anti doping essay

Pushbikewriter

Riding through the past, present and future of cycling

How to argue about doping in sport

Associate Professor, Centre for Cultural Diversity and Wellbeing, Victoria University

Disclosure statement

Craig Fry has received funding from the NHMRC, ARC, and Victoria University. He leads the Culture and Values in Health research program at the Centre for Cultural Diversity and Wellbeing, Victoria University. He is a Research Associate of the Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University. Craig also writes cycling history articles in an unpaid capacity for Cycling Tips.

Victoria University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

There has been a huge amount of academic, policy, and public debate over the years about doping in sport (i.e. the use of banned performance enhancing substances or drugs and other prohibited practices), and significant resources devoted to addressing it.

Doping is a complex issue – we are still striving to understand how and why it happens, and how to prevent it. But despite the attention doping in sport has received, there is still significant public disagreement about how best to respond to this problem.

Public discussions on doping usually break down - sometimes because of the way we argue about such issues, and often due to inconsistent reasoning. If you want evidence of this take a look at the online comments pages on sports doping articles, or start your own debate with friends and see how far it goes.

Greater clarity is needed on how people think and argue about doping in sport. In this piece I look at the common positions people take on doping, what these commit us to, and the consequences of mixed messages going unchallenged.

Why people dope

Assuming you care about doping in the first place (some people don’t), a key issue to clarify is your theory about why people dope. Your position here is important for discussing the doping issue because, whether you realise it or not, this informs your views on what should be done about it.

Some people believe the doping decision simply comes down to the individual’s desire to win or gain advantages of some type. To them, doping is mostly determined by individual psychological factors , and should therefore be addressed as an issue of personal responsibility and culpability.

Others believe doping choices are driven by a mix of psychological, social, cultural, and systemic factors , rather than individual traits alone. In this view, doping occurs due to the interaction of individual factors (e.g. the desire for winning, improvement, pain management, recovery, career longevity, economic gains, and belonging), and wider socio-cultural and systemic factors (e.g. social background and experiences, team/club/sport culture, sport governance systems, perceived efficacy of anti-doping system, and so on).

Against doping in sport

The question of whether you are for or against doping in sport is also clearly important. If you are against doping in sport, as most people are, there are a number of arguments you might run here.

For example, you may think doping is wrong because:

• It is against the defined rules and laws governing sport.
• It is unfair and goes against the level playing field ideal.
• It represents a health risk and is harmful to the individual.
• It harms the athletes who choose not to dope (e.g. they exit sport early, or their career is impacted from being cheated out of results and earnings).
• It contravenes other values defined as the ‘spirit of sport’ (e.g. fair play and honesty; health; character and education; fun and joy; teamwork; respect for self and others; courage; community and solidarity).
• It sends an unacceptable message about the place and impact of sport in society.

The important thing to note here is that anti-doping advocates vary in their relative emphasis on the above arguments. For some, it is all about the rules of sport, and related ethics and integrity requirements. While for others, the health risk and harm issue is paramount.

For doping in sport

Some people in academic circles argue that doping should be permitted in sport – either in an open free for all as it used to be, under medical supervision, or under the framework of regulated decriminalisation.

The proponents of these more liberal positions on doping commonly argue the following:

• The level playing field ideal is a myth - there are numerous legal performance enhancing strategies that are unequally available across sports and countries (e.g. expensive training facilities and programs, technologically superior equipment, nutritional, medicinal and other aids etc).
• Current banned drugs and substances are not inherently harmful, nor the biggest sources of risk and harm when you consider injury rates and long-term physical outcomes in some sport.
• The true spirit of elite sporting competition is closer to the Athenian ideal of superhuman effort at any cost (including risks and injuries), and doping is consistent with that.
• Supervised regulated use of performance enhancing drugs and substances, and other banned practices (e.g. blood transfusions) would reduce health risks and harms.
• Prohibition policies and punitive measures create hidden, uninformed, and riskier doping which exacerbates health and other harms.

Again, people who argue for doping in sport may place different weight on some of the above arguments over others. Further, belief in one or other of these arguments doesn’t commit you to all of them.

Doping prevention approaches

If you are opposed to doping, you should also have a position on how to prevent or reduce it – your discussions on the topic won’t get far if you’re against doping but have nothing to say on what to do about it.

On doping prevention you could take a zero tolerance stance , where you favour restrictive surveillance and testing protocols, and punitive responses for even minor doping transgressions. Implicit in this stance is the belief that because the individual chooses to break known rules by doping, they should take responsibility and be punished accordingly if caught or if they confess, or make later admissions.

Zero tolerance advocates might also believe that doping in sport can ultimately be eradicated. But this is not a necessary belief for this position - for example zero tolerance proponents might simply favour the strong public message in sports doping policy that includes punitive responses.

Alternatively, you could adopt a prevention stance based on harm minimisation principles. Implicit in this position is the belief that doping will always exist in sport, and so the pragmatic aim of prevention is to reduce doping harm (to dopers, other athletes, spectators, sport generally), rather than total eradication of the behaviour.

Harm reduction proponents emphasise an athlete health and welfare focus over harsh punitive measures (i.e. criminalisation specifically). People here are less concerned with upholding individual responsibility as far as punishment goes. They believe doping prevention is better achieved through a focus on broader social, cultural, and systemic factors (e.g. team/club/sport culture, sport governance systems, ethics and integrity culture and systems, etc) rather than individual factors alone.

Punishing dopers doesn’t work

People who argue for harm minimisation approaches believe punitive measures alone will be ineffective in reducing or preventing doping in sport. As above, one reason for this is they believe doping behaviour is driven by a range of factors, and so doping prevention too must take a broad focus (beyond individual behaviour and psychology) to achieve widespread and lasting change.

Another claim made here is that penalties for doping such as fines, suspensions, and even lifetime bans are unlikely to deter doping, and will not eradicate it. The analogy often cited here this is the case of death penalties for murder not halting murder rates, or harsh criminal penalties for illicit drug possession, supply and use failing to reduce or eliminate those proscribed behaviours.

People who are unconvinced about the effect of punitive measures might also point out that even the severest doping penalties are unlikely to work in most cases, because under the current system athletes would challenge such penalties legally to uphold their right to compete, or preserve their rights for future earnings.

Finally, many people against punitive responses to sports doping also place a high value on forgiveness and redemption – a chance to start again with a clean slate. What often comes with this position is the view that the punishment and public humiliations suffered by some dopers (and their families) can be wrongly disproportionate to their original doping offence.

Punitive measures have a place

Supporters of punitive measures do not accept the analogy made between doping and criminal behaviour. They would argue the social, cultural and individual factors (including psychological determinants) of doping in sport are very different to those for murder and illicit drug use. As such, they also claim the thinking behind doping prevention approaches, including the expected impact of severe sanctions (not necessarily criminal), should be different too.

Zero tolerance advocates believe that, if applied appropriately, punitive measures can achieve desired sports doping prevention outcomes (i.e. reduced doping behaviour, reduced harm, or complete eradication). The view here is if doping policy is to include punitive measures (as per the current anti-doping framework), then these should be implemented competently and consistently in accordance with the defined policy aims and processes; and with clear and consistent public messages from sports governing bodies giving unambiguous support.

Supporters of punitive measures might also argue that it is not the current anti-doping policy framework that has failed, but rather the inadequate implementation of this framework by sports governing bodies and systems weakened by inconsistent practices, ineffective leadership, and ambiguous public messages about high profile doping cases.

Middle ground or mixed messages?

Doping in sport debates are often framed around the two ‘sides’ of harm minimisation and zero tolerance. At first glance, such positions appear distinct. In reality, people commonly shift between positions or argue a mix of both.

For example, you might believe that doping requires social determinants focused education and prevention programs (including capacity building in ethics and integrity, athlete culture and health and welfare and so on), AND progressively severe punitive measures in certain circumstances (e.g. for repeat doping offences, systematic team-based doping, related fraud and criminal activity).

A significant challenge for the doping in sport debate is predicting how people will think about and respond to doping cases. Ideally, careful reasoning based on the types of beliefs and positions summarised in this article would lead us to consistent responses, but that is not what often happens.

We see this with the sport of cycling - for example, compare most people’s strident opinions and responses about the Lance Armstrong case, to the relatively muted reactions about other cyclists who have doped (e.g. David Millar, Jan Ullrich, Erik Zabel, George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton, Stuart O'Grady, Matt White, Neil Stephens, Alberto Contador, Alejandro Valverde, Danilo Di Luca etc).

We also see this in the responses from governments, sports governing bodies, and the sport itself. Again, the official reactions to the above cases in cycling have been markedly different - take a moment to reflect on where each of these riders are currently.

Most sports governing bodies and officials would claim they occupy a middle position between ‘crime and punishment’ and ‘education and prevention’ thinking and approaches. At face value, this seems like a sensible space for doping policy - the best of both worlds. However, this middle space can also be a fertile ground for mixed public messages and inconsistencies on doping that can undermine prevention efforts - as I have argued before in this Column ( here and here ).

By trying to occupy the middle ground on doping between zero tolerance and harm minimisation - trying to have it both ways - sports governing bodies run the risk of subsequently failing to implement either aspect of their doping prevention policies competently and consistently. Again, take a look at the recent criticisms made about the International Cycling Union.

Doping prevention efforts in all sports are undermined when mixed messages emerge from inconsistent thinking and action around doping policy - and especially when they continue unchallenged in public discussion and debates (e.g. ‘say no to doping’ but ‘say yes to ex-dopers in coaching positions’; ‘our sport is anti-doping’ but ‘ex-dopers manage our pro teams’; ‘strong doping prevention messages are needed’ but ‘ex-dopers are sponsoring elite teams, sports blogs, and working in sports media’).

What does your position on doping in sport commit you to? What should be done to prevent doping? What should we say about the mixed messages that exist about doping in sport?

Further reading: There is of a large academic literature, and a growing research evidence base, underpinning many of the points made in this article. If you are interested in further reading, a reasonable coverage of the issues can be seen at the Wikipedia doping in sport site , and Routledge have published a number of excellent academic books on this topic by some of the leading thinkers in this area.

Communications and Change Manager – Research Strategy

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer

Organizational Behaviour – Assistant / Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Apply for State Library of Queensland's next round of research opportunities

It seems that your javascript is disabled. To view this site at it's best, please activate it!

• Foundation Board
• Executive Committee
• Vice President
• Director General
• Sport Movement
• Governments
• Permanent Special Committees
• Standing Committees
• Expert Advisory Groups
• Working Groups
• Management Team
• Strategic Plan
• Private Funding
• Headquarters
• Regional Offices
• President's Office
• Code Signatories
• Become a Code Signatory
• Code Review
• International Standards
• Code Compliance Implementation and Maintenance
• Compliance Monitoring Program
• Compliance Audits
• Compliance Enforcement Procedures
• Independent Observer Program
• Education Initiatives
• Education Committee
• Sport Values in Every Classroom
• Social Science Research
• Social Science Research Collaboration Platform
• Code Implementation Support Program
• Global Learning and Development Framework
• Global to Local
• Implementation
• Modules & Apps
• Anti-Doping I&I Project in Europe
• Legal Opinions and Articles on the Code
• NADO Program
• RADO Program
• Benchmarking for ADOs
• Laboratories
• Scientific Research
• Athlete Biological Passport
• Therapeutic Use Exemptions
• The Prohibited List

Anti-Doping Process

• Anti-Doping Education
• Paris 2024 – Resources for athletes
• Athlete Engagement at events
• Athlete Council
• Anti-Doping Rights Act
• Speak Up - Report Doping
• Athletes' Anti-Doping Ombuds
• Provide Whereabouts
• Olympic & Paralympic Committees
• International Federations
• National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs)
• Regional Anti-Doping Organizations (RADOs)
• Major Event Organizations
• Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Law Enforcement
• Pharmaceutical Industry
• Service Providers
• Anti-Doping Statistics
• Scientific Research Projects
• Social Science Research Projects
• 2022 Annual Report

Doping control (testing) is one tool that Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) use to level the playing field and protect clean sport.

If you are competing at the national or international level, you are subject to doping control and can be tested anytime or anywhere. You can be tested by relevant National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs), International Federations (IFs) and Major Event Organizations (MEOs). W hen you are selected for doping control, you have a series of rights and responsibilities.

• The athlete is notified by a doping control officer (DCO) or chaperone that they have been selected for doping control (testing) and they are informed under which ADOs authority they are being tested.
• The athlete must report to the doping control station immediately (although they may be excused for medal ceremonies etc. once they’ve checked in).
• The athlete will choose a urine sample collection vessel from a selection made available by the doping control personnel.
• If a blood sample is collected, the athlete will choose a blood collection kit from a selection made available by the doping control personnel.
• The DCO or chaperone will witness the passing of the urine sample when the athlete is ready to provide it.
• A blood collection officer (BCO) will draw blood from the athlete using two vials (which will become the A & B sample).
• The athlete will divide their urine into the A and B bottles, saving a residual amount of urine in the sample collection vessel.  The B sample affords the athlete the opportunity to have second analysis performed in the event their ‘A sample returns and adverse analytical finding (a ‘positive’ result)
• If a blood sample is collected, the blood vials will be placed in the A and B blood sample collection bottles. Only one vial may be necessary if the blood sample is collected as part of an Athlete Biological Passport program.
• The athlete will seal the A and B bottles.
• The DCO measures the specific gravity of the athlete’s urine to determine whether it meets laboratory standards. If the sample is too dilute the athlete will be asked to provide additional sample(s).
• The athlete completes the DCF, either in paper or digital format, with the DCO. The athlete is asked to provide personal information, a list of substances or methods used, and any comments they may have related to the doping control process. The athlete receives a print or digital copy of the DCF.
• The athlete’s sealed sample is secured and sent to a WADA-accredited laboratory. A blood sample collected as part of the ABP program may be analyzed by a WADA-approved laboratory. The laboratory copy of the DCF that accompanies the sample is anonymized, indicating only the sample bottle number, sport and the athlete’s gender.

Additional resources

International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI)

ISTI Guidelines for Sample Collection

At-a-Glance: Anti-Doping Overview

The World Anti-Doping Agency Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is an independent organization that promotes scientific research and monitors the development of anti-doping campaigns. In addition, the organization puts forward the World Anti Doping Code, the document that harmonizes anti-doping strategies in sport. According to this Code, all athletes should compete in a doping-free environment.

The analysis of the origins of the organization sheds light on the policies and approaches that the agency applies and, therefore, specific attention should be paid to the evaluation of those principles with regard to the ethical principles introduced by the Global Business Standards Codex. A critical assessment of WADA’s regulatory regime is possible by implementing such ethical principles as transparency, fairness, and dignity.

From the perspective of the transparency principle, the WADA’s code should be more concerned with the issues of publicity and objectivity. In this respect, the question arises concerning the morality of the strategies used by the agency. The sporting events, therefore, should not be recognized as corporate activities subject to political and economic environments.

According to Hanstad et al. (2008), “doping was primarily a public relations problem that threatened lucrative television and corporate contracts…worth billions of dollars” (p. 230). Therefore, while adopting anti-doping campaign, the organization at issue should be more focused on the developing equal and beneficial opportunities for individuals participating in sporting events rather than on commercial issues.

Such an assumption refers directly to the case of the Atlanta Olympics when several doping tests were not given to publicity for commercial purposes.

In order to improve the situation the WAGA agency should be more concerned with the transparent reporting to ensure sustainability and control of the sporting events. A transparency policy can effectively be applied through adherence to moral commitment to anti-doping campaign.

Transparency issues can also be improved as soon as the anti-doping campaign is regarded as a form of social monitoring. Surveillance of all procedures and development of individual check-control systems constitute an important technique that should be reconsidered by WADA’s officials.

To integrate changes to a social domain, the agency’s code should undergo philosophical transformation. According to Slugget (2011), “WADA’ surveillance practices often extend beyond sport’s walls and typically involve multiple, interacting agendas including efficiency, policing, legitimation, and appearance of control” (p. 31).

Hence, involving conceptual frameworks is essential for reconsidering the purposes of anti-doping policies adopted by the agency. In addition, the surveillance policies implemented by the agency should come in congruence with the cultural patterns.

Within these provisions Park (2005) emphasizes, “sport is a central cultural technology of governing the social body, a technology to help maintain the body of the population be healthy, efficient, and productive” (p. 177).

Therefore, the governments should rely heavily on cultural practices before implementing a set of ethical principles. In particular, they should prioritize equality, fair competition, and treatment instead of demonstrating high performance by all means.

Looking WAGA regulatory regimes from the fairness principle, the attention should be paid to the analysis fair treatment, training, and performance principles adjusted for all athletes.

Within this context, the fairness principle, on the one hand claims, “athletes have a contractual obligation of sorts to abide by the rules governing a sports, and the use of a prohibited substance breaks or implicit agreement” (Hemphill 2009, p. 314).

Alternatively, the violation of agreement would imply unfair treatment of the parties concerned. On the other hand, a more serious infringement of the contract also contributes to unfair competition among the athletes, as well as violation of the equality rights.

In this respect, “to gain an unfair advantage by intentionally using a prohibited means in training or in performance is considered to be cheating” (Hemphill 2009, p. 314). With regard to the above-presented considerations, the fairness principle relies on such aspects as equal and transparent competition, as well as protection of individual rights during games.

Apart from the equality issues, the fairness principle implies liability and commitment to ensuring equal treatment during competition. Striking the balance between one’s individual privacy right and the necessity to eradicate spread of doping in sports is an important issue that should be taken into the deepest consideration.

In this respect, Halt (2009) refers to Article 8 of European Code, which runs, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence” (p. 285). In this respect, in order to find the equilibrium, WADA should be more concerned with the approaches underlining anti-doping principles in regard to the privacy principles.

To follow the principles of dignity, the WADA agency should refers to the analysis of civil rights and its influence on developing power and support for the athletes. This principle is important because it restores confidence in the organization’s potential to protect rights of individuals.

As Houlihan (2004) states, “The generally low levels of trust, co-operation and compatibility between policy makers left loopholes for drug abusing athletes…in the anti-doping regime which was increasingly perceived as poorly managed and reliant upon dubious science” (p. 421).

Therefore, WADA’s work should be oriented on providing opportunities for athletes to regain their confidence in the organization’s efficient management and promotion of civil rights.

Athletes should, first of all, regarded as individuals possessing a set of rights and principles that allow them to freely choose the sports they would like be involved. Principles of freedom and privacy are also included into evaluation of the dignity principles that is presented in WADA’s code (Hard 2010).

According to Tamburrini (2007), the agency successfully meets all ethical criteria and fulfils the dignity principle. Nevertheless, there are some issues that violate athletes’ privacy rights. The major task of the WADA’s code is to uncover the case of drug use, but not to give the personal issues of athletes to publicity. In other words, anti-doping strategies should not contradict the purpose of sport.

With regard to the above-presented criticism of WADA’s regulatory regime, it should be stated that the implemented anti-doping policies fully adhere to the chosen ethical principles, except for several issues.

In particular, the organization should pay closer attention to transparent reporting about cases of drug abuse, excluding the commercial purposes. Second, the code should not prioritize government’s purposes to improve sports performance in the country. Rather, they should be more focused on the welfare and privacy issues.

Protecting civil rights and equality principles is the basic requirement to improve the current situation. Finally, WADA must pay attention to the equality principle in terms of athletes’ competition. In this respect, cultural and social backgrounds must be analysed to avoid conflicts and adhere to the moral principles. Athletes should feel equal treatment and trustful atmosphere during competition.

Reference List

Halt, J 2009, ‘Where is the Privacy in WADA’s “Whereabouts” Rule?’, Marquette Sports Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1. pp. 267-289.

Hanstad, DV, Smith , A, and Waddington, I 2008, ‘Type Your Reference List in Alphabetical Order Below’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 43, no. 3, pp 227-249.

Hard, M. (2010). Caught In The Net: Athletes’ Rights And The World Antidoping Agency. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 19 (3), 533-564.

Hemphill, D 2009, ‘Performance Enhancement and Drug Control in Sports: Ethical Considerations’, Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 313-326.

