Introduction

Integrity in Australian sport

1.1 On 5 August 2017, the Minister for Health and Aged Care announced a review of Australia’s sport integrity arrangements as part of the development of the National Sport Plan.³ The Report of the Review of Australia’s Sport Integrity Arrangements (the Wood Review) was presented to the government in March 2018.⁴ The Wood Review made 52 recommendations across five key themes, comprising: a stronger national response to match-fixing; Australian sports wagering scheme; enhancing Australia’s anti-doping capability; a national sports tribunal; and a national sports integrity commission. The Australian Government released its response to the Wood Review, Safeguarding the Integrity of Sport, on 12 February 2019.⁵ The government agreed, agreed in part, agreed in principle or noted all 52 recommendations.

Sport Integrity Australia

1.2 Recommendation 38 of the Wood Review was⁶:

That the Australian Government establish a National Sports Integrity Commission to cohesively draw together and develop existing sports integrity capabilities, knowledge and expertise, and to nationally coordinate all elements of the sports integrity threat response including prevention, monitoring and detection, investigation and enforcement.

1.3 The Australian Government’s response to the Wood Review stated it would establish a national sports integrity commission, which would be called Sport Integrity Australia (SIA).⁷ SIA was established on 1 July 2020 by the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (SIA Act).⁸

1.4 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, with a view to: achieving fair and honest sporting performances and outcomes; promoting positive conduct by athletes, administrators, officials, supporters and other stakeholders, on and off the sporting arena; achieving a safe, fair and inclusive sporting environment at all levels; and enhancing the reputation and standing of sporting contests and of sport overall.⁹ SIA assumed responsibility for sport integrity functions that were being undertaken by the Department of Health’s National Integrity of Sport Unit¹⁰, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA)¹¹ and the Australian Sports Commission.¹²

1.5 SIA is a non-corporate Commonwealth entity in the health and aged care portfolio and is a statutory agency. The accountable authority of SIA is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). In 2023–24, total administered and departmental resourcing was $56.5 million and the average staffing level was 172 (Figure 1.1).¹³

Figure 1.1: Annual resourcing and average staffing level, 2020–21 to 2023–24

Source: ANAO analysis of SIA annual reports.

1.6 SIA is responsible for implementing several components of the government’s response to the Wood Review including: enhanced anti-doping and criminal intelligence capabilities; reforming sports wagering to protect the integrity of sport; and ratifying the Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (Macolin Convention).¹⁴

National Integrity Framework and National Anti-Doping Scheme

1.7 The National Integrity Framework (NIF) is a set of templated integrity policies that all members of a sport should follow in relation to their behaviour and conduct in sport. The NIF is supported by the Sport Integrity Standards, which set out mandatory policy inclusions for national sporting organisations that do not adopt the NIF-templated integrity policies.¹⁵ SIA states that the NIF was developed in consultation with the Australian Olympic Committee, Paralympics Australia and Commonwealth Games Australia, following a 2020 Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) review into integrity issues in gymnastics.¹⁶

1.8 As of September 2024, 94 sporting organisations had signed up to the NIF, including 81 national sporting organisations and national sporting organisations for people with disability and 13 other sporting organisations.¹⁷ As of September 2024, nine national sporting organisations had not signed up to the NIF. These nine organisations are the Australian Football League, Basketball Australia, Cricket Australia, Football Australia, National Rugby League, Netball Australia, Rugby Australia, Surf Life Saving Australia, and Tennis Australia.

1.9 A National Anti-Doping Scheme (NAD 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).¹⁸ The SIA Regulations outline the powers and functions of the SIA CEO in implementing the NAD Scheme, 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 (WAD Code).¹⁹

1.10 The UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport²⁰ is based upon the WAD Code, which was released by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)²¹ and first adopted in 2003. The WAD Code is the core document that harmonises anti-doping policies, rules and regulations around the world.²² It works in conjunction with eight ‘International Standards’, which aim to foster consistency among anti-doping organisations.²³ The most recent version of the WAD Code was effective as of 1 January 2021.

1.11 SIA’s role as the ‘national anti-doping organisation’ for Australia under the WAD Code means that it is the entity designated within Australia as possessing the primary authority and responsibility to adopt and implement anti-doping rules, direct the collection of samples, manage test results and conduct results management, at the national level.²⁴ The SIA Regulations state that the functions of the CEO under the NAD Scheme include providing services relating to sports drug and safety matters to a ‘sporting administration body’; and sample collection and undertaking results management for a ‘sporting administration body’, regardless of whether or not the CEO has conducted the sample collection. The SIA Regulations set out the authority for the CEO to exercise certain powers in relation to ‘sporting administration bodies’. The SIA Regulations define a ‘sporting administration body’ as a national sporting organisation for Australia.²⁵

Sporting organisations

1.12 The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) reports on almost 400 different sports and activities in Australia through its continuous AusPlay survey.²⁶ The ASC defines ‘organised sport’ as that which is differentiated by ‘the degree of organisation or institutional structure that surrounds and influences the sport’.²⁷ In Australia, some organised sports are represented by national sporting organisations (NSOs) or national sporting organisations for people with disability (NSODs). NSO and NSODs are organisations that the ASC supports to achieve the Australian Government’s sporting objectives, including through funding.²⁸ NSOs and NSODs are formally ‘recognised’ by the ASC and listed in the Australian Sports Directory.²⁹ Organisations recognised as NSO/NSODs have met certain criteria that assist the ASC in determining whether an organisation is ‘considered the pre-eminent body for the sport they represent in Australia, has sufficient standing within its sport and has adequate governance’.³⁰ As of September 2024, there were 81 recognised NSOs and nine recognised NSODs.³¹

1.13 ASC NSO/NSOD recognition criterion 8 (integrity) includes that the sporting body has adopted, implemented, and enforced an anti-doping policy that has been approved by SIA and that complies with the WAD Code and NAD Scheme.³² NSOs and NSODs have anti-doping functions and responsibilities under the SIA Regulations.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

1.14 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).³³ The government also noted the importance of effective anti-doping measures to protect the integrity of Australian sport.

1.15 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 approach

Audit objective, criteria and scope

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

1.17 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?

1.18 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.

Audit methodology

1.19 The methodology involved:

• examining SIA documentation including annual reports, policy documents, minutes of meetings, anti-doping education and test planning documents, investigation records and emails;
• high-level examination of relevant record management systems and associated data;
• meetings with SIA personnel;
• meetings with representatives of NSOs and NSODs; and
• analysing 31 submissions to the audit from individuals and sporting bodies.

1.20 The audit was conducted in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $690,000.

1.21 The team members for this audit were Michael Commens, Lily Engelbrethsen, Katiloka Ata, Mahkaila Sansom, Amanda Elliot and Christine Chalmers.

2.1 The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) sets out requirements for Australian Government entities, including regulators, to establish systems of internal control and to inform the minister on the activities of the entity.³⁴ Section 16 of the PGPA Act requires the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity to establish and maintain an appropriate system of risk oversight and management for the entity. The Commonwealth Risk Management Policy sets out the principles and mandatory requirements for managing risk.³⁵ To assist entities in managing integrity risks, the National Anti-Corruption Commission has developed a Commonwealth Integrity Maturity Framework which outlines eight integrity principles derived from Australian Government integrity laws, policies and procedures. The eighth principle is to periodically assess the maturity of the entity’s management of integrity risks.³⁶

Are there fit-for-purpose oversight and assurance arrangements?

Statements of expectations and intent

2.2 Statements of expectations articulate ministers’ expectations for regulators’ strategic direction, reference projects, reforms and key developments. The Minister for Sport’s (the minister) expectations of SIA in relation to anti-doping are for it to ‘implement the World Anti-doping Code [WAD Code] and deliver a comprehensive anti-doping program to protect the health of Australian athletes and the integrity of sport’.³⁷

2.3 Resource Management Guide 128 – Regulator performance (RMG 128) states that the regulator’s response to the statement of expectations should be in the form of a regulator statement of intent.³⁸ The minister’s 2023 statement of expectations and SIA’s corresponding 2024 statement of intent are published on SIA’s website, replacing the 2020 statements of expectations and intent.

2.4 SIA’s 2024 statement of intent lists anti-doping as one of its nine priorities.³⁹ In relation to its practical implementation of the anti-doping priority, it refers to its implementation of the WAD Code (see paragraph 1.10), an anti-doping program, anti-doping testing activities, and educational initiatives, citing 2022–23 statistics relating to these activities.⁴⁰ The statement of intent does not specifically refer to how it is implementing the government’s response to the Wood Review (see paragraph 1.1), including agreed recommendations related to anti-doping. The statement of intent provides a status update on the adoption of the National Integrity Framework (see paragraph 1.7) by national sporting organisations (NSOs) and national sporting organisations for people with disability (NSODs) (see paragraph 1.12) and on the implementation of the Australian Sports Wagering Scheme.⁴¹

Line management and governance committees

2.5 Figure 2.1 sets out SIA’s management and governance committees relevant to the administration of the National Anti-Doping (NAD) Scheme (see paragraph 1.9).

Figure 2.1: Management arrangements and governance committees relevant to the NAD Scheme

Note a: SIA’s Audit and Risk Committee receives reporting from SIA and is responsible for providing assurance advice to SIA.

Note b: The Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee’s primary role is to manage Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs), it also provides advice on anti-doping and safety in sport.

Source: ANAO analysis.

2.6 Appendix 3 examines terms of reference, membership, meeting frequency, functions, management of potential conflicts of interest, management of risk and discussion of anti-doping and other integrity matters for each oversight committee and advisory body shown in Figure 2.1. In summary:

• Terms of reference — The committees and bodies have terms of reference that set out functions and other requirements, except for the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee (ASDMAC), the functions for which are established in the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (SIA Act). Terms of reference for three oversight committees (the Executive Committee, Operations Committee and Project Review Committee) were established in 2024.
• Membership and composition — Terms of reference or SIA Act requirements for three of four advisory bodies (the ASDMAC, Athlete Advisory Group and Sport Sector Advisory Group on Education) indicate that diversity of membership or specific qualifications are required. ASDMAC and the Athlete Advisory Group maintained appropriate membership arrangements, including arrangements for diverse representation where relevant. NSODs or people from First Nations backgrounds are not represented on the Sport Sector Advisory Group on Education. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that ‘In alignment with [terms of reference], diversity of membership is to be met “where possible”. No [expressions of interest] were received from members of NSODs or people from First Nations backgrounds’. SIA did not undertake any additional activities to achieve diverse representation.
• Meeting frequency — The oversight committees and advisory bodies met as required under terms of reference, except for the Operations Committee and Sport Sector Advisory Group on Education.
• Management of potential conflicts of interest — Terms of reference for advisory bodies require declarations be made to the minister or chair of the body, depending on the body.
  • Advisory Council — Section 33 of the SIA Act requires members to disclose interests to the minister. The charter states that members will be asked to complete a deed poll at the commencement of the appointment and annually thereafter. December 2022 advice to the minister included disclosures of private interests for all eight members. However, an annual deed poll was not completed as required in 2024 for any members. One member did not disclose their interests in a business contracted to undertake work for SIA. Based on meeting minutes, several Advisory Council members with wagering interests did not consistently declare these interests at meetings where wagering was discussed.⁴²
  • ASDMAC — Section 58 of the SIA Act requires members to disclose interests to the minister. There were 10 instances where declarations of personal interests were not made as required to support the appointment and reappointment of ASDMAC members by the minister. Declarations of member interests are documented in minutes for each meeting of ASDMAC.
  • Athlete Advisory Group — Declarations were made by the 11 members on appointment. Potential conflicts of interest were not disclosed or discussed at any meetings.
  • Sport Sector Advisory Group on Education — There were no documented declarations of conflicts of interest in meeting minutes or otherwise declared to the Chair in the time period examined by the audit.
• Management of risks —
  • The Executive Committee, which has responsibility for risk identification, discussed operational risks at 27 of 98 meetings (28 per cent) where minutes were taken. These included risks relating to the management of conflicts of interest and anti-doping. There is no evidence from the minutes that the Executive Committee considered the enterprise risk register.
  • The Audit and Risk Committee noted SIA’s enterprise risk register or deficiencies in SIA’s risk management framework at 14 of 16 meetings held in the period examined. Papers relating to enterprise risk management were either ‘taken as read’ or ‘noted’. The Audit and Risk Committee requested some changes to the policy, including that timeframes are clearly defined, and language is kept consistent. The Audit and Risk Committee prepares written advice for the SIA CEO annually through an annual report. The Audit and Risk Committee advised the CEO in December 2023 that SIA’s system of risk oversight and management improved during 2023 but was still developing and that SIA would benefit from further work on embedding the risk appetite and tolerance statements, and re-developing the enterprise risk register. The Audit and Risk Committee’s 2024 annual report was not complete as of 31 January 2025.
• Consideration of anti-doping — All committees and bodies considered anti-doping matters consistent with the applicable charter or terms of reference.

