DOPING IN SPORT
Created and Presented by Timothy von Behren
DOPING: using a substance or
method which is potentially harmful to
an athlete’s health and/or capable of
enhancing performance
 The WADA was created in 1999
 The WADC was created in 2004
 Revised in 2009
 Articles 2 and 10 most relevant to doping cases
 Purpose:
1. Make (-) outweigh (+) to discourage future doping
2. Preserve fundamental right of athlete to participate in dopingfree sport (contract law)
3. Make life for professional athletes suck (ergo the issue)
ARTICLE 2: Anti-Doping Rule Violations
 Article 2.1  The presence of Prohibited Substance or its
Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s bodily Specimen
 Article 2.2  Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance
or a Prohibited Method
 Article 2.3  “hiding from the Doping Control official”
 Article 2.4  Violation of requirement to be available for Out-ofCompetition Testing
 Article 2.5  Tampering with the Specimen is a VERY BAD IDEA!!
ARTICLE 10: Sanctions On Individuals
 Article 10.7  Disqualification of Results in
Competitions Subsequent to Sample Collection
Medals, points, and prizes
 Article 10.8  Commencement of Ineligibility Period
Not necessarily date of sample collection!!
 Article 10.9  Status During Ineligibility
4-year special rule
Other KEY Players
International Olympic Committee (IOC)
 Supreme authority and leader of fight against doping
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
 Legally decides all Olympic related disputes, including doping
cases
 Lose precedent due to jurisprudence evolution
 Why?
The Physician’s Fault: A Truly
Exceptional Circumstance?
“At any rate other than in the most exceptional cases, for
the purposes of determining whether a no-fault defense
succeeds, the fault of an advisor such as a physician
must be attributed to the player even if the player is not
personally at fault: otherwise the fight against doping in
sport would be seriously undermined.”
SOURCE: Niggli, O., & Sieveking, J. (2006). Selected Case Law
Rendered Under the World Anti-Doping Code. Jusletter, 1-11.
Player v. ITF
 PROBLEMS
1. Not communicating with physician
2. Physician not specialized in sports medicine
3. Failure to report current medications at time of test
 OUTCOMES
1. Found Negligent  barred from Article 10.5 (COMING SOON!!)
2. 2-year suspension
3. Forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes (Article 10.7)
SOURCE: Player v. International Tennis Federation, 1488 A. (CAS 2008).
Specified Substances: Applicability
 Prohibited List
Ingest drugs on list  be sanctioned
Less severe sanctions for substances covered under Article 10.3
 How can athletes benefit from reduced sanctions under Article
10.3?
1 Substance must be specified within Prohibited List
2 Athlete must show that there was no intent to increase
performance (BURDEN ON ATHLETE!!)
3 Athlete must demonstrate how substance entered system
 SANCTIONS  ineligibility periods
SCENARIO
ARTICLE
1st Violation
2nd Violation
Article 10.2
2 years
lifetime
Article 10.3
0 to 1 years
2 years
CASE
3rd Violation
lifetime
The
Proportionality Principle
“circumstances that are truly exceptional ONLY”
 Thank you Articles 10.5.1 and I suppose 10.5.2 EX:
1. No Fault or Negligence  2-year ineligibility GONE

(Requires Duty of Utmost Caution)
2. No Significant Fault or Negligence  2-year
ineligibility reduced to 1 year
3. Negligence  Tough. Luck.
Will my age or professional situation qualify me to use Article10.5?
REVIEW: If I sustain a gunshot wound and am prescribed
medication while hospitalized, does Article 10.5.1 or 10.5.2 apply if
I test positive for a drug on the Prohibited Substances List?
Thompson v. USADA
 PROBLEM:
Failure to comply to USADA Whereabouts Policy (Article 2.4)
Must be a nation testing pool athlete
Must violate 3 times within 18 months
CONGRATUATIONS Thompson
 OUTCOME:
 Minimum 1-year suspension under Article 10.3.3
 Now called Article 10.4.3 because suspension can be eliminated completely
Forfeiture of all medals, points, and prizes (Article 10.7)
SOURCE: Thompson v. United States Anti-Doping Agency, 12 JENF. (AAA 2012).
The Whereabouts Controversy
2009 WADC update requires
professional athletes to provide
exact whereabouts 1 hour per
day, 7 days per week
Must be submitted 3 months in advance
Earliest time availability moved from 5:00
AM to 6:00 AM
Bose, M. (2009, February 19). BBC Sport: Athletes air issues over testing.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/7892590.stm
The Case of
Cannabis
 15 ng/ml LIMIT (scientifically established)
 Recreational use v. performance enhancement
 Marijuana as an ergolytic drug
1. Increased HR + decreased SV = reduced max performance
2. Respiratory tract infection + bronchitis + lung cancer = less O2 for
performance
 Marijuana as an ergogenic drug
1. Euphoric effect
2. Anxiety reduction during performance
SOURCE: University of Washington Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute
FINAL Comments
 Suspected athletes have unsuccessfully argued that the
sealed containers used to store and transport doping
samples could be opened undetectably
 Up to this point, convincing contrary evidence has consistently been
presented in answer to these claims…
 Should WADA concern itself less with whether or not an
athlete exercised his/her duty of utmost caution and
more with whether or not an athlete used prohibited
substances intentionally or not?
 Has the individual freedom of athletes been
compromised too much to promote the right of all
professional athletes to participate in doping-free sport?
Works Cited
 Bose, M. (2009, February 19). BBC Sport: Athletes air issues over testing.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/7892590.stm
 Czarnota, P. A. (2012). The World Anti-Doping Code, the Athlete’s Duty of “Utmost
Caution,” and the Elimination of Cheating. Marquette Sports Law Review, 23, 4573.
 McLaren, R. H. (2006). CAS Doping Jurisprudence: What Can We Learn,
International Sports Law Review, 1, 4-22.
 Niggli, O., & Sieveking, J. (2006). Selected Case Law Rendered Under the World
Anti-Doping Code. Jusletter, 1-11.
 Player v. International Tennis Federation, 1488 A. (CAS 2008).
 Thompson v. United States Anti-Doping Agency, 12 JENF. (AAA 2012).
 World Anti-Doping Association, (2010). WADA rules for international federations:
Models of best practice (Version 5.0) World Anti-Doping Association.