Houlihan, B 2004, ‘Civil Rights, Doping Control and the World Anti-Doping Code’, Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, vol. 7., no. 3, pp. 420-437.

Park, J-K 2005, ‘Governing Doped Bodies: The World Anti-Doping Agency and the Global Culture of Surveillance’, Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 174-188.

Slugget, B 2011, ‘Sport’s Doping Game: Surveillance in the Biotech Age’, Sociology Of Sport Journal , 28, 4, pp. 387-403.

Tamburrini, C 2007, ‘Are Doping Sanctions Justified? A Moral Relativistic View’, Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 199-211.

• Proposition 37 and Genetically Engineered Foods
• The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
• Doping in Athletics: Sports Sciences Issues
• Doping in Sports and Related Concerns
• Study by Kirby, Moran and Guerin on athletes using doping
• Should Canada Have An Abortion Law?
• Hurray for Health Reforms by Paul Krugman
• The Individual Mandate and the Affordable Care Act: An Economic, Legal and Political Analysis
• The Health Care Policy Problems and Suggestions
• Health Care as an Essential Public Policy
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 14). The World Anti-Doping Agency. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-anti-doping-agency/

"The World Anti-Doping Agency." IvyPanda , 14 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-anti-doping-agency/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The World Anti-Doping Agency'. 14 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The World Anti-Doping Agency." April 14, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-anti-doping-agency/.

1. IvyPanda . "The World Anti-Doping Agency." April 14, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-anti-doping-agency/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The World Anti-Doping Agency." April 14, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-anti-doping-agency/.

Looking at the Anti-Doping Regime Through a Human Rights Lens

• First Online: 24 January 2020

Cite this chapter

• Bart van der Sloot 6 ,
• Mara Paun 6 &
• Ronald Leenes 6  

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

834 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter describes and analyses Article 8 (right to a private life), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The analysis is applied to the anti-doping regime under WADA. The discussion is mainly built upon primary sources such as legal texts and case law. Within the wide spectrum of Article 8, WADA’s anti-doping rules such as the out-of-competition requirement, the whereabouts rule restrict the athletes’ right to a private life. Moreover, gathering blood and urine is highly invasive, and WADA’s lack of evaluation of other forms of testing is problematic. The effectiveness of biological passports is also tested, but found wanting due to lack of reliable data to demonstrate otherwise. The question of proportionality and necessity may also be problematic to WADA’s rules and their application, as it makes no effort to distinguish between sports and athletes. Article 6 is discussed within the context of the leading cases on the matter, which challenge the independence and impartiality of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the right to a public hearing and the presumption of innocence. Lastly, Article 14 has not been directly applied to doping cases, but the fear of unequal treatment on the basis of gender and nationality continue to be raised, alongside the questions around the entangled Paralympic system and the distinctions between disabled and non-disabled athletes. This chapter will discuss the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the anti-doping framework. First, Sect. 4.1 will give a brief introduction on the role and effect of this Convention. Subsequently, this chapter will focus on three rights contained therein, which may have an impact on the anti-doping context. This chapter will move beyond the gathering, storing and sharing of personal data as such, and will focus instead on the right to bodily integrity as protected under Article 8 ECHR (Sect. 4.2 ), containing the right to privacy, on the right to a fair trial, as protected under Article 6 ECHR (Sect. 4.3 ), and the right to non-discrimination, Article 14 ECHR (Sect. 4.4 ). The chapter will conclude with a brief conclusion (Sect. 4.5 ).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Sections  4.1 , 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 are partly based on: Van der Sloot 2017a .

UN General Assembly 1948 .

UN General Assembly 1966 , p 171.

Article 33 ECHR.

Article 34 ECHR.

See for the original Convention http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Collection_Convention_1950_ENG.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states . (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://europa.eu/european-union/index_en . (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://www.coe.int/en/ . (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/results/subject/3 . (accessed 27 August 2018).

Below is based on Van der Sloot 2015a , pp 25–50.

Commission Decision, Acmanne a.o. v. Belgium , App no 10435/83, 10 December 1984.

Commission Decision, Association of parents v. UK App no 7154/75, 12 July 1978; Commission Decision, Wain v. UK App no 10787/84, 02 December 1985; Commission Decision X. v. Denmark App no 6907/75, 10 December 1975; Commission Decision, Godfrey v. UK App no 8542/79, 4 February 1982; ECtHR, Storck v. Germany App no 61603/00, 16 June 2005.

ECtHR, Y.F. v. Turkey App no 24209/94, 22 July 2003; ECtHR , Tomasi v. France App no 12850/87, 27 August 1992.

Commission Decision, X. v. Germany App no 8509/79, 05 May 1981.

ECtHR, Benito v. Spain App no 36150/03, 13 November 2006.

ECtHR, Costello-Roberts v. UK App no 13134/87, 25 March 1993.

Commission Decision, X. v. Germany App no 8334/78, 7 May 1981.

Commission Decision, A.B. v. Switzerland App no 20872/92, 22 February 1995; Commission Decision, Galloway v. UK App no 34199/96, 09 September 1998.

Commission Decision, Peters v. Netherlands App no 21132/93, 06 April 1994; Commission Decision, X. v. Netherlands App no 8239/78, 04 December 1978; Commission Decision, X. v. Austria App no 8278/78, 13 December 1979; Acmanne (n 84).

ECtHR, Pretty v. UK App no 2346/02, 29 April 2002; Sanderson 2002 .

Commission Decision, Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany App no 6959/75, 19 May 1976; ECtHR, R.R. v. Poland App no 27617/04, 26 May 2011, para 197. See further: Ireland 2013 .

ECtHR, Zehnalova and Zehnal v. Czech Republic App no 38621/97, 14 May 2002.

ECtHR, Pentiacova and 48 others v. Moldova App no 14462/03, 4 January 2005.

This is based on: van der Sloot 2014 –3, pp 230–244.

ECtHR, Fyodorov and Fydorova v. Ukraine , application no. 39229, 07 July 2011. ECtHR, Csoma v. Romania , application no. 8759/05, 15 January 2013.

ECtHR, Hristozov and others v. Bulgaria , application nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, 13 November 2012.

ECtHR, Munjaz v. the United Kingdom, application no. 2913/06, 17 July 2012, § 80.

ECtHR, N.B. v. Slovakia, application no. 29518/10, 12 June 2012. ECtHR, I.G. a.o. v. Slovakia , application no. 15966/04, 13/11/2012. ECtHR, V.C. v. Slovakia , application no. 18968/07, 08/11/2011.

See among others: ECtHR, P. and S. v. Poland , application no. 57375/08, 56 May 2011. ECtHR, Bosso v. Italy , application no. 50490/99, 05 September 2002. ECmHR, Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, application no. 6959/75, 19 May 1976.

ECtHR, Haas v. Switzerland , application no. 31322/07, 20 January 2011. ECtHR, Koch v. Germany , application no. 497/09, 19 July 2012.

ECtHR, Pretty v. the United Kingdom , § 61.

ECtHR, Juhnke v. Turkey , application no. 52515/99, 13/05/2008, § 82.

ECtHR, Csoma v. Romania , § 42.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Data_ENG.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Mass_surveillance_ENG.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

ECtHR, Uzun v. Germany , application no. 35623/05, 2 September 2010.

The following is based on: van der Sloot 2017b .

Admissibility guide ECHR. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf (accessed 27 August 2018).

Greer 1997 , p 9. http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRFILES/DG2-EN-HRFILES-15(1997).pdf (accessed 6 August 2018).

A recent case is: ECtHR, Zakharov v. Russia , application no. 47143/06, 04 December 2015.

van der Sloot 2015b .

Ovey and White 2002 , p 209.

Article 7.3(a) Anti-Doping Convention.

Council of Europe ( 1989 ) Explanatory Report to the Anti-Doping Convention. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016800cb349 . (accessed 27 August 2018).

Hanstad and Loland 2009 , pp 5–6.

See Halt 2009 .

Below is based on: Doping control: whereabouts requirement does not breach Convention, Press release issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 018 (2017), 18 January 2018.

ECtHR, National Federation of Sports Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France, application no. 48151/11 77769/13, 18 January 2018.

Doping control: whereabouts requirement does not breach Convention, Press release issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 018 (2017), 18 January 2018, p 2.

Ibid., p 4.

Alka and Kapendra 2016 .

See Laure and Binsinger 2005 .

WADA, 2017 Anti-Doping Testing Figures, p 7. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2017_anti-doping_testing_figures_en_0.pdf (accessed 8 August 2018).

See Ashenden et al. 2011 , p 2310: One way athletes appear to be circumventing the biological passports model is by small, frequent use of EPO. In 2011, Australian researchers found frequent micro-dosing allows athletes to use rhEPO without abnormal changes in the blood variables that are currently monitored by the athlete blood passport.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2017_anti-doping_testing_figures_en_0.pdf . (accessed 27 august 2018).

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016_adrvs_report_web_release_april_2018_0.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

The Article 29 Working Party had stated: ‘The Privacy Standard does not distinguish between the various categories of persons subject to it (athletes, supporting staff, third party). However, the application of the proportionality principle will depend on the category to which the person belongs. Consequently, the Privacy Standard should be modified in this regard.’ WADA’s reaction is: ‘Here, the Working Party’s request, like the one below, is unrealistic. The correct application of the proportionality principle will vary on a case-by-case basis, taking into account not only the “category” of participant (e.g., athlete, trainer, medical personnel or other) but also a number of other factors, such as the purpose of the processing, the current state of anti-doping technologies and testing techniques and, potentially, factors unique to each ADO and its applicable legal regime. It would be totally unrealistic for the Standard to attempt to define precisely what the principle permits or forbids in the multitude of different contexts in which ADOs process personal data. In short, WADA believes that this is an area where some flexibility within the Standard is unavoidable and appropriate.’

WADA, Comments on Article 29 Working Party Second Opinion [3.4] https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Comments_WP29_FullVersion.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

Brouwer 2010 : A Dutch PhD shows, for example, that it is unsure whether EPO and blood doping in fact have a significant sport-enhancing effect on cycling performances. http://www.2010uitgevers.nl/wp-content/media/9789490951177.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018); see also Sect. 4.2.4.2 for a recent, similar study.

WADC Article 4.3

WADC 4.3.3.

4.5.5. ISTI.

WADC Article 2; see also Sect. 4.2.4.1 of the book.

WADC Article 2.1 and 2.2

WADC Appendix 1.

WADC Article 3.1.

More details about the hearings – see Sect. 4.2.9.9 Hearings.

For a description of these details, see Sect. 4.2.9, especially 2.9.9.

On article 6 ECHR : Adrian Mutu v. Switzerland (Application no. 40575/10, Statement of facts, 13 July 2010), Erwin Bakker v. Switzerland (Application no. 7198/07, Statement of facts, 13 February 2007), Claudia Pechstein v. Switzerland (Application no. 67474/10, Statement of facts, 11 November 2010); on article 8: Mutu , Federation Nationale des Sydicats Sportifs (FNASS) and others v France (Application no. 48151/11, Statement of facts, 23 July 2011), Jeannie Longo and Patrice Ciprelli v. France (Application no. 77769/13, Statement of facts, 6 December 2013).

Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (Applications no. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment 2 October 2018)

Erwin Bakker v. Switzerland (Application No. 7198/07, Statement of facts, 13 February 2007).

Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (Applications no. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment 2 October 2018).

Adrian Mutu v. Switzerland (Application no. 40575/10, Statement of facts, 13 July 2010)

von Segesser 2012 , pp 45–51; Beffa 2011 .

Claudia Pechstein v. Switzerland (Application no. 67474/10, Statement of facts, 11 November 2010)

Claudia Pechstein v. International Skating Union 4A_612/2009, Judgment of February 2009, para 4.1. http://www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com/sites/default/files/10%20fevrier%202010%204A%20612%202009.pdf .

Para 3.1.3. (BGE 129 III 445 at the end 3 p. 448 ff. with references).

Maisonneuve 2016 .

Ibid., p. 344.

BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union , 7 June 2016 , para 46 as referenced by Ehle and Guaia 2017, p 420.

Martens and Engelhard 2017 , pp 77–79.

Bundesverfassungsgericht, ‘Übersicht für das Jahr 2017’ (1 BvR 2103/16).

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Verfahren/Jahresvorausschau/vs_2017/vorausschau_2017_node.html . (accessed 25 August 2018).

Harris et al. 2014 , p 371.

ECtHR, Garcia Ruiz v Spain , Application no. 30544/96, Judgment (21 January 1999), para 28.

ECtHR, James and Others v. the United Kingdom , Application no. 8793/79, Judgment (21 February 1986), para 81.

ECtHR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium, Application no. 6878/75; 7238/75, Judgment (23 June 1981), para 45.

ECtHR, Sporrong and Lönnorth v. Sweden , Application no. 7151/75; 7152/75, Judgment (23 September 1982), para 81.

ECtHR, Benthem v The Netherlands , Application no. 8848/80, Judgment (23 October 1985), para 32.

ECtHR, Szücs v. Austria , Application no. 135/1996/754/953, Judgment (24 November 1997), para 31.

ECtHR, König v. Germany, Application no 6232/73, Judgment (28 June 1978), para 89.

Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (civil limb)’ (30 April 2017), para 21.

Ibid., paras 22–26.

Ibid., para 23.

ECtHR, Engel and Others v The Netherlands , Application no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, Judgment (8 June 1976) paras 82–83.

Harris et al. 2014 , p 374.

ECtHR, Corigliano v. Italy , Application no. 8304/78, Judgment (10 December 1982) para 34.

Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (civil limb)’ (30 April 2017), para 70.

ECtHR, Suda v. the Czech Republic , Application no. 1643/06, Judgment (28 October 2010), paras 48–49.

ECtHR, Cyprus v Turkey , Application no. 25781/94, Judgment (10 May 2001), para 233.

Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (civil limb)’ (30 April 2017), para 166.

ECtHR, Albert and Le Compte v Belgium , Application no. 7299/75; 7496/76, Judgment (10 February 1983) para 29.

Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (civil limb)’ (30 April 2017) para 156.

Ibid., [162].

ECtHR, Kleyn and others v The Netherlands , Applications nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, Judgment (6 May 2003) para 190.

Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 6 – Right to a fair trial (criminal limb)’, paras 66–71.

ECtHR, Barbera, Messegue and Jabardo v Spain , Application no. 10590/83, Judgment (6 December 1988) para 77.

Cernic 2012 , p 279; de Montmollin and Pentsov 2011 ; Lukomski 2013 , p 68.

For instance, Romanian law provides that highest appeal level to the national anti-doping hearing commission decisions shall be made to the CAS. (Law no. 227/2006 regarding prevention and control of doping in sport (republished, as amended last by Article III of Law no. 243/2015) Article 58) In contrast, in the Netherlands prior to the new doping law which makes the dopingauthoriteit a public body, enforcement of the WADC is entrusted to a private-law body.

A and B v The Flemish Federation and the World Anti-doping Agency , Judgment (13 February 2012) 4A_428/2011.

Lukomski 2013 , p 64.

Hulskotter 2017 .

OLG München, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, Claudia Pechstein , para 95 as referenced by Maisonneuve 2016 , p 340.

BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union , 7 June 2016, paras 54 et seq as referenced by Ehle and Guaia 2017 , p 422.

OLG München, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, Claudia Pechstein , para 92 as referenced by Maisonneuve 2016 , p 348.

Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (Applications no. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment 2 October 2018) paras 109–115.

Ibid., paras 116–120.

Suovaniemi and others v. Finland (Application No. 31737/96, Judgment 23 February 1999).

Duval 2018 .

Ibid., para 98.

Code of Sports-related Arbitration, R46 and R 59.

Federal Tribunal, 4P.172/2006, G Guillermo Cañas v. ATP Tour (22 March 2007) 4.3.2.

TAS/CAS, ‘History of the CAS’. http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html (accessed 27 August 2018).

Code of Sports-related Arbitration (in force 1 January 2017), S2. http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Code_2017_FINAL__en_.pdf (accessed 27 August 2018).

Ibid., S14.

Code of Sports-related Arbitration R33.

See for instance Gorbylev 2013 , Cernic 2012 , Cernic 2014, Downie 2011 .

For instance, OLG München raised significant issues relating to the independence and impartiality of the CAS. OLG München, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, Claudia Pechstein.

Mutu and Pechstein para 149.

Mutu and Pechstein 161–168.

Mutu and Pechstein para 150.

Mutu and Pechstein para 153.

Mutu and Pechstein para 156.

Mutu and Pechstein para 157.

Mutu and Pechstein Ibid.

Mutu and Pechstein (Dissenting Opinion) para 10.

Mutu and Pechstein (Dissenting Opinion) para 13.

Mutu and Pechstein (Dissenting Opinion) para 14.

Mutu and Pechstein (Dissenting Opinion) para 15.

Council of Europe, Monitoring Group, ‘Recommendation on ensuring the independence of hearing panels (bodies) and promoting fair trial in anti-doping cases’ (Strasbourg, 20 February 2017) T-DO/Rec (2017)01.

Code of Sports-related Arbitration, R44.2.

Mutu and Pechstein para 173.

Mutu and Pechstein para 182.

Ibid., para 187.

CAS Arbitration Rules Applicable to the Anti-Doping Division, R43.

Ibid., R59.

For instance, Germany. Such classification under UK law is also under debate.

Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (Applications no. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment 2 October 2018) para 53. It also refers to Radomilja and others v. Croatia (Applications No. 37685/10 and 22768/12, paras 113–115), where it stated that a complaint is always characterized by the alleged facts. In citing Guerra and others v. Italy (19 February 1998, para 44), it makes it clear that ‘A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on.’ And that it ‘it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant, a government or the Commission.’

Below is based on: van der Sloot et al. 2017 .

Kornbeck 2016 .

Comment to Article 2.2.2 WADC.

Comment to Article 2.3 WADC.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/asp_list_update_11.04.2017_disclaimer_and_list.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

2.10.3 WADC.

Comment to Articles 2.6.1 WADC.

Comment to Article 3.2.2 WADC.

3.2.5 WADC.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/strict-liability-in-anti-doping . (accessed 27 August 2018).

CAS 2011/A/2384 UCI v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC jo. CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC (Arbitral award).

See CAS 98/214, B. v. FIJ, para 16: “Every athlete enjoys the presumption of innocence until such time as the presence of a banned substance in his body is established”.

Ibid., p 179.

For use of indirect evidence, see Mavromati 2012 .

Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 6 – Right to a fair trial (criminal limb)’, paras 212 –216.

Kornbeck 2016 , p 182.

5.4 Intelligence Guidelines. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_guidelines-information-gathering-intelligence-sharing_final_en.pdf (accessed 27 August 2018).

Also see: WADA Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis – TD2014SSA.

4.5.4 ISTI.

See Exner 2018 .

Comment to Article 10.12.1 WADC.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654240/Review_of_Criminalisation_of_Doping_in_Sport.pdf . (accessed 27 August 2018).

FRA, Handbook on European non-discrimination law – 2018 edition, pp 29–30. http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/handbook-european-law-non-discrimination (accessed 27 August 2018).

Gerards 2013 , pp 99–124.

This discussion is based on: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Short_Survey_2016_ENG.pdf . (accessed 25 August 2018).

ECtHR, Biao v. Denmark , application no. 38590/10, 2016.

Saleem 2010 .

Ingle S (2017) Sebastian Coe: IAAF right to seek court ruling over hyperandrogenism issue. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/12/sebastian-coe-iaaf-hyperandrogenism (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_AHD3_AnnounceAHDcase2.pdf (accessed 27 August 2018).

Genel et al. 2016 .

IAAF (2017) Levelling the playing field in female sport: New research published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/hyperandrogenism-research (accessed 27 August 2018).

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_3759_Jan_2018.pdf (accessed 27 August 2018).

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_Semenya_ASA_IAAF_decision.pdf (accessed 9 May 2019).

Buzuvis 2010 .

Ibid.; Kerr and Obel 2017 .

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/mclaren_report_part_ii_2.pdf ; Ingle S (2016) Russia orchestrated state-sponsored doping cover-up, says WADA report. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/18/wada-report-russia-sochi-winter-olympics (accessed 15 August 2018).