Performance reporting

2.8 RMG 128 states that regulator statements of intent should, among other elements, outline how progress against meeting the minister’s expectations will be measured and reported on.⁴³ The minister’s expectations with regard to SIA’s general regulatory functions include that:

I expect you to incorporate regulator performance reporting into the entity’s reporting processes, as required under the [PGPA Act] and [PGPA Rule].⁴⁴

2.9 SIA’s statement of intent does not explain how progress against meeting the minister’s expectations will be measured and reported on, beyond a general statement that it ‘has incorporated regulator performance reporting into the agency’s reporting processes, as required under the [PGPA Act] and Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014’.

2.10 The Commonwealth Performance Framework⁴⁵, RMG 128⁴⁶ and RMG 131⁴⁷ establish requirements for the development and implementation of annual performance measures that include measures of the entity’s outputs, efficiency and effectiveness. SIA publicly reported its performance results in annual performance statements. SIA’s 2021–22 annual performance statements comprised five measures without targets, and the 2022–23 annual performance statements comprised four of the five measures from 2021–22. Anti-doping regulation was considered in the context of three of the four 2022–23 measures. SIA stated that it ‘met’ all five measures in 2021–22 and all four measures in 2022–23, including the three related to anti-doping regulation.

2.11 New performance measures were set out in the 2023–2027 Corporate Plan, which had a greater focus on quantitative measurement of outputs. There were four new measures and seven ‘performance results’. SIA’s 2023–24 performance measures were mostly activity or output measures and did not include measures of effectiveness or efficiency.

2.12 SIA’s 2023–24 annual performance statements stated that of seven ‘performance results’, it met four, substantially met two and did not meet one. Results for five ‘performance results’ that had a direct anti-doping element are described in Table 2.1. These were all reported as ‘met’ or ‘substantially met’.

Table 2.1: Annual performance statements (selected measures related to anti-doping), 2023–24

Note a: SIA advised the ANAO in September 2024 that the ‘Positive Behaviours in Sport’ survey had not yet been implemented due to ‘IT and security-related delays’.

Note b: Threat assessments provide an assessment of an emerging or enduring threat posed by, or to, a specific sport, person, or cohort.

Note c: Analytical reports address threats to sports integrity such as doping methods, manipulation of sporting competitions and the sharing of operational information relating to the safety of sporting participants.

Source: ANAO analysis of SIA 2023–2027 Corporate Plan and 2023–24 Annual Report.

2.13 SIA inaccurately reported its performance against performance measure 3.1 (publication of threat assessments and analytical reports) as ‘substantially met’.⁴⁸ Six of 10 (60 per cent) threat assessments were completed and published and three of five (60 per cent) analytical reports were completed and published in 2023–24.⁴⁹ In calculating that it had met the performance measure for threat assessments, SIA included six threat assessments and four ‘intelligence briefs’. The length, format and breadth of analysis in an intelligence brief is different to that of a threat assessment.

2.14 Anti-doping sample collection and investigations are significant elements of SIA’s regulatory responsibilities. SIA reported in its 2022–23 Annual Report that 58 per cent of NSO representative respondents to a stakeholder survey said SIA was effective in helping them detect sports integrity threats in their sport through testing and investigations.⁵⁰ Anti-doping sample collection and investigations were not directly incorporated into performance reporting in 2021–22, 2022–23 or 2023–24, reducing transparency over a key regulatory activity.

2.15 Article 14 of the WAD Code states that at least annually, national anti-doping agencies like SIA are to publish a general statistical report of their doping control activities, with a copy provided to WADA at least annually. WADA annually publishes statistical reports as reported by the WADA-accredited laboratories and national anti-doping organisations.⁵¹ SIA publishes in its annual report the number of samples collected by year since 2002–03 and the number and type of disclosure notices (see paragraph 4.38) for the current year.⁵² This is not provided to WADA however the annual report is available on SIA’s website.⁵³

Advice to government

2.18 Under section 21 of the SIA Act, the CEO of SIA is obliged to inform the minister about matters relating to any of the CEO’s functions. Between 2021–22 and 2023–24, SIA advised government on a range of strategic and operational anti-doping matters, as well as broader integrity issues in sport, such as the Australian Sports Wagering Scheme, ratification of the Macolin Convention (see paragraph 1.6) and implementation of the National Integrity Framework. SIA did not provide advice to government on some anti-doping risks (for example, risks associated with delays in the finalisation of several NSO anti-doping policies, or risks associated with sports outside of SIA’s regulatory remit or user pays sports (see paragraph 3.17).

2.19 Section 67A of the SIA Act outlines the meaning of protected information in the context of the SIA Act, which is information obtained under or for the purposes of the SIA Act and that relates to the affairs of a person, or identifies, or is reasonably capable of being used to identify, the person. In February 2023, SIA obtained internal legal advice affirming that under section 68(c) of the SIA Act, SIA was authorised to disclose protected information to the minister. Between May 2023 and February 2024, SIA advised the minister on matters relating to anti-doping investigations involving individual athletes, which included protected information. The purpose of the briefings was to provide background information and ‘talking points’ for the minister in recognition of the likely media interest. No decision or direction was sought from the minister in accordance with subsection 24(2) of the SIA Act (which does not permit the minister to give directions to the SIA CEO in relation to a particular athlete who is subject to the NAD Scheme or anti-doping testing).

2.20 Resource Management Guide 135 Annual reports for non-corporate Commonwealth entities establishes requirements for the accountable authority to certify in annual reporting that fraud has been appropriately dealt with by the entity.⁵⁴ In 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2023–24 annual reports, SIA’s accountable authority provided this certification, including that the agency had prepared fraud risk assessments and fraud control plans. SIA prepared fraud risk assessments but did not prepare fraud control plans in 2021–22 or 2022–23. A fraud and corruption control plan was drafted in July 2024 and endorsed in October 2024. A fraud and corruption control procedure (which states that it should be read in conjunction with the fraud and corruption control plan) was finalised in July 2024.

Is there fit-for-purpose risk management, including for regulatory capture risks?

Risk management policy

2.21 SIA has a Risk Management Policy which was established in March 2021 and last updated in March 2023 The policy was due to be updated in March 2024 but as of September 2024, SIA has not reviewed or revised the Risk Management Policy.

Risk appetite

2.22 The Commonwealth Risk Management Policy states that an entity’s risk management framework should include a risk appetite statement.⁵⁵ SIA’s risk appetite is set out in its Risk Management Policy (Box 1). The Risk Management Policy refers to a December 2022 Risk Appetite and Tolerance Matrix, which uses a different risk tolerance rating scale to that set out in the SIA Risk Management Policy.⁵⁶ Each sub-category of risk is assigned both an appetite and tolerance.⁵⁷ The overall risk appetite statement in the SIA Risk Management Policy and the risk appetite assessments in the Risk Appetite and Tolerance Matrix are not consistent.⁵⁸

Identification and assessment of risks

2.23 The SIA Risk Management Policy includes requirements to establish an enterprise risk register. The Risk Management Policy is supported by a Risk Management Procedure (March 2023, due for review in March 2025), which includes instructions for identifying, assessing, categorising and reviewing risks. Identified risks are to be reported, actively managed and monitored on at least a weekly basis for extreme risks and on at least a monthly basis for high risks.

2.24 An enterprise risk register was created in October 2020 and last updated in November 2021. The November 2021 enterprise risk register included 22 risks (comprising three high, nine significant, nine medium and one low) across three types (enterprise, general and capability). A significant anti-doping risk was ‘Compliance with the [WAD Code] and International Standards —Any function of the agency errs towards non-compliance with the [WAD Code] and/or doesn’t uphold any of the [International Standards]’. SIA maintains a separate fraud risk register.

2.25 Risk types do not align with the risk categories in the Risk Appetite and Tolerance Matrix or the Risk Management Procedure.⁵⁹ Due to the use of different categories in the risk register to those set out in the tolerance statement, it is unclear if residual risk ratings after the application of controls are within accepted tolerance levels.

2.26 The 2022 Commonwealth Risk Management Policy includes requirements for non-corporate Commonwealth entities to define risk management responsibilities (element four); and periodically review the effectiveness of risk controls (element five). The November 2021 risk register includes references to controls and treatments for all risks as well as references to risk stewards by position. SIA has completed internal audits examining the effectiveness of some controls including: the fraud risk assessment and control plan (December 2021); contract management (March 2023); and corporate credit card use (January 2024).

2.27 In March 2024 SIA presented to SIA’s audit and risk committee a plan for an internal audit on the effectiveness of its risk management framework, which was to be completed by May 2024. In September 2024 the audit and risk committee was advised the report was complete and would be presented to it in December 2024. The draft report concluded that SIA’s risk management framework and supporting artefacts required ‘significant work to ensure alignment with the revised Commonwealth Risk Management Policy’. In March and September 2024, the audit and risk committee received a risk management update which stated that SIA had commenced a project to consolidate, refine and simplify enterprise risks and risk management artefacts. This included introducing a single overarching risk appetite statement.

2.28 The risk management updates provided to the audit and risk committee in March and September 2024 described several changes to be made to the enterprise risk register comprising: aligning enterprise risks to six risk themes⁶⁰; refining enterprise risks to nine distinct risks⁶¹; refining tolerance statements to align with the new risk themes; ‘reengineering’ the register to align with a Department of Health and Aged Care template; and identifying emerging risks in an emerging risks register. The work was to be completed by Quarter 4, 2024–25.

2.29 The proposed enterprise risks do not specifically refer to anti-doping work or the National Integrity Framework. Operational risk registers for specific business areas or activities, including for anti-doping and the work of the Operations and Sport Engagement branches (see Figure 2.1) are not maintained. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that ‘information on more targeted risk events that relate specifically to a certain operational capability or regulated business function will be detailed in section level risk registers as part of the business planning process currently being re-developed’. A business planning template that includes an area for listing and analysing ‘section level risk events’ was developed in January 2025.

Regulatory capture risks

2.30 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services’ 2019 report on oversight of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) defines regulatory capture as instances where regulators are excessively influenced or effectively controlled by the industry they are supposed to be regulating.⁶² Other than references to general fraud and corruption risks, SIA has not identified or assessed its regulatory capture risks and has not evaluated its regulatory capture risk maturity. There have been no internal audits that examine regulatory capture risks.

2.31 Conflict of interest risks, including through a regulator’s acceptance of gifts and benefits or through secondary employment, are a type of regulatory capture risk.⁶³ The Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) which governs members of the Australian Public Service (APS)⁶⁴ includes the APS Values and Code of Conduct. These outline requirements for APS employees in managing conflicts of interest.⁶⁵ The Australian Public Service Commission’s (APSC’s) APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice outlines requirements for at least annual Senior Executive Service (SES) declarations⁶⁶; notifications of outside employment⁶⁷; and avoiding the acceptance of gifts or benefits.⁶⁸ The APSC also issues Guidance for agency heads — gifts and benefits.⁶⁹ This states that any gift or benefit accepted by the agency head with a value of more than $100 must be disclosed in a public register on the agency’s website.⁷⁰ Although not a requirement, the guidance states that ‘there is a strong expectation that agency heads will also publish gifts and benefits received by staff in their agency that exceed the threshold of [$100]’.⁷¹

2.32 SIA must also comply with the conflict of interest requirements set out in the WADA Guide for the Operational Independence of National Anti-Doping Organizations⁷², the SIA Regulations 2020 and the WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations (see paragraph 3.6).

Policy framework

2.33 SIA has established policies and disclosure requirements for conflict of interest; outside employment; and gifts, benefits and hospitality.

• Conflict of interest — There is a Conflict of Interest Policy, which was endorsed in June 2021 with a review date of June 2022. The Conflict of Interest Policy was reviewed and updated in September 2024. The June 2022 policy applies to SIA employees, secondees, contractors, consultants, the CEO and Advisory Council members. The policy draws attention to the unique operating environment and business of SIA by noting that membership or participation in a sport, sporting organisation, or sporting environment may give rise to a conflict. The SIA Conflict of Interest Policy states that, in accordance with the SIA Regulations, SIA requires those engaged in anti-doping sample collection⁷³ to disclose any personal interests as a condition of service.⁷⁴
• Outside employment — There is an Outside Employment Policy, which was endorsed in May 2021 with a review date of June 2022. As of September 2024, the Outside Employment Policy had not been reviewed. The policy states that employees must complete and submit a ‘notification of outside employment form’ for consideration by the SIA delegate, upon commencement with SIA or upon undertaking outside employment. Where the delegate considers that the outside employment would represent a real or apparent conflict of interest with official duties, they can direct the applicant not to engage in outside employment.
• Gifts and benefits — There is a Managing an Offer of a Gift or a Benefit Policy and Procedure, which was endorsed in May 2022, and updated in August 2024. The policy applies to employees (ongoing/non-ongoing), secondees, contractors, consultants, the CEO, Advisory Council members, and family members where there is a clear link to official duties.⁷⁵ Gifts and benefits (including sponsored travel and hospitality) offered to SIA employees must be ‘carefully considered’ before acceptance or rejection. Offers of gifts, whether accepted or declined, with a value exceeding $50 must be declared in SIA’s gifts and benefits register, and approval to accept gifts must be obtained by the deputy CEO or CEO before accepting the gift where possible. A decision tree and guidelines on when to refuse offers (including offers from people or organisations subject to regulatory decisions) are outlined in the policy.

