Advertisement

The International Sports Law Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 3–4, pp 172–196 | Cite as

The EU, the Revision of the World Anti-Doping Code and the Presumption of Innocence

  • Jacob KornbeckEmail author
Article

Abstract

On account of its strict liability principle as well as other rules, the World Anti-Doping Code effectively does not recognise the presumption of innocence (PoI) (in dubio pro reo). This has implications in a number of ways in which the current WADA-led anti-doping system works, which are discussed in this paper, including with reference to the CAS Pechstein case and the recent OLG München ruling in Pechstein. Against this backdrop, the paper revisits the four EU contributions to the revision Code (2011–13) with regards to comments and proposals aimed at ensuring recognition of the PoI. The legal scope and the political scope for these EU contributions are explained by drawing on wider legal, scientific and political debates on anti-doping.

Keywords

Anti-doping Strict liability Presumption of innocence Lex sportiva European Union World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Walter Palmer (USA), Jean-François Reymond (France), Prof. Perikles Simon (Germany) and an anonymous reviewer for input and suggestions to an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Aalto P et al (2014) Article 47: right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In: Peers S, Hervey TK, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: a commentary. Hart, Oxford, pp 1235–1241Google Scholar
  2. Albergotti R, O’Connell V (2012) Officials Clashed on Armstrong. Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2012 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203315804577209511653273618
  3. Anderson J (2010) Modern Sports Law. Oxford et al.: HartGoogle Scholar
  4. Backhouse S, Collins C, Defoort Y, McNamee M, Parkinson A, Sauer M (2014) Study on Doping Prevention: A map of Legal, Regulatory and Prevention Practice Provisions in EU 28. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/docs/doping-prevention-report_en.pdf
  5. Belet I (2013) Blood passport as evidence of doping. E-007480/2013. 25 June 2013. Official Journal of the European Union, C 55E, 26.2.2014, pp. 293-294Google Scholar
  6. Belet I (2014) Blood passport as evidence of doping. P-000937-14. 30 January 2014. Official Journal of the European Union, C 300, 5.9.2014, pp. 247-248Google Scholar
  7. Berry DA (2008) The Science of Doping. Nature 454(7205):692–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackshaw I (2011) Mediating Sports Disputes. In: Nafziger JAR, Ross SF (eds) Handbook on International Sports Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 65–87Google Scholar
  9. Blackstone W (1765-1769) Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Source: Avalon Project, Yale Law School), http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch27.asp)
  10. Deutscher Bundestag (2015) 18. Wahlperiode. Drucksache 18/4898. 13.05.2015. Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung. Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung von Doping im Sport. http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/048/1804898.pdf
  11. Duval A (2015) The Court of Arbitration for Sport and EU law: chronicle of an encounter. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2015, 22:2, pp. 224-255Google Scholar
  12. Duval A, Van Rompuy B (2015): The Compatibility of Forced CAS Arbitration with EU Competition Law: Pechstein Reloaded (June 23, 2015). Available at SSRN [Social Science Research Network]: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2621983 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2621983
  13. Erbsen A (2006) The Substance and Illusion of Lex Sportiva. In: Blackshaw IS, Siekmann RCR, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport, 1984-2004. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 441–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2011) Communication […]: Developing the European Dimension in Sport. 18.1.2011, COM(2011) 12. Brussels: European Commission, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0012:FIN:en:PDF
  15. European Commission (2013) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceeding. 27.11.2013, COM(2013) 821 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013PC0821&from=EN
  16. European Commission (2014) Report […] on the implementation of the European Union Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014. 24.1.2014, COM(2014/022 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0022&from=EN
  17. Fischer K, Berry D (2014) Statisticians Introduce Science to International Doping Agency: The Andrus Veerpalu Case. Chance: An Official Magazine of the American Statistical Association, 27:3, pp. 10-16, http://chance.amstat.org/2014/09/doping/
