A national audit has found inconsistencies in how anti-doping is regulated across Australian sport, with testing and risk assessments less robust in several major professional competitions.
Australia’s national anti-doping system is only “partly effective”, according to a new audit that has raised questions about how the country regulates drug testing in major professional sports.
The report, published by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) earlier this month, examined how Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) manages the National Anti-Doping Scheme between July 2021 and June 2024. While the watchdog concluded that the framework is functioning in several areas, it found weaknesses in governance, risk management, and investigative procedures.
One of the audit’s most significant findings relates to the way anti-doping testing is structured across different sports. According to the ANAO, SIA applies different regulatory approaches depending on whether testing is funded by government programmes or by the sports themselves under “user-pays” arrangements.
For sports with government-funded testing, the report found anti-doping planning and detection systems were generally risk-based and largely effective. However, for major professional sports where testing costs are partly recovered from the sport, the audit found the system was “not demonstrably risk-based and data-driven,” which the ANAO noted is a core principle of good regulation.
In these cases, the number and distribution of anti-doping tests can be negotiated between SIA and the national sporting organisations under service agreements. The audit states this arrangement is not fully aligned with the regulatory responsibilities expected of a national anti-doping authority under the World Anti-Doping Code.
An expanded remit
The review comes as the role of SIA has expanded in recent years following the Australian government’s 2019 response to the Wood Review into sports integrity. The agency was established in July 2020 to coordinate national efforts to address threats to sporting integrity, including doping, match-fixing, and safeguarding issues.
The ANAO audit therefore sought to determine whether the organisation had established effective governance structures, prevention systems and investigative processes for anti-doping enforcement.
Across the three-year period examined, SIA collected more than 15,000 anti-doping samples, launched 38 investigations and issued 15 sanctions to athletes following completed cases.
Despite these enforcement activities, auditors identified several operational weaknesses in how testing strategies are planned and documented.
A lack of clarity
For example, sport-specific testing plans did not always clearly record the intelligence used to determine which athletes or disciplines should be targeted. In eight of the 13 government-funded sports examined in the audit sample, the plans did not include a qualitative summary of intelligence themes informing testing priorities.
The report also found that formal risk assessments were not consistently completed across all sports. In some years of the audit period, several major professional competitions — including Australian football, cricket and rugby league — were not subject to a documented risk assessment as part of SIA’s anti-doping planning process.
Testing pool structures were also highlighted in the audit. As of mid-2024, athletes were categorised into registered, national, and domestic testing pools, which determine the level of anti-doping oversight and whereabouts reporting required. However, the ANAO found that relatively few athletes from user-pays sports were included in these pools, reducing the extent of no-notice out-of-competition testing in those competitions.
Beyond testing programmes, the audit also reviewed SIA’s investigative framework for suspected anti-doping violations. It concluded that procedures were only partly fit for purpose, with irregularities identified in how some cases were triaged and investigated.
According to the report, investigations did not consistently meet timeliness targets and some cases lacked fully documented procedures or supporting evidence files.
Nonetheless, the ANAO noted that once violations were confirmed, SIA generally took appropriate enforcement action under the National Anti-Doping Scheme.
Performance measures lacking
Governance arrangements were also assessed as only partly effective. While SIA has established advisory bodies and oversight structures required under legislation, the audit found shortcomings in risk management processes and performance reporting related to anti-doping activities. Auditor-General_Report_2024-25_…
In particular, auditors noted the absence of clear performance measures that assess the effectiveness or efficiency of anti-doping testing and investigations, which are core regulatory functions of the agency.
Overall, the ANAO made seven recommendations aimed at strengthening the management of the anti-doping system. These include improving performance reporting, establishing clearer investigative procedures, strengthening risk-based testing frameworks, and introducing quality assurance processes for investigations.
Sport Integrity Australia agreed to all seven recommendations.