2.34 SIA maintains a separate gambling policy that states SIA officials are prohibited from placing a bet (or any other form of financial speculation) on any sport where SIA has a relationship with the NSO or NSOD for that sport.

Management of conflicts of interest, outside employment and gifts and benefits

Conflicts of interest

2.35 SIA has a conflict of interest register, which contains 111 entries for non-SES staff that were submitted between April 2021 and March 2024.⁷⁶ Almost half (N=49) were submitted in 2021. The register is incomplete for declared conflicts, including information about whether the delegate considered the declared conflict, and the risk associated with the declared conflict. The conflict of interest register contains two entries for SES staff (out of eight as of July 2024). One SES officer declared a conflict of interest in November 2022 through a conflict of interest declaration form that was not recorded in the conflict of interest register. There is a separate 2024–2026 register for casual doping control officers⁷⁷ and chaperones⁷⁸ which includes declared conflicts. Conflicts include sports betting accounts and relationships with SIA officials.

2.36 According to the Conflict of Interest Policy, on commencement and annually, SIA employees must declare all conflicts of interest (real, apparent or potential) by completing a conflict of interest declaration. There is a conflict of interest form for declarations. The form includes space for a management plan.

2.37 The ANAO reviewed conflict of interest declarations for: all SES officials engaged by SIA as of 1 July 2024 (N=8), and all non-SES SIA officials with a declared conflict of interest assessed as medium or high risk in the conflict of interest register (N=13).

• Senior Executive Service — SES declarations were not made in each applicable year for all SES officials. None of eight SES officials completed an annual declaration form for 2023–24.⁷⁹ Of the four SES officials who made at least one declaration of a conflict in the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024, none of the forms were complete, including in terms of the CEO’s review and required management of declared interests. It is unclear from all four SES forms as to whether the CEO considered the declared conflict to be material. For the four SES officials where there was at least one form in the period, none set out a management strategy.
• Other officials — Of the 13 non-SES officials with a declared conflict on the conflict of interest register that was assessed as medium or high risk, 12 had an approved conflict of interest declaration form. A management plan was documented for nine out of 11 conflicts where a plan was required. The one unapproved declaration had no specified plan.

Outside employment

2.38 Four out of the 21 officials examined (two SES and two non-SES) declared conflicts of interest relating to outside employment on a conflict of interest disclosure form. Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, one ‘notification of outside employment form’ was submitted in accordance with the Outside Employment Policy.⁸⁰ Conflict of interest forms do not require the same detail as the ‘notification of outside employment form’, such as information about the nature of the employment, the actual and perceived conflicts arising from the employment, or what was considered by the delegate in deciding whether to approve the arrangement.

2.39 For the five instances of outside employment disclosed, employment was with regulated entities or in a sport-related occupation. In two of the five forms, the delegate declared the described conflict (which may include multiple interests, besides outside employment) as constituting a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest and a management plan was established. The remaining three forms were incomplete and there was no indication if the delegate considered the conflict to be material. Management plans were not established in these three instances.

Gifts and benefits

2.40 As outlined at paragraph 2.31, Australian Government policy is that any gift or benefit accepted by an agency head with a value of more than $100 must be disclosed in a public register on the agency’s website. SIA publishes quarterly updates of the CEO’s gifts and benefit disclosures in accordance with its policy and Australian Government requirements.⁸¹ The public register also includes accepted gifts to other officials exceeding $100 in value.

2.41 As of May 2024, the quarterly public disclosures showed the acceptance of three gifts or benefits received between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2024, with the highest value gift valued at $5,400. A 2020 gift to the CEO of Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership was first disclosed in January 2024 and valued at $0.

2.42 The ANAO, through non-exhaustive analysis of email correspondence, identified that the CEO received at least 22 invitations to sporting or sports-related events from World Athletics, the Australian Olympic Committee, ACT Brumbies, Football Australia and the Australian Rugby League Commission. None of these offers were documented in the public register. There is evidence of the CEO accepting one invitation from the Australian Olympic Committee. Two other invitations were declined due to the CEO being unavailable. SIA did not maintain records of whether invitations and offers were declined or accepted by the CEO.

2.43 In addition, SIA maintains an internal register of gifts and benefits offered to SIA officials other than the CEO. All offered gifts exceeding $50, whether accepted or declined, must be declared on the internal register. Between July 2022 and September 2024, SIA officials disclosed eleven gifts or benefits, with the last entry made in December 2023. Through a non-exhaustive review, the ANAO identified that SIA officials accepted but did not disclose VIP tickets to a 2022 Women’s World Cup Basketball event and tickets to the Hancock Prospecting 2023 Rower of the Year Awards.

3.1 Section 3 of the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (SIA Act) and Schedule 1 of the Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020 (SIA Regulations)⁸² require SIA to establish a National Anti-Doping (NAD) Scheme that implements the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport (UNESCO convention). Article 3 of the UNESCO convention sets out that state parties to the Convention (including Australia) are required to adopt anti-doping measures at the national and international levels that are consistent with the principles of the World Anti-doping Code (WAD Code) (see paragraphs 1.9 to 1.10).⁸³

3.2 Article 18 of the WAD Code states that education programs:

Are central to ensure harmonized, coordinated and effective anti-doping programs at the international and national level. They are intended to preserve the spirit of sport and the protection of [athletes’] health and right to compete on a doping free level playing field … Education programs shall raise awareness, provide accurate information and develop decision-making capability to prevent intentional and unintentional anti-doping rule violations and other breaches of the [WADA] Code.⁸⁴

3.3 The SIA Regulations require SIA to plan, implement, evaluate and monitor education and information programs for doping-free sport for all participants and non-participants. One of eight International Standards introduced by World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) (see paragraph 1.10) is the International Standard for Education (January 2021).⁸⁵ This sets out mandatory standards that support signatories in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating effective anti-doping education programs.

3.4 SIA’s role as the ‘national anti-doping organisation’ for Australia under the WAD Code means that it is the entity designated within Australia as possessing the primary authority and responsibility to adopt and implement anti-doping rules, direct the collection of samples, manage test results and conduct results management, at the national level.⁸⁶ The SIA Regulations state that the functions of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) under the NAD Scheme include providing services relating to sports drug and safety matters to a ‘sporting administration body’; and sample collection and undertaking results management for a ‘sporting administration body’. The SIA Regulations set out the authority for the CEO to exercise certain powers in relation to ‘sporting administration bodies’. The SIA Regulations define a ‘sporting administration body’ as a national sporting organisation for Australia (NSO).⁸⁷ NSOs and national sporting organisations for people with disability (NSODs) are organisations that the Australian Sports Commission supports to achieve the Australian Government’s sporting objectives.⁸⁸ NSOs and NSODs are formally ‘recognised’ by the ASC and listed in the Australian Sports Directory.⁸⁹ As of September 2024, the Australian Sports Commission recognised 90 NSOs and NSODs (see paragraph 1.12).⁹⁰

3.5 Article 5 of the WAD Code is concerned with anti-doping testing and investigations, and states that:

Testing and investigations may be undertaken for any anti-doping purpose. Testing shall be undertaken to obtain analytical evidence as to whether the [athlete] has violated Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample) or Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method) of the [WADA] Code.⁹¹

3.6 The WAD Code states that anti-doping organisations should conduct test distribution planning and testing as required by the January 2023 International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI).⁹² The ISTI sets out that effective and proportionate test planning will begin with a risk assessment that is informed by intelligence.⁹³ The Department of Finance’s Resource Management Guide 128 Regulator Performance (RMG 128)⁹⁴ and August 2024 Regulatory Policy, Practice & Performance Framework⁹⁵ establish a principle that regulators should take a risk-based, data-driven approach to regulation, among other principles.

Has Sport Integrity Australia established an effective anti-doping framework?

National Anti-Doping Policy

3.7 SIA established the NAD Policy on 1 January 2021. The purpose of the NAD Policy (Box 2) is to ‘have a single and consistent set of anti-doping rules across all sports in Australia’.⁹⁶

Note a: Sport Integrity Australia, Anti-doping rule violations, SIA, available from https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/anti-doping-rule-violations [accessed 9 September 2024].

Note b: Sport Integrity Australia, Substance banned in sport, SIA, Canberra, 2021, available from https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/prohibited-substances-and-methods/substances-banned-sport [accessed 9 September 2024].

3.8 On November 2020, WADA confirmed that the draft NAD Policy appeared to be in line with the WAD Code, pending the implementation of minor edits proposed by WADA. The NAD Policy applies to ‘sporting administration bodies’ (defined as an NSO/NSOD⁹⁷); member or affiliate organisations; board members, directors, officers and specified employees; and ‘delegated third parties’⁹⁸ and their employees.

3.9 The SIA Regulations state that a sporting administration body must at all times have in place, maintain and enforce anti-doping policies and practices that comply with the mandatory provisions of the WAD Code, International Standards and the NAD Scheme.⁹⁹ SIA assesses and reviews sporting bodies’ applications for adoption of the NAD Policy, which are approved, refused or revoked by the CEO. NSOs were required to have a SIA-approved, WAD Code-compliant anti-doping policy in place by 1 January 2021. Section 2.04 of the SIA Regulations state that a sporting administration body must not adopt or substantively amend its anti-doping policy unless approved by the CEO.

3.10 As of September 2024, 98 sporting organisations had adopted the NAD Policy, including 87 NSOs/NSODs and 11 other (non-recognised) sporting organisations.¹⁰⁰ Three NSOs (Australian Football League (AFL), Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) and Football Australia) have not adopted the NAD Policy. AFL has its own anti-doping policy as a direct signatory to the WAD Code¹⁰¹, which SIA approved in March 2021. ARLC and Football Australia also have their own anti-doping policies, which were approved by the CEO in accordance with the SIA Regulations and the Australian Sports Commission NSO recognition criteria (see paragraph 1.12).¹⁰² Football Australia’s anti-doping policy was approved in June 2022 and ARLC’s anti-doping policy was approved in July 2022. During the period in which SIA worked with these NSOs to develop updated policies, they operated under previously approved anti-doping policies.

3.11 SIA has established clear decision-making criteria for approval of sporting bodies’ applications for adoption of the NAD Policy.¹⁰³ For NSOs and NSODs that have chosen not to apply to adopt the NAD Policy, SIA has not documented criteria for the CEO’s assessment of alternative proposed anti-doping policies against requirements of the WAD Code, International Standards and NAD Scheme.

3.12 SIA does not review anti-doping policies and practices for sporting organisations that are not recognised as NSOs/NSODs and which have not applied to adopt the NAD Policy, or which have applied but do not meet the other criteria for adoption of the NAD Policy (see paragraph 3.9). This includes sports such as mixed martial arts, powerlifting and CrossFit.

Resourcing for SIA’s anti-doping activities

3.14 SIA’s anti-doping activities are undertaken within the Safety in Sport Division (see Figure 2.1). SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that 118.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff worked on SIA’s anti-doping activities in 2023–24 (Figure 3.1), of which 56.5 were directly involved in anti-doping testing and 62.1 worked on associated activities such as education, intelligence, corporate services, staff capability development, and legal services. There is also a pool of approximately 200 casual doping control officers and chaperones, who collect and witness the collection of urine and blood samples from athletes. Staffing levels increased by six per cent for FTE staff and 17 per cent for casual staff between 2022–23 and 2024–25.

Figure 3.1: Anti-doping personnel, 2022–23 to 2024–25

Note: 2024–25 figures are budgeted.

Source: SIA advice.

3.15 SIA does not have a workforce plan for the Safety in Sport Division or the entity as a whole.

3.16 Figure 3.2 shows the total number of anti-doping samples collected by SIA (previously the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority) between 2010–11 and 2022–23, as reported in the 2023–24 SIA Annual Report. For 2023–24, SIA reported the total number of tests rather than the total number of samples. The total number of anti-doping samples collected declined by 34 per cent between 2010–11 and 2022–23.

Figure 3.2: Reported anti-doping samples collected in Australia, 2010–11 to 2022–23

Note: Numbers do not correspond to data reported in prior year SIA annual reports as in 2023–24 SIA reported a correction of material errors in previously reported data. Prior to 2023–24, SIA reported the total number of samples collected. In 2023–24, SIA reported the number of tests (4,177), which reflects the number of times SIA notified and collected samples from an athlete. For each test collected, single or multiple samples (e.g. blood and urine) may have been collected and analysed. This is counted as one test. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that the total number of samples collected in 2023–24 was 6,531 (see Table 3.1); however this figure was not provided in the 2023–24 Annual Report.

Source: ANAO analysis of SIA 2023–24 Annual Report.

3.17 SIA’s anti-doping sample collection and results management arrangements are administered under two general funding models¹⁰⁴:

• government funded arrangements — a funding model where costs of regulatory activities are funded by the government; or
• ‘user pays’ arrangements — a funding model where SIA charges regulated entities for planned anti-doping sample collection and results management.

