Banks described the sanctions as “minimalist and permissive”, saying the wording undermined the effectiveness of the intended ban.”I see no reason why, in the face of what they might see as problems, the IOC then starts defeating the purpose,” Banks said. “They really have to say, `this is what we’re going for’ and consult and then test it.”If they are going to say, `we’re not sure we can ever get this through, therefore we’re not going to do it’, that is not the way to make legislation. Banks’s objections, which he said were shared by government representatives from the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and others, centred on a loophole left in the sanctions for doping abuse, and the composition of the body which will oversee the new anti- doping agency.Although the IOC have adopted a minimum two-year ban for first doping offences, they have left in the possibility of competitors escaping the ban in “exceptional circumstances”, following resistance from the world governing bodies of football and cycling.The beleaguered IOC president, Juan Antonio Samaranch, said the additional clause was necessary because of the risk of legal challenge, and added “it was very important to keep the unity of all international federations within the Olympic Movement”. It was not what an organisation struggling to improve an image tarnished by recent scandals over corruption wanted to hear.
Britain’s minister for sport, Tony Banks, speaking on behalf of his 14 fellow European Union sports ministers, refused to endorse the document in its current form.

The IOC received an embarrassingly clear message from attending governments that its final declaration on doping was not acceptable, and may even have helped those who sought to cheat. THE “CLEAR MESSAGE” which the International Olympic Committee hoped to send out from their World Conference on Doping in Sport became one of confusion and uncertainty yesterday, even though it was confirmed that a $25m (pounds 15.6m) anti-doping agency would be established in time for the 2000 Olympics. They say greatness comes to those who wait – and Grimsby have been waiting for a long time.. Judge us in five years.”So far the verdict has been favourable, and should the club eventually reach the Premiership that verdict will better still. That’s a little unfair to the lads, who are honest pros who work very hard for the club, but you have to understand I have been here 18 months this time while I had been here six-and-a-half years before. We used to beat Barnsley home and away and yet, two years later, they were in the Premiership So if they could do it, so could Grimsby. You never know.”I don’t think the current Grimsby side play as good, pure football as previous ones but we’re harder to beat.

I didn’t go into the press room either: why should I give them something to write?”Ouch. You do not read psychology qualifications to see Buckley is happier at Grimsby, where he has revised his opinions about where the club could go “I was wrong that first time. They were digging for negatives all the time.”We out-footballed West Brom on Saturday and there was a guy who came to the dressing room asking: `Can you do a piece for ITV?’ It’s a two- word answer, isn’t it? I’m not a hypocrite so sooner than have an argument I’d rather keep out of the way. It rankles me that I seem to be considered a walking disaster.”The West Midlands media, which he believes has pedalled the myth, irk even more so and he refused all requests for interviews after Saturday’s game at West Brom. “A club loses three games over there and Central TV is in the pub asking supporters what they think of the manager. They were on their way down.”We weren’t relegated; in my only full season there we finished 11th, which was their best position for 10 years and even when I was sacked they were 15th.