55 to 4.62)

Recommendations

Summary of entity response

26. The proposed audit report was provided to SIA. SIA’s summary response is reproduced below. The full response from SIA is at Appendix 1. Improvements observed by the ANAO during the course of this audit are listed at Appendix 2.

Sport Integrity Australia welcomes the findings in the ANAO audit report on Sport Integrity Australia’s Management of the National Anti-Doping Scheme and agrees with the recommendations.

These recommendations will further contribute to our continuous improvement along with our obligations to implement and enforce rules and policies relating to anti-doping in Australian sport.

The National Anti-Doping Scheme provides Australia with the legislative basis to implement obligations under the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, and in turn, the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). The Code, and its associated mandatory International Standards, create an important, but complex set of global expectations for all National Anti-Doping Organisations.

The World Anti-Doping Agency through its most recent Code Compliance process (2022–2023) found Sport Integrity Australia to be fully compliant with all aspects of the Code. Indeed, this process highlighted the capabilities of Sport Integrity Australia far exceed many other national anti-doping agencies.

The ANAO recommendations (noting the recommendations are limited to a small section of just one of the five relevant International Standards), are valuable as we look to continually improve our program. To this end, we have already begun taking steps to implement all recommendations.