3.18 For ‘user pays’ arrangements, SIA does not fully recover costs of sampling and results management (see paragraph 3.23). In March 2024, SIA advised government on three different options for continued funding of SIA’s integrity and anti-doping functions, which were also set out in an impact analysis published on 12 January 2024.¹⁰⁵ The advice stated that charging was applicable to the proposal and that the Department of Finance had been consulted to ensure alignment with the Australian Government Charging Framework.¹⁰⁶ The advice referred to complexities of a full cost recovery model, and recommended that the existing (‘user pays’) model be maintained, instead of full cost recovery, on the basis of: financial pressure faced by NSOs and NSODs; the increased cost of living; the reliance of the majority of NSOs on government funding; and SIA’s assessment that any change to the charging methodology would decrease participation in sport. On 27 March 2024 the government approved the recommended funding option.

3.19 Of the 98 sporting organisations that have adopted the NAD Policy as of September 2024 (see paragraph 3.10), anti-doping testing is mainly government funded for 95 entities. Six NSOs, which represent major professional sports, have mainly user pays arrangements.¹⁰⁷ These are: AFL, ARLC, Basketball Australia (National Basketball League)¹⁰⁸, Cricket Australia, Football Australia and Rugby Australia.

3.20 The total number of planned tests each year depends on the funding model.

• Government funded sports — The 2024–25 Test Distribution Plan for mainly government funded sports (see paragraph 3.47) included 2,915 sample collections for NSOs and 514 for NSODs. SIA advised the ANAO in September 2024 that the number of planned government funded sample collections was linked to its budgeted funding.
• User pays sports — The total number of planned user pays sample collection activities in the 2023–24 seasons for the six mainly user pays sports totalled 1,695 ((comprising AFL (305 tests), ARLC (641 tests), Cricket Australia (128 tests), Football Australia (289 tests), National Basketball League (78) and Rugby Australia (254 tests)). The totals and timing are negotiated annually between the NSO and SIA through deeds of standing offer (see paragraph 3.59).¹⁰⁹

3.21 Whether SIA’s anti-doping sample collection arrangements for sports are government funded or user pays also has implications for how the anti-doping sample collection is undertaken (see from paragraph 3.73). SIA has no documented framework, policy or rules regarding which NSOs/NSODs receive mainly government funded testing and which are mainly required to pay for testing via a user pays arrangement. SIA advised the ANAO in August and November 2024 that its criteria include the sport’s status as an Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth Games sport; the NSO’s ability to pay for its own testing; and whether the NSO runs a professional or semi-professional league.

3.22 Table 3.1 shows the number of samples collected between 2018–19 and 2023–24 (as reported to the SIA CEO in 2022–23 for 2018–19 to 2022–23, and as advised to the ANAO for 2023–24), and the average cost per test. User pays sports accounted for approximately half of SIA’s 2022–23 and 2023–24 samples collected/tests conducted. SIA analysis showed in December 2023 that the reason for an increase in average cost was due to an increase in direct costs, such as labour, equipment, travel and training costs.

Table 3.1: Number and average cost of anti-doping samples, 2018–19 to 2023–24

Note a: As advised to the ANAO in November 2024.

Source: Adapted by ANAO from SIA documentation for 2018–19 to 2022–23 and SIA advice to the ANAO for 2023–24.

3.23 Charges for user pays tests and associated activities (such as cancellation fees and travel costs) are set annually, approved by the SIA CEO, and published on SIA’s website.¹¹⁰ SIA does not fully recover its costs from user pays testing. When seeking the SIA CEO’s approval of user pays charges in December 2023, the CEO was advised by SIA that ‘The agency is not able to charge sports the true cost of testing as this would almost completely price us out of the market’.

3.24 Sample analysis is mostly undertaken on behalf of SIA by the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory (ASDTL).¹¹¹ In 2022–23, SIA commissioned Callida Consulting to undertake a ‘world lab benchmarking review’¹¹² to inform ‘a value for money position’. The benchmarking review compared the prices charged to SIA by ASDTL to the prices charged by other WADA-accredited laboratories globally. The report found that the total costs for laboratory testing at the ASDTL was $3.6 million in 2021–22, and that if the same volume of samples were tested at an overseas laboratory the costs would range from $930,000 to $3.65 million, excluding shipping costs. The report also found that when taking into account ‘gratis’ tests that SIA receives under its memorandum of understanding with ASDTL, the cost to SIA was 46 per cent lower than the global average cost, and that ASDTL’s prices were competitive in the global market.

Are there effective arrangements to prevent anti-doping rule violations?

3.25 To examine SIA’s anti-doping education, intelligence, risk assessment and anti-doping test planning, the ANAO selected a sample of 25 sports/sport disciplines.¹¹³ The sample comprised five of six mainly user pays sports¹¹⁴, and 13 mainly government-funded sports¹¹⁵ covering 20 sports disciplines.¹¹⁶

National education plan

3.26 A key underpinning principle of the International Standard for Education (ISE) is that ‘an Athlete’s first experience with anti-doping should be through Education rather than Doping Control.’¹¹⁷ Article 18 of the WAD Code and the SIA Regulations set out requirements for SIA to establish, monitor and evaluate an annual education plan. The ISE requires that when developing a national education plan, WAD Code signatories assess the current situation; establish an education pool¹¹⁸; set clear objectives and related activities; and outline monitoring procedures.¹¹⁹

3.27 SIA developed an annual national anti-doping education plan (national education plan) for each year from 2021–22 to 2023–24.

3.28 An education pool prioritises education activities by targeting certain groups. The 2023–24 national education plan implements a national education pool through minimum requirements for sport-specific education pools (which it describes as the high priority groups where education resources should be focused) (Box 3). SIA’s minimum requirements for the sport-specific education pools are aligned with section four of the ISE. SIA states that other groups are not included ‘for lack of resources to reach them’.

3.29 The 2023–24 national education plan states that it is supported by an anti-doping curriculum. An anti-doping education curriculum was developed in June 2022 directed to the education sector, general public/media, recreational/social level sport, sub-elite level sport and elite level sport. In March 2024, SIA finalised education curricula for participants and coaches, which included anti-doping topics.

3.30 SIA’s education plan does not identify how education can be tailored to meet the specific needs of individuals with impairments or other specific needs (ISE part 5). In October 2023, SIA developed digital design standards and, in December 2023, SIA told the Sport Sector Advisory Group on Education (see Figure 2.1) that translation of educational materials for hearing impaired and intellectually impaired participants was being undertaken. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that Auslan translations were developed for all National Integrity Framework policies.

3.31 The 2023–24 national education plan states that SIA offers approximately 200 government funded face-to-face anti-doping education sessions per year and that sports can access additional sessions through a user pays model and on demand. SIA did not undertake any user pays anti-doping education in 2023–24. SIA advised the ANAO in August and November 2024 that ‘there are currently no user-pay arrangements for education’, which was due to a decrease in demand for education during the COVID-19 pandemic and an increase in SIA funding (which meant all education requests could be accommodated through government funding).

Sports-specific education plans

3.32 The NAD Policy requires SIA to support sporting organisations to implement an anti-doping education program in line with the national education plan. Criteria for Australian Sports Commission recognition of NSOs (see paragraph 1.12) include that the sporting organisation develops an anti-doping education plan that is approved by SIA.¹²⁰ SIA’s 2023–24 national education plan states that one of SIA’s key deliverables is for all NSOs to have an anti-doping education plan in place and reviewed by SIA for 2023–24. In 2023–24, SIA worked with 97 sports to develop a sport-specific education plan.

3.33 For the audit sample, the finalisation of sport education plans in 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2023–24 was in accordance with the NAD Policy for mainly government funded sports, and not fully in accordance with the NAD Policy for mainly user pays sports. SIA advised the ANAO in August 2024 that ‘A small number of NSOs have been unable to agree an education plan in collaboration with SIA.’

• Government funded sports — Twelve of 13 mainly government funded sports in the audit sample had an SIA-approved education plan in 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2023–24. There was no plan for one government sport in 2021–22 or 2022–23. The plan for this sport was first completed in 2023–24.
• User pays sports — SIA did not receive or approve education plans for Cricket Australia in 2021–22, 2022–23 or 2023–24. None of the sampled user pays sports with their own anti-doping policies (AFL, ARLC and Football Australia) had approved 2021–22 education plans. In 2022–23, SIA approved an education plan for AFL, but did not receive or approve education plans for ARLC or Football Australia. In 2023–24, SIA approved education plans for AFL, ARLC and Football Australia. Rugby Union had an SIA-approved education plan in 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2023–24.

3.34 The national education plan includes a minimum requirement that sports include specific groups in their education pool and states that sport-specific education pools are determined through an assessment of each sport.¹²¹ SIA advised the ANAO in August 2024 that sport-specific education pools are agreed upon through ‘workshopping’ with the sporting organisation based on data held by either SIA or the sporting organisation. None of the 2023–24 sport-specific plans within the audit sample fully aligned with the minimum requirements outlined in Box 3. For example, sport-specific plans did not specify integrity officers and two sport specific plans did not specify athletes returning from an anti-doping rule violation.

Evaluation of education outcomes

3.35 Part 6 of the ISE states that signatories shall evaluate their education program annually, with the evaluation informing the next year’s plan. The evaluation should be of the achievement of objectives that are set out in the education plan.

3.36 The 2023–24 national education plan states that the aims are to prevent unintentional anti-doping rule violations by the Australian sporting community; prevent and deter intentional doping practices by the Australian sporting community; and promote and foster cultures that support clean sport and value sport integrity.

3.37 The 2023–24 national education plan states it evaluates the education plan through:

• feedback from stakeholders comprising the Athlete Advisory Group and Sport Sector Advisory Group on Education (see Figure 2.1), athlete educators, sanctioned athletes who undertake training, and participants in face-to-face education and eLearning courses (through embedded surveys); and
• the collection of statistics relating to the reach and effectiveness of the education program for the purpose of evaluating SIA’s national education plan and reporting to the Parliament during Senate Estimates proceedings.

3.38 Statistics on SIA’s anti-doping education initiatives include the number of podcast downloads, the number of supplement and medicine checks, the number of visits to the SIA app¹²², and information relating to the delivery of face-to-face education. Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, SIA recorded increases in participation in most education initiatives.

3.39 SIA commissioned an annual stakeholder survey in 2020–21, 2021–22 and 2022–23, to capture the views of athletes and support personnel across SIA’s integrity functions, including anti-doping, abuse and the protection of children, manipulation of sporting competitions and bullying, and harassment and discrimination in sport. EY Sweeney was commissioned to undertake the 2021–22 survey.¹²³ ORIMA Research was commissioned to undertake the 2022–23 survey.¹²⁴ Survey results supported annual performance statements reporting in 2021–22 and 2022–23. SIA did not undertake an annual stakeholder survey in 2023–24.

3.40 The ANAO reviewed survey reports for 2021–22 and 2022–23. Findings from the 2022–23 survey included the following.

• Ninety-three per cent of respondents agreed with the statement ‘I trust Sport Integrity Australia as a credible source of information on the integrity of sport’. This was the same result as in the 2021–22 survey.
• Eighty-nine per cent of respondents agreed they were confident in ‘the ability of Sport Integrity Australia to positively contribute to protecting the integrity of sport in Australia’. This was 91 per cent in the 2021–22 survey.
• Eighty-two per cent of respondents rated the compliance burden as reasonable. This was 80 per cent in 2021–22 and 75 per cent in 2020–21.
• Of the 88 per cent of respondents who had completed anti-doping education, 92 per cent agreed that this education would reduce the risk of an accidental breach of anti-doping regulations.

3.41 SIA conducted an annual evaluation of the national education plan for 2020–21, 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2023–24. Assessments were made against deliverables and objectives. The 2022–23 evaluation stated that in 2022–23, 12 of 18 deliverables and 19 of 28 objectives were met. The primary areas of non-achievement were deliverables and objectives related to: NSO education; medical practitioner education; digital and online education; and NSO support. The 2023–24 evaluation stated that in 2023–24, 13 of 21 deliverables were met and 20 of 28 objectives were met. The primary areas of non-achievement were deliverables comprising a revised coaching education module, virtual reality education sessions, an anti-doping rule violating handbook, and a video on the impact of doping.

3.42 SIA advised the ANAO in July 2024 that it uses three criteria to assess a sporting organisation’s implementation of its education plan: the sporting organisation effectively and efficiently communicated with SIA to develop and implement the plan; the sporting organisation promotes education to relevant members (evidenced through emails, newsletters, social media and event packs); and the sporting organisation prioritises monitoring of and compliance with the required education set out in the sport-specific education plan (evidenced by records of online and face to face education completion). SIA provided evidence of a 2023–24 assessment of the implementation of sport-specific education plans. In terms of responsiveness and support, of the NSOs in the audit sample, SIA assessed one NSO as ‘bronze’, two as ‘silver’, and 15 as ‘gold’. In terms of education plan implementation, SIA assessed two as ‘bronze’, two as ‘silver’, and 14 as ‘gold’.

