What exactly does that IGF do...? These doping regulations are strenuous to say the least. The amount of substances that are banned that aren't even tangentially related to go is extreme. I mean psychoactive drugs can be regulated sure, but why adopt a blanket standard put forth by another organization?
This is an old debate but you seem to be a new face, so I'll try to give a summary.
The main role of the fledgling IGF is to turn go into a truly international game, and it and its predecessor groupings have sought to implement that role by getting go accepted in the Olympics. That didn't work, but the Mindsports Games and the Asian Games have opened their doors. In order even to apply to these organisations you have to accept their control and their drugs regimes, and of course if you are accepted you have to implement them. People have realised that the regimes for mobile sports are not appropriate for go (though there is still debate whether go even is a sport) and so the gentlemen's agreement mentioned by Robert came into being. This is supposed to have begotten a more sensible, but still unofficial, list.
As far as I know, this particular drugs regime has already been applied to amateurs in the World Amateur Go Championship, and could, in theory, be applied during training to many amateurs in Europe and the USA who wish to take part in world events. But this out-of-competition stuff has not yet happened, and so far there is no likelihood of it.
Reaction in the west to the whole issue mostly seems to come under the following heads:
1. This is a great way to promote go in the west, especially as we are not making too good a job of it ourselves. We need this higher profile. Accepting a drugs regime is a small price to pay.
2. Alternatively, there are people who see this as a delusion. E.g. bobbing for toffee apples (name your own minority sport) has been in the Olympics for years yet hardly has a high profile even today. Others also consider the drugs regime too high a price to pay, anyway - at one extreme, it's seen as an affront to human rights.
3. Also common is the head-in-the-sand view (or wise view, depending on your standpoint) that argues that this doesn't really affect us, so why worry. A sub-set of this view is that it mostly only affects pros, so only they should decide what regime to accept.
4. Another concern for some is that the IGF is taking actions (even if benign) that affect us all, yet very, very few people know how the members are elected and even fewer know how to make them accountable or how to get their own views represented. Those most concerned may cite also negative experiences with similar organisations such as FIFA, the IOC and so on, but no-one yet has accused the IGF of corruption (the worst that can be said so far is that it has been a child of its sponsor, the Nihon Ki-in, but that relationship has been tempered a little recently - there seem to be moves to share the funding of the IGF; paying the piper and all that).
There are of course other strands. But very few people here have a coordinated or settled view of the topic, as it has not been discussed much publicly outside the forum. Robert, however, has examined the legislation closely. There are also people like Kirk who have useful knowledge from other sports (cycling in Kirk's case). I have some inside knowledge, as a journalist, of international organisations and disliked much of what I saw. Those who have intimate knowledge of how the subject is discussed within the IGF almost never seem to post here or anywhere else, although Robert, terrier like, has been able to elicit quite a lot of details through private e-mails. But I wouldn't say there has been any attempt at secrecy or a cover-up, nor is there even a hint of anything to cover up, and we must remember that the people working with or for the IGF are mostly already very busy amateurs.
However understandable the reasons, the present situation is murky. Robert is perhaps the only person to worry about it at present. To give a personal opinion, I have no worries at present but I do believe on general principles, from looking at other organisations, that what is happening now is likely to be the thin end of a large wedge. But it's unlikely ever to affect me or all but a handful of go players in the west, so that rather than a feeling of worry, I just have a feeling of cynicism (or I suffer from déformation professionnelle, if you prefer).
Incidentally, I'm not clear why Robert brought this up now. I'm not aware of anything happening in this area - perhaps he could explain.
