The International Sports Law Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 1–2, pp 115–127 | Cite as

The interaction of criminal and disciplinary law in doping-related cases

Article
  • 334 Downloads

Abstract

In this article doping-related offenses entrenched in Art. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 of current World Anti-Doping Code are investigated within the terms of standards and methods of proving as well as the comprehensive system of sanctioning. The subtleties as well as innovations of such research are inter alia related to the application of the certain principles of human rights/due process of law/natural justice. The methods of proving said violations and the sanctions entrenched for them are close to the methods and sanctions those of criminal justice. Consequently, it is stated that the more serious allegation is made, the stricter sanction is entrenched, the stricter proving standard is to be applied. From the theoretical point of view it is conveyed that disciplinary sanctions undoubtedly inflict suffering and are both deterrent as well as retributive. CAS jurisprudence stipulates that harsh penalties within the World Anti-Doping Code could be consistent with human rights/due process of law/natural justice as long as there are clauses dealing with the problem of fault/intent and allowing for the elimination or reduction of the ineligibility periods. Such clauses pave the way for judicial discretion and, therefore, it is still an open question whether the anti-doping policy will turn itself into punitive one or, vice versa, to the policy which carefully takes into consideration each separate case with its own peculiarities.

Keywords

Non-use anti-doping infractions Methods and standards of proving Retributive sanctions Interaction of disciplinary and criminal law 

References

  1. Costa J-P (2013) Legal opinion regarding the draft World Anti-Doping Code. http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/Code-Review/Legal-Opinion-on-draft-2015-WADC/. Accessed 28 February 2014
  2. Court of Arbitration for Sport (1996) 95/150 Volker v. FINA. http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/150.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2014
  3. Court of Arbitration for Sport (2004) 2004/A/651 French v. Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia. https://www.asada.gov.au/publications/rules_and_violations/CAS/CAS_French.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2014
  4. Court of Arbitration for Sport (2008) 2008/A/1583 Sport Lisboa e Benfica Futebol SAD v. UEFA & FC Porto Futebol SAD & CAS 2008/A/1584 Vitória Sport Clube de Guimarães v. UEFA & FC Porto Futebol SAD. http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/1583,%201584.pdf. Accessed 18 February 2014
  5. Court of Arbitration for Sport (2011) AS 2011/O/2422 United States Olympic Committee v. International Olympic Committee. http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5314/5048/0/Final20award202422.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2014
  6. Court of Arbitration for Sport (2011) 2011/A/2426 Amos Adamu v. FIFA. http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5790/5048/0/Award20242620_FINAL_.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2014
  7. Dressler J (2006) Understanding criminal law, 4th edn. Lexis Nexis, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. European Court of Human Rights (1997), Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, application number 44/1997/828/1034.  http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-58193. Accessed 26 February 2014
  9. European Court of Human Rights (2009) Zolotukhin v. Russia, application 14939/03. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-91222. Accessed 27 February 2014
  10. Final Draft of 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. http://wada2013.org/images/documents/conference/2015-WADC-final-draft-EN.PDF. Accessed 25 February 2014
  11. Gardocki L (1990) The aspects of theory of criminalization. PWN, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  12. Grano JD, Abramson LW (2004) Problems in criminal procedure, 4th edn. WEST Thomson Business, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Houben J (2007) Proportionality in the World Anti-Doping Code: is there enough room for flexibility. Int Sports Law J 1–2:10–17Google Scholar
  14. Houlihan B, Garcia B (2012) The use of legislation in relation to controlling the production, movement, importation, distribution and supply of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport (PEDS). Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Legal_Library/National_Legislation/UNESCO-Legislative-Research-Report-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2014
  15. International Convention Against Doping in Sport (2005) http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 19 February 2014
  16. Ioannidis G (2010) The application of criminal law on doping infractions and the ‘Wherabouts Information’ Rule: state regulation v self-regulation. Int Sports Law J 1–2:14–25Google Scholar
  17. Kaufman-Kohler G, Malinverni G (2003) Legal opinion on the conformity of certain provisions of the draft world anti-doping code with commonly accepted principles of international law. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADPLegal_Library/Advisory_and_Legal_Opinions/kaufmann-kohler-full.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2014
  18. Lukomski J (2012) John Terry’s case: an overlap of criminal and disciplinary proceedings. Int Sports Law J 3–4:63Google Scholar
  19. Momsen C (2011) Sport and doping. The analysis of an antagonistic symbiosis. In: Emrich E, Pitsch W (eds) Criminal penalties in the fight against doping? Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, p 199Google Scholar
  20. Murphy J (2013) Where in the world is doping a crime? http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com/2013/04/where-in-world-is-doping-crime-doping.html. Accessed 28 February 2014
  21. Pfister B (2008) Die Rechtsprechnung des Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS) 2001–2003. SpuRT 15:93–97Google Scholar
  22. Roach K (2003) Criminal process. In: Cane P, Tushnet M (eds) The Oxford handbook of legal studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 778–783Google Scholar
  23. Senkel K (2011) “Strict liability”, presumption of guilt and reciprocity in anti-doping measures initiated by sports associations. In: Emrich E, Pitsch W (eds) Sport and doping. The analysis of an antagonistic symbiosis. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien pp 178–179Google Scholar
  24. Soek J (2002) The legal nature of doping law. Int Sports Law J 2:2–7Google Scholar
  25. Soek J (2006) The strict liability principle and the human rights of athletes in doping cases. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stewart B, Smith A (2008) C.T. Drug use in sport: Implications for public policy. J Sport Social Issues 32: 278–298, http://jss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/3/278. Accessed 10 March 2014
  27. Tarasti L (2007) Interplay between doping sanctions imposed by a criminal court and by a sport organization. Int Sports Law J 3–4:15–18Google Scholar
  28. Tennis anticorruption program. Part F investigations, http://www.tennisintegrityunit.com/TACP-2014.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2014
  29. United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong, Reasoned decision of the United States Anti-doping Agency on disqualification and ineligibility. http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf. Accessed 24 February 2014
  30. Van Bockel W B (2009) The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. A conceptual and jurisprudential analysis. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13844/front.pdf?sequence=3. Accessed 27 February 2014
  31. Van Rompuy B (2013) Effective sanctioning of match-fixing: the need for a two-track approach. ICSS J 1(3):68–72Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Instituut 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mykolas Romeris UniversityVilniusLithuania
  2. 2.Nicolas Copernicus UniversityTorunPoland

Personalised recommendations