Are there effective arrangements to detect possible anti-doping rule violations?

3.43 Detection of doping in sport is achieved through athlete urine and blood testing. WADA describes the test distribution plan for anti-doping as a key component of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI).¹²⁵ Anti-doping organisations such as SIA must provide their current test distribution plan to WADA upon request. Under article 5.4 of the ISTI, anti-doping organisations such as SIA are to:

[establish] by means of a risk assessment, which [prohibited substances] and/or [prohibited methods] are most likely to be abused in particular sports and sports disciplines. Starting with that risk assessment, each [anti-doping organisation with testing authority] shall develop and implement an effective, intelligent and proportionate test distribution plan that prioritizes appropriately between disciplines, categories of [athletes], types of [testing], types of [samples] collected, and types of [sample] analysis …¹²⁶

3.44 SIA’s processes for detecting possible anti-doping rule violations through sample collection are set out in Figure 3.3. Internal guidance for this process was documented by SIA in March 2024 in a ‘Developing the Test Distribution Plan’ procedure (TDP procedure). The TDP procedure sets out roles and responsibilities for managing the test distribution planning process for government funded sports. SIA did not develop equivalent procedures for managing the test distribution planning process for user pays sports.

Figure 3.3: Annual anti-doping sample collection process (government funded)

Source: ANAO analysis of SIA’s anti-doping process.

Evaluate previous year’s test distribution plan and activities

3.47 The ISTI states at paragraph 4.2.1 that the outcomes of previous test distribution planning cycles should inform the risk assessment that underlies the current test distribution plan (TDP). SIA’s TDP procedure states that the evaluation of the previous year’s anti-doping activities is the first step by SIA in the development of the annual TDP. The TDP procedure states at a high level that SIA officials responsible for each sport should gather lessons learned and reflect on what they could have changed or considered. There is no further documented methodology for how previous years’ anti-doping activities should be systematically evaluated (for example, a list of evaluation questions or criteria).

3.48 For the 2023–24 TDP, SIA advised the ANAO in July 2024 that evaluations were undertaken during sport planning days, with each planner instructed to consider for 2022–23: what worked/ did not work; the timing of missions; feedback from the field; the analysis method; whether the planner believed they had plans on ‘the right athlete cohorts’; the testing pool distribution; and what they would do differently. Notes were prepared for each sport. These notes were consolidated by SIA in July 2024. The evaluation notes for different sports assess different factors. The evaluation was not appropriately documented.

3.49 SIA has not documented its evaluation of 2022–23 testing arrangements.

Undertake pre-moderation risk assessment

Intelligence

3.52 SIA has undated procedures and guidance for collecting, triaging, assessing and reporting on anti-doping intelligence matters, which are available on SIA’s intranet. SIA maintains a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Australian Border Force¹²⁷ (April 2006) and Australian Federal Police (January 2023). The MOU with the Australian Border Force includes arrangements for sharing information and the transferring of seized performance enhancing substances. The MOU with the Australian Federal Police includes arrangements for information sharing.

3.53 Doping intelligence reports are captured in SIA’s case management IT system, JADE (see Table 4.1). From 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024, SIA recorded 210 intelligence reports relating to doping. Figure 3.4 shows the distribution of intelligence reports across the sports within the audit sample.

Figure 3.4: Doping intelligence reports (audit sample), 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024

Note: There were no reports relating to biathlon, cricket, cross-country skiing or equestrian.

Source: ANAO analysis of SIA’s intelligence data.

3.54 SIA records the type or the source of the reports in free text data fields in JADE. Sources included: tip offs mostly relating to individual athletes (72 per cent); reports from law enforcement and international anti-doping authorities (13 per cent); and media reports (five per cent). The majority (80 per cent) of intelligence reports were ‘recorded for intelligence purposes only’. Six reports (three per cent) were referred to an external agency (not further defined). Three reports were listed in the intelligence data as referred for investigation as possible anti-doping rule violations.¹²⁸

3.55 Analysis of anti-doping intelligence reports is intended to inform an ‘available intelligence’ score as part of a risk assessment. SIA’s sport-specific testing plan template (discussed at paragraph 3.68) includes a field for documenting intelligence areas and themes.

3.56 As shown in Table 2.1, SIA’s 2023–24 annual performance statements included targets for the conduct of threat assessments and analytical reports, including several relating to SIA’s anti-doping activities. Threat assessments and analytical reports completed in 2023–24 comprised six threat assessments (those shown in Table 2.1 plus one for the Queensland Rugby League); and three analytical reports covering SIA’s intelligence requirements for 2024–25, intelligence relating to sophisticated blood and erythropoietin (also known as EPO) doping in Australian sport and cocaine culture among athlete cohorts.

Risk assessment

3.57 To develop the 2023–24 risk assessment, SIA used a publicly available WADA TDP template¹²⁹, which includes instructions for undertaking the risk assessment and distributing sample collection in accordance with the WAD Code and supporting standards comprising the ISTI and the Technical Document for Sports Specific Analysis (TDSSA).¹³⁰

3.58 SIA has a clear risk assessment methodology (Box 4).

3.59 The WADA TDP template includes a standard list of 230 sports/disciplines, which states that not all sports need to be risk assessed if there are sports that do not fall under the anti-doping organisation’s jurisdiction, and ‘Alternatively, if there are sports that are not listed but do fall under your jurisdiction, you must include and assess them’.

3.60 SIA completed a risk assessment for government funded sports, however risk assessments for user pays sports were partially completed in 2022–23 and 2023–24. As shown in Figure 3.4, rugby league and Australian football accounted for the second and fourth highest number of anti-doping intelligence reports, respectively, between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024.

• 2022–23 — SIA completed a risk assessment for all government funded sports and for two of five user pays sports in the audit sample. Football (soccer) and rugby union were assessed as medium-high risk sports for doping. SIA did not undertake a risk assessment in another form for Australian football, cricket, or rugby league in 2022–23.
• 2023–24 — SIA completed a risk assessment for all government funded sports and one (football (soccer)) of five user pays sports in the audit sample. SIA did not undertake a risk assessment in another form for Australian football, cricket, rugby league or rugby union.

Develop sport-specific testing plan

3.63 The TDP procedure states that numbers of sample collections for the upcoming year should be proportionately allocated across sports based on risk assessments, noting that further moderation may be needed.

Testing pools

3.64 The ISTI states that national anti-doping organisations should consider adopting a ‘pyramid’ or ‘tiered’ approach to testing by placing athletes in different ‘pools’.¹³¹ SIA categorises individual athletes into one of three testing pools: registered; national; or domestic (Figure 3.5).¹³² The registered testing pool is defined by WADA as ‘the pool of highest-priority [athletes] … who are subject to focused [in-competition and out-of-competition testing].’¹³³ SIA states on its website that a decision to place an athlete in the registered or national testing pool is based on whether the athlete was identified by the NSO for inclusion, the athlete’s performance history (including sudden performance improvement), and intelligence information, among other factors.¹³⁴

3.65 The NAD Policy states that SIA may require any athlete over whom it has testing authority to provide a sample at any time and at any place.¹³⁵ Athletes in the registered and national testing pools are subject to ‘whereabouts’ requirements¹³⁶, which facilitate SIA’s no advance notice out-of-competition¹³⁷ testing program. Anti-doping organisations are required to collect ‘proportional’ whereabouts information from athletes to support the effective and efficient execution of testing outlined in the TDP.¹³⁸ SIA’s whereabouts reporting requirements placed on athletes in different testing pools are shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Whereabouts reporting requirements on athletes in SIA testing pools

Note: ADAMS refers to the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System, which is a web-based database management tool for data entry, storage, sharing, and reporting designed to assist stakeholders and WADA in their anti-doping operations.

Source: Sport Integrity Australia, Athlete testing, SIA, available from https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/anti-doping/athlete-testing [accessed 18 September 2024].

3.66 As of July 2024, across all sports/disciplines for which SIA has authority, there were 96 athletes in the registered, 233 athletes in the national and 1,615 athletes in the domestic testing pools. While it has the authority to do, SIA has included few athletes from user pays sports in the registered, national or domestic testing pools since 2022. As of July 2024, for sports in the audit sample:

• the registered testing pool included 65 athletes, of which none were from a user pays sport;
• the national testing pool included 96 athletes, of which none were from a user pays sport; and
• the domestic testing pool included 367 athletes, of which four were from a user pays sport.

3.67 As athletes from user pays sports are largely not included in the testing pools, they are not subject to any whereabouts requirements. SIA advised the ANAO in September 2024 that out-of-competition testing of user pays sport athletes is done at scheduled training sessions, based on schedules provided by the NSO, and that this arrangement is suitable because it does not have any issues in locating these athletes for testing. Paragraph 3.84 sets out that SIA did not undertake anti-doping sample collection activities for periods during the off-season and pre-season for Australian football and Rugby Union.

Sport-specific testing plans

3.68 In developing the sport-specific plans, the TDP procedure states that SIA will consider the sport/discipline risks, number of athletes in testing pools, number of testing opportunities in-competition and out-of-competition, and minimum levels of analysis required by WADA (see paragraph 3.71).

Government funded sports

3.69 SIA prepared 2023–24 sport-specific testing plans for all 13 government funded sports within the audit sample (see paragraph 3.25). These were prepared using a standard template that includes fields for a qualitative summary of the information and intelligence that informs the plan; the numerical distribution of sample collections; and the type of analysis by discipline, event and whether the test is in-competition or out-of-competition.

3.70 The 2023–24 testing plans for eight of 13 sampled government funded sports did not include a qualitative summary of intelligence, or the themes or focus for testing (such as whether the focus was a group of athletes such as ‘emerging athletes’ or a specific banned substance). In these cases, the intelligence that formed the basis for planned test distribution was not documented. Sport-specific testing plans for the remaining five sampled government funded sports (athletics, basketball, golf, rowing and triathlon) included a small amount of information on intelligence and testing priorities. For example, the sport testing plan for athletics states that EPO use and blood manipulation among endurance athletes is the greatest concern and that middle and long-distance running events would be targeted.

3.71 Minimum levels of analysis (MLAs)¹³⁹ for each sport/discipline are set out by WADA in the Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis (TDSSA).¹⁴⁰ In 2023–24, SIA’s planned testing for the 20 government funded sports/disciplines in the sample was fully consistent with MLAs for 12 of 20 sport/disciplines (see Appendix 4). SIA advised the ANAO in September 2024 that WADA will contact SIA when it determines that MLAs have not been achieved and that SIA addresses any shortfalls with additional sample collection and analysis on previously obtained samples.

User pays sports

3.72 For user pays sports, sport-specific testing plans are prepared based on the competition season rather than an annual plan, and using a different template to government funded sports. The format of each testing plan is unique to that sport. Templates used to plan testing for Australian football and cricket include information on priorities for testing (such as ‘pace bowler’ (for cricket) or ’midfielder’ (for Australian football) and a list of events and targeted athletes. The testing plans for rugby league and rugby union do not specify athletes and instead distribute tests by competition and club.

3.73 SIA prepared 2023–24 sport-specific testing plans for the five user pays sports. The NSO approved the testing plan prior to a service order being established under existing contracts with SIA. As noted at paragraph 3.60, the testing plans were not supported by a documented risk assessment for four of the five user pays sports. The number and types of samples for user pay sports was instead determined through discussions with NSOs in reference to testing costs and risks. For example, the AFL provided a target list of athletes that did not include information on the reason for targeting. This is different to sports with mainly government funded testing, which do not have a say in the allocation and distribution of anti-doping tests. SIA advised the ANAO in September 2024 that NSOs representing user pays sports do not direct SIA on which athletes to test and that this is at the sole discretion of SIA. Out of the 51 athletes in the AFL’s target list, in the 2023–24 season, SIA collected samples from 50 plus 235 athletes not on the list.

3.74 Appendix 4 sets out the ANAO’s analysis of user pays sample collection planning, including adherence to MLAs, for 2023–24. Of the five user pays sports in the audit sample, planning for cricket and rugby union was consistent with the MLAs for all test types specified in the TDSSA. Three sports (Australian football, football and rugby league) included planned testing for all test types but not at the minimum level required. Sport-specific testing plans for Australian football and rugby league in 2023–24 had other deficiencies in relation to timing and completeness of planned testing.

• Australian football — The plan for Australian football did not include out-of-competition testing for the AFL men’s competition in the off-season or a significant component of the 2024 AFL men’s pre-season, and was not fully consistent with MLAs.
• Rugby league — The plan for rugby league excluded almost two months of the off-season in October and November 2023, and was not fully consistent with MLAs. With the exception of the ARLC, standing deeds of offer with NSOs representing user pays sports require SIA to conduct year-round testing. SIA advised the ANAO in August 2024 that, even if not on the plan, it maintains the authority to conduct out-of-competition testing during the off-season. SIA collected 87 samples from 85 rugby league athletes between 1 November 2023 and 29 February 2024.

