Definition
The Dubin inquiry, formally known as the Senate Select Committee on Drug Use in Sport, was an Australian parliamentary investigation convened in 1989 to examine the prevalence and control of performance‑enhancing drug use among Australian athletes.
Overview
The committee was established in response to heightened public concern following the disqualification of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson for doping at the 1988 Seoul Olympics and revelations of drug use within Australian sport, notably the admission by cyclist Michael Griffiths. Chaired by Justice John Dubin, the inquiry conducted public hearings, collected testimonies from athletes, coaches, medical professionals, and administrators, and reviewed existing anti‑doping policies. Its final report, released in 1990, documented widespread doping practices, identified deficiencies in testing and enforcement, and recommended comprehensive reforms. Key outcomes included the creation of the Australian Sports Anti‑Doping Authority (ASADA) in 2006, the introduction of mandatory drug testing for elite athletes, and the development of educational programs aimed at preventing drug use.
Etymology/Origin
The term “Dubin inquiry” derives from the surname of its chair, Justice John Dubin, a former Federal Court judge appointed to lead the Senate select committee. The nickname reflects a common practice of referring to governmental inquiries by the name of their presiding officer.
Characteristics
- Mandate: To assess the extent of drug use in Australian sport, evaluate existing anti‑doping measures, and propose legislative and administrative reforms.
- Structure: A Senate select committee comprising members of both houses of Parliament, supported by legal counsel, medical experts, and a research staff.
- Procedures: Public hearings held in Canberra and various state capitals; submission of written evidence; confidential testimonies under oath; and commissioning of scientific studies on detection methods.
- Key Findings:
- Systematic doping in certain disciplines, particularly track and field and cycling.
- Inadequate coordination between sporting bodies, government agencies, and law‑enforcement.
- Lack of a unified national anti‑doping code.
- Recommendations:
- Establish an independent national anti‑doping authority.
- Implement compulsory, out‑of‑competition testing.
- Create a comprehensive educational framework for athletes and support personnel.
- Strengthen penalties for violations, including bans and fines.
Related Topics
- Australian Sports Anti‑Doping Authority (ASADA)
- World Anti‑Doping Agency (WADA)
- Ben Johnson doping scandal (1988)
- Doping in sport – global overview
- Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) anti‑doping programs
- Sports law and ethics in Australia