  18. Foster K (2012) Lex Sportiva: transnational law in action. In: Siekmann RCR, Soek J (eds) Lex Sportiva: What is Sports Law?. Asser Springer, The Hague, pp 235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geeraert A, Alm J, Groll M (2014) Good governance in international sport organizations: an analysis of the 35 Olympic sport governing bodies. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 6(3):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gleaves J (2011) A Critique of Contemporary Sanctions for Anti-Doping Violations: Changing Directions. In: McNamee M, Møller V (eds) Doping and Anti-Doping Policy in Sport: Ethical, Legal and Social Perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 233–245Google Scholar
  21. Gleaves J, Llewellyn M (2014) Sport, Drugs, and Amateurism: Tracing the Real Cultural Origins of Anti-Doping Rules in International Sport. International Journal for the History of Sport 31(8):839–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartley H (2013) Modahl v British Athletic Federation (1994–2001). In: Anderson J (ed) Leading Cases in Sports Law. Springer, Berlin et al., pp 155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hecker A, Reinsch M (2013) Pechstein findet Verbündete: Scharfe Kritik an Sportrecht. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23.10.2013, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/sportpolitik/pechstein-findet-verbuendete-scharfe-kritik-an-sportrecht-12627538.html
  24. Hildebrandt M, de Vries K (2013) Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn: The Philosophy of Law Meets the Philosophy of Technology. Routledge, London et alGoogle Scholar
  25. Hon O (de), Kuipers H, Bottenburg M (van) (2015) Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods. Sports Medicine, 45, pp. 57-69Google Scholar
  26. Houlihan B (2002) Dying to Win: Doping in Sport and the Development of Anti-doping Policy, 2nd edn. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  27. 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). Loughborough: Loughborough University, Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, http://www.unesco.org/shs/sport/addbase/media/docs/doc-506aac23e2af9.pdf
  28. Jolly R (2013) Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 (Bills Digest No 92, 2012-13). Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Department of Parliamentary Services, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2309621/upload_binary/2309621.pdf;fileType=application/pdf
  29. Kayser B (2011a) La politique antidopage : un dilemme éthique. Les Cahiers du Centre Georges Canguilhem, 2011/1(5), pp. 107-123Google Scholar
  30. Kayser B (2011b) On the presumption of guilt without proof and intentionality and other consequences of current anti-doping policy. In: McNamee M, Møller V (eds) Doping and Anti-Doping Policy in Sport: Ethical, Legal and Social Perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 84–99Google Scholar
  31. Kerr I, Earle J (2013) Prediction, Preemption, Presumption: How Big Data Threatens Big Picture Privacy. Stanford Law Review Online, 66:65, pp. 65-72. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-and-big-data/prediction-preemption-presumption
  32. Korff D, Georges M (2015) Passenger Name Records, data mining & data protection: the need for strong safeguards. Strasbourg, 15 June 2015. T-PD(2015)11. Council of Europe. The Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic. Processing of Personal Data (T-PD). http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/jul/coe-pnr-draft-report-douwe-korff-%26-Marie-Georges.pdf
  33. Kornbeck J (2013a) Inspiration from Brussels? The European Union and Sport. EHV Academic Press, BremenGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornbeck J (2013b) The Naked Spirit of Sport: a framework for revisiting the system of bans and justifications in the World Anti-Doping Code. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 7(3):313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kornbeck J (2015a) Private Regulation and Public Trust: why increased transparency could strengthen the fight against doping. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 66(5):121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kornbeck J (2015b) The Stamina of the Bosman Legacy: The European Union and the Revision of the World Anti-Doping Code (2011–2013). Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 22(2):283–304Google Scholar
  37. Kornbeck J (forthcoming) Unolympic Unionism or Apocryphal Olympism?: ideas for future anti-doping governance. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Kinanthropologica Google Scholar
  38. Kranenborg H (2014) Article 8: Protection of personal data. In: Peers S, Hervey TK, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: a commentary. Hart, Oxford, pp 223–265Google Scholar
  39. Lambertz P, Longrée S (2012) WADA-Code 2015 – Abschaffung der B-Probe: Angriff auf die Athletenrechte? Sport & Recht 4:143–146Google Scholar