Moderate number of tests

3.75 The ISTI states that a national anti-doping organisation may prioritise certain sports over others due not to a greater risk of doping in those sports, but due to a greater national interest in ensuring the integrity of those sports.¹⁴¹ The TDP procedure includes a requirement to ‘moderate’ the number of planned tests following the completion of the risk assessment and sport-specific testing plan. The procedures also states that if the number of tests for a sport/discipline is moderated following the risk-based test distribution, the justification is to be documented. There is no documented procedure or methodology for moderation, including specific criteria and appropriate decision-makers for moderation decisions. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that SIA reference material did not need to explain this because ISTI guidelines refer to the need for a national anti-doping organisation to prioritise certain sports and athletes over others when determining testing numbers.

3.77 SIA moderated the test distribution for the government funded sports/disciplines, and one user pays sport (football (soccer)), included in the audit sample. The revised total number of tests were set out in the 2023–24 TDP along with a brief explanation of the justification for any change due to moderation. The justification typically referred to the size of the athlete cohort and the relative competitiveness of Australian athletes in that sport/discipline.

Allocate testing missions, collect samples and manage results

3.78 Prior to sample collection, the TDP procedure states that the annual TDP will be approved by the Operations Committee (see Figure 2.1). The Operations Committee did not endorse the 2023–24 TDP as required.

3.79 Section 5.2 of the WAD Code states that any athlete may be required to provide a sample at any time and at any place by any anti-doping organisation with testing authority. Testing missions are established for each planned sample collection and may involve collecting urine and/or blood samples from one athlete in their home or collecting urine and/or blood samples from one or more athletes at a competition or training venue. In March 2024, SIA updated and approved procedures for planning testing missions for government funded and user pays sports.

3.80 Section 6.1 of the WAD Code states that samples shall be analysed only in WADA-accredited laboratories or laboratories otherwise approved by WADA. Most samples collected by SIA are analysed under an MOU with Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory (ASDTL), a WADA-accredited laboratory. SIA advised in November 2024 that it also has arrangements with overseas laboratories for certain analysis types and when samples are collected overseas on behalf of SIA.

3.81 Section 14.5 of the WAD Code states that each anti-doping organisation shall report all in-competition and out-of-competition tests to WADA by entering doping control forms (which include information on the athlete; and time, date, location of samples collected) into ADAMS¹⁴² in accordance with the requirements and timelines contained in the ISTI.

3.82 The ANAO tested the quality and completeness of SIA’s anti-doping testing data in ADAMS for all sports from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2024 and found that it was complete and reliable, except for fields intended to capture the rationale for the selection of an individual athlete for testing. There were 359 different reasons for athlete selection based on data entry into a free text field. For thirty per cent of tests in 2023–24, SIA did not record a rationale. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that there is no ISTI requirement to document the reason, and that it does not capture the reason if SIA collects on behalf of another agency or at a major event.

3.83 In the 2023–24 TDP, SIA planned a total of 4,632 tests across all sports disciplines. According to data in ADAMS, between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024, SIA conducted 4,186 anti-doping tests across all sports over which SIA has testing authority, comprising 1,469 in-competition and 2,717 out-of-competition tests.¹⁴³ Appendix 4 shows the total number of tests undertaken for sports/disciplines in the audit sample, compared to how many were planned. For the audit sample, reported actual testing was mostly consistent with SIA’s planned testing.

• Government funded sports/disciplines — SIA did not undertake any of its planned tests for the discipline of cross-country skiing. Cross-country skiing was heavily moderated down after risk assessment, due to low athlete numbers. MLAs were achieved for all sampled government funded sport/disciplines except for long distance athletics.
• User pays sports — SIA’s sample collection exceeded the number of planned tests for Australian football, football (soccer) and rugby league. Testing for rugby union and cricket was largely consistent with planning. MLAs were achieved for all sampled user pays sports except for rugby league, noting the total number of tests for rugby league was greater than for any other sampled user pays sport.

3.84 Consistent with deficiencies in planning for user pays sports (see paragraph 3.73 to 3.74), although the total number of tests met or exceed planned levels, SIA’s testing during the 2023–24 off-season and pre-season for Australian football and rugby union included periods with no testing. SIA did not undertake anti-doping sample collection from 26 August 2023 until 1 March 2024 for rugby union, and from 7 October 2023 until 19 February 2024 for Australian football (men’s competition).

3.85 For the total population in 2023–24, the samples collected and analysed in 2023–24 identified 25 adverse analytical findings (AAF) and six atypical findings (ATF) (see Table 4.4). This compares with 38 AAFs and four ATFs from 3,794 tests in 2022–23. See Appendix 4 for 2023–24 test outcomes for government funded and user pays sports in the audit sample.

4.1 The Australian Government Investigations Standard (AGIS) establishes the minimum standards for Australian Government agencies conducting investigations. Established in 2011, the AGIS was updated in October 2022.¹⁴⁴ The AGIS states that entities should have a decision-making process in place for investigations that can be explained and justified, and that is documented. Investigation outcome decisions also should be documented in proportion to the seriousness and consequence of the decision.¹⁴⁵

Has Sport Integrity Australia effectively investigated possible anti-doping rule violations?

Investigations framework

4.2 SIA established an investigations manual and supporting procedures and templates in July 2020 in accordance with the AGIS 2011. The July 2020 investigations manual was based on earlier manuals established by the Department of Health.

4.3 The Attorney-General’s Department states on its website that:

When publishing the 2022 version of the AGIS, the [Australian Federal Police] did not outline a date for entities to transfer their approaches from the requirements of the AGIS 2011 to the updated requirements of AGIS 2022. Instead, it advised entities should start a proactive implementation plan and prioritise actions/requirements to meet the standard where possible within a reasonable timeframe. Where this is not possible, the decision must be documented and can be audited.¹⁴⁶

4.4 In July 2024, SIA provided the ANAO with a self-assessment of its compliance against AGIS 2022 requirements. The self-assessment included descriptions of ‘policies, procedures, or templates’ in place for 21 out of 113 AGIS 2022 requirements. SIA assessed that it did not have established policies, procedures, or templates for one requirement, was unsure how to assess one requirement, and had not assessed the remaining 89 requirements. In September 2024, SIA’s website stated that its investigations were conducted in accordance with the AGIS 2022.¹⁴⁷ However, as of September 2024, SIA had not updated its investigations manual and procedures to align with the AGIS 2022.

4.5 The AGIS 2022 establishes core requirements, best practice, and guidance according to four ‘streams’.¹⁴⁸

• Information and evidence management — Entity maintains appropriate information management and evidence handling protocols and uses suitable electronic systems for end-to-end investigations. There are eleven requirements and eleven better practice elements under the ‘information and evidence management’ stream.
• Investigative personnel — Entity ensures its investigators are suitably qualified and experienced to conduct and/or supervise investigations with the highest standard of ethics and conduct. There are eleven requirements and seven better practice elements under the ‘personnel’ stream.
• Investigative practices — Entity conducts investigations in consideration of a number of risks using consistent and quality practices to meet the requirements of admissible evidence. There are 15 mandatory requirements and 34 better practice elements under the ‘investigative practices’ stream.
• Quality assurance framework — Entity makes quality assurance a priority and introduces informal and formal processes during the lifecycle to ensure continual improvement. There are five mandatory requirements and 10 better practice elements under the ‘quality assurance framework’ stream.

Information and evidence management

4.6 The ANAO examined AGIS elements relating to disclosure management, information sharing and information systems (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Assessment against AGIS 2022 — Information and evidence management

Note a: JADE is software that supports investigations case management. The JADE website states that it is typically used to manage cases of human trafficking, organised crime, covert operations and witness protection. Jade Software, Jade ICM Investigations Case Management, 2021, available from https://secure.jadeworld.com/JadeICM/Online_Resources/OnlineDocumentation/Content/OverviewPOS.htm?TocPath=Product%20Overview%7COverview%7C_____0 [accessed 17 September 2024].

Note b: A case includes all anti-doping rule violation findings before a decision is made regarding whether they are accepted for investigation. A case becomes an investigation once it has been transferred to the Investigations section to determine whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.

Note c: AusTender contract ID: CN4089299, 20 August 2024, Contract value: $169,400.

Source: Australian Government Investigation Standards 2022 and ANAO analysis.

Investigative personnel

4.7 The ANAO examined AGIS 2022 elements relating to security clearance; qualifications; and competencies (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Assessment against AGIS 2022 — Investigative personnel

Source: Australian Government Investigation Standards 2022 and ANAO analysis.

Investigative practices

4.8 The ANAO examined 31 (including 10 mandatory) AGIS elements relating to entities’ procedures for evidence and exhibit handling. Better practice elements include establishing procedures to support risk management, decision-making and investigation planning (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Assessment against AGIS 2022 — Investigative practices

Source: Australian Government Investigation Standards 2022 and ANAO analysis.

Quality assurance

4.11 The AGIS 2011 set out guidance on conducting quality assurance reviews ‘to establish whether the investigation was conducted in a way that complied with AGIS’.¹⁴⁹ The AGIS 2022 includes a requirement for quality review including entities having an investigations quality assurance policy in place that includes quality assurance activities. The AGIS 2022 states that reviews assist investigators by presenting opportunities to apply critical thinking to the progress of an investigation, confirm the direction, reflect on the outcome of an investigation, guide future activities, and integrate lessons learned.¹⁵⁰

4.12 The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (see paragraph 1.4) established a quality assurance review procedure in 2020 for investigations. The quality assurance review procedure states that the quality assurance should focus on the way an investigation was managed and how evidence was obtained. SIA advised the ANAO in June 2024 that it has not implemented the quality assurance review procedure.

4.13 SIA’s investigations manual sets out an investigations review process that requires the Director of Investigations to review all active cases at least weekly and prepare ‘critical decision’ records¹⁵¹ where applicable. SIA has a procedure for reviewing briefs of evidence. SIA advised the ANAO in September 2024 that it does not prepare critical decision records and its review process involves a weekly team meeting within the investigations team to discuss the status of cases. The requirement for a weekly meeting has not been documented as part of the quality assurance process and minutes are not taken at these meetings.

4.14 There is an investigation closure report template which must include the outcome of the investigation, any lessons learned and any recommendations. As stated at paragraph 4.46, closure reports are only prepared for investigations where the outcome is ‘no further action’; and in these cases, the preparation of a closure report was inconsistent. This limits the value of the closure report as a tool for quality assurance and capturing lessons learned for all types of investigations. In the three closure reports prepared between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, there was a summary provided of the investigation activities and outcomes, however none documented lessons learned or recommendations.

4.15 The AGIS 2022 includes a better practice element of conducting one formal external quality assurance activity every two years, which is to be conducted by reviewers or auditors from another entity or external organisation. As of September 2024, SIA did not have an external quality assurance procedure. Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, there was one example of a quality assurance review, which was not finalised.¹⁵²

Conduct of investigations

4.18 Investigations of possible anti-doping rule violations are managed by the Investigations section within the Operations Branch of the Safety in Sport Division (see Figure 2.1). The World Anti-Doping Code (WAD Code) establishes 11 possible anti-doping rule violations involving certain prohibited substances and resulting in certain sanctions (Box 5).

Note a: World Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Code, WADA, 2021, available from https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_2021_code_november_2019_v._wada_2021_code_june_2020_final_-_english.pdf [accessed 30 September 2024], p. 13.

Note b: World Anti-Doping Agency, The Prohibited List, WADA, 2021, available from https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list [accessed 19 December 2024].

4.19 SIA’s investigations of possible anti-doping rule violation findings are grouped into four categories: three categories are specified by the WAD Code and one category (non-analytical finding) was established by SIA (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4: Types of findings and corresponding anti-doping rule violation

Note a: The International Standard for Laboratories is one of the eight International Standards which aim to foster consistency among anti-doping organisations in the areas of: testing and investigations; laboratories; therapeutic use exemptions; the prohibited list; protection of privacy and personal information; code compliance by signatories; education; and results management. World Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Code [Internet], WADA, 2021, available from https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/world-anti-doping-code [accessed 8 October 2024]; The main purpose of the International Standard for Laboratories is to ensure that WADA-accredited laboratories and WADA-approved laboratories report valid test results based on reliable evidentiary data, and to facilitate harmonization in analytical testing of samples. World Anti-doping Agency, International Standard for Laboratories [Internet], WADA, 2021, available from https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-code-and-international-standards/international-standard-laboratories [accessed 8 October 2024].

Note b: A metabolite is any substance produced by the alteration of a drug within the body (biotransformation). A marker is a compound, group of compounds or biological variable that indicates the use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Note c: A prohibited method includes the manipulation of blood and blood components; chemical and physical manipulation; and gene and cell doping.

Note d: A non-analytical finding could relate to Article 2.2 if the report alleges the use of a prohibited substance or method. For example, SIA investigated a non-analytical finding involving an individual’s self-reported use of a prohibited substance and prohibited method.

Source: ANAO analysis of the World Anti-Doping Code (2021) and SIA documentation.

Triage

4.20 AAF, PAAF and ATF are identified through anti-doping testing. Each AAF, PAAF or ATF identified through anti-doping testing is entered into JADE where it becomes a ‘case’. AAF, PAAF and ATF cases are subject to a triage process undertaken by the Science and Medicine section within the Operations Branch to determine appropriate further action. Figure 4.1 shows the triage process for AAF, PAAF, and ATF cases recorded in JADE between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024.

4.21 Non-analytical findings are identified through the Intelligence section and transferred to the Investigation section without triage (see paragraph 4.24). Non-analytical findings may also be identified during the conduct of an investigation. For example, SIA may determine that an anti-doping rule violation relating to the possession of a prohibited substance (Article 2.6, see Box 5) has been committed during an investigation into an anti-doping rule violation relating to the ‘presence’ of a prohibited substance (Article 2.1).

4.22 Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, 144 anti-doping rule violation cases were recorded in JADE. Of the 144 cases, 137 (95 per cent) related to AAF, PAAF and ATF. The other seven cases related to non-analytical findings.

Figure 4.1: Anti-doping rule violations triage process, 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024 (as of 6 September 2024)

Note a: See paragraph 4.23 for definition of a therapeutic use exemption.

Note b: A negative result is confirmation that no prohibited substance was detected in the sample.

Note c: Laboratory analysis may confirm the finding is due to other medical factors such as side effects from permitted medications, which are permitted under the WAD Code and do not require a therapeutic use exemption.

Note d: SIA’s Information Coordination Centre is responsible for notifying the Science and Medicine and Intelligence sections of findings.

Note e: This case was transferred to the Intelligence section, where an approach paper was prepared. It was decided that there was insufficient evidence to commence an investigation and the case was closed.

Note f: ‘Watching briefs’ are anti-doping rule violation cases and investigations involving Australian athletes competing overseas. Case management and investigations are undertaken by the relevant anti-doping organisation. SIA monitors watching briefs in its case management system. SIA is required to publish details if investigations of watching briefs result in sanctions.

Note g: As part of SIA’s separate process for AAF cases involving substances of abuse (see paragraph 4.24), the Science and Medicine section assesses whether use of the substance of abuse occurred in- or out-of-competition according to the guidelines established by the WAD Code. Under section 10.2.4.1 of the WAD Code, if an athlete can establish use was out-of-competition and not for enhancement of their performance in sport, then they are eligible for an ineligibility period of three months. However, to address the health of the athlete, the anti-doping organisation must make available a treatment program that can be completed by the athlete to reduce the period of ineligibility from three months to one month.

Note h: In-competition use was assessed by the Science and Medicine section as ‘more likely’ in three cases.

Note i: Out-of-competition use was not assessed by the Science and Medicine section as more likely than in-competition use in any case.

Note j: The Science and Medicine section assessed that neither in- or out-of-competition use was more likely than the other (see paragraph 4.25).

Note k: SIA’s procedure for AAF cases requires all cases to progress to investigations (see paragraph 4.24). SIA has also established a separate process for AAF cases involving substances of abuse that involves cases progressing to investigations only when it is determined that use occurred in-competition (see paragraph 4.24). Six in- and out-of-competition use was assessed as equally likely progressed to the legal section, contrary to SIA’s documented procedure for AAF cases and the established substance of abuse process.

Source: ANAO analysis of suspected anti-doping rule violation cases entered into JADE between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024.

4.23 A therapeutic use exemption (TUE) allows an athlete with a medical condition to use, for therapeutic purposes only, an otherwise prohibited substance or method of administering a substance. TUEs generally must be in place prior to the anti-doping violation being detected; that is, are prospective. An athlete may be eligible to apply for a retroactive TUE under some conditions.¹⁵³ SIA performs a TUE check with the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee (see Figure 2.1) for each AAF, PAAF and ATF. SIA may also request further laboratory analysis of an AAF, PAAF and ATF to confirm the result. Figure 4.1 shows that of 144 cases, 61 anti-doping rule violations cases (42 per cent) were closed due to a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). A retroactive TUE was granted in 13 out of the 61 cases.

4.24 The AGIS 2022 states that entities should establish criteria for when an investigation is considered to be commenced.¹⁵⁴ This has been established for AAF cases excluding substances of abuse but has not been clearly established for AAF cases involving substances of abuse or for non-analytical findings.

• AAF cases (prohibited substance excluding substance of abuse) — SIA is required under the Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020 (SIA Regulations) to investigate AAF cases where there is not an applicable TUE or other entitlement.¹⁵⁵ In May 2022, SIA established a standard operating procedure for the management of AAF cases that states that where there is not an applicable TUE, AAF cases automatically progress to an investigation.
• AAF cases (substance of abuse) — SIA established a separate process for AAF cases involving substances of abuse. This involves the Science and Medicine section conducting a laboratory assessment to determine whether the level of the substance detected in a subject’s sample indicates in- or out-of-competition use. SIA advised the ANAO in August 2024 that in-competition substance of abuse cases progress to the Investigation section and out-of-competition cases progress to the Legal section to be dealt with ‘administratively’. The roles of the Investigations and Legal sections in the process for substance of abuse cases have not been documented in a standard operating procedure.
• PAAF and ATF cases — PAAF and ATF cases do not progress to investigation unless further laboratory analysis elevates the test result to an AAF.
• Non-analytical findings case — SIA commenced non-analytical findings investigations by preparing an approach paper for endorsement at the Operations Committee (see Table 4.5).¹⁵⁶ SIA advised the ANAO in September 2024 that the final decision on progressing an investigation for non-analytical findings cases is made by the Director of Investigations. SIA’s investigations manual did not include the approach paper process or the Director of Investigation’s decision-making criteria and these were not documented elsewhere. As noted in Table 4.5, SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that the approach paper process has since been discontinued.

4.25 In relation to cases recorded in JADE between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, documented procedures were followed for commencing all AAF cases. Treatment for commencing non-analytical findings cases was inconsistent.

• AAF cases (prohibited substance excluding substance of abuse) — All cases where a TUE was not in place progressed to the Investigations section (see Figure 4.1) in accordance with the standard operating procedure.
• AAF cases (substance of abuse) — Of the 11 cases¹⁵⁷, as of 6 September 2024:
  • two were in the triage process;
  • six did not have a conclusive in- or out-of-competition use determination by the Science and Medicine section (Figure 4.1) (with the Science and Medicine section assessing that neither was more likely than the other) and all six were progressed to the Legal section for ‘administrative treatment’; and
  • three cases that had been assessed as in-competition use were progressed to the Investigations section.
• Non-analytical findings cases — The seven non-analytical findings cases recorded in JADE progressed to the Investigations section. Of the seven, decision-making to commence an investigation was:
  • for five, based on an Operations Committee decision following consideration of the approach paper;
  • for one, based on email correspondence between SIA officials without an approach paper or Operations Committee consideration; and
  • for one, was not documented.

4.26 The AGIS 2022 states that:

an investigation can be broadly described as an activity to collect information or evidence to a particular standard of proof related to an alleged, apparent or suspected breach. An investigation gathers information across a broad spectrum to assist entities to determine a course of action, which may also be preventative and/ or disruptive action instead of prosecutorial.¹⁵⁸

4.27 The Legal section’s management of substance of abuse cases involves conducting investigative activities according to this definition, such as requesting information from the athlete concerning the circumstances of the ingestion of the prohibited substance. The Investigations section was not included in discussions between the Science and Medicine and Legal sections for the six substance of abuse cases dated 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024 with an inconclusive ‘in-competition’ determination (see Figure 4.1). Legal section officials do not hold the specific investigator qualifications required under the AGIS, although the AGIS states that equivalent qualifications can be considered. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that it considered officials’ legal qualifications to be equivalent. Although notifications of anti-doping rule violations were issued for all, no investigation plans or briefs of evidence were prepared for these forms of investigation.

4.28 In March 2024, SIA received allegations of possible anti-doping rule violations committed by officials of a national sporting organisation (NSO) ((evading sample collection (WAD Code Article 2.3, see Box 5), impeding or tampering with the doping control process (Article 2.5), and complicity to violate aspects of the WAD Code (Article 2.9)).

4.29 In April 2024, SIA prepared an ‘assessment plan’. ‘Assessments’ are not defined in the investigations manual or any other procedural document. The ‘assessment’ plan was identical to the investigation plan template. The allegations were not entered into the case management system. The assessment plan for the matter includes an evidence matrix which is incomplete. No approach paper was prepared for endorsement at the Operations Committee. SIA did not document the rationale for conducting an ‘assessment’ rather than treating the allegations as a non-analytical finding and proceeding with an investigation. In June 2024, SIA published its assessment of the allegations on its website, finding that there were no breaches of the WAD Code through any anti-doping rule violations by athletes or support personnel, but which made some recommendations to the NSO.¹⁵⁹ SIA advised the ANAO in July 2024 that it was unaware of any other instances where allegations of possible anti-doping rule violations were ‘assessed’ rather than investigated.

Investigations process

4.31 Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, 38 anti-doping rule violation cases recorded in JADE (comprising 31 AAF and seven non-analytical findings cases) progressed to the Investigations section. For cases that progressed to the Investigations section and were closed in the period (N=21), the investigation process is shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Anti-doping investigation process, 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024 (commenced and closed matters at 6 September 2024)

Note a: SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that a closure report is only prepared for investigations where an anti-doping rule violation has not been determined. This decision has not been documented.

Note b: An athlete can appeal their sanction within 21 days of receiving the sanction notice in accordance with Article 13 of the WAD Code.

Note c: A CEO Assertion of case is a document prepared by the Legal section for the CEO that outlines the evidentiary basis upon which the CEO makes the determination that the anti-doping rule violation has been committed.

Note d: The Legal section may identify additional anti-doping rule violations during its review of the evidence for an investigation. If the CEO agrees that there has been a possible additional anti-doping rule violation, SIA has to notify the athlete.

Source: ANAO analysis of investigations commenced and closed between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024.

4.32 The AGIS 2011 and 2022 state that an entity should ensure an investigation is a documented process from commencement to finalisation.¹⁶⁰ The AGIS 2022 has strengthened requirements around documenting decisions made during investigations. Documentation must include the: context of the decision; decision itself; reason or rationale for the decision; person making the decision; date of the decision; and any actions associated with the implementation of the decision.¹⁶¹

4.33 The ANAO examined records for the 38 investigations that commenced between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 to determine whether key activities were performed and documented in alignment with AGIS and SIA requirements for: investigation planning; application of investigative powers; preparing briefs of evidence; and closure.

Investigation planning

4.34 The AGIS 2011 states that ‘each investigation should commence with an overall planning process and where possible result in a written investigation plan. This plan should be referred to and updated during the investigation’.¹⁶² The AGIS 2022 recommends entities to consider elements in plans such as evidence collection processes, resourcing, risk, and media management. The SIA investigations manual requires all investigations except for ‘low-level’ AAF cases to have an investigation plan developed by the case officer for approval by the Director of Investigations. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that it does not prioritise one investigation over another and in practice it expected all investigations to have an investigation plan.

4.35 SIA has an investigation plan template that includes the investigation objectives, the approach to evidence collection and analysis, milestones, action plan, resources, and risk assessment. The risk assessment includes a pre-populated list of risks. The plan requires authorisation by the Director of Investigations.

4.36 Investigation plans were developed for 32 out of 38 investigations commenced between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024. Of the 32 plans, 15 included all required elements and authorisation, and 17 plans were not developed according to requirements. For the six investigations for which there was no investigations plan, an investigation plan was not prepared for one ‘due to the urgent nature of the notification [of the athlete of their anti-doping rule violation]’. There is no documented decision for not developing plans for the other five investigations.

Application of investigative powers

4.37 The AGIS 2022 states that ‘investigations must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws. This is particularly relevant regarding collection, handling, and presentation of evidence and the application of powers.’¹⁶³

4.38 Under the SIA Act, the CEO is authorised to give a person a disclosure notice, which is a written notice requiring the person to do one or more of the following within the period specified in the notice: attend an interview and answer questions; give information of the kind specified in the notice; and produce documents or things of the kind specified in the notice.¹⁶⁴ The SIA Regulations require disclosure notices to specify the time and date for compliance. The CEO may delegate the power to issue a disclosure notice to a senior executive service (SES) or acting SES officer. The CEO must declare in writing that they have reasonable belief that the person subject to the disclosure notice has information, documents or things that may be relevant to the investigation prior to issuing the disclosure notice. SIA established a ‘reasonable belief declaration’ template required to be completed by a delegate of the CEO and the CEO upon review of a disclosure notice brief prepared by the investigation team that outlines the rationale for the disclosure notice.¹⁶⁵

4.39 As of 6 September 2024, 26 out of 38 (68 per cent) investigations that commenced between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 have been subject to one or more disclosure notice processes.