CAS (2018) 32 Russian Athletes File Appeals at the CAS Ad Hoc Division. http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_AHD3_AnnounceAHDcase2.pdf (accessed 15 August 2018).

https://www.ft.com/content/74da1284-1ca0-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6 (accessed 15 August 2018).

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/cs7_oscar_pistorius.pdf (accessed 15 August 2018).

IAAF Rule 144.2(e) (2007 regulations).

CAS 2008 /A/480 Pistorius v/ IAAF , award of 16 May 2008. https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/1480.pdf (accessed 15 August 2018).

See Wolbring 2008 .

Helen Thompson (2012) Performance enhancement: Superhuman athletes. https://www.nature.com/news/performance-enhancement-superhuman-athletes-1.11029#auth-1 (accessed 15 August 2018); Miah 2003 .

As argued by Mutu in his application.

Alka B, Kapendra S (2016) Hair Analysis for the Detection of Misuse of Drugs in Sports: A Perspective. Austin J Anal Pharm Chem 3(4):1074.

Google Scholar  

Ashenden M, Gough CE, Garnham A, Gore CJ, Sharpe K (2011) Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping. European Journal of Applied Physiology 111(9):2307–14.

Beffa L (2011) Challenge of International Arbitration Awards in Switzerland for Lack of Independence and/or Impartiality of an Arbitrator – Is it Time to Change the Approach? ASA Bulletin 598 et seq.

Brouwer B (2010) De mythe van de rode bloedcel. Verbetert erythropoëtine (epo) of bloeddoping de prestaties van wielrenners en andere duuratleten? 2010 Uitgevers http://www.2010uitgevers.nl/wp-content/media/9789490951177.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

Buzuvis EE (2010) Caster Semenya and the Myth of a Level Playing Field. The Modern American 6(2):36–42.

Cernic J L (2012) Fair trial guarantees before the Court of Arbitration in Sport. HR & IDL 6(2):259.

Cernic J L (2014) Emerging Fair Trial Guarantees Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 10th Anniversary Conference, Vienna, 4–6 September 2014, Conference Paper No. 9/2014.

de Montmollin J, Pentsov DA (2011) Do athletes really have the right to a fair trial? American Review of International Arbitration 22(2):189.

Downie R (2011) Improving the Performance of Sport’s Ultimate Umpire: Reforming the Governance of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Melbourne Journal of International Law Vol.12: 1–30.

Duval A (2018) The “Victory” of the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the European Court of Human Rights: The End of the Beginning for the CAS. https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/the-victory-of-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-at-the-european-court-of-human-rights-the-end-of-the-beginning-for-the-cas .

Ehle B, Guaia I (2017) Bundesgerichtshof, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union (ISU), 7 June 2016. In: Duval A, Rigozzi A (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2016. TMC Asser Press, The Hague.

Exner J (2018) Anti-doping and athletes’ rights under EU law: four-year period of ineligibility as disproportionate sanction? The International Sports Law Journal 1–11.

Genel M, Simpson JL, de la Chapelle A (2016) The Olympic Games and Athletic Sex Assignment. JAMA 316(13):1359–60.

Gerards J (2013) The Discrimination Grounds of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 13:1.

Gorbylev S (2013) A short story of an athlete: does he question independence and impartiality of the Court of Arbitration for Sport? Int Sports Law J 13: 294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-013-0029-x .

Greer S (1997) The exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.

Halt J (2009) Where is the Privacy in WADA’s “Whereabouts” Rule? Marquette Sports Law Review 20(1):267.

Hanstad DV, Loland S (2009) Elite athletes’ duty to provide information on their whereabouts: Justifiable anti-doping work or an indefensible surveillance regime? European Journal of Sport Science 1:3–10.

Harris DJ, O’Boyle M, Bate EPS, Buckley CM (2014) Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hulskotter T (2017) Sports arbitration agreements under review: should they be considered invalid under English national law? International Sports Law Journal 17(1–2):15.

Ireland EJ (2013) Do Not Abort the Mission: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights Case of R.R. v. Poland. North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 38:651.

Kerr R, Obel C (2017) Reassembling sex: reconsidering sex segregation policies in sport. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 10(2):305–320.

Kornbeck J (2016) The EU, the Revision of the World Anti-Doping Code and the Presumption of Innocence. International Sports Law Journal 15(3–4):172.

Laure P, Binsinger C (2005) Adolescent Athletes and the Demand and Supply of Drugs to Improve Their Performance. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 4(3):272–277.

Lukomski J (2013) Arbitration clauses in sport governing bodies’ statutes: consent or constraint? Analysis from the perspective of Article 6(1) of the European Court on Human Rights. International Sports Law Journal 13:61.

Maisonneuve M (2016) Oberlandesgericht München, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, Claudia Pechstein v/ International Skating Union (ISU), 15 January 2015. In: Duval A, Rigozzi A (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration. TMC Asser Press, The Hague.

Martens D R, Engelhard A (2017) Is the Pechstein saga coming to an end? German Federal Court of Justice Ruling on Claudia Pechstein v International Skating Union, June 2016’. Business Law International 18(1):75.

Mavromati D (2012) Indirect Detection Methods for Doping from a Perspective: The Case of the Athlete Biological Passport. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 6(2):241–258.

Miah A (2003) Be very afraid: Cyborg athletes, transhuman ideals & posthumanity. Journal of Evolution and Technology 13(2).

Ovey C, White RCA (2002) European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Saleem R (2010) The Olympic Meddle: The International Olympic Committee’s Intrusion of Athletes’ Privacy Through the Discriminatory Practice of Gender Verification Testing. J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 28:49.

Sanderson MA (2002) Pretty v. the United Kingdom. App. No. 2346/02. The American Journal of International Law 96(4).

Van der Sloot B (2014) Privacy as human flourishing: could a shift towards virtue ethics strengthen privacy protection in the age of Big Data? JIPITEC 3.

Van der Sloot B (2015a) Privacy as Personality Right: Why the ECtHR’s Focus on Ulterior Interests Might Prove Indispensable in the Age of “Big Data”. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 31(80):25–50.

Van der Sloot B (2015b) How to assess privacy violations in the age of Big Data? Analysing the three different tests developed by the ECtHR and adding for a fourth one. Information & Communications Technology Law 24(1):74–103.

Van der Sloot B, Paun M, Leenes R (2017) De rechtspositie van een atleet. NJB 2087.

Van der Sloot B (2017a) Privacy as virtue: Moving Beyond the Individual in the Age of Big Data. Intersentia, Cambridge.

Van der Sloot B (2017b) Where is the harm in a privacy violation? Calculating the damages afforded in privacy cases by the European Court of Human Rights. JIPITEC 4.

Von Segesser G (2012) Equality of Information and Impartiality of Arbitrators: A Comment on Adrian Mutu v Chelsea Football Club Ltd – Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal of June 2010. In: Wautelet P, Kruger T, Coppens G (eds) The Practice of Arbitration: Essays in Honour of Hans van Houtte. Hart Publishing, London.

Wolbring G (2008) Oscar Pistorius and the future nature of Olympic, Paralympic and other sports. SCRIPTed 5(1):139–160.

WADA’s and Other Institution’s Official Documents and Websites

CAS (2018) The Application of The IAAF Hyperandrogenism Regulations Remain Suspended http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_3759_Jan_2018.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

CAS (2018) 32 Russian Athletes File Appeals at the CAS Ad Hoc Division. http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_AHD3_AnnounceAHDcase2.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

CAS (2018) History of the CAS. http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html . (accessed 15 August 2018).

Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2017) S2. http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Code_2017_FINAL__en_.pdf . Accessed 20 June 2018.

Council of Europe (1989) Explanatory Report to the Anti-Doping Convention, ETS no. 135. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016800cb349 . Accessed 15 August 2018.

Council of Europe (2014) Guide on Article 6 – Right to a fair trial (criminal limb). https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf . Accessed 12 July 2018.

Council of Europe (2016) Overview Case Law https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Short_Survey_2016_ENG.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

Council of Europe (2018) Member States http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states . Accessed 18 June 2018.

Council of Europe (2018) Council of Europe http://www.coe.int/en/ . Accessed 18 June 2018.

Council of Europe (2018) Treaties http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/treaty/results/subject/3 . Accessed 18 June 2018.

Council of Europe (2018) Data http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Data_ENG.pdf . Accessed 18 June 2018.

Council of Europe (2018) Mass Surveillance http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Mass_surveillance_ENG.pdf . Accessed 18 June 2018.

Council of Europe (2018) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (civil limb). https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf . Accessed 12 July 2018.

Council of Europe Monitoring Group (2017) Recommendation on ensuring the independence of hearing panels (bodies) and promoting fair trial in anti-doping cases (Strasbourg) T-DO/Rec (2017)01.

Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654240/Review_of_Criminalisation_of_Doping_in_Sport.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

European Union (2018) European Union http://europa.eu/european-union/index_en . Accessed 18 June 2018.

FRA (2018) Handbook on European non-discrimination law, 2018 edition. http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/handbook-european-law-non-discrimination . Accessed 15 August 2018.

McLaren RH (2016) WADA Investigation of Sochi Allegations https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/mclaren_report_part_ii_2.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

UN General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights , 10 December 1948, 217 A (III). http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ . Accessed 15 July 2018.

UN General Assembly (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx . Accessed 15 August 2018.

WADA (2008) Comments on Article 29 Working Party Second Opinion. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Comments_WP29_FullVersion.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

WADA (2015) Intelligence Guidelines. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_guidelines-information-gathering-intelligence-sharing_final_en.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

WADA (2015) Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis – TD2014SSA. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-tdssa-v2.3_en.pdf . Accessed 18 June 2018.

WADA (2016) ADRVS https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016_adrvs_report_web_release_april_2018_0.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

WADA (2017) Testing Figures https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2017_anti-doping_testing_figures_en_0.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

WADA (2017) https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/asp_list_update_11.04.2017_disclaimer_and_list.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

WADA (2017) Anti-Doping Testing Figures. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2017_anti-doping_testing_figures_en_0.pdf . Accessed 15 August 2018.

WADA (2018) https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/strict-liability-in-anti-doping . Accessed 15 August 2018.

CAS 2008/A/480 Pistorius v/ IAAF , award of 16 May 2008.

CAS 98/214, B. v. FIJ.

CAS 2011/A/2384 UCI v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC jo.

CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC (Arbitral award).

CAS A and B v The Flemish Federation and the World Anti-doping Agency , Judgment (13 February 2012) 4A_428/2011.

BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union , 7 June 2016.

Bundesverfassungsgericht, ‘Übersicht für das Jahr 2017’ (1 BvR 2103/16) https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Verfahren/Jahresvorausschau/vs_2017/vorausschau_2017_node.html . Accessed 23 July 2018.

European Commission on Human Rights (1975), X. v. Denmark App no 6907/75 (10 December 1975).

European Commission on Human Rights (1976), Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany App no 6959/75 (19 May 1976).

European Commission of Human Rights (1978), Association of parents v. UK App no 7154/75 (12 July 1978).

European Commission on Human Rights (1978), X. v. Netherlands App no 8239/78 (04 December 1978).

European Commission on Human Rights (1979), X. v. Austria App no 8278/78 (13 December 1979).

European Commission of Human Rights (1981) , X. v. Germany App no 8509/79 (05 May 1981).

European Commission of Human Rights (1982), Godfrey v. UK App no 8542/79 (04 February 1982).

European Commission of Human Rights (1984), Acmanne a.o. v. Belgium App no 10435/83, (10 December 1984).

European Commission of Human Rights (1985) , Wain v. UK App no 10787/84 (02 December 1985).

European Commission on Human Rights (1994), Peters v. Netherlands App no 21132/93 (06 April 1994).

European Commission on Human Rights (1995), A.B. v. Switzerland App no 20872/92 (22 February 1995).

European Commission on Human Rights (1998), Galloway v. UK App no 34199/96 (09 September 1998).

European Court of Human Rights (1976), Engel and Others v The Netherlands , Application no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, Judgment (8 June 1976).

European Court of Human Rights (1978), König v. Germany, Application no 6232/73, Judgment (28 June 1978).

European Court of Human Rights (1981), Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium, Application no. 6878/75; 7238/75, Judgment (23 June 1981).

European Court of Human Rights (1982), Sporrong and Lönnorth v. Sweden , Application no. 7151/75; 7152/75, Judgment (23 September 1982).

European Court of Human Rights (1982), Corigliano v. Italy , Application no. 8304/78, Judgment (10 December 1982).

European Court of Human Rights (1983), Albert and Le Compte v Belgium , Application no. 7299/75; 7496/76, Judgment (10 February 1983).

European Court of Human Rights (1985), Wain v. UK App no 10787/84 (02 December 1985).

European Court of Human Rights (1985), Benthem v The Netherlands , Application no. 8848/80, Judgment (23 October 1985).

European Court of Human Rights (1986), James and Others v. the United Kingdom , Application no. 8793/79, Judgment (21 February 1986).

European Court of Human Rights (1988), Barbera, Messegue and Jabardo v Spain , Application no. 10590/83, Judgment (6 December 1988).

European Court of Human Rights (1992), Tomasi v. France App no 12850/87 (27 August 1992).

European Court of Human Rights (1993), Costello-Roberts v. UK App no 13134/87 (25 March 1993).

European Court of Human Rights (1997), Szücs v. Austria , Application no. 135/1996/754/953, Judgment (24 November 1997).

European Court of Human Rights (1999), Garcia Ruiz v Spain , Application no. 30544/96, Judgment (21 January 1999).

European Court of Human Rights (2001), Cyprus v Turkey , Application no. 25781/94, Judgment (10 May 2001).

European Court of Human Rights (2002), Pretty v. the United Kingdom , application no. 2346/02, (29 April 2002).

European Court of Human Rights (2002), Pretty v. UK App no 2346/02 (29 April 2002).

European Court of Human Rights (2002), Zehnalova and Zehnal v. Czech Republic App no 38621/97 (14 May 2002).

European Court of Human Rights (2002), Bosso v. Italy , application no. 50490/99, (05 September 2002).

European Court of Human Rights (2003), Kleyn and others v The Netherlands , Applications nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, Judgment (6 May 2003).

European Court of Human Rights (2003), Y.F. v. Turkey App no 24209/94 (22 July 2003).

European Court of Human Rights (2005), Pentiacova and 48 others v. Moldova App no 14462/03 (4 January 2005).

European Court of Human Rights (2005) , Storck v. Germany App no 61603/00 (16 June 2005).

European Court of Human Rights (2006), Benito v. Spain App no 36150/03 (13 November 2006).

European Court of Human Rights (2007), Erwin Bakker v. Switzerland (Application no. 7198/07, Statement of facts, 13 February 2007).

European Court of Human Rights (2008), Juhnke v. Turkey , application no. 52515/99, 13 May 2008.

European Court of Human Rights (2010), Adrian Mutu v. Switzerland (Application no. 40575/10, Statement of facts, 13 July 2010).

European Court of Human Rights (2010), Uzun v. Germany , application no. 35623/05, 2 September 2010.

European Court of Human Rights (2010), Suda v. the Czech Republic , Application no. 1643/06, Judgment (28 October 2010).

European Court of Human Rights (2010), Claudia Pechstein v. Switzerland (Application no. 67474/10, Statement of facts, 11 November 2010).

European Court of Human Rights (2011), Haas v. Switzerland , application no. 31322/07, 20 January 2011.

European Court of Human Rights (2011), R.R. v. Poland App no 27617/04 (26 May 2011).

European Court of Human Rights (2011), Fyodorov and Fydorova v. Ukraine , application no. 39229, 07 July 2011.

European Court of Human Rights (2011), Mutu , Federation Nationale des Sydicats Sportifs (FNASS) and others v France (Application no. 48151/11, Statement of facts, 23 July 2011).

European Court of Human Rights (2011), V.C. v. Slovakia , application no. 18968/07, 08 November 2011.

European Court of Human Rights (2012, N.B. v. Slovakia , application no. 29518/10, 12 June 2012.

European Court of Human Rights (2012), Munjaz v. the United Kingdom , application no. 2913/06, 17 July 2012.

European Court of Human Rights (2012), Koch v. Germany , application no. 497/09, 19 July 2012.

European Court of Human Rights (2011), P. and S. v. Poland , application no. 57375/08, 30 October 2012.

European Court of Human Rights (2012), Hristozov and others v. Bulgaria , application nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, 13 November 2012.

European Court of Human Rights (2012), I.G. a.o. v. Slovakia , application no. 15966/04, 13 November 2012.

European Court of Human Rights (2013), Csoma v. Romania , application no. 8759/05, 15 January 2013.

European Court of Human Rights (2013), Jeannie Longo and Patrice Ciprelli v. France (Application no. 77769/13, Statement of facts, 6 December 2013).

European Court of Human Rights (2015), Zakharov v. Russia, application no. 47143/06, 04 December 2015.

European Court of Human Rights (2016), Biao v. Denmark , application no. 38590/10, 24 May 2016.

European Court of Human Rights (2018), National Federation of Sports Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France , application no. 48151/11 77769/13, 18 January 2018.

European Court of Human Rights (2018) Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (Applications no. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment 2 October 2018.

Swiss Civil Law Court (2009) Claudia Pechstein v. International Skating Union 4A_612/2009, Judgment of February 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Bart van der Sloot, Mara Paun & Ronald Leenes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart van der Sloot .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

van der Sloot, B., Paun, M., Leenes, R. (2020). Looking at the Anti-Doping Regime Through a Human Rights Lens. In: Athletes’ Human Rights and the Fight Against Doping: A Study of the European Legal Framework. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-351-1_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-351-1_4

Published : 24 January 2020

Publisher Name : T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

Print ISBN : 978-94-6265-350-4

Online ISBN : 978-94-6265-351-1

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Tackling Doping Seriously - Reforming the World Anti-Doping System after the Russian Scandal

ASSER Policy Brief No. 2016-02

9 Pages Posted: 9 Sep 2016 Last revised: 15 Nov 2018

Antoine Duval

T.M.C. Asser Instituut

Date Written: September 1, 2016

This policy brief aims at taking stock of the Russian state doping scandal and at proposing a way forward for a reform of the World Anti-Doping System. It points out the dramatic shortcoming of the World Anti-Doping Agency with regard to the compliance of signatories with the World Anti-Doping Code and its urgent need for an institutional overhaul. To address this compliance lapse, the policy brief advances five key general directions and a number of concrete reform proposals.

Keywords: Doping, world anti-doping agency, Olympics, sports law, global law, lex sportiva, International Olympic Committee, harmonization, compliance

JEL Classification: K33, K42, K23, K32

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Antoine Duval (Contact Author)

T.m.c. asser instituut ( email ).

P.O. Box 30461 2500 GL The Hague, 2517JN Netherlands

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, public international law: organizations ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

T.M.C. Asser Institute for International & European Law Research Paper Series

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Doping — The Debate On The Topic Of Doping In Sports

The Debate on The Topic of Doping in Sports

• Categories: Athletes Doping

About this sample

Words: 1166 |

Published: Oct 25, 2021

Words: 1166 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 888 words

3 pages / 1325 words

1 pages / 584 words

1 pages / 504 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Doping

Doping has been the most controversial topic during sports; doping has created and destroyed many athletes careers. Notorious athletes such as Lance Armstrong, Jose Canseco, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds and many more. These [...]

Pharmaceutical enhancement in sport is a widely discussed topic with arguments both for and against. Pharmaceutical enhancement is a specific form of enhancement in sport and what I will narrow my focus down to due to a [...]

Steroids has been one of the main performance enhancing drugs that everyone has heard of. However, there are many, many growth hormones and performance enhancing drugs that are being introduced every year to try and stay one [...]

Sociologists focus on systematic studies of the society and social interaction. It tends to explain how the community affects the people that live in it. It also critically reviews how these very people affect the society. [...]

I look back at tennis as a very memorable and important part of my life. Being on a team is something that everyone should experience at least once; you will not get far in life if you cannot manage to work on a team. Working [...]

Islam is one of the youngest yet most popular religions in the world. Founded by Prophet Muhammad Ali, the Islamic faith believes in one universal God. They follow the teachings of the Qur’an, believed to be the final word to [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Doping in Sports

Introduction

The word doping is used to refer to the use of disallowed or prohibited drugs, medication or treatment which is intended to improve the performance of an individual athletically. The use of performance enhancement drugs is unethical and is not allowed by most international organizations that govern sports like the international Olympic committee. This practice has been carried out for centuries. however, high profile doping cases being covered by the media in the recent past has resulted in increased attention towards doping.

The most important reason for doping control is the is the health risk involved with this practice. Most of the substances used to enhance performance have a lot of long-lasting and harmful side effects that may include cardiovascular issues like elevated blood pressure and heart attacks, central nervous system side effects which may include anxiousness, psychosis, depression, and addiction. Other side effects of performance enhancement drugs include hormonal problems like low sex drive and infertility.

Another reason for doping control is that it is used to achieve an unjust advantage in sports. According to anti-doping organizations, performance enhancement significantly reduces the spirit of the competition. A drug-free competition provides equality in opportunities for all athletes and therefore the need for anti-doping campaigns.

There are various testing methods in doping which include urine tests, blood tests, and gas chromatography-combustion-IRMS. The urine test involves acquiring a sample of urine from an athlete which is then divided into samples A and B each in a sealed container that has a designation and a number that uniquely identifies the sample. When sample A tests positive for a disallowed substance, a test on sample B is requested to confirm the result. If this sample still tests positive, then the athlete is considered to have tested positive for the use prohibited substance. The process of confirmation is necessary for the safety of the athlete.

The blood test is used to illegal drugs used t enhance performance by measuring indicators that change when recombinant human erythropoietin is used. These indicators include hematocrit, levels of iron, and reticulocytes. When prohibited substances like erythropoietin are used, transport of oxygen gas into the muscles is enhanced through increasing the haemoglobin mass (blood volume and concentration of haemoglobin) which in turn leads to enhanced performance.

Another testing method involves the use of gas chromatography. This method is used to find isotopic variations in the composition of an organic substance when compared to a standard. When used, this technique can determine whether synthetic testosterone was used which in turn could lead to an increased and levels of testosterone that are not within the normal ranges. This method assumes that in nature, the majority of carbon atoms are carbon -12 while the remaining 1.1% are carbon-13. Therefore, the lower the ratio of the carbon -13 to carbon-12 the higher the probability that synthetic testosterone was used.

Other testing methods involve retesting samples and the use of athlete biological passport. Article 6.5 of the world Ant-Doping Code says that samples can be retested later for up to eight years. This allows the agency to take advantage of the new testing methods for detecting prohibited substances. Athlete biological passport on the other hand is a method that is used to trace locations of an athlete to control doping by monitoring the athletes and testing them for drugs wherever they are and comparing these results to previous tests that have already been done on them in the past.

Conclusion .

Many types of drugs have been used for enhancing performance by athletes. Despite doping being practised for many centuries, it is harmful to an athlete’s overall health to some extent and is also harmful to the spirit of the sport. The involvement of anti-doping agencies like the World Anti-Doping Agency, through their various doping testing methods, is important in combating this practice in the world of sport.

American College of Medical Toxicology. (January 25, 2017). What is “doping” and Athletes do this?

https://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi/_zine.html/Ask_A_Toxicologist/What_is_doping_and_why_do_athletes_do_this_

McKennan J., Thurston M., Jonathan T. (2021). Doping. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

https://www.sportsmedtoday.com/doping-va-119.htm

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2015). World Anti-Doping Code

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Consensual Relationship Agreements as a Defence against the Employer�...
• Essay on Ethical & Legal Issues
• The Multidisciplinary Approach to Medicine
• Impact of E-commerce on the Airline Industry
• Essay on Data Analysis for Accounting
• Essay on Management Theories and Their Impact on Social Care Setting

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

An Olympic-sized fight erupts among anti-doping officials, and it’s just getting started

Witold Banka, president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), attends a press conference at the 2024 Summer Olympics, Thursday, July 25, 2024, in Paris, France. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

Gene Sykes, president of the US Olympic and Paralympic committee speaks as he presents Salt Lake City’s bid to host the 2034 Winter Olympics, during the 142nd IOC session at the 2024 Summer Olympics, Wednesday, July 24, 2024, in Paris, France. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

Allison Schmitt, former Olympic athlete, right, listens as Travis Tygart, Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, left, testifies during a House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing examining Anti-Doping Measures in Advance of the 2024 Olympics, on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 25, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)

• Copy Link copied

PARIS (AP) — The stream of threats, recriminations and anti-doping innuendo flowed freely again Thursday when tensions over a U.S. law designed to combat drugs in sports escalated on the eve of the Paris Olympics.

It’s a fight that’s been simmering for a decade, sparked by Russia’s brazen doping scandal at the Sochi Olympics. The reaction from the World Anti-Doping Agency and IOC was criticized as too weak by many, including the United States. So much so, that the U.S. passed a law in 2020 giving federal authorities power to investigate sports doping and cover-ups.

After details emerged about 23 Chinese swimmers who tested positive for a banned substance - Chinese authorities blamed it on contamination from a hotel kitchen - but none were suspended and some went on to win medals at the Tokyo Olympics, the U.S. launched an investigation.

The latest round of backlash played out in a trio of news conferences in Paris, the highlight of which came when leaders at WADA suggested they might sanction one of their biggest critics, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, over the law.

“As a global regulator, one of our duties is to make sure our stakeholders are following our regulations and rules, and that the national legislation is in accordance with the world anti-doping code,” WADA president Witold Banka explained.

While some tried to calm things down, others could see a worst-case scenario: that the U.S. not be allowed to host big-time events such as the Olympics in the future.

Banka’s statement came a day after the International Olympic Committee awarded the 2034 Winter Games to Salt Lake City, but cast a pall over that celebration by extracting a promise that organizers pressure U.S. lawmakers to scuttle the law, along with a related investigation into the Chinese doping case.

A law that passed unanimously

Chances of that are slim — the American Congress passed that bill in 2020 without a dissenting vote — so another strategy would be to go after USADA.

If WADA determines the law, called the Rodchenkov Act, doesn’t adhere to the rules, it could start the process of finding USADA in noncompliance.

That, in turn, could trigger sanctions, which can jeopardize America’s ability to host international events. It’s the same treatment WADA handed to Russia’s anti-doping agency during that country’s long-running drug scandal.

Congress recently held a hearing about the Chinese doping scandal and there have been suggestions that the U.S. government might withhold its annual funding from WADA.

The chair and ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) — released a statement.

“It speaks volumes that the IOC would demand a one-sided contract condition to protect WADA rather than work together to ensure it is fulfilling its mission to protect clean sport,” they said.

Threatening USADA

The mere threat of putting USADA on a noncompliant list marks the latest broadside in a mushrooming exchange of rhetoric.

USADA’s CEO, Travis Tygart struck back.

“You know it’s a broken system when WADA ... threatens a compliance case against USADA for a U.S. law enacted by Congress that has cleaned up sport consistent with the WADA rules and has been in existence for several years,” he said in a statement to The Associated Press.

At his own news conference in Paris, USOPC chair Gene Sykes, who was just made a member of the IOC, said he hopes this pattern of “throwing rocks at each other” would calm down soon.

“I think the tempers between WADA and USADA as reflected in the statements that go back and forth between the two of them are unfortunately just too emotional,” Sykes said.

Some athletes, including Caeleb Dressel, don’t trust the system

World Aquatics, which runs swimming, held its own news conference, where swimmers and executives were asked about the Chinese case.

American swimmer Caeleb Dressel was asked if he had confidence in the anti-doping system.

“No. Not really.” Dressel said. “I don’t really think they’ve given us enough evidence to support them in how this case was handled.”

A few seats away was World Aquatics executive director Brent Nowicki who, as the AP reported earlier this month, recently received a subpoena from U.S. investigators as part of their probe into the China case.

“We have to regain his trust and those athletes’ trust who share that same opinion,” Nowicki said. “I’d like you to ask that same question of Caeleb in L.A. (at the 2028 Olympics). My hope, my goal, is that his mind changes.”

Some IOC leaders are worried about traveling to the U.S.

The Nowicki subpoena is part of the first known use of the Rodchenkov Act for an international incident.

It illustrates the wide net U.S. investigators might cast to fight doping — wide enough that it seems some folks are avoiding the United States, altogether. For instance, WADA moved a conference it had planned for this fall from New York to Montreal.

“I don’t think I would share my private travel schedule in a press conference,” WADA director general Olivier Niggli said, drawing laughs, when asked if he had plans to visit the U.S.

The law was passed to allow American authorities to prosecute doping conspiracies in any sports event involving U.S. athletes — which includes the Olympics and pretty much every major competition around the world.

WADA has long lobbied against this law, specifically its “extraterritorial” clause, which it says gives U.S. authorities a separate and inappropriate role in enforcing anti-doping rules against foreigners.

“It’s highly incorrect that one country tries to impose jurisdiction on anti-doping decisions on the rest of the world,” Banka said.

Salt Lake City caught in the middle

None of this was on the radar of leaders in Salt Lake City, who came to Paris expecting a celebration, and maybe even a pat on the back for offering to host the Winter Games — an event cities aren’t lining up to underwrite anymore.

SLC organizing president Fraser Bullock said despite the language in the contract “in my mind, there’s zero doubt” that Utah will host the Games, as promised.

“For us, we feel bad that we did get pulled into it,” Bullock said. “But we understand that’s an issue that has to be addressed. It’s just very unfortunate timing.”

___ AP National Writer Paul Newberry contributed.

AP Summer Olympics: https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The quest for harmonisation in anti-doping: an Indian perspective

1 Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana India

2 Ph.D. Candidate, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QL Australia

Associated Data

Not applicable.

The World Anti-Doping Agency aims to promote clean sport through the introduction and implementation of harmonised rules under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2021 (the Code). Since WADA relies heavily on National Anti-Doping Organisations to implement the Code, the experience of anti-doping differs across countries. Some scholars argue that the current framework disproportionately impacts athletes from developing countries. This paper contributes to this debate by analysing systemic issues in the implementation of the Code in one such country—India. The legitimacy of anti-doping in India has been questioned as a result of the recent suspension of the National Dope-Testing Laboratory, a series of false positive tests, accusations of significant procedural and substantive errors by domestic tribunals, and access to justice challenges. Given the prevalence of doping in India, alongside the accumulation of recent controversies and push for reform, a deeper analysis of anti-doping in the country is warranted. The lack of compliance in India with certain requirements set out in the Code, as well as the failure to meet “best practice” standards set by other jurisdictions, is evidence that there is a lack of harmonisation in implementing anti-doping rules and procedures across countries. This paper contributes to the debate on the impact that a lack of harmonisation in the implementation of the Code can have on the legitimacy of the anti-doping framework. From a policy perspective, the proposed research agenda and recommendations can be applied to promote reform in India and other jurisdictions, especially in developing and emerging countries.

Introduction

Doping threatens to undermine the spirit of fairness that underpins sport. Accordingly, governments and international organisations have built a framework to restrict, deter and sanction doping in sport. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) aims to promote clean sport through the introduction and implementation of harmonised rules under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2021 (the Code). 1 The implementation of the Code relies on the cooperation of national governments which ratify the provisions of the Code according to their specific constitutional requirements. 2 WADA has acknowledged that “a central pillar” of its mission is to monitor signatories to ensure that they are in compliance with the Code so that “all countries follow the same set of rules and implement compliant anti-doping programs”. 3 According to WADA, uniform compliance by all signatories is critical for the anti-doping system since “harmonization means that athletes know what to expect from the anti-doping system no matter where they are from or where they are competing.” 4 While the Code has now been adopted by most international sport federations and national governments, the experience of anti-doping differs across countries. 5 To date, most scholarship on the effectiveness of the implementation of anti-doping policy has focussed on developed countries such as the UK. 6 However, scholars have argued that the current framework disproportionately impacts athletes from developing countries 7 and, therefore, any holistic discussion on the effectiveness of the harmonisation of the anti-doping system ought to take into account the implementation of the Code in such nations. Limited research has been conducted on the impact of the adoption of the Code in developing and emerging countries. 8 This paper contributes to this debate by analysing systemic issues in the implementation of the Code in one such country—India. Indeed, India has a high prevalence of anti-doping rule violations amongst its athletes, with the majority of athletes’ cases being determined by domestic tribunals. 9 Recently, the legitimacy of the anti-doping framework has been questioned as a result of the suspension of the National Dope-Testing Laboratory (NDTL), 10 a series of highly publicised false positive tests, 11 accusations of significant procedural and substantive errors by domestic tribunals, 12 and access to justice challenges before the High Court. 13 In addition, there has been discussion of anti-doping reform, with the introduction of the National Anti-Doping Bill ( 2021 ), in Indian Parliament, as well as separate government policy with respect to regulation of supplements 14 which have been the cause of many inadvertent anti-doping rule violations in India. Given the prevalence of doping in India, alongside the accumulation of recent controversies and push for reform, a deeper analysis of anti-doping in the country is warranted. The paper will first set out the anti-doping framework and discuss the importance of the quest for harmonisation in promoting legitimacy of anti-doping institutions. Second, the paper provides an overview of anti-doping in India and discusses the current systemic challenges with respect to the implementation of anti-doping policies within the country. Following this, the paper adopts a case study approach to highlight the practical application of these challenges. Finally, the author sets out recommendations and areas for potential reform to anti-doping in India. It is argued that the lack of compliance in India with certain requirements set out in the Code, as well as the failure to meet “best practice” standards set by other jurisdictions, is evidence that there is a lack of harmonisation in implementing anti-doping rules and procedures across countries. This paper contributes to the debate on the impact that a lack of compliance and harmonisation in the implementation of the Code can have on the legitimacy of the anti-doping framework. From a policy perspective, the discussions, proposed research agenda and recommendations can be applied to promote positive reform in India and other jurisdictions, especially in developing and emerging countries.

The anti-doping agenda

The regulatory framework.

The purpose of the Code is to ensure universal harmonisation of anti-doping with respect to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping. 15 The Code sets out specific anti-doping rules that National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) are responsible for adopting, implementing and enforcing within their authority. 16 While the Code allows national agencies some flexibility in the rules that they adopt in their respective jurisdictions, there are a number of articles of the Code which are mandatory and must be adopted by each anti-doping organisation without any substantive changes. 17 While each jurisdiction may establish its own dispute resolution infrastructure to hear disputes with respect to anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs), these matters may ultimately be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 18

NADOs play a crucial role in implementing the Code and ensuring compliance with the anti-doping rules across different countries. In India, the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) governs anti-doping in sports. The National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021 (NADA Rules) set out the procedure for the collection of samples, the management of test results, and the conduct of hearings at the national level. The rules are similar to the provisions of the Code. On paper, anti-doping institutions and procedures in India are similar to most jurisdictions around the world. However, due to the flexibility and autonomy afforded to NADOs, there are differences in the implementation of different aspects of the Code, including with respect to testing, education, and some procedural elements.

The quest for harmonisation

WADA’s primary goal is to promote a harmonised anti-doping system. For the anti-doping framework to create a level playing field, it is important that NADOs implement the Code consistently. This is especially true with respect to testing procedures, upholding the rights of athletes, and handing down proportionate sanctions in accordance with the Code. However, the implementation of the Code varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and significant variations even exist among NADOs that are considered ‘global frontrunners in the struggle against doping’. 19 Gray has argued that the three factors that have hindered compliance with the Code, and therefore inhibited harmonisation of anti-doping policy, are the top-down approach to implementation, cultural variations, and lack of resources. 20 First, with respect to WADA’s top-down approach, Gray notes that WADA’s sanctions are limited to withdrawing laboratory accreditations, and it relies on other stakeholders, including the International Olympic Committee, international federations and NADOs, to ensure compliance with the Code. 21 Second, cultural variations present a challenge to compliance since ‘[d]ifferent geographical and cultural contexts affect the way in which international agreements are absorbed and interpreted’. 22 Many have argued that anti-doping regulations are designed, interpreted, and enforced by those in the Western culture, 23 and that to ensure compliance and harmonisation such policies need to be effectively ‘translated and embedded into non-Western cultures’. 24 This is a significant challenge for WADA. Third, when translating these rules and procedures into different geographical and economic contexts, it needs to be acknowledged that some NADOs are better resourced than others. In some countries—especially developing and emerging nations—implementation of anti-doping policy is not high on the nation’s policy agenda. Consequently, resource limitations in certain parts of the world, including in parts of South Asia, Africa, South America and Eastern and Central Europe, NADOs simply ‘do not have the capacity to comply’. 25 In fact, the Chief Executive Officer of the Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands noted that ‘the Code demands much more than even the most developed NADOs can realise’. 26 Gray’s three factors provide a useful framework on which to analyse compliance in anti-doping, especially with respect to testing standards, procedural fairness and education. Compliance with strict testing standards relies heavily on what Gray defines as WADA’s top-down approach, yet as discussed throughout this paper due to cultural differences and resource constraints, testing standards may vary (albeit in exceptional circumstances) across jurisdictions. Similarly, given the reliance on NADOs (and tribunals) to provide procedural protections to athletes, WADA’s top-down approach has some limitations with respect to ensuring procedural compliance by national tribunals, as well of education of athletes. Cultural variations and resource constraints play a significant role in the lack of uniformity with respect to procedural fairness and education of athletes. It is clear that despite WADA promoting the goal of harmonisation that the consistent and harmonised implementation of the Code is a significant challenge for the anti-doping ecosystem.

Compliance with the Code by all stakeholders is critical in the quest for harmonisation in anti-doping policy. The extent to which WADA and NADOs successfully implement the Code ‘is a determining feature of [their] legitimacy and capacity to accrue support from [their] various audiences’. 27 Pielke Jr. and Boye argue that scientific integrity should be a guiding light in the implementation of the Code and that it ‘underpin[s] the legitimacy of anti-doping regulation.’ 28 Without scientific integrity, the quest for harmonisation will surely fail. For instance, accredited laboratories must apply the same high standards for testing, irrespective of where they are based, to avoid inaccurate or inconsistent results. Anti-doping panels need to comply with strict substantive and procedural compliance requirements to ensure due process, ensuring that the rights of all athletes are upheld. However, scholars have argued that case studies suggest that stakeholders have ‘… departed significantly from a grounding in scientific evidence’ and that this is ‘… reflective of systemic shortfalls in anti-doping regulation’. 29 Keeping in mind the importance of consistency and scientific integrity in achieving the quest for harmonisation, it is an important exercise to critically examine the extent to which different stakeholders comply with the Code. As discussed above, while scholars and practitioners have claimed that harmonisation has not been achieved across different countries, there is scope for further analysis on the extent of compliance with the Code by specific countries. Given the strong arguments that the Code effects NADOs and athletes from developing countries disproportionately, a case study analysis of compliance with the Code in a country such as India may shed some light on how far the quest for harmonisation is from being realised.

Anti-doping in India: context and current challenges

Anti-doping rule violations.

Doping is prevalent in Indian sport. Since 2009, NADA has tested more than 40,000 athletes for ADRVs and a total of 1206 athletes have committed anti-doping rule violations under the NADA Rules. 30 India has consistently ranked as one of the worst offenders in the Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) reports published by WADA. 31 In 2018, Russia (144 ADRVs), Italy (132 ADRVs) and France (114 ADRVs) topped the list of doping violations, and India (107 ADRVs) was a close fourth. 32 In 2017, India had the fourth highest number of ADRVs (57) 33 and for the 3 years prior to this, India had the third highest number of ADRVs for 3 years in a row (2015-2017). 34 Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows the number of ADRVs in India over the past 5 years relative to other countries which consistently rank high on WADA’s ADRV list. A perusal of the ADRV list published on the NADA website shows that more than 98% of ADRVs are a result of an athlete testing positive for a prohibited substance, and therefore in violation of Article 2.1 of the Code. 35 Several athletes were in violation of the NADA Rules due to their refusal or failure to provide sample. While limited empirical evidence exists with respect to the prevalence of inadvertent doping in India, anecdotal evidence and commentary suggests that it is widespread with lack of awareness, or inadvertent consumption of a banned substance due to medicine or supplement usage being common. 36 On rare occasions where an athlete’s sample has been retested by a foreign lab and found to have been a “false positive”, 37 such athletes appear to have been removed from NADA’s ADRV list despite (wrongfully) having served a suspension.

Total ADRVs from 2013 to 2018 in Russia, Italy, India, France and Belgium. The data with respect to the total number of ADRVs in each country has been compiled based on the annual ADRV reports released by WADA. See, WADA ( 2015 ); WADA ( 2016b ); WADA ( 2017 ); WADA ( 2018 ); WADA ( 2019a ); WADA ( 2020a )

In addition to the high prevalence of doping in India, and the need for better education, the anti-doping system has been rife with controversy in India in recent years. The following sections discuss issues with respect to testing, procedural and substantive errors in panel decisions, and concerns with respect to inadvertent doping and anti-doping education. Despite efforts to promote harmonisation in anti-doping procedures globally, shortcomings in testing, procedural fairness and education each threaten to undermine the legitimacy of anti-doping in India.

Testing trends in India

In India, NADA is responsible for the testing of its athletes, whereas the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL) in New Delhi conducts analytical testing of samples to determine whether they contain any prohibited substances. All accredited testing laboratories are required to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), in particular those requirements set out in Article 4.4. 38 Compliance with these rules is mandatory so as to ensure that these laboratories consistently produce valid test results, and as these rules promote a testing system that is uniform and harmonised, regardless of where a dope test takes place. 39 In August 2019, NDTL’s WADA accreditation was suspended due to non-compliance with the ISL and its corresponding technical documents. 40

As set out in Table ​ Table1, 1 , testing numbers are not high compared to other jurisdictions, especially given India’s large population. The number of athletes that NADA has tested decreased significantly from 2015 (5162 samples) to 2016 (2831 samples), despite 2016 being an Olympic year. The number of athletes tested has slowly increased to 4,004 samples in 2019. As was evident across most jurisdictions, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant decrease in testing in 2020, with a total of 1186 tests being conducted throughout the year. This is perhaps expected given that (1) India was in a nation-wide lockdown for much of 2020, (2) the NDTL was suspended for this period, requiring all dope tests to be sent abroad for testing at a considerable expense for NADA. As a result of the relatively low testing levels, the percentage of athletes returning a positive adverse analytical finding (AAF) is much higher than other countries, and indeed it has increased significantly recently. In 2019, the percentage of athletes returning a positive AAF was 5.6%, and in 2020, 4.6%, both well above the international average.

Number of tests administered by NADOs and percentage of adverse analytical findings (AAFs) (2015–2020) ( n = total tests)

This trend of decreasing tests and an increased percentage of AAFs, was opposite to the global trend prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Globally, there was a slight decrease in the total percentage of AAFs, from 1.05% in 2018 (2774 AAFs from 263,519 samples) to 0.97% in 2019 (2702 AAFs from 278,047 samples). 41 Conversely, in India, the percentage of AAFs more than doubled from 2018 to 2019, increasing from 2% to 5.6%. In 2020, there was a 46.1% decrease in the number of samples analysed globally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a decrease in the total percentage of AAFs 0.67% (1009 AAFs from 149,758 samples), 42 whereas India’s testing decreased by more than 70% and the percentage of AAFs decreased by 1%. Even prior to the impact of the pandemic, the number of tests in India had decreased and despite this the percentage of AAFs was increasing. While the reduced number of tests in India, and consequent increase in percentage of AAFs, might on the face of it show a decline in the number of athletes testing positive to a banned substance, it may also indicate that there are likely more athletes who are not being caught. While the decrease in testing during the pandemic was consistent with global trends, there is no evidence available as to why testing decreased so significantly from 2015 onward and only gradually increased in subsequent years. In response to criticisms that NADA reduced testing drastically from 2015 onward, a NADA official argued that “it is not the quantity of the tests that is material” but rather the quality, further explaining that “[i]n 2015 it was the run-up to the Olympics, so a large number of tests had to be conducted.” 43 However, with the exception of Russia, no other jurisdiction experienced such a significant decline in testing after 2015. In fact, the data in Table ​ Table1 1 indicates that many countries increased testing from 2015 to 2016, 44 while according to WADA, there was an overall decrease in the number of samples from 2015 to 2016 of only 0.9% (303,369 in 2015 to 300,565 in 2016). 45

It should be noted that while most developed countries consistently returned a percentage of AAFs of lower than 2% in recent years (see Table ​ Table1), 1 ), some developing countries also showed higher percentages similar to India (for instance, the average percentage of AAFs in Iran was 5.82% from 2015 to 2020, while South Africa averaged 3.13% during the same period). While neither Iran nor South Africa returned the large number of ADRVs as has been the case in India in recent years, the fact that South Africa, Iran and India all have a higher percentage of AAFs than the developed counties listed in Table ​ Table1 1 perhaps points to the need for further research (with a larger sample size) to understand whether there are consistent trends when comparing developed and developing countries with respect to the percentage of AAFs.

Consequences of the suspension of NDTL

WADA can suspend or revoke the accreditation of a lab if it fails to comply with the ISL or technical documents. 46

In September 2018, WADA listed several major objections with NDTL, including issues with its isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) sampling procedure, 47 faulty standard operating procedures with respect to the testing, and an inefficient quality management team. 48 Based on the recommendation of an independent disciplinary committee, WADA suspended NDTL’s accreditation in August 2019 for non-compliance with the ISL. 49

Commentators were not surprised with NDTL’s suspension given that ‘WADA had been giving repeated warnings to the NDTL to bring its testing methods in line with ISL and the related Technical Documents’. 50 For instance, six tests which returned a negative AAF were retested in the WADA-accredited Montreal lab in Canada which found them to be positive, 51 resulting in those six Indian athletes being suspended. NDTL also returned several false positives, whereby athletes were wrongfully suspended based on erroneous results from the NDTL. When the samples of four athletes were retested by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Rome, they were found to be negative. 52 In 2016, the initial negative report of an Indian athlete was overturned by the Cologne laboratory on conducting an IRMS analysis. 53 The consequences of errors in the results management process can be significant for an athlete.

Athletes have also claimed that there have been procedural shortcomings in the result management process, including issues with respect to the chain of custody after samples have been collected. For example, in Inderjeet Singh’s case it was alleged (and originally conceded by the doping control officer) that the accused athlete’s urine sample had been stored in the doping control officer’s home refrigerator overnight. 54 In 2021, the ADAP cleared Vijay Singh, an amateur Indian athlete, of his suspension after NADA was ordered to retake his urine sample and send it to the WADA-accredited laboratory in London. 55 The athlete alleged that several unauthorised people were present at the Doping Control Station throughout the sample collection process which was in violation of the Urine Sample Collection Guidelines. 56 The Delhi High Court also emphasised the importance of avoiding delay in the results management process, noting that:

Testing of samples in a timely manner is crucial as sportspersons like the [athlete] are placed on a ban in the interregnum and the … National Anti-Doping Agency ought to act with urgency while dealing with such matters. 57

Following the high court order, and after comparing the DNA in each of the samples, the report from the laboratory showed that the original urine sample on which the athlete’s AAF was based was not in fact the athlete’s urine. 58 Despite being ineligible to participate in sport for approximately 2.5 years, the ADAP held that the athlete had been wrongfully sanctioned based on a positive AAF from another athlete’s sample. 59 Highlighting the importance of the results management procedure, the ADAP also acknowledged that NADA’s doping control officers need to strictly comply with the standard operating procedures of sample collection. 60

NDTL’s suspension has added to the difficulty of the results management process during the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been a significant increase in the cost of transporting the samples to international laboratories 61 which is likely to result in a lower number of tests being conducted given the NADA’s limited budget. 62 It should be acknowledged that in December 2021, WADA restored the accreditation of NDTL noting that it had now become fully compliant with the ISL. 63

Procedural issues in anti-doping disputes

In India, the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) has been constituted to hear disputes with respect to ADRVs by athletes. 64 Cases may be appealed to the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (ADAP) and cases arising from international events or involving international athletes may be appealed to the CAS, after an appeal to ADAP. 65 An international level athlete may also request a single hearing before CAS, with WADA and NADA’s consent, rather than exhausting the hearing process at a domestic level. 66

Commentators have argued that systemic issues exist in some first-instance tribunals when an athlete’s alleged ADRV is being heard. 67 This is particularly true of hearings in India where there have been allegations of substantive errors made by the ADDP, access to justice complaints, and significant delays in hearings, all of which are critical given how much is at stake for athletes accused of an ADRV.

The ADDP has been accused of erroneous decisions. For instance, Rajaraman argues that the ADDP ‘mixed up cases’ as evidenced by the fact that ‘a panel copied–pasted a paragraph from an earlier order’, despite such circumstances not being applicable to the case. 68 Mohan alleged that the ADDP and ADAP have regularly applied 4-year sanctions to athletes who have tested positive to a specified substance out of competition (an ADRV that typically results in a maximum ineligibility period of 2 years, unless NADA can prove that the athlete intentionally consumed the banned substance for performance enhancing purposes). 69 It appears that the panels accepted NADA’s arguments that not listing the supplements or medicines on the athlete’s doping control form was sufficient evidence of the athlete’s intention to cheat. 70 Commentators argue that there have been ‘glaring disparities’ in the way panels interpret the rules, both within India and compared to other jurisdictions, and that consequently WADA should ‘hold workshops and seminars for the benefit of those who determine the fate of athletes’. 71

Minimum procedural guarantees exist under the Code, including an athlete’s right to a fair, impartial and independent hearing, the right to legal representation, the right to an accessible and affordable hearing process, and the timely resolution of disputes. 72 However, it has been argued that first-instance hearings in developing countries might fall short of these procedural guarantees more often than their counterparts in developed countries. 73 This is evidenced by the fact that countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the UK have constantly implemented reforms with respect to their sports dispute resolution procedures, whereas countries such as India have not. 74

Although athletes have the right to be represented by counsel at their own expense, 75 access to justice issues exist in anti-doping disputes for many athletes around the world given the affordability of counsel, expert evidence and laboratory analysis. 76 However, such access to justice issues are more pronounced in developing countries. 77 A perusal of the publicly available decisions handed down by the ADDP shows that many athletes are unrepresented at first instance. This, coupled with the fact that commentators have argued that there have been systemic issues of delay and access to justice at first-instance hearings in India, 78 are problematic. While many athletes have the right to appeal to the CAS, this right is rarely exercised by Indian athletes. In fact, only 14 athletes (of the 1206 ADRVs in India) have had their cases heard by the CAS. All but one of these cases were appealed by WADA to the CAS. It has been previously argued that ‘the fact that only one Indian athlete has ever appealed their case to the CAS may in itself be prima face evidence of access to justice issues in the anti-doping dispute resolution framework’. 79

Athletes are entitled to ‘a fair hearing within a reasonable time’ 80 and under the International Standard of Results Management (ISRM) strict timelines must be followed by first-instance tribunals. 81 Under all previous versions of the NADA Rules, strict time limits were also provided. For instance, under NADA Rules, 2015, Article 8 prescribed a 45-day time limit between the constitution of the panel and the hearing, and a 90-day time limit between the constitution of the panel and the written decisions. However, such time limits are often not followed, and athletes have regularly complained of significant delay in the results management process, including the hearing process, in India. 82 For instance, in NADA v Anil Kumar (2012), more than 1000 days passed between the athlete being tested to a first-instance decision of the ADDP. 83 In this case, the athlete’s sample was collected at a selection trial for the World Cup Kabaddi 2010 on 20 March 2010, where a banned substance was found in his system, and the first-instance panel ultimately made a decision on 27 December 2012. 84 Curiously, the athlete was notified of the result of their B sample analysis on 14 May 2010 and was only notified of the constitution of the panel on 30 November 2012 (two and a half years later). There is no justification given for this significant delay in the decision of the ADDP.

To properly assess whether any systemic issues exist in terms of the timeliness of the results management system in India, a thorough empirical study should be completed. What is clear, however, is that these extended (unexplained) delays are not acceptable, both under the Code and NADA Rules.

Education and inadvertent doping

Education is a central focus to WADA’s anti-doping strategy. 85 It has been argued that the two most significant reasons for the high incidence of doping amongst Indian athletes are lack of education, and inadvertent doping due to contamination. 86 Athletes have a duty to make sure any prohibited substances do not enter their system, and if they ultimately test positive for a prohibited substance, they will be strictly liable for an ADRV. 87 However, there have been numerous cases where athletes have ‘been advised by doctors or pharmacists to take a particular medicine for genuine ailment’. 88 In addition, Indian athletes place a strong reliance on the advice of coaching staff and support personnel. 89 The risk of inadvertent doping is arguably higher in developing countries where lower literacy levels and standards of anti-doping education exist, as well as cultural issues where a strong reliance on medical professionals and coaches prevails. In any event, studies have shown that “[t]he absence of knowledge about the possible dangers of nutritional supplements might lead to unintentional doping cases.” 90 As such, it has been suggested that education of athletes and support personnel need to be scaled up in India, including at grass roots levels where doping in sport is allegedly a serious problem. 91

Since 2016, NADA has worked closely with the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and national sport federations to increase anti-doping education and awareness programmes. However, Anish Dayal, a senior barrister in India who has represented numerous athletes in doping disputes, notes that ‘current efforts are inadequate’ and that ‘any anti-doping initiative should aggressively focus not only on detection but also on education and awareness. Athletes, support staff, federations, sports medical personnel must be equipped with well-conceived literature, consultation and workshops’. 92

A survey of elite athletes in India published in 2022 showed that of the 181 athletes surveyed, only 38.1% had attended anti-doping education sessions hosted by NADA or their federation in their institute or training camp. Overall, 67.4% of the athletes were aware about NADA or WADA, and 53.6% were aware of suspensions for anti-doping rule violations. 93 There was a significant increase in awareness of the risks and consequences of doping reported by those who attended these sessions, compared to those who had not. 94 The results of this study reflect the arguments by commentators suggesting that there is significant room for improvement with respect to anti-doping education in India. 95

The large amount of ADRVs and a high percentage of AAFs represent a significant challenge for Indian institutions which promote clean sport. In addition, current challenges in ensuring uniformity and accuracy in anti-doping procedure are important in protecting athletes and promoting the legitimacy of anti-doping institutions in India. The following section sets out recent case studies that highlight key hurdles existing in the anti-doping framework in India. Ensuring that best practice standards in anti-doping are implemented domestically is not only in India’s interest, but the consistent implementation of the Code could also enhance the legitimacy of the global anti-doping system. Shortcomings with respect to testing, procedural irregularities and education are not uncommon in India, 96 and a review of recent case studies highlights the implications of these inadequacies in practice.

Case studies

To illustrate the significance of the challenges that exist in the anti-doping system in developing nations such as India, this section explores two case studies. First, the case of Dharam Raj Yadav highlights the impact of mistakes in the results management process, as well as the access to justice obstacles of athletes when faced with an ADRV. Second, the case of Amar Muralidharan explores criticisms of delay and procedural fairness in anti-doping disputes in India.

Case 1: False positives and access to justice—Indian athletes take NADA to court

Inaccurate testing results can lead to significant consequences to athletes, especially if a false positive is returned and athletes are erroneously suspended from their sport.

A number of writ petitions have been filed in the Delhi High Court alleging that the results management process violated the applicable law and the Indian Constitution as it involves significant access to justice issues and unreasonable delay. 97 In a writ petition filed by Dharam Raj Yadav, the athlete alleged that despite the applicable law requiring ‘to send all the relevant documentation and samples to the Sample Collection Authority “as soon as practicable” after the completion of the sample collection session’, there was a delay of more than 4 months between sample collection and the date of testing the athlete’s A sample. 98 The athlete tested positive for a prohibited substance and the ADDP determined a period of ineligibility of 4 years. WADA ordered a re-analysis of the sample in another WADA-accredited laboratory which returned a negative result. As such, the period of ineligibility was lifted almost 1 year after the start of the suspension.

The athlete also alleged that he was denied access to justice because of the onerous provisions of the NADA Rules requiring a significant payment to be made in order to obtain NDTL’s laboratory report on the athlete’s sample. Without access to ‘the Laboratory documentation package of their sample [the athlete is] effectively denied the opportunity to adequately contest the anti-doping rule violation’. 99 It was argued that many athletes would be unable to afford the lab report and that this requirement of payment therefore ‘militates against the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India’. 100 Yadav argued that the ability to obtain copies of the laboratory documentation package is a crucial part of his fundamental right to know that the laboratory has strictly observed the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the applicable rules. He argued that he was denied his right to a fair trial and not afforded due process, alleging that:

An important facet of the right to a fair trial includes informing the accused of the accusations against him in advance. This is done by supplying him with the copies of all the evidence against him. The evidence must be supplied to him free of cost. 101

Yadav was suspended for 1 year, until a re-analysis of the sample showed that the testing authorities had made a mistake. He was unable to compete during this period, thus highlighting the significant impact that substantive and procedural errors can have on an athlete’s career.

Access to justice issues remain under the revised NADA Rules 102 as an athlete is required to pay a fee for procurement of the laboratory documentation package, and an athlete typically requires an (often expensive) expert to interpret such documentation. Without access to the laboratory reports, and experts who can interpret them, an athlete places all of their trust in the legitimacy and accuracy of the system. In Dharam Raj Yadav’s case, as was the case for the other petitioners, this trust was misplaced.

Scholars have argued that under the current anti-doping system it is ‘almost impossible’ for athletes to prove that they have not committed an ADRV. 103 This is particularly true where an athlete alleges that a false positive test has occurred since ‘evidence must be shown that the test procedure results are unreliable and that false positives occur’ and the ‘threshold for this is high’. 104 Under the Code, the burden is on the athlete to establish, by a balance of probability, that there has been a departure from the ISL that could have reasonably caused the AAF. 105 Given the difficulties encountered by athletes in terms of access to laboratory reports, as well as experts to interpret those reports, and legal counsel to argue them before a tribunal, this threshold would appear to be out of reach for most athletes. If we accept that false positive tests do occur, and that access to justice issues exist in certain jurisdictions, this creates a significant issue for athletes who are wrongly accused of doping. 106 This underscores the need for compliance with respect to testing procedures, as well as due process rights, without which the quest for harmonisation falls short.

Case 2: excessive delays and procedural fairness: Amar Muralidharan’s case

Despite express provisions in the Code and NADA Rules, NADA and the ADDP have been criticised for unjustified delays, which undermine the procedural rights of athletes.

In the only appeal by an Indian athlete to the CAS, issues of undue delay were raised by Indian swimmer, Amar Muralidharan. In this case, CAS criticised NADA for not complying with the minimum procedural guarantees under the NADA Rules. 107 Muralidharan claimed that procedural irregularities existed in the results management process, including an alleged breach in the chain of custody and unusually long transportation time. 108 Despite these allegations, the ADDP and ADAP both determined that the athlete should be suspended for 2 years.

The delays in the results management process are summarised in the CAS award, which notes that:

… the provisions of Articles 8.3 and 13.6.8 of the NADA ADR (as well as Article 8.1 of the WADA Code) have not been complied with by the NADA. The Appellant was notified of the anti-doping rule violation on 20 September 2010. The Appellant was then heard for the first time two years later on 21 September 2012. Moreover, following a series of other delays in the issuance of the award following the ADDP Decision, the Appellant’s appeal was heard on 13 March 2014 – more than four months after receiving the complete ADDP Decision and more than 13 months after the required deadline under the NADA ADR. This means, the Respondents undisputedly violated the Appellant’s right to a procedure in line with the timing requirements described above . 109

While the arbitrator held that ‘NADA showed an alarming inability to effectively, timely, and appropriately handle the Appellant’s case’, 110 Muralidharan’s suspension was ultimately upheld.

While this case study is perhaps an example of unusually prolonged procedural delay, it highlights the need for fast and effective decision-making procedures at a domestic level in India, which is unfortunately not always the case in anti-doping disputes. Upholding minimum procedural safeguards afforded to athletes is critical regardless of the cultural variations or resource constraints of a particular jurisdiction.

These case studies illustrate how shortcomings in a NADO’s implementation of the Code exist in an Indian context, and how they directly impact athletes. While these case studies highlight the fact shortcomings exist with respect to testing, access to justice issues and delay, empirical research is required to analyse whether these are systemic issues which disproportionately impact athletes from developing countries, including India. The following section will explore some of these issues in more detail and discusses possible areas of reform.

Need for reform

NADA sets out its ‘primary functions’ as: (1) implementing the Code to achieve compliance by all Indian sports organisations, (2) coordinating dope testing programmes, (3) promoting research and education on anti-doping to inculcate the value of dope free sports, and (4) adopting best practice standards and quality systems to enable effective implementation and continual improvement of the anti-doping programme. 111 NADA has fallen short in the implementation of these functions.

While similar shortcomings may exist in other developing countries, the sheer number of ADRVs in India, and the systemic challenges faced by the anti-doping institutions mean that reform is necessary and urgent. However, while WADA promotes harmonisation of anti-doping systems by NADOs, it needs to be acknowledged that implementation of a domestic anti-doping system requires considerable resources. Developing countries are likely to face resource constraints more than developed countries with respect to the anti-doping reforms required to meet best practice standards. 112

From India’s perspective, there is significant scope for further reform in the areas of anti-doping education, mitigation of risks of inadvertent doping (especially with respect to supplement consumption), adopting best practice standards with respect to procedural fairness norms and testing procedures, as well as potential legislative and institutional reform. This section identifies areas of potential reform to India’s anti-doping system.

From the perspective of harmonisation, compliance with testing standards is critical. Given the importance of consistency in testing across countries for the legitimacy of the system, it is not uncommon for WADA to suspend the accreditation of laboratories for non-compliance with its testing standards. For instance, in 2010 WADA suspended Malaysia’s laboratory for non-compliance with testing standards, including for false positive AAFs. 113 NDTL’s failures in testing procedures are cause for concern for anti-doping efforts in India, and globally.

Under the current framework, the consequences for non-compliance with testing standards are a suspension or revocation of that laboratory’s accreditation. 114 While NDTL’s suspension in India was clearly justified, it has the potential to cause broader impacts on the implementation of the Code in India. As a consequence of WADA’s suspension of NDTL’s accreditation, all samples of Indian athletes were sent to overseas testing laboratories, which was an additional cost to NADA. 115 NADA has a limited annual budget, and as a result of the increased cost for sample analysis, there was likely to be fewer athletes tested, that too in an Olympic year. 116 However, the cost of NDTL and NADA making mistakes is much higher. The system cannot afford false positives as this has the potential to ruin an athlete’s career, and it undermines the legitimacy and trust in the anti-doping system.

It has previously been argued that if non-compliance with the Code or testing standards is due to a lack of resources in a particular country, more focus should be on capacity building of institutions, rather than sanctions. 117 While significant investment may be required for building capacity, there may also be other means. For instance, Müller suggests that an institutionalised mentoring programme be implemented requiring NADOs to ‘cooperate with one or two other NADOs to facilitate exchange programs and external audits … to enhance quality and harmonisation’. 118 While NADA signed a 2-year memorandum of understanding alongside the Australian Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA) and WADA to ‘ensure India implements a more effective anti-doping program that is fully compliant with the [Code]’, 119 there is scope for deeper collaboration with other NADOs to share knowledge and promote best practice in the results management process. In any event, it would be prudent for the Ministry to invest in NDTL to ensure that it can further upgrade its equipment as well as build capacity through investing in staffing requirements, to guarantee compliance with WADA’s testing standards. 120 To this end, WADA needs to continue implementing its top-down approach to not only sanction laboratories who fail to meet standards, but also build capacity and accountability mechanisms to ensure continued compliance and uniform best practices in testing in all laboratories, in all circumstances.

Compliance with procedural standards

WADA and NADOs can do more to ensure compliance with procedural guarantees in the results management process. 121 NADA and India’s anti-doping panels have been criticised for their lack of procedural compliance previously. 122 NADA should ensure compliance with the procedural safeguards now enshrined under the ISRM and Article 8 of the Code. In addition, there are various procedural reforms that other jurisdictions have implemented to promote procedural fairness of athletes which NADA and the Government of India could consider.

From the perspective of timeliness, it is clear that cases where 1000 days pass between the athlete being tested to a first-instance decision being reached are unacceptable. 123 Indeed, the ISRM now prescribes timeliness as a guiding principle, whereby:

In the interest of fair and effective sport justice, antidoping rule violations should be prosecuted in a timely manner. … Anti-Doping Organizations should be able to conclude Results Management (including the Hearing Process at first instance) within six (6) months from the notification [of the ADRV to the athlete]. 124

In addition, the hearing process at first instance should take no longer than 2 months. 125 Under the Code and corresponding International Standards, WADA is required to monitor NADOs efforts in implementing and complying with the applicable rules and regulations 126 and there are mechanisms in place that allow WADA to hold NADOs accountable. For instance, under the ISRM, NADOs may face consequences if there are severe or systemic failures to comply with the mandatory timeliness requirements. 127 This is consistent with the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS) which provides that WADA can hold NADOs accountable for non-compliance with the Code and ISRM. 128 The ISCCS sets out several support mechanisms for NADOs to maintain compliance with obligations under the Code, including “providing advice and information, by developing resources, guidelines, training materials, and training programs, and by facilitating partnerships with other Anti-Doping Organizations where possible”. 129 However, there are processes set out under the ISCCS for confirming non-compliance and imposing consequences on NADOs and other signatories to the Code. 130

While there is still scope for a comprehensive empirical study on the timeliness of Indian anti-doping disputes, it is clear that numerous hearing procedures have exceeded this timeline. 131 As such, NADA and the ADDP will need to adopt strict measures to ensure that the results management process, including hearings, are conducted within these strict time limits. This will require stricter scheduling of each stage of the results management process, including sample analysis and hearings. This may involve India’s domestic panels collaborating with anti-doping tribunals abroad to understand and emulate best practice standards in case management. The use of technology may improve efficiency in the hearing process, as it has in other jurisdictions where telephone and video hearings are common. 132 In New Zealand, for example, telephone hearings have been driven by ‘logistical difficulties in arranging urgent hearings involving parties from around New Zealand and the considerable cost savings for all parties and, in particular, athletes’. 133 If WADA were to push for compliance under the ISRM with respect to these time limits (and if there were consequences for systemic non-compliance), this may encourage first-instance panels and NADOs to ensure compliance.

Various jurisdictions have acknowledged the difficulties faced by athletes in finding affordable legal counsel and have established pro-bono counsel lists. 134 Athletes can also apply for legal aid before the CAS. 135 For first-instance hearings, the ISRM suggest that ‘the Results Management Authority and/or the relevant hearing panel should consider establishing a legal aid mechanism in order to ensure such access’. 136 To date, no such legal aid mechanism exists in India. As a consequence, many athletes are unrepresented at first instance. In addition, the cost of requesting analytical laboratory reports, and engaging expert witnesses is prohibitively expensive for athletes in India.

Some commentators have argued that an overhaul of the entire sports dispute resolution process in India is required, noting that ‘it is the need of the hour to have an independent and separate institution for sports which is flexible and delivers quick and inexpensive resolution of sporting disputes’. 137 This approach has been successful in several other jurisdictions. 138 A National Sports Development Bill in 2013 proposed the creation of an Appellate Sports Tribunal. However, this Bill was not adopted by the Indian Parliament, which illustrates that there has been a lack of political will in the legislature to overhaul sports dispute resolution in India. Conversely, other countries have adopted necessary reforms to their sports dispute resolution system. 139

Regardless of the inertia with respect to policy reform, as has been suggested previously, 140 policymakers and scholars should conduct further empirical research to understand the extent that NADA and the ADDP have complied with the procedural guarantees and time limits prescribed under the NADA Rules and the Code. 141 If empirical evidence shows that systemic issues exist in terms of timeliness and access to justice, this may be a catalyst for reform.

All three factors envisaged by Gray are represented in the procedural shortcomings of anti-doping disputes in India. First, WADA’s top-down approach places a heavy reliance on domestic bodies for implementation of procedure, as sanctions and accreditations are typically limited to testing, rather than procedural defects. Greater oversight and accountability to WADA may be necessary for jurisdictions who display systemic procedural difficulties in protecting the due process rights of athletes. The procedural shortcomings in anti-doping in India may also be a reflection of resource constraints of NADA and the domestic tribunals. Institutions in developing countries will invariably receive less funding from their national governments, and this remains one of the biggest challenges in uniformity in doping procedure. Greater funding may be required to implement capacity building and training programmes, case management policies and procedures, and other institutional reforms. Perhaps WADA can facilitate funding to jurisdictions who require further institutional investment and promote reform through its Regional Anti-Doping Organization (RADO) Program, 142 in regions of particular concern (such as, for example, South Asia and Africa). Finally, systemic delays and access to justice issues may be a reflection of cultural nuances in India where civil and criminal litigation is notoriously slow and access to justice issues are widespread. 143 Given the vision of harmonisation in anti-doping, WADA should work with countries such as India where such entrenched cultural legal processes exist to ensure that anti-doping procedures are an exception to these systemic domestic challenges, ensuring all athletes are afforded minimum protections when alleged of an anti-doping rule violation.

Education programmes

WADA’s Director of Education noted that ‘helping those bound by anti-doping rules to understand them; as well as, their rights and responsibilities is something WADA and our stakeholders must continue to commit to’. 144 To this end, NADA has launched education programmes in India where various anti-doping workshops have been conducted in association with sports organisations and at colleges and universities. 145 NADA has also translated anti-doping education material into 14 local languages so that athletes from across the country can understand it. Despite these initiatives from NADA, commentators remain critical of NADA’s education programmes given the lack of awareness among athletes on the risks of prohibited substances and their rights and responsibilities under the NADA Rules. 146 Consistent with Gray’s ( 2019 ) framework, it is important to acknowledge that many NADOs ‘lack both human and financial resources, meaning that the priority is placed on the day-to-day administrative management rather than developing a wide-scale education programme’. 147 However, if all athletes are to be held to such high standards as are prescribed under the Code, then all athletes have the right to be effectively educated about their rights and responsibilities under the Code.

India still consistently ranks amongst the worst countries with respect to ADRVs. While a proportion of these violations are likely to have been a result of intentional use, many may have resulted from misjudgements or lack of awareness of the risks of supplements and medicines used by athletes. Better education and awareness programmes are likely to reduce the incidence of doping in India.

Under the International Standard for Education, 2021 (ISE), NADOs are expected to ensure that athletes demonstrate competencies and skills “at each stage of their development”. 148 Education programmes should be targeted towards athletes, support staff and coaches, sports administrators, as well as parents (in the context of minors) from grassroots to elite level. Studies suggest that “prevention programs are most effective when targeted at children and adolescents because attitudes and values are being formed during these stages of life.” 149 Accordingly, consistent with the ISE, NADOs should identify target groups for their education programme, 150 and such groups may include categories of young or adolescent athletes. For instance, WADA recommends that such target groups for anti-doping education may include emerging national-level athletes, younger athletes who are part of development teams or talent programmes, student-athletes in university sport and competitions, school children and even participants in recreational programs. 151 With the establishment of the Khelo India School Games in 2018 and the Khelo India University Games in 2020, 152 this may be an opportunity to promote anti-doping education to school and university students. Collaborating with education institutions (including the compulsory physical education classes in Indian schools), 153 and grass roots sport institutes and academies may also enhance the reach of anti-doping education. 154

The challenge of ensuring adequate anti-doping education is not unique to India—NADOs across the world should take measures to ensure that all athletes who are subject to dope testing understand the risks of doping and are aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Code. To ensure a comprehensive and effective education programme is in place, it is critical to promote collaboration with key stakeholders, especially national federations, who have regular contact with their athletes. 155 While acknowledging that some federations have limited financial resources to implement education programmes (especially in developing countries), 156 there is still scope for stronger collaboration with national federations in India to ensure that younger athletes, parents and support personnel are being educated at different stages of athlete development. 157 Engaging with federations is not just a question of reaching more athletes (scale), it has also been argued that increased support from federations may result in “more education opportunities and increased engagement and enthusiasm” around engaging with the subject matter presented by NADOs. 158 In India, however, there has not historically been a strong culture of education for athletes regarding the harmful effects of doping and the risks associated with doping regarding their sporting careers. This is especially true of athletes who have not competed at an international level. While NADA has initiated education programmes in India, there is still scope for improvement with respect to the promotion of anti-doping education to inculcate the value of dope free sports.

Inadvertent doping: contamination of supplements

The issue of inadvertent doping is often a symptom of both poor education and lack of institutional or regulatory reform. There have been several anti-doping cases before the CAS where athletes have claimed inadvertent doping due to use of medicines or dietary supplements wherein the athlete had no knowledge that the substance they consumed was banned, or it was contaminated. 159

The use of dietary supplements by athletes is not uncommon, and there is a risk that such supplements may be contaminated with a prohibited substance, resulting in inadvertent doping. 160 Due to several high-profile doping cases involving contaminated food supplements, the Indian Government explored ways in which athletes can consume nutritional supplements in a safe manner. In 2017, India’s Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports stated that:

Tackling the causes of doping is a priority for the ministry. The import and sale of sub-standard and dope-laced nutritional supplements is a cause of worry as unsuspecting athletes get banned under the Anti-Doping Code because of use of these supplements . 161

The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports encouraged NADA and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to cooperate in making nutritional supplements safe for all consumers, especially athletes. The FSSAI passed an order in 2017 clarifying that it is the responsibility of food business operators and manufacturers to ensure that health supplements do not contain any banned substances listed under the Code. 162 Action may be taken against food business operators who include banned substances in their products, especially if such substances are not contained on the label of the product. 163 The order encourages companies to seek clarifications from NADA and to ensure thorough testing of products before sale. 164 The rationale of creating stricter standards for supplement manufacturers is that this would reduce the chances of contamination, thereby reducing the risk of accidental ingestion.

In addition, under the proposed National Anti-Doping Bill, 2021, NADA has the responsibility to:

coordinate and collaborate with concerned authorities and stakeholders in matters relating to establishment of best practices in the marketing and distribution of nutritional supplements including information regarding their analytical composition and quality assurance. 165

It is also now responsible for “establishing standards for the manufacturing of nutritional supplements for sport in India.” 166 Whether these orders (and the proposed additional responsibilities of NADA) have been implemented in practice remains to be seen. While in other jurisdictions, athletes have taken legal action against supplement companies for contamination resulting in an ADRV, 167 no such cases have been reported in India. In any event, education and awareness of the potential risks of consuming supplements is paramount because under the Code, athletes may still face sanctions even if they can prove that the source of the prohibited substance is a contaminated supplement. Since arguments that high levels of inadvertent doping exist in India are to date mostly anecdotal, it is also recommended that evidence-based research is conducted to understand the proportion of athletes in India found to have committed an ADRV who claim to have doped inadvertently or accidentally. If the results of such empirical research are consistent with the several high-profile cases involving contamination of supplements and inadvertent doping, this may indeed point to more systemic issues requiring significant reform to domestic anti-doping policies, especially in the field of education.

Legislative reform

While the NADA Rules are typically updated to align with the amended version of the Code, 168 there has been some discussion about the need for legislative reform of the anti-doping framework in India. Recently, the National Anti-Doping Bill ( 2021 ), was tabled in Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha). 169 The Bill aims to create a framework for institutional reform in anti-doping in India and proposes to streamline anti-doping authorities to encourage institutional and operational independence of anti-doping disputes.

If enacted, the Bill would establish a National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports (the Board) and a new National Anti-Doping Agency. The Bill proposes to give NADA additional powers, including the power to undertake inspections and search and seizure to determine any anti-doping rule violations. 170 Hearings with respect to ADRVs are to be heard by the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel 171 and decisions from this panel may be appealed to the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. 172 The Bill would make NADA and NDTL independent constitutional authorities, rather than under the control of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. 173 This is consistent with WADA’s ISL which requires administrative and operational independence of laboratories to avoid potential conflicts of interest. 174 It would also ensure compliance with the Code, which now requires NADOs to be operationally independent. 175

It remains NADA’s responsibility to ensure that it conforms with the requirements under the Code and the international standards. 176 Under the Bill, the Board is responsible for overseeing the activities of NADA, including with respect to “ensuring compliance with the anti-doping rules and standards laid down by [WADA].” 177 In addition, the Board may call for information from the Disciplinary Panel and the Appeal Panel on its operations and issue directions “for the effective and timely discharge of their functions” insofar as such directions are limited to “procedural efficiency” without interfering with the decision-making process. 178 Accordingly, the Bill provides the Board measures to hold NADA and domestic panels accountable for upholding principles of procedural fairness enshrined in the Code and the ISRM. This reform is significant as it provides athletes and legal counsel an avenue to report significant procedural issues caused by NADA, or the domestic anti-doping panels. However, it is important that the Board monitors (and enforces) requirements such as timeliness and access to legal representation and holds these bodies accountable for failures to meet any of the minimum procedural standards, and subsequently require procedural reform where severe or systemic procedural issues exist.

While a key goal of WADA is to strive for harmonisation in the implementation of the anti-doping rules, the experience of anti-doping differs across countries. While there is a need to afford national governments and NADOs some autonomy in the implementation of the Code, the lack of harmonisation threatens the idea of creating a level playing field in anti-doping. This may in turn undermine the legitimacy of the entire framework.

The India case study highlights the need to conduct a deeper analysis with respect to how different countries implement the Code, and how the Code impacts athletes from different countries. Such empirical research may involve a content analysis of awards handed down by first-instance tribunals, and through primary research which engages with key stakeholders (such as athletes, arbitrators, and counsel) about their perceptions and experiences of the anti-doping system. This research will enable scholars and policy makers to ascertain whether the current framework has established the harmonised, level playing field that it intends to create. Further empirical research may also highlight, as some commentators have suggested, 179 that the current framework disproportionately impacts athletes from developing countries.

While athletes are held to an extremely high standard under the Code—that of strict liability—the case studies discussed in this paper highlight the risks of anti-doping institutions not meeting the same high standards. As one panel noted:

… just as the athletes who are subject to the anti-doping regime are expected to follow its rules and standards to the letter, so they are entitled to expect that those rules and standards will be strictly construed and followed by the anti-doping authorities themselves … Following the rules applicable to all stakeholders is the best method of ensuring the integrity of sport . 180

If anti-doping authorities do not meet the strict testing standards, education requirements, and procedural guarantees prescribed by the Code and International Standards, the consequences can be significant for athletes, as well as the perceptions of the legitimacy of the system.

In India, the effect of high-profile institutional failures undermines the confidence that athletes and other stakeholders have in the system at large. WADA’s suspension of the NDTL, allegations of glaring substantive errors by first-instance tribunals, highly publicised false positive and false negative tests, as well as legal challenges in High Courts on issues of procedural fairness and access to justice, have all added to the spout of controversies faced by the anti-doping institutions in India and globally. In addition, athletes rarely have recourse to institutions outside India, with only one of more than 1200 athletes having appealed to the CAS in more than a decade. While there has been some discussion by policymakers on how to improve the situation—by introducing a the National Anti-Doping Bill ( 2021 ) and through the regulation of supplements—there is plenty of scope for further reform to restore confidence in the system.

While improved education programmes are key across all jurisdictions, there is a need for improved institutional accountability across all facets of the process. WADA has taken measures to ensure compliance with strict international testing standards in India, and the NDTL and the Ministry need to ensure that such standards are improved moving forward. However, WADA, NADA and other stakeholders ought to strictly enforce the requirements under the Code with respect to procedural safeguards (such as timeliness and access to counsel), testing and education. While resources are limited in some jurisdictions, no athletes should be left to suffer due to institutional errors or inadequacies.

This paper has illustrated that some jurisdictions have not only fallen below the “best practice” standards set by NADOs and panels in some developed countries but have also failed to meet the minimum standards required under the Code (and corresponding International Standards). The Indian perspective, thus, emphasises that there is in fact a lack of harmonisation in implementing anti-doping rules and procedures across countries. Yet, if harmonisation is a desirable goal—as WADA emphasises—the Indian case study highlights that the global anti-doping framework is still far from reaching it.

See Fig. ​ Fig.1 1 .

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

Code availability, declarations.

1 Kambhampati and Star ( 2021 ).

2 WADA ( 2021a ).

3 WADA ( 2021d ).

5 Gatterer et al. ( 2020 ); Efverström and Bäckström ( 2017 ); Hanstad et al. ( 2010 ).

6 Batt ( 2011 ).

7 Dasgupta ( 2019 ); Star and Kelly ( 2021 ); Star and Kelly ( 2022 ).

8 Cf. Yang et al.’s ( 2021 ) paper where the authors seek to understand the implementation of anti-doping policies in China.

9 Very few cases involving Indian athletes have been appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). To date, only 10 anti-doping cases have been appealed to the CAS involving 14 athletes: Star and Kelly ( 2021 ). This represents just over 1% of more than 1200 Indian athletes who have been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation by the first-instance tribunal since its inception in 2009 (Star and Kelly 2022 ; NADA 2022 ). Star and Kelly ( 2021 ) further note that only one Indian athlete has appealed to the CAS for an anti-doping rule violation and that this data “may in itself be prima face evidence of access to justice issues in the anti-doping dispute resolution framework” (p. 110). While further empirical evidence is required to ascertain the cause of these accessibility constraints, the fact that the vast majority of cases are heard by first-instance tribunals in India underscores the importance of these bodies.

10 Kothari and Mehrotra ( 2019 ).

11 Vasavda ( 2020a ).

12 Mohan ( 2020 ).

13 Sharma ( 2020 ). See, e.g., Dharam Raj Yadav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 8636 of 2020.

14 Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Order dated 9 May 2017, “Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) in Health Supplements.” https://archive.fssai.gov.in/dam/jcr:1e78a364-c216-4715-8b33-b8852069c775/Order_Performance_Enhancing_Drug_08_06_2017.pdf . Accessed on 10 March 2022.

15 WADA Code ( 2021 ), p. 9.

16 WADA Code ( 2021 ), p. 16.

17 WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 23.2.2. For instance, for the purposes of consistency and harmonisation, anti-doping organisations should base their decisions on (i) the same list of anti-doping rule violations; (ii) the same burdens of proof; and (iii) impose the same sanctions for the same anti-doping rule violations.

18 However, an athlete who is not an international-level athlete, or an athlete involved in an international event, may not necessarily have a right of appeal to the CAS. Rather, they will be permitted to appeal a first-instance decision to an appellate body in accordance with rules established by the National Anti-Doping Organization: WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 13.

19 Hanstad et al. ( 2010 ).

20 Gray ( 2019 ).

22 Gray ( 2019 ), p. 255.

23 Ibid; Dimeo and Møller ( 2018 ); Efverström and Bäckström ( 2017 ); Park ( 2005 ).

24 Gray ( 2019 ), p. 255.

25 Ibid, p. 256; Houlihan ( 2013 ).

26 Gray ( 2019 ), p. 257.

27 Read et al. ( 2019 ), p. 234.

28 Pielke Jr. and Boye ( 2019 ), p. 297.

29 Ibid, p. 309.

30 NADA ( 2022 ): the total number of ADRVs is in accordance with the list published by NADA on 20 January 2022. See also, Table ​ Table1 1 and the Anti-Doping Testing Figures reported by WADA on an annual basis for further details on the total number of samples tested by NADA.

31 WADA ( 2017 ), p. 6.

32 WADA ( 2020a ).

33 WADA ( 2019a )

34 The Hindu (4 April 2017 ).

35 Article 2.1 of the Code provides that “presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample” constitutes an anti-doping rule violation. Note that under this provision, it is not necessary to show that the athlete had any intent, fault, or was negligent in consuming the prohibited substance, and as such this will result in an ADRV whether the prohibited substance was consumed intentionally or unintentionally.

36 Dayal ( 2018 ); Krishnan et al. ( 2022 ).

37 See, e.g., Dharam Raj Yadav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 8636 of 2020; Abhijeet Gurav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 616 of 2020; Kiran DevidasSanas v. NADA & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2020; Sachin Betkar v. NADA & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2020; Suresh Pai v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2020.

38 World Anti-Doping Code, International Standard for Laboratories, 2021, available at https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/isl_2021.pdf .

39 International Standard for Testing, Article 1.1.1.

40 WADA ( 2019b ). Discussed further in Sect. 2.2.2 below.

41 WADA ( 2020b ), p. 1.

42 WADA ( 2021b ).

43 Cyriac ( 2018 ).

44 See Table ​ Table1 1 .

45 WADA ( 2018 ).

46 Article 4.6.4.

47 IRMS is an analytical technique required to be used by WADA-accredited laboratories before releasing of an AAF for the abuse of pseudoendogenous steroids (i.e., testosterone). See e.g., de la Torre et al. ( 2019 ).

48 Hussain ( 2019 ).

49 WADA ( 2019b ).

50 Kothari and Mehrotra ( 2019 ); Mohan ( 2019 ).

51 Hussain ( 2019 ).

52 Vasavda ( 2020a ).

53 Kothari and Mehrotra ( 2019 ).

54 Inderjeet Singh v. NADA, Anti-Doping Appellate Panel, Case No. 08, ADAP 2018, para 8.

55 Vijay Singh v. National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) & Anr., Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 3766/ 2021.

56 Singhania and Dhingra ( 2021 ).

57 Vijay Singh v. National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) & Anr., W.P.(C) 3766/2021, Delhi High Court, order dated 22 March 2021 (Justice Prathiba M. Singh), http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=48509&yr=2021 .

58 Das ( 2021 ).

59 Vijay Singh v. National Anti-Doping Agency, Anti-Doping Appeal Panel, Case number- 04.ADAP.2020.

61 The Economic Times (23 August 2019 ).

62 Mohan ( 2019 ).

63 WADA ( 2021c ).

64 NADA Rules ( 2021 ), Article 8.1.

65 NADA Rules ( 2021 ), Articles 13.2.1 and 13.2.2.

66 NADA Rules ( 2021 ), Article 8.5.

67 Star and Kelly ( 2021 ).

68 Rajaraman ( 2020 ). See NADA vs Himanshu Kumar Chang (Case No. 74.ADDP.04.2019), award of 6 January 2020 and NADA vs Vishal Solanki (Case No. ADDP.2020), award of 27 May 2020. It is interesting to note that while the ADAP upheld the original ADDP decision, the award states that the ADDP order should be “modified” by striking out the erroneous section of the judgment that was incorrectly copied from the facts of the Himanshu Kumar Chang case (Vishal Solanki vs National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), Appeal No. 04.ADAP.2020, Award dated 15 July 2021).

69 Mohan ( 2020 ). See, e.g., NADA vs Mukul Sharma (Case No. 145.ADDP.01.2019), award of 17 December 2019; NADA vs Himanshu Kumar Chang (Case No. 74.ADDP.04.2019), award of 6 January 2020.

70 Mohan ( 2020 ).

72 WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 8; ISRM ( 2021 ), Article 8.

73 Star and Kelly ( 2021 ), p. 96.

74 Kambhampati and Star ( 2021 ).

75 WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 13.2.2; ISRM ( 2021 ), Article 8.8(d).

76 Star and Kelly ( 2021 ), p. 107; Dimeo and Møller ( 2018 ), p. 193; Weston ( 2009 ), p. 49; Kambhampati and Star ( 2021 ), p. 234.

77 Dasgupta ( 2019 ); See also, Star and Kelly ( 2022 ).

78 Star ( 2022 ).

79 Star and Kelly ( 2021 ).

80 WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 8.

81 Kambhampati and Star ( 2021 ), p. 234.

82 Amar Muralidharan v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency of India, Indian National Dope Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (CAS 2014/A/3639), award of 8 April 2015; World Anti-Doping Agency v. Amit and National Anti-Doping Agency of India (CAS 2014/A/3869), award of 23 November 2015, para 63; World Anti-Doping Agency v. Nirupama Devi Laishram and National Anti-Doping Agency of India (CAS 2012/A/2979), award of 8 November 2013, paras 119–120.

83 NADA v. Anil Kumar (Case No. 43.ADDP.01.2012), award of 17 December 2012.

85 Woolf ( 2020 ).

86 Dayal ( 2018 ).

87 WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 2.1.1.

88 Dayal ( 2019 ).

89 The Economic Times (6 July 2011 ).

90 Gatterer et al. ( 2020 ), p. 230; Backhouse et al. ( 2014 ).

91 Dayal ( 2018 ).

93 Krishnan et al. ( 2022 ).

96 Kambhampati and Star ( 2021 ).

97 Dharam Raj Yadav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 8636 of 2020; Abhijeet Gurav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 616 of 2020; Kiran DevidasSanas v. NADA & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2020; Sachin Betkar v. NADA & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2020; Suresh Pai v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2020. It should be noted that injunctions have been ordered by the High Court, where required, and full substantive judgments are still awaited. For instance, in Abhijeet Gurav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 616 of 2020, the High Court has heard appearances from counsel 24 times since the initial hearing on 17 January 2020 until 16 February 2022. A final determination is still pending.

98 Dharam Raj Yadav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 8636 of 2020.

101 Ibid, para 18.

102 See NADA Rules ( 2021 ), Comment to Article 7.2.

103 Moston and Engelberg ( 2019 ), p. 261.

104 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Eddy Hellebuyck, Arbitration CAS 2005/A/831, award of 5 May 2006, para 21.

105 WADA Code ( 2021 ), Comment to Article 3.2.2.

106 Pielke Jr. and Boye ( 2019 ).

107 Amar Muralidharan v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), Indian National Dope Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (CAS 2014/A/3639), award of 8 April 2015, para 88.

108 Ibid, para 18.

109 Ibid, para 88.

110 Ibid, para 91.

111 NADA ( 2021 ).

112 Gray ( 2019 ); Houlihan ( 2013 ).

113 WADA ( 2010 ); Doping Control Centre, Universiti Sains Malaysia v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2162, award of 15 June 2011; Pielke Jr. and Boye ( 2019 ).

114 See, International Standard for Laboratories, Article 4.6.4.1 (Suspension of Accreditation and Analytical Testing Restriction); Article 4.6.4.2 (Noncompliances with the ISL); Article 4.6.4.3 (Revocation of Accreditation).

115 It is estimated that ‘NDTL [charges] $250. When sent abroad, the price per sample goes up to $350, excluding the transportation costs’: Vasavda ( 2020b ).

116 PTI (23 August 2019 ); Vasavda ( 2020b ).

117 Gray ( 2019 ); Houlihan ( 2013 ).

118 Müller ( 2017 ), p. 186.

119 WADA ( 2016a ).

120 Similarly, the Ministry should increase its investment in capacity building and case management with respect to the ADDP and ADAP.

121 Star and Kelly ( 2021 ).

122 Amar Muralidharan v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency of India, Indian National Dope Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (CAS 2014/A/3639), award of 8 April 2015.

123 NADA v. Anil Kumar (Case No. 43.ADDP.01.2012), award of 17 December 2012.

124 ISRM ( 2021 ), Article 4.2.

125 ISRM ( 2021 ), Article 8.8.(c).

126 See WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 20.7.2; International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS), Article 8.

127 See ISRM, Comment to Article 4.2.

128 The strict minimum procedural standards under the WADA Code and ISRM are identified as a high priority to anti-doping procedures as set out in ISCCS, Annex A, A.1.2(l).

129 ISCCS, Article 7.1.

130 ISCCS, Article 10. See also WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 24.1. The possible consequences that may be imposed on NADOs for violating the procedural fairness provisions (and others) enshrined in the WADA Code and International Standards are set out in Article 24.1.12 of the WADA Code ( 2021 ).

131 See, e.g., Amar Muralidharan v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency of India, Indian National Dope Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (CAS 2014/A/3639), award of 8 April 2015; NADA v. Anil Kumar (Case No. 43.ADDP.01.2012), award of 17 December 2012. See, also, Star and Kelly ( 2022 ).

132 Note that while video hearings before the ADDP have been conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in India, these were not commonplace earlier.

133 David ( 2016 ), p. 141.

134 For instance, National Sports Tribunal (Australia), Legal Assistance Panel, https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/dispute-resolution-services#nst-legal-assistance-panel-nstlap ; Sports Resolutions UK, http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/services/pro-bono-legal-advice ; Sports Tribunal of New Zealand, http://www.sportstribunal.org.nz/rules-and-procedures/legal/ .

135 CAS ( 2020 ).

136 ISRM ( 2021 ), Comment to Article 8.8(b).

137 Singhania and Kothari ( 2021 ).

138 Including in the UK (Sport Resolutions provide independent dispute resolution in sport, including in anti-doping matters under the National Anti-Doping Panel); in New Zealand (the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand); in Canada (the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre); in Australia (National Sports Tribunal).

139 For instance, Star and Kelly ( 2021 ), noting that ‘… New Zealand’s Sports Anti-Doping Rules have been amended every year over the past decade,’ and that ‘Australia’s National Sports Tribunal in March 2020 has drawn on the policies and experiences of dispute resolution frameworks in other developed countries such as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.’

140 Star and Kelly ( 2021 ).

141 See, e.g., Star and Kelly ( 2022 ).

142 According to WADA, the objectives of the RADO program are (i) sustainability and accountability; (ii) capacity building; (iii) compliance and program development; (iv) relations and engagement. See https://www.wada-ama.org/en/rado-program .

143 Krishnan et al. ( 2014 ), Rehn et al. ( 2011 ).

144 WADA ( 2019c ).

145 Press Information Bureau ( 2016 ).

146 Dayal ( 2018 ).

147 Cléret ( 2011 ), p. 276.

148 ISE, Article 5.4,

149 Gatterer et al. ( 2020 ), p. 230. See also, Pöppel ( 2021 ).

150 ISE, Article 4.2.2.

151 WADA ( 2020c ).

152 Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, Khelo India University Games. https://universitygames.kheloindia.gov.in/ . Accessed 8 March 2022.

153 Ministry of Education (2019) Several steps have been taken by the Government to impart health and physical education to students across the country : HRD Minister. 5 December 2019. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1595137#:~:text=CBSE%20has%20made%20Health%20and,classes%20I%2DXII%20each%20day . Accessed 8 March 2022.

154 For example, Pöppel ( 2021 ) notes that “there is an effort to integrate anti-doping education into the German curricula in cooperation with the national anti-doping agency”, citing Klüttermann ( 2019 ).

155 Gray ( 2019 ).

156 Winand ( 2015 ); Gatterer et al. ( 2020 ).

157 See e.g., WADA ( 2020c ).

158 Gatterer et al. ( 2020 ), p. 235.

159 See e.g., Flavia Oliveira v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), award of 6 December 2010, Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2107; Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, CAS 2016/A/4676.

160 McArdle ( 2015 ). See also, Gatterer et al. ( 2020 ), Martinez-Sanz et al. ( 2017 ).

161 The Times of India (30 June 2017).

162 Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Order dated 9 May 2017, “Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) in Health Supplements”, available at https://archive.fssai.gov.in/dam/jcr:1e78a364-c216-4715-8b33-b8852069c775/Order_Performance_Enhancing_Drug_08_06_2017.pdf . A list of banned substances are annexed to the FSSAI Order.

165 The National Anti-Doping Bill ( 2021 ), Article 6(3)(j).

166 Ibid, Article 6(3)(j).

167 For example, US athletes Jessica Hardy and William Frullani, see Abrahamson ( 2009 ); Krolak ( 2015 ).

168 See NADA Rules (2009), NADA Rules (2015), NADA Rules (2021).

169 Hussain ( 2022 ).

170 The National Anti-Doping Bill ( 2021 ), Article 19(1)(a). In exercising the power of entry, search and seizure, anti-doping authorities must comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

171 Ibid, Article 21.

172 Ibid, Article 23.

173 Hussain ( 2020b ).

174 ISL ( 2021 ), Article 4.4.2.4.

175 WADA Code ( 2021 ), Article 20.5.1.

176 The National Anti-Doping Bill ( 2021 ), Article 16(3)(e)

177 Ibid, Article 10(3)(a)

178 Ibid, Article 10(5).

179 Star and Kelly ( 2021 ); Dasgupta ( 2019 ).

180 USADA v. Latasha Jenkins ( 2008 ), AAA No. 301900019907 (American Arbitration Association, award dated 25 January 2008), para 161.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abrahamson A (2009) Jessica Hardy, advocare file suit against each other. 30 January 2009, Swimming World Magazine. https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/jessica-hardy-advocare-file-suit-against-each-other/ . Accessed 29 Sept 2021
• Backhouse SH, Collins C, Defoort Y, McNamee M, Parkinson A, Sauer M. Study on doping prevention: a map of legal, regulatory and prevention practice provisions in EU 28. Luxembourg: Publications Office; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Batt A. The role of UK Anti-Doping in the fight against doping in sport. Int J Sport Policy Polit. 2011; 3 (2):261–270. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2011.577794. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CAS, (2020) Guidelines on legal aid before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. 1 November 2020. https://www.tas-cas.org/en/add/legal-aid.html . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Cléret L. The role of anti-doping education in delivering WADA's mission. Int J Sport Policy Polit. 2011; 3 (2):271–277. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2011.577084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cyriac BB (2018) NADA claims quality of dope tests important, not quantity. 26 July 2018, The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/others/nada-claims-quality-of-dope-tests-important-not-quantity/articleshow/65144573.cms . Accessed 21 Feb 2022
• Das I (2021) In a first, DNA test clears Indian motorbike rider of doping taint. 4 June 2021. The New Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/sport/other/2021/jun/04/in-a-first-dna-test-clears-indian-motorbike-rider-of-doping-taint-2311733.html . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Dasgupta L. The World Anti-Doping Code: fit for purpose? London: Routledge; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• David P. Hearing anti-doping cases in New Zealand. In: Haas U, Healey D, editors. Doping in sport and the law. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2016. pp. 127–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dayal A (2018) The error in zero tolerance. 1 June 2018, The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/indian-olympics-sports-anti-doping-athletes-the-error-in-zero-tolerance-5199304/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Dayal A (2019) Athletes and medication—duty of care. The Times of India, 3 August. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/athletes-and-medication-duty-of-care/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• de la Torre X, Jardines D, Curcio D, Colamonici C, Botrè F. Isotope ratio mass spectrometry in antidoping analysis: the use of endogenous reference compounds. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2019; 33 (6):579–586. doi: 10.1002/rcm.8377. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dimeo P, Møller V. The anti-doping crisis in sport: causes, consequences, solutions. New York: Routledge; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Efverström A, Bäckström Å (2017) Different societies—different conditions: lessons from anti-doping in elite sport on a global level. In: International network for doping research, conference on doping in sport, doping in society: lessons, themes, and connections. https://ph.au.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/INDR_2017_Book_of_Abstracts.pdf . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Gatterer K, Gumpenberger M, Overbye M, Streicher B, Schobersberger W, Blank C. An evaluation of prevention initiatives by 53 national anti-doping organizations: achievements and limitations. J Sport Health Sci. 2020; 9 (3):228–239. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2019.12.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray S. Achieving compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code: learning from the implementation of another international agreement. Int J Sport Policy Polit. 2019; 11 (2):247–260. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1550798. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanstad DV, Skille EÅ, Loland S. Harmonization of anti-doping work: myth or reality? Sport Soc. 2010; 13 (3):418–430. doi: 10.1080/17430431003588036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Houlihan B. Achieving compliance in international anti-doping policy: an analysis of the 2009 world anti-doping code. Sport Manag Rev. 2013; 17 (3):265–276. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2013.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hussain S (2019) WADA had serious trust issues with NDTL’s testing procedures. 24 August 2019, Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/others/wada-had-serious-trust-issues-with-ndtls-testing-procedures/articleshow/70813844.cms . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Hussain S (2020a) NADA decriminalises doping offence by athletes. 29 August 2020a, The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/nada-decriminalises-doping-offence-by-athletes/articleshow/77813929.cms . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Hussain S (2020b) NADA, NDTL to become independent of government control. 16 December 2020b, The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/others/nada-ndtl-to-become-independent-of-government-control/articleshow/79751640.cms . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Hussain S (2022) Anti-doping bill proposes to give 'full policing authority' to NADA officials. 8 January 2022, The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/others/anti-doping-bill-proposes-to-give-full-policing-authority-to-nada-officials/articleshow/88768785.cms . Accessed 10 Mar 2022.
• Kambhampati A, Star S. Playing true? A critique of the 2021 WADA code. Int Sports Law J. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s40318-021-00193-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klüttermann S (2019). Vorstoß von Ländern und Nada: Doping-Prävention soll Schulstoff werden [Advance by Federal States and Nada: Doping Prevention to be Taught in Schools]. https://rp-online.de/sport/andere/sportministerkonferenz-2019-doping-praevention-soll-schulstoff-werden_aid-47015209 . Accessed 8 Mar 2022
• Kothari A, Mehrotra A (2019) Why the National Dope Testing Laboratory (New Delhi) has been suspended by WADA and what it means for Indian sport. 8 October 2019, LawInSport . https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/why-the-national-doping-test-laboratory-new-delhi-has-been-suspended-by-wada-and-what-it-means-for-indian-sport . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Krishnan A, Datta K, Sharma D, Sharma SD, Mahajan U, Jhajharia S, Yadav M. Survey of antidoping knowledge, attitudes and practices amongst elite Indian sportsmen and the way forward. Med J Arm Forces India. 2022; 78 :88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.03.020. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishnan JK, Kavadi SN, Girach A, Khupkar D. Grappling at the grassroots: access to justice in India's lower tier. Harv Hum Rts J. 2014; 27 :151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krolak J (2015) Banned Olympian blames diet supplements. 26 August 2015, Courthouse News Service. https://www.courthousenews.com/banned-olympian-blames-diet-supplements/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Martinez-Sanz JM, Sospedra I, Ortiz CM, Baladia E, Gil-Izquierdo A, Ortiz-Moncada R. Intended or unintended doping? A review of the presence of doping substances in dietary supplements used in sports. Nutrients. 2017; 9 :E1093. doi: 10.3390/nu9101093. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McArdle D. ‘Strict liability’ and legal rights: nutritional supplements, ‘intent’ and ‘risk’ in the parallel world of WADA. In: Møller V, Waddington I, Hoberman JM, editors. Routledge handbook of drugs and sport. Abingdon: Routledge; 2015. pp. 293–309. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohan KP (2019) NDTL losing accreditation comes as no surprise. 23 August 2019, Sportsstar. https://sportstar.thehindu.com/other-sports/wada-suspends-ndtl-accreditation-setback-for-nada-davinder-singh-kang-doping/article29235674.ece . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Mohan KP (2020) Anti-doping cases: panels err in handing out sanctions for specified substances. 10 December 2020, Sportsstar. https://sportstar.thehindu.com/other-sports/anti-doping-cases-sanctions-for-specified-substances-nada-wada/article33301910.ece . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Moston S, Engelberg T. And justice for all? how anti-doping responds to ‘innocent mistakes’ Int J Sport Policy Polit. 2019; 11 (2):261–274. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1550799. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Müller D. How to protect the clean athletes? German J Exerc Sport Res. 2017; 47 (3):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s12662-017-0446-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NADA 2021. Primary functions. https://www.nadaindia.org/en/primaryfunctions . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• NADA 2022. List of sportspersons tested positive against dope substances and sanction imposed by Anti Doping Disciplinary Panel w. e. f. 01-01-2009 till date . https://www.nadaindia.org/upload_file/document/1642661657.pdf . Accessed 23 Feb 2022
• Park J. Governing doped bodies: the world anti-doping agency and the global culture of surveillance. Crit Methodol. 2005; 5 (2):174–188. doi: 10.1177/1532708605274945. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pielke R, Jr, Boye E. Scientific integrity and anti-doping regulation. Int J Sport Policy Polit. 2019 doi: 10.1080/19406940.2019.1596968. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pöppel K (2021) Efficient ways to combat doping in a sports education context!? A systematic review on doping prevention measures focusing on young age groups. Front Sports Act Liv. 10.3389/fspor.2021.673452 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India (2016) NADA outreach programme to make Indian athletes aware about pitfalls of taking substances prohibited by WADA. 29 April 2016. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=142588 . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• PTI (2019) NDTL’s suspension will hamper India’s anti-doping programme: Expert. 23 August 2019, Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/sports/ndtls-suspension-will-hamper-indias-anti-doping-programme-expert/articleshow/70804328.cms?from=mdr . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Rajaraman G (2020) ADDP mess up orders. 20 July 2020, Mail Today. https://circleofsport.com/addps-mess-up-orders/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Read D, Skinner J, Lock D, Houlihan B. Legitimacy driven change at the world anti-doping agency. Int J Sport Policy Polit. 2019; 11 (2):233–245. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1544580. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rehn N, Naik A, Jain D, Singh A, Robinson N, So WW, Aniruddha J, Rai S, Rai S, Patil C, Bindal A, Goel R, Kanwar V (2011) Justice without delay: recommendations for legal and institutional reforms in the indian courts. Jindal Global Legal Research Paper No. 4/2011, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1679350
• Sharma D (2020) Notice issued to NADA on athlete’s petition challenging Art. 7.3.1(f) of NADA Rules, 2015. 8 October 2020, SCC Blog. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/08/del-hc-notice-issued-to-nada-on-athletes-petition-challenging-art-7-3-1f-of-nada-rules-2015/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Singhania V, Kothari C (2021) Is national sports arbitration the way forward?. In: Samant Y, Balyan C (eds) Specialized arbitration: emerging international trends and practices . Thomson Reuters, Mumbai, pp 332–352
• Singhania V, Dhingra A (2021) How DNA determined sample identity in an anti-doping first for India—the case of Vijay Singh. 3 September 2021, LawInSport. https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/how-dna-was-used-to-determine-sample-identity-in-an-anti-doping-first-for-india-the-case-of-vijay-singh . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Star S, Kelly S. A level playing field in anti-doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings. Int Sports Law J. 2021; 21 :94–117. doi: 10.1007/s40318-020-00176-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Star S, Kelly S. Examining procedural fairness in anti-doping disputes: a comparative empirical analysis. Int Sports Law J. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s40318-022-00222-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Economic Times (2011) Coach sacked, probe ordered in doping scandal. 6 July 2011, The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/coach-sacked-probe-ordered-in-doping-scandal/articleshow/9120378.cms?curpg=2 . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• The Economic Times (2019) NDTL’s suspension will hamper India's anti-doping programme. 23 August 2019, The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/70804328.cms?from=mdr&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• The Hindu (2017) India ranks 3rd for third year in a row in world doping chart. 4 April 2017, The Hindu. http://www.thehindu.com/sport/india-ranked-3rd-for-third-year-in-row-in-wada-doping-charts/article17804673.ece . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• The Times of India (2017) Food supplements to be audited by FSSAI: Vijay Goel. 30 June 2017, The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/others/food-supplements-to-be-audited-by-fssai-vijay-goel/articleshow/59382127.cms . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Vasavda M (2017) Sports Ministry clears move to make doping a criminal offence. 25 March 2017, The Indian Express. http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/sports-ministry-clears-move-to-make-doping-a-criminal-offence-wada-4584518/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Vasavda M (2020a) Four samples tested positive at Delhi lab turn out negative in Rome. 4 March 2020a, The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/sport-others/four-samples-tested-positive-at-delhi-lab-turns-out-negative-in-rome-6297994/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• Vasavda M (2020b) Cost of India’s dope-testing lab suspension: Higher testing costs, reduction in tests. 23 July 2020b, The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/sport-others/cost-of-india-dope-testing-lab-suspension-higher-testing-costs-reduction-6518891/ . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• WADA (2010) WADA Suspends Penang Laboratory from Anti-Doping Analyses. 27 May 2010. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2010-05/wada-suspends-penang-laboratory-from-anti-doping-analyses . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• WADA (2015) 2013 Anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) report. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2013-adrv-report-en.pdf
• WADA (2016a) Indian Anti-Doping Program receives boost after striking partnership with ASADA. 5 July 2016. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-07/indian-anti-doping-program-receives-boost-after-striking-partnership-with-asada . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• WADA (2016b) 2014 Anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) report. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2014-adrv-report-en_0.pdf
• WADA (2017) 2015 Anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) report. http://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2015_adrvs_report_web_release_0.pdf
• WADA (2018) 2016 Anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) report. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016_anti-doping_testing_figures.pdf
• WADA (2019a) 2017 Anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) report. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2017_adrv_report.pdf
• WADA (2019b) WADA suspends accreditation of New Delhi Laboratory. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2019b-08/wada-suspends-accreditation-of-new-delhi-laboratory . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• WADA (2019c) WADA education—helping athlete who want to compete clean. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2019c-10/wada-education-helping-athletes-who-want-to-compete-clean . Accessed 29 Sep 2021
• WADA (2020a) 2018 Anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) report. http://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2018_adrv_report.pdf .
• WADA (2020b) 2019 Anti-doping testing figures. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2019_anti-doping_testing_figures_en.pdf
• WADA (2020c) 2021 Code Implementation Support Program Guidelines for the International Standard for Education (ISE). September 2020c. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/guidelinesforeducation_final.pdf . Accessed 8 Mar 2022
• WADA (2021a) World anti-doping code. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/world-anti-doping-code . Accessed 29 Sep 2021a
• WADA (2021b) 2020 Anti-doping testing figures. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2020_anti-doping_testing_figures_en.pdf
• WADA (2021c) WADA reinstates accreditation of New Delhi Laboratory. 22 December 2021c. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-reinstates-accreditation-new-delhi-laboratory . Accessed 8 Mar 2022
• WADA (2021d) WADA Executive Committee endorses recommendations of non-compliance of eight Anti-Doping Organizations. 14 September 2021d. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-executive-committee-endorses-recommendations-non-compliance-eight-anti-doping . Accessed 8 Mar 2022
• Weston MA. Doping control, mandatory arbitration, and process dangers for accused athletes in international sports. Pepperdine Dispute Resol Law J. 2009; 10 (1):5–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winand M (2015) Analysis of the role and challenges of sport federations in doping prevention in the UK [Anti-doping education in the UK]. The Carnegie Trust. School of Sport, University of Stirling, UK. http://hdl.handle.net/1893/21984
• Woolf JR. An examination of anti-doping education initiatives from an educational perspective: Insights and recommendations for improved educational design. Perform Enhanc Health. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.peh.2020.100178. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang K, Dimeo P, Winand M. Anti-doping in China: an analysis of the policy implementation processes through stakeholders’ perspectives. Sport Manag Rev. 2021 doi: 10.1080/14413523.2021.1917247. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Legislation, codes and orders

• Draft National Sports Development Bill 2013 (India)
• FSSAI Order. 2017. Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) in Health Supplements. 9 May 2017
• International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS)
• International Standards for Laboratories, 2021 (ISL)
• International Standard of Results Management, 2021 (ISRM)
• The National Anti-Doping Bill (2021), Bill No. 160 of 2021 (as introduced in Lok Sabha)
• World Anti-Doping Code 2021 (WADA Code, or the Code)

Cases cited

• Abhijeet Gurav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 616 of 2020, Delhi High Court
• Amar Muralidharan v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), Indian National Dope Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (CAS 2014/A/3639), award of 8 April 2015
• Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, CAS 2016/A/4676
• Dharam Raj Yadav v. NADA & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No. 8636 of 2020
• Doping Control Centre, Universiti Sains Malaysia v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2162, award of 15 June 2011
• Flavia Oliveira v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), award of 6 December 2010, Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2107
• Inderjeet Singh v. NADA, Anti-Doping Appellate Panel, Case No. 08, ADAP 2018
• International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Eddy Hellebuyck, Arbitration CAS 2005/A/831, award of 5 May 2006
• Kiran DevidasSanas v. NADA & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2020, Delhi High Court
• NADA v. Anil Kumar (Case No. 43.ADDP.01.2012), award of 17 December 2012
• NADA vs Himanshu Kumar Chang (Case No. 74.ADDP.04.2019), award of 6 January 2020
• NADA vs Mukul Sharma (Case No. 145.ADDP.01.2019), award of 17 December 2019.NADA vs Vishal Solanki (Case No. ADDP.2020), award of 27 May 2020
• Sachin Betkar v. NADA & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2020, Delhi High Court
• Suresh Pai v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2020, Delhi High Court
• USADA v. Latasha Jenkins, 2008, AAA No. 301900019907 (American Arbitration Association, award dated 25 January 2008)
• Vijay Singh v. National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) & Anr., W.P.(C) 3766/2021, Delhi High Court, order dated 22 March 2021 (Justice Prathiba M. Singh), available at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=48509&yr=2021
• Vishal Solanki vs National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), Appeal No. 04.ADAP.2020, Award dated 15 July 2021)
• WADA v. Amit and National Anti-Doping Agency of India (CAS 2014/A/3869), award of 23 November 2015
• WADA v. Nirupama Devi Laishram and National Anti-Doping Agency of India (CAS 2012/A/2979), award of 8 November 2013

Advertisement

Supported by

Antidoping Agency Acknowledges Concern Over Use of Tainted Food as Excuse

After a spate of positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs by athletes, the World Anti-Doping Agency is investigating why China and other countries are citing contaminated food as an explanation.

• Share full article

By Michael S. Schmidt Jenny Vrentas and Tariq Panja

The global antidoping regulator disclosed on Tuesday that it is investigating why athletes in China and other countries who are testing positive for banned drugs are escaping discipline through claims that they have unwittingly ingested the performance-enhancing substances through food.

The statement from the World Anti-Doping Agency came after The New York Times reported earlier on Tuesday on a previously undisclosed case in which two elite Chinese swimmers who tested positive for a powerful steroid in 2022 were cleared late last year after their country’s antidoping authority blamed contaminated hamburgers.

It was the third incident in recent years in which China blamed food contamination for positive tests among members of its national swimming team.

In its statement on Tuesday, the World Anti-Doping Agency, known as WADA, revealed that at the same time it was looking into how the two swimmers had tested positive, it was also examining the previously undisclosed cases of two other Chinese athletes in different sports — shooting and BMX bike riding — who tested positive in early 2023 for trace amounts of the same banned drug, metandienone.

China’s antidoping regulator conducted tests that discovered metandienone in dozens of meat samples in the country, WADA said, and ultimately cleared the two other athletes as well as the two swimmers of doping.

After the Chinese investigation, WADA said, it began its own inquiry early this year “to assess the circumstances, scale and risk of meat contamination with metandienone in China and other countries.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

U.S. Olympic officials call for truce in doping feud

• Medium Text

FEUD ESCALATES

Intense criticism.

Sign up here.

Reporting by Steve Keating in Paris; Editing by Ken Ferris

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Early thunder carries Braves past Marlins

The Atlanta Braves hit three home runs to back the solid starting pitching of Charlie Morton and beat the Miami Marlins 4-2 on Thursday in the opener of a four-game series.

Graham Dunbar, Associated Press Graham Dunbar, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/salt-lake-city-chosen-as-host-for-2034-winter-games-but-pressured-to-lobby-end-of-fbi-doping-investigation

Salt Lake City chosen as host for 2034 Winter Games but pressured to lobby end of FBI doping investigation

PARIS (AP) — What was expected to be a simple coronation of Salt Lake City as the 2034 Winter Olympic host turned into complicated Olympic politics Wednesday, as the IOC pushed Utah officials to end an FBI investigation into a suspected doping coverup.

The International Olympic Committee formally awarded the 2034 Winter Games to Salt Lake in an 83-6 vote, but only after a contingent of Utah politicians and U.S. Olympic leaders signed an agreement that pressures them to lobby the federal government.

WATCH : Chinese Olympic doping case swept ‘under the carpet’ by WADA, U.S. anti-doping chief says

The International Olympic Committee is angry about an ongoing U.S. federal investigation of suspected doping by Chinese swimmers who were allowed to compete at the Tokyo Games despite positive drug tests. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accepted Chinese explanations for the tests, and U.S. officials are now investigating that decision under an anti-conspiracy law passed after the Russian doping scandal at the Sochi Winter Games.

President Thomas Bach wants to make sure WADA is the lead authority on doping cases in Olympic sports, especially with the Summer Olympics headed to Los Angeles in 2028. The IOC added a clause to Salt Lake’s host contract, effectively demanding that local organizers — including Utah Gov. Spencer Cox — push to shut down the investigation or risk losing the Olympics.

“That was the only way that we could guarantee that we would get the Games,” Cox said after the announcement. If the U.S. does not respect the “supreme authority of WADA, the governor said, ”they can withdraw the Games from us.”

Even in the world of Olympic diplomacy, it was a stunning power move to force government officials to publicly agree to do the IOC’s lobbying.

U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee Chair Gene Sykes said some officials and athletes from other countries are worried that the anti-conspiracy law would allow the U.S. to arrest or subpoena Olympic visitors.

Some officials “have been very anxious about what it would mean to the sports figures who came to the United States, somehow they were subject to uncertainty in terms of their freedom of travel,” Sykes said. “And that is always concerning to people who don’t understand the United States.”

The capital city of Utah was the only candidate after the IOC gave Salt Lake City exclusive negotiating rights last year in a fast-tracked process.

READ MORE : Paris police seal off banks of Seine River ahead of Olympics

The campaign team presenting the bid on stage to IOC members included Cox, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall and Alpine ski great Lindsey Vonn. Back home, a 3 a.m. public watch party gathered to see the broadcast from Paris.

The clause inserted into the contract requires Utah officials to work with current and future U.S. presidents and Congress “to alleviate your concerns” about the federal investigation into doping.

WADA’s role is under scrutiny for accepting a Chinese investigation that declared all 23 swimmers were contaminated by traces of a banned heart medication in a hotel kitchen. Evidence to prove the theory has not been published. The implicated swimmers won three gold medals in Tokyo, and some are also competing in Paris.

The case can be investigated in the U.S. under federal legislation named for a whistleblower of Russian state doping at the 2014 Sochi Winter Games. The IOC and WADA lobbied against the law, known as the Rodchenkov Act, which gives U.S. federal agencies wide jurisdiction of doping enforcement worldwide.

“We will work with our members of Congress,” Gov. Cox told Bach and IOC voters ahead of the 2034 vote, “we will use all the levers of power open to us to resolve these concerns.”

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, who has often publicly feuded with WADA, Travis Tygart, said in a statement it was “shocking to see the IOC itself stooping to threats in an apparent effort to silence those seeking answers to what are now known as facts.”

Salt Lake City first hosted the Winter Games in 2002. That bid was hit with a bribery scandal, which led to anti-corruption reforms at the IOC.

Future U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney was brought in to clean up the Games, which went off well despite tightened security. The Games were the biggest international sports event hosted by the U.S. following the Sept. 11 attacks five months earlier

READ MORE: Olympic games are a billion-dollar business and proxy for geopolitical influence

Utah Gov. Cox confirmed Romney is already involved in the lobbying demanded by the IOC.

It is an Olympic tradition for lawmakers and even heads of state to come to an IOC meeting and plead their case to be anointed as an host city.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made key interventions at past IOC meetings to secure Olympics for their countries. U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Copenhagen in 2009 did not help in Chicago’s losing cause for the 2016 Summer Games that went to Rio de Janeiro.

For its second turn, Salt Lake City will get almost 10 full years to prepare — the longest lead-in for a modern Winter Games — amid longer-term concerns about climate change affecting snow sports and reducing the pool of potential hosts.

It will be the fifth Winter Games in the U.S. Before Salt Lake City in 2002, there was Lake Placid in 1980 and 1932, and Squaw Valley — now known as Olympic Valley — in 1960.

In a separate decision earlier in Paris, the 2030 Winter Games was awarded to France for a regional project split between ski resorts in the Alps and the French Riviera city Nice.

That project needs official signoff from the national government being formed, and the Prime Minister yet to be confirmed, after recent elections called by President Emmanuel Macron. He helped present the 2030 bid Wednesday to IOC members.

Hours later, the member list included Sykes, the USOPC chair, who became a full IOC member with an 82-3 vote.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.