  40. Ljungquist A, Horta L, Wadler G (2008) Doping: world agency sets standards to promote fair play. Nature 455(7217):1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Łukomski J (2013) Arbitration clauses in sport governing bodies’ statutes: consent or constraint? Analysis from the perspective of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. International Sports Law Journal 13(1–2):60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacGregor O, Griffith R, Ruggiu D, McNamee M (2013) Anti-doping, purported rights to privacy and WADA’s whereabouts requirements: A legal analysis. Fair Play. Revista de Filosofía, Ética y Derecho del Deporte, 1:3, pp. 13-38Google Scholar
  43. McArdle D (2011) Longitudinal profiling, sports arbitration, and the woman who had nothing to lose: some thoughts on Pechstein v. the International Skating Union. In: McNamee M, Møller V (eds) Doping and Anti-Doping Policy in Sport: Ethical, Legal and Social Perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 50–65Google Scholar
  44. McArdle D (2013) CAS 2009/A/1912-1913 Pechstein vs International Skating Union. In: Anderson J (ed) Leading Cases in Sports Law. Springer, Berlin et al., pp 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McArdle D (2015) Dispute Resolution in Sport: Athletes, Law and Arbitration. London et al.: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  46. McLaren RH (2007) WADA Drug Testing Standards. Marquette Sports Law Review 18(1):1–24Google Scholar
  47. McLaren RH (2011) The Court of Arbitration for Sport. In: Nafziger JAR, Ross SF (eds) Handbook on International Sports Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 32–64Google Scholar
  48. Momaya A, Fawal M, Estes R (2015) Performance-Enhancing Substances in Sports: A Review of the Literature. Sports Medicine 45:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Monheim (2006) Sportlerrechte und Sportgerichte im Lichte des Rechtsstaatsprinzips – auf dem Weg zu einem Bundessportgericht. Munich: Herbert Utz VerlagGoogle Scholar
  50. Morgan WJ (2006) Fair is Fair, Or Is It?: A Moral Consideration of the Doping Wars in American Sport. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics 9(2):177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nafziger JAR (2006) Lex Sportiva and CAS. In: Blackshaw IS, Siekmann RCR, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport, 1984-2004. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nafziger JAR (2011) International Sports Law. In: Nafziger JAR, Ross SF (eds) Handbook on International Sports Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nature (2008). Editorial: A level playing field? Nature, 454:7205, p. 667Google Scholar
  54. Nehl HP (2014) Article 48: Presumption of innocence and right of defence (administration law). In: Peers S, Hervey TK, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: a commentary. Hart, Oxford, pp 1279–1301Google Scholar
  55. Neuberger E, Simon P (2014) Auf der Suche nach geeigneten Nachweismethoden für Doping – das Transkriptom. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 65(10):272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Owen D (2015) Players’ union to provide funds for speed skater in landmark legal case. Published on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 14:02. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/world-football/europe/17422-players-union-to-provide-funds-for-speed-skater-in-landmark-legal-case
  57. Palmer W, Taylor S, Wingate A (2011) Adverse Analyzing: A European Study of Anti Doping Organization Reporting Practices and the Efficacy of Drug Testing Athletes. Nyon, Switzerland: UNI Global Union (2011), http://www.euathletes.info/uploads/media/Adverse_Analyzing__FINAL_.pdf
  58. Parzeller M, Prittwitz C, Bratzke1 H, Caldarelli M, Centamore R, Lapetra Costa M, Flaig B, Heisel HS, Kloka D, Laux J, Prittwitz S, Raschka C, Roebel A, Rüdiger C, Wenk M, Zedler B (2009) Rechtsvergleich der strafrechtlichen Normen und der strafprozessualen Verfolgung des Dopings im Leistungs- und Spitzensport in Deutschland, Italien, Frankreich, Schweiz und Spanien. BISp-Jahrbuch Forschungsförderung 2009/10, pp. 315-326, http://bisp.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Publikationen/Jahrbuch/Jb_200910_Artikel/Parzeller_315_326.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
  59. Pitsch W (2009) “The science of doping” revisited: Fallacies of the current anti-doping regime. European Journal of Sport Science 9(2):87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pound RW, Clarke K (2011) Doping in Sport. In: Nafziger JAR, Ross SF (eds) Handbook on International Sports Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 133–161Google Scholar
  61. Reszel R (2012) Guilty until Proven Innocent, and then, Still Guilty: what the World Anti-Doping Agency can learn from the National Football League about first-time anti-doping violations. Wisconsin International Law Journal 29(4):807–832Google Scholar