4.40 SIA does not have a procedure for serving disclosure notices. All 26 disclosure notices to attend an interview specified the time, date and location of the interview. Implementation of the disclosure notice process was inconsistent in relation to authorisation and completeness of reasonable belief declarations. In November 2022, SIA developed a Record of Service template and an Affidavit of Service template for investigators to complete following the in-person service of notices. Since November 2022, a record of service has been completed for 10 out of 16 investigations where a disclosure notice was served in-person. One record of service documented the date incorrectly. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that the affidavit of service template has not been implemented.

4.42 Under the SIA Act and Regulations, if a person is issued with a disclosure notice and fails to attend an interview or produce documents or things or give information as required in the notice, the person fails to comply with the notice.¹⁶⁶ Failure to comply with a disclosure notice could incur a pecuniary penalty or an infringement notice. SIA requires a statutory declaration from the subject where they are unable to comply with the disclosure notice.

4.43 SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, eight athletes out of 16 (50 per cent) who were served a disclosure notice requiring information, or to produce documents or things, did not comply with the disclosure notice. The CEO did not receive a statutory declaration from any of the eight athletes. No penalties for non-compliance were issued. SIA does not track compliance with disclosure notices.

Briefs of evidence

4.44 The AGIS states that a brief of evidence should be prepared to a standard that will maximise the possibility of success in criminal, civil penalty, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings.¹⁶⁷ SIA has a documented procedure for the preparation of the brief of evidence that includes responsibilities for the preparation, review and authorisation. The investigations manual outlines requirements for the form and content of the brief. The investigations manual also requires the Director of Investigations to complete a brief of evidence adjudication for each brief of evidence to ensure that the brief aligns with form and content requirements. SIA has a brief of evidence template, and a brief of evidence adjudication form.

4.45 As of 6 September 2024, a brief of evidence had been prepared for 26 out of 38 investigations commenced between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024.¹⁶⁸ A brief of evidence adjudication was completed for 23 out of the 26 investigations. Of the 23 brief of evidence adjudications, 19 addressed all required elements and were authorised by the Director of Investigations, and four were either not authorised or were undated.

Investigation closure

4.46 The AGIS 2022 states that entities should establish criteria for when an investigation is considered to be finalised.¹⁶⁹ According to the investigations manual, an investigation is considered closed once a closure report has been authorised by the Director of Investigations and a delegate of the CEO, and closure is documented in the case management system.

4.47 SIA has established a closure report template. SIA advised the ANAO in November 2024 that the closure report is only intended for use in investigations that did not proceed with an assertion of an anti-doping rule violation and is not used for investigations that proceeded with an assertion of an anti-doping rule violation. There were five closed investigations that did not proceed with an assertion of an anti-doping rule violation. SIA prepared closure reports for three.

4.48 For investigations that result in a sanction, closure is actioned in SIA’s case management system, JADE, by the Legal section once the matter has been published on SIA’s website. Of the 38 investigations commenced by the Investigations section since 1 July 2021, 21 investigations (55 per cent) were closed in SIA’s case management system by 30 June 2024. Table 4.5 shows the outcome of the 21 closed investigations. One investigation involving a published sanction was not closed in JADE.

Table 4.5: Investigation outcomes for investigations commenced and closed between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024

Note a: Investigation was transferred to the International Testing Agency (ITA) and a joint investigation between SIA and the ITA was commenced that involved multiple subjects including the subject of the original investigation. The ITA is an international organisation constituted as a not-for-profit foundation, based in Lausanne, Switzerland. Its mission is to manage anti-doping programs, independent from sporting or political powers, for international federations, major event organisers and all anti-doping organisations requesting support.¹⁷⁰

Note b: The transfer of results management authority is permitted under Article 7.1.3 of the WAD Code, which states that in circumstances where the rules of a national anti-doping organisation do not give the national anti-doping organisation authority over an athlete or other person who is not a national, resident, license holder, or member of a sport organisation of that country, or the national anti-doping organisation declines to exercise such authority, results management shall be conducted by the applicable international federation or by a third party as directed by the rules of the international federation.

Note c: This category includes investigations that were closed due to SIA finding ‘insufficient evidence’ and that there was a ‘lack of jurisdiction’ to pursue an investigation.

Note d: See paragraph 4.56 for a description of warning letters.

Source: ANAO analysis of SIA documentation.

4.49 It is not possible to determine from JADE records when the investigations were closed and what activity prompted closure (see Table 4.1). JADE shows the date the case was created and the date the case was ‘last modified’.¹⁷¹

4.50 In March 2024, SIA conducted a review of its investigations processes and identified three areas for improvement: professional development; processes and tools (concurrency of activities, increased collaboration and enhanced investigative planning); and strategic direction.

Timeliness of investigations

4.51 The WAD Code sets a six-month (183 days) timeliness benchmark for investigations, stating that this is: ‘In the interest of fair and effective sport justice’.¹⁷² The WAD Code also has timeliness requirements for specific processes such as appeals and reviews of decisions.

4.52 SIA has not established overall timeliness targets for its anti-doping investigations, although it has established internal timeliness targets for specific processes (Table 4.6).

4.53 Overall duration of investigations ranged from a minimum of 180 days to a maximum of 690 days, with a mean duration of 459 days and a median duration of 466 days.¹⁷³ Duration of specific processes, compared to SIA’s targets, are shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Performance against internal targets for investigation milestones, as of 6 September 2024^a

Note a: Analysis includes active investigations.

Note b: For 15 investigations, disclosure notices and the notice of anti-doping rule violation were issued simultaneously.

Note c: A letter of charge is the notification to the athlete that the anti-doping organisation is satisfied that the athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and has charged them as such. The letter contains the provisions of the anti-doping rules violated; a summary of the facts upon which the charge is based; the consequences in the event that the charge is upheld; and options for responding to the charge, the deadline for a response, and the consequences for each response.

Source: ANAO analysis of SIA documentation.

4.54 The Legal section has responsibility for multiple processes during an investigation (see Figure 4.2), including reviewing the brief of evidence and preparing an anti-doping rule violation assertion recommendation and sanction recommendation for the CEO. On average, 63 per cent of the time spent on investigations was spent in the Legal section on these processes. SIA commissioned a review of the Legal section, which was finalised in March 2023. The review found that although the Legal section performed an important role, it was inefficient and sometimes duplicative, and that some activities were ‘best left to line areas’. The review made 24 recommendations including recommendations related to the role, function and governance of the Legal section; engagement with other business areas; and prioritisation of legal matters. In February 2024, the CEO directed staff to implement actions to address delays in investigations and stated ‘the review … need[s] to be a priority for implementation in the legal team to better use our resources’.

Has Sport Integrity Australia taken appropriate action in response to anti-doping violations?

4.55 The WAD Code establishes sanctions for anti-doping rule violations (Box 6).¹⁷⁴

Note a: World Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Code, WADA, 2021, available from https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_2021_code_november_2019_v._wada_2021_code_june_2020_final_-_english.pdf [accessed 30 September 2024], p. 167.

Note b: The WAD Code defines ‘in-competition’ as: the period commencing at 11:59pm on the day before a competition in which the athlete is scheduled to participate through the end of such competition and the sample collection process related to such competition. Provided, however, WADA may approve, for a particular sport, an alternative definition if an International Federation provides a compelling justification that a different definition is necessary for its sport; upon such approval by WADA, the alternative definition shall be followed by all major event organizations for that particular sport. World Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Code, WADA, 2021, available from https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_2021_code_november_2019_v._wada_2021_code_june_2020_final_-_english.pdf. [accessed 19 December 2024], p. 97.

Note c: World Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Code, WADA, 2021, available from https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_2021_code_november_2019_v._wada_2021_code_june_2020_final_-_english.pdf [accessed 30 September 2024], p. 38.

4.56 SIA states on its website that sanctions for anti-doping rule violations also include a warning. SIA has issued warnings when it has not been able to determine that an anti-doping rule violation has been committed. The warnings remind the athlete of their obligations to comply with anti-doping rules as well as notifying them that the investigation has closed. While warning letters may be a legitimate regulatory response, the WAD Code does not include warnings as a possible sanction.

4.58 SIA sanctioned 20 athletes between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 (including for investigations commenced prior to 1 July 2021). Nineteen out of 20 sanctions were imposed as a result of an AAF, five of which involved a substance of abuse. One sanction was imposed as a result of a non-analytical finding. Sanctions comprised periods of ineligibility of varying lengths from one month to twelve years, and disqualifications.

4.59 The Legal section prepares a sanction recommendation for approval by the CEO (Figure 4.2). Sanction recommendations for all 20 sanctions were prepared according to requirements and authorised. Sanctions applied were consistent with the period of ineligibility requirements under the WAD Code for all but two of the 20 sanctions.

4.60 The SIA Act (section 19A) requires that SIA maintain a list of current sanctions called a violations list. Details of a sanction must be published once the 21-day appeal period has expired, and no appeal has been instituted, and remain published until the sanction has been completed.¹⁷⁵ The sanction recommendation includes a determination regarding publication. For 19 out of 20 sanctions imposed between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, the sanction recommendation determined the sanction was to be published on the violations list. One sanction recommendation did not make a determination.

4.61 A violations list is published on SIA’s website.¹⁷⁶ As of September 2024, details of the 20 sanctions imposed between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 were published on the violations list. All published sanctions contained the required information.

4.62 The WAD Code requires SIA to publish information on current sanctions within 20 days of the expiration of appeal period, which commences upon receipt of the sanction notice.¹⁷⁷ Details for eight out of 20 (40 per cent) sanctions imposed between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 that were published on SIA’s website were not published within the required timeframe.¹⁷⁸ Time taken to publish matters on SIA’s website after the expiration of the 21-day appeal period ranged from nine to 49 days and took on average 21 days.

Appendix 1 Entity response

Appendix 2 Improvements observed by the ANAO

1. The existence of independent external audit, and the accompanying potential for scrutiny improves performance. Improvements in administrative and management practices usually occur: in anticipation of ANAO audit activity; during an audit engagement; as interim findings are made; and/or after the audit has been completed and formal findings are communicated.

2. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) has encouraged the ANAO to consider ways in which the ANAO could capture and describe some of these impacts. The ANAO’s Corporate Plan states that the ANAO’ s annual performance statements will provide a narrative that will consider, amongst other matters, analysis of key improvements made by entities during a performance audit process based on information included in tabled performance audit reports.

3. Performance audits involve close engagement between the ANAO and the audited entity as well as other stakeholders involved in the program or activity being audited. Throughout the audit engagement, the ANAO outlines to the entity the preliminary audit findings, conclusions and potential audit recommendations. This ensures that final recommendations are appropriately targeted and encourages entities to take early remedial action on any identified matters during the course of an audit. Remedial actions entities may take during the audit include:

• strengthening governance arrangements;
• introducing or revising policies, strategies, guidelines or administrative processes; and
• initiating reviews or investigations.

4. In this context, the below actions were observed by the ANAO during the course of the audit. It is not clear whether these actions and/or the timing of these actions were planned in response to proposed or actual audit activity. The ANAO has not sought to obtain assurance over the source of these actions or whether they have all been appropriately implemented.

• In March and September 2024, the Audit and Risk Committee received a risk management update which stated that SIA had commenced a project to improve its risk management framework (paragraphs 2.27 and 2.28).
• In March 2024, SIA established its Executive Committee and Project Review Committee terms of reference (Appendix 3).
• In March 2024, SIA developed a ‘Developing the Test Distribution Plan’ (TDP) procedure (paragraph 3.44).
• In March 2024, SIA updated and approved procedures for planning testing missions for government funded and user pays sports (paragraph 3.79).
• In March 2024, SIA conducted a review of its investigations processes in response to timeliness issues and identified three areas for improvement: professional development; processes and tools (concurrency of activities, increased collaboration and enhanced investigative planning); and strategic direction (paragraph 4.50).
• In May 2024, SIA established its Operations Committee terms of reference (Appendix 3).
• In June 2024, SIA executed a contract with Distillery Software to procure a cloud-based system for its investigations previously undertaken in the JADE system (Table 4.1).
• In July 2024, SIA established a Fraud and Corruption Control Procedure which states that it provides the steps SIA officials must take in reporting or managing confirmed or suspected incidents of fraud or corruption (paragraph 2.20).
• In July 2024, SIA updated the Audit and Risk Committee Charter (Appendix 3).
• In July 2024, SIA documented consolidated analysis of planning day evaluations of the 2022–23 anti-doping testing program for sport/disciplines within the audit sample (paragraph 3.48).
• In July 2024, SIA considered the investigation manual and procedures against AGIS 2022 requirements (paragraph 4.4).
• In August 2024, SIA established a complaints policy and procedure.
• In August 2024, SIA updated its Gifts and Benefits Policy (paragraph 2.33).
• In September 2024, SIA updated its Conflict of Interest Policy (paragraph 2.33).
• In December 2024, an internal audit on SIA’s risk management framework was presented to SIA’s Audit and Risk Committee (paragraphs 2.27).
• In January 2025, SIA established business planning guidance and a template for section-level business planning, which includes a part for listing and analysing risk at the section level (paragraph 2.29).

Appendix 3 Sport Integrity Australia advisory, oversight and assurance bodies

Appendix 4 Anti-doping testing 2023–24