  62. Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E (2013) Does the World Anti-Doping Code Revision Live up to its Promises?, Jusletter, 11.11.2013, http://www.lk-k.com/data/document/rigozzi-viret-wisnosky-wadc-revision-11-november-2013.pdf
  63. Rouvroy A (2012) The end(s) of critique: data-behaviourism vs. due-process. In: Hildebrandt M, De Vries E (eds) Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn. Philosophers of Law Meet Philosophers of Technology. London et al: Routledge, pp. 143-168Google Scholar
  64. Rule of Law Institute of Australia (2013) Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act. 26/03/2013. http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/australian-sports-anti-doping-authority-act/
  65. Savulescu J, Foddy B, Clayton M (2004) Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine 38(6):666–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sayers D (2014) Article 48: presumption of innocence and right of defence (criminal law). In: Peers S, Hervey TK, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: a commentary. Hart, Oxford, pp 1303–1349Google Scholar
  67. Simon P (2013) Loopholes in the Testing System. Presentation to the Play the Game 2013 in Aarhus, Denmark, http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/PtG2013/Presentations/28_October_Monday/28_okt_15.30_Marselissalen_Perikles_Simon.pptx.pdf
  68. Smith E (2014) Should we fear the role-modelling impact of the anti-doping legislation? International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 6(2):273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sottas PE, Robinson N, Saugy M (2010) The athlete’s biological passport and indirect markers of blood doping. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacolology 195:305–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Steinacker JM (2013) Sportrecht – zwischen Gerechtigkeit und Fairness? Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 64(5):119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Steiner U (2014) Von Fußball über Fußballrecht zu Fußballrechtlern: Rede anlässlich des Sportrechtsabends zur Gründung des Instituts für Sportrecht an der Deutschen Sporthochschule Köln am 30. Januar 2014. Cologne: German Sport Universty, https://www.dshs-koeln.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Aktuelles/Publikationen_und_Berichte/Publikationen/Universitaetsreden/DSHS_Unirede_20_RZ_Komplett_NEU.pdf
  72. Stiegler B (2014) Keynote 1 (English text; original French title: Qu’appelle-t-on penser au XXIè siècle?) Tuesday September 9, 2014 - Digital Philosophy (as part of the Digital Humanities Summer School), https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/digitalhumanities/documenten/stiegler-leuwen-2014-text-with-changes-final.pdf
  73. TMC Asser Instituut (2010) The implementation of the WADA Code in the European Union. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Instituut. http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/9202010_100013rapport%20Asserstudie%20(Engels).pdf
  74. Vermeulen M (2013) Regulating profiling in the European Data Protection Regulation: An interim insight into the drafting of Article 20. 01/09/2013. Brussels: Centre for Law, Science and Technology Studies (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, http://emsoc.be/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/D3.2.2-Vermeulen-Emsoc-deliverable-profiling-Formatted1.pdf
  75. Vest Christiansen A (2006) “A Clean Amateur Makes a Good Professional”: deviance, professionalism and doping in Danish cycling. In: Spitzer G (ed) Doping and Doping Control in Europe. Aachen, Meyer & Meyer, pp 168–181Google Scholar
  76. WADA (2014) Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines & Compilation of Required Elements. Version 5.0 October 2014, https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_abp_operating_guidelines_2014_v5.0_en.pdf
  77. WADA (2015a) International Standard for Testing and Investigations. January 2015, https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2015-ISTI-Final-EN.pdf
  78. WADA Working Group on Lack of Effectiveness of Testing Programs (2013). Report to WADA Executive Committee on Lack of Effectiveness of Testing Programs. Montreal: WADA, https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/2013-05-12-Lack-of-effectiveness-of-testing-WG-Report-Final.pdf
  79. Waddington I (2010) Surveillance and control in sport: a sociologist looks at the WADA whereabouts system. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2(3):255–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weatherill S (2013) Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991. In: Anderson J (ed) Leading Cases in Sports Law. Springer, Berlin et al., pp 137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Instituut 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Legal Officer Policy and Consultation UnitOffice of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2. Sport UnitEuropean CommissionBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations