Skip to main content

Intent, substances of abuse, aggravating circumstances, protected persons and recreational athletes: does the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 provide proportionate sanctions?

Abstract

This paper examines the proportionality of sanctions in the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 (“Code 2021”). The author argues that Code 2021 improved the proportionality of sanctions compared to the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 (“Code 2015”), but problems persist. Sanctioning framework of Code 2021 introduces several provisions that modify the basic period of ineligibility and the margin of appreciation of hearing panels to reduce, but also aggravate the basic sanction. Since it would be practically impossible to cover all the modifications in one paper, the author analyses four groups of provisions converging in the criterion of fault that he considers the most fundamental novelties in terms of proportionality. The author argues that the new approach towards sanctioning of the ingestion, use or possession of substances of abuse is more suitable and proportionate compared to the one in Code 2015. Moreover, he considers the creation of two new categories of protected persons and recreational athletes and adjustment of their sanctioning a step forward compared to Code 2015 in terms of both suitability and proportionality. On the other hand, the author argues that hearing panels need to consider the difference between cheating and mere knowing to impose a proportionate sanction based on the revised definition of intentional presence, use or attempted use or possession of prohibited substances or methods that abolished the reference to “athletes who cheat”. Moreover, he claims that hearing panels should prefer shorter ineligibility to disqualification of only some competitive results to impose a proportionate punishment in cases involving aggravating circumstances and their combination with the disqualification of results. Overall, the text of Code 2021 is a good start to the race for the proportionality of sanctions. Nevertheless, hearing panels must keep the pace and ensure proportionate punishments in particular cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. Code 2015, Art. 10.5.2; Regulations for Doping Control and Sanctions in Sport in the Czech Republic implementing Code 2015 in the Czech Republic, Art. 10.5.2.

  2. Czech Olympic Committee Arbitration Commission, Case 2018-1 (Šefl).

  3. These athletes include, amongst others, José Paolo Guerrero, Jobson Leandro Pereira de Oliveira, Brian Fernández, José Enrique Angulo Caicedo, Adrian Mutu, Roman Eremenko, Gregorie Linares (football), Luca Paolini (cycling), Elga Comastri, Liam Cameron (boxing), Darko Stanic (handball), Simon Daubney (sailing), Valentino Piacentini (table tennis) or Richar Gasquet (tennis). See Duval (2014), p. 56–60; Greene and Vermeer (2018); Haas (2020), p. 32; Liddell and Harman (2020).

  4. Code 2021, Art. 4.2.3, Prohibited List 2021.

  5. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 2.

  6. The redlined version of Code 2021 highlighting all changes between Code 2015 and Code 2021 is available here. The document “2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders” outlining, amongst others, significant changes between Code 2015 and Code 2021 is available here. See the document WADA Launches First Phase of 2021 World Anti-Doping Code Review Process, WADA (online), 12 December 2017 for a rationale of the review process resulting in Code 2021. For an analysis of major changes introduced by Code 2021, see, amongst others, Brown (2019), Haas (2020), Synrem (2020) or Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  7. See, amongst others, Exner (2018a, b, 2019a, b, 2020a, b).

  8. CJEU, C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492; ECtHR, 18 January 2018, National Federation of Sportspersons' Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0118JUD004815111. See also Kaufmann-Kohler et al. (2003); Rouiller (2005); Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007); Costa (2013), 2017, 2019). These authors also refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Council of Europe’s European Social Charter (1961); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations (1966), the Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping Convention (1989), the International Convention against Doping in Sport adopted by UNESCO (2005), provisions on human rights in national constitutions and legislation and general principles of law. See Barak (2012) for an excellent and comprehensive book on the principle of proportionality.

  9. CJEU, C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492; ECtHR, 18 January 2018, National Federation of Sportspersons' Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0118JUD004815111.

  10. Code 2021, Purpose, Scope and Organization of the World Anti-Doping Program and the Code, Introduction.

  11. Code 2021, Purpose, Scope and Organization of the World Anti-Doping Program and the Code.

  12. CJEU, C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492, paras. 35–60; ECtHR, 18 January 2018, National Federation of Sportspersons' Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0118JUD004815111; CAS 2020/O/6689 WADA v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency, para. 725, 811. The CAS panel considered signatory consequences under the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories. On the other hand, it referred to CAS 2016/O/4684 ROC, Lyukman Adams et al. v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) that concerned sanctions for doping. See also Costa (2019), p. 3–5.

  13. Costa (2019).

  14. Time for WADA to Study the True Human Cost of the Global Anti-Doping System. UNI Global Union (online), 10 December 2019.

  15. Code 2021, Art. 27.3.

  16. Greene and Kaiser (2021); World Players Responds to WADA’s New Rules for Substances of Abuse: Urgent Action Required. UNI Global Union (online), 2 October 2020.

  17. Code 2021, Art. 10. For an analysis of modifications brought into the sanctioning of multiple violations, see 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 14; Haas (2020), p. 37–38; Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  18. See Exner (2020b) for a working paper preceding this final paper.

  19. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 21.

  20. Haas (2020), p. 34.

  21. Code 2021, Art. 4.2.2, Comment to Art. 4.2.2: “The Specified Substances and Specified Methods identified in Article 4.2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping Substances or methods. Rather, they are simply Substances and Methods which are more likely to have been consumed or used by an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance”.

  22. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.1.2.

  23. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.1.1, Comment to Art. 10.2.1.1.

  24. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.2.

  25. Code 2015, Art. 10.2.3.

  26. Significant Changes Between the 2009 Code And the 2015 Code, Version 4.0, p. 1.

  27. Rigozzi et al. (2013), p. 21.

  28. Jones (2014), p. 144–145.

  29. Duval et al. (2016), p. 116.

  30. Rigozzi et al. (2015), p. 13; Rigozzi et al. (2013), p. 20.

  31. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.3.

  32. Haas (2020), p. 35.

  33. Rigozzi et al. (2018).

  34. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): In-Competition: Provided, however, WADA may approve, for a particular sport, an alternative definition if an international federation provides a compelling justification that a different definition is necessary for its sport; upon such approval by WADA, the alternative definition shall be followed by all major event organizations for that particular sport.

  35. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4.2.

  36. Code 2021, Art. 4.2.3. See also Haas (2020), p. 31–32.

  37. Code 2021, WADA Prohibited List 2021. See also 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 23, p. 11; 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 11.

  38. Haas (2016a), p. 19-22; Haas (2020), p. 31.

  39. For an exception, see Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Comment to No Significant Fault or Negligence: For cannabinoids, an athlete may establish no significant fault or negligence by clearly demonstrating that the context of the use was unrelated to sport performance.

  40. WADA Anti-Doping Testing Figures 2015–2019. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 10.

  41. 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 10.

  42. Rigozzi et al. (2015); Haas (2016b), p. 39 et seq.; Schneider (2018), p. 26 et seq.; Rigozzi and Quinn (2018); Haas (2020), p. 32.

  43. Code 2015, Art. 4.2.2. WADA Prohibited List 2020.

  44. Code 2015, Art. 10.2.1.1.

  45. Haas (2020), p. 32.

  46. Code 2015, Art. 10.4, Comment to Art. 10.4 and 10.5. Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): No Fault or Negligence. See also Duval (2014).

  47. Code 2015, Art. 10.5.2. See also Exner (2019b).

  48. Haas (2020), p. 32.

  49. Code 2015, Comment to Art. 4.2.2. See also World Players Responds to WADA’s New Rules for Substances of Abuse: Urgent Action Required. UNI Global Union (online), 2 October 2020.

  50. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 24, p. 10-11. Minutes of the WADA Executive Committee Meeting (“WADA EC”), 15 May 2019, 10.1, p. 31.

  51. Greene and Vermeer (2018).

  52. Svelov et al. (2007).

  53. WADA EC, 15 May 2019, 10.1, p. 31.

  54. WADA Prohibited List 2020.

  55. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 23, p. 10–11; 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 10–11; Haas (2020), p. 32.

  56. World Players Responds to WADA’s New Rules for Substances of Abuse: Urgent Action Required. UNI Global Union (online), 2 October 2020.

  57. Haas (2020), p. 32.

  58. Rigozzi and Quinn (2018); Exner (2020a).

  59. CAS 2018/A/5546 José Paolo Guerrero v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), CAS 2018/A/5571 WADA v. FIFA & José Paolo Guerrero, para. 90. See also Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  60. See Exner 2020a, pp. 142-143 for critical assessment of this reasoning.

  61. Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  62. Haas (2020), p. 31-32.

  63. Haas (2020), p. 25.

  64. Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 23, p. 10-11; Haas (2020), p. 32.

  65. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 22. Minutes of the WADA Foundation Board Meeting (“WADA FB”), 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20.

  66. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 23, p. 10-11; Haas (2020), p. 32.

  67. WADA EC, 15 May 2019, 10.1, p. 31.

  68. ECtHR, 18 January 2018, National Federation of Sportspersons' Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0118JUD004815111. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 5.

  69. Code 2021, Fundamental Rationale for the World Anti-Doping Code. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 5.

  70. Haas (2020), p. 32.

  71. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 23, p. 10-11; 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 10-11; Haas (2020), p. 32.

  72. Haas (2020), p. 32.

  73. WADA Executive Committee endorses recommendations of non-compliance of eight Anti-Doping Organizations, the WADA (online), 14 September 2021; WADA commits to review of cannabis' status on Prohibited List and declares six NADO's non-compliant, Inside the Games (online), 14 September 2021.

  74. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4. See also Haas (2020), p. 32.

  75. Code 2021, Art. 23.2.2, Comment to Art. 23.2.2.

  76. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4.1. See also Code 2021, Art. 7.4.1: Such a case may also be a reason for elimination of a mandatory provisional suspension. See also Code 2021, Art. 10.9.2: Such an anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for purposes of sanctioning multiple violations.

  77. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4.1, 10.6.

  78. WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20.

  79. WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20.

  80. Haas (2020), p. 32-33.

  81. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4.1.

  82. Code 2021, Comment to Art. 10.2.4.1.

  83. WADA EC, 23 September 2019, 6.1, p. 30.

  84. World Players Responds to WADA’s New Rules for Substances of Abuse: Urgent Action Required. UNI Global Union (online), 2 October 2020.

  85. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4.2.

  86. Greene and Kaiser (2021), Comment of Kaiser.

  87. Costa 2013, p. 8; Costa 2017, p. 3-5.

  88. Costa 2017, p. 5.

  89. Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  90. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.1. See also WADA EC, 15 May 2019, 10.1, p. 29.

  91. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4.2. See also Haas (2020), p. 33.

  92. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.1. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 11.

  93. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.2.

  94. Rigozzi et al. 2015, p. 13.

  95. Greene and Kaiser (2021), Comment of Kaiser. See also Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definition): In-Competition.

  96. Rouiller (2005), p. 32

  97. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.4.2.

  98. Code 2004, Art. 1.9.2.3. Costa (2019), p. 20-22.

  99. Code 2009, Art. 10.6. Costa (2019), p. 20-22.

  100. Haas (2020), p. 33.

  101. Duval et al. (2016), p. 114. Duval et al. refer to CAS 2013/A/3080, Alemitu Bekele Degfa v. TAF and lAAF, Award of 14 March 2014, for a detailed assessment of the provision regarding aggravated circumstances. Duval et al. also refer to WADA, Document on the Significant Changes Between the 2009 Code and the 2015 Code, Version 4.0.

  102. Code 2015, Art. 10.2.1. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 29, p. 14; 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 12. See also Costa (2019), p. 20-22, Rigozzi et al. (2018).

  103. Code 2021, Art. 10.4. See also Haas (2020), p. 33.

  104. Rigozzi et al. (2018).

  105. Haas (2020), p. 33.

  106. Code 2009, Art. 10.6; Code 2021, Art. 10.4. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 29, p. 14-16; 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 12. See also Haas (2020), p. 33.

  107. Code 2021, Art. 10.4.

  108. Code 2021, Art. 10.4

  109. Code 2021, comment to Art. 10.4. See also Haas (2020), p. 33.

  110. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Aggravating Circumstances; WADA EC, 16 May 2018, 10.5., p. 48. WADA FB, 17 May 2018, 10.5., p. 33; Exner 2018b. See Code 2009, Comment to Art. 10.6, for examples of aggravating circumstances under Code 2009.

  111. Costa (2019), p. 9.

  112. Code 2009, Comment to Art. 10.6.

  113. Costa (2019), p. 9.

  114. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Aggravating Circumstances.

  115. Costa (2019), p. 35-36.

  116. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Aggravating Circumstances.

  117. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 69, p. 28.

  118. Costa 2013, p. 2-6; Costa (2019), p. 20-22.

  119. ECtHR, 11 February 2020, Platini v. Switzerland, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0211DEC000052618, para. 48.

  120. ECtHR, 8 June 1976, Engel and others v. The Netherlands, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1976:0608JUD000510071, para. 80-85.

  121. ECtHR, 28 January 2020, Ali Riza and others v. Turkey, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0128JUD003022610, para. 154.

  122. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 33-36, 60-87, p. 17-18, 25-33.

  123. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 64, p. 26.

  124. Costa (2019), p. 20-22.

  125. Costa (2019), p. 20-22.

  126. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 70-84, p. 28-33.

  127. See, for example, the Criminal Code of the Czech Republic (2009), Section 42.

  128. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 70-84, p. 28-33.

  129. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 82, p. 32, referring to ECtHR, 12 July 2007, Jorgic v. Germany, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0712JUD007461301.

  130. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 85, p. 33.

  131. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 85, p. 32-33.

  132. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 84, p. 32-33, referring to ECtHR, 10 October 2006, Pessino v. France, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1010JUD004040302, para. 33.

  133. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 84, p. 32-33.

  134. Code 2021, Art. 2.1.1.

  135. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), paras. 36, 60-87, p. 17, 25-33.

  136. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 90-93, p. 34.

  137. Code 2021, Art. 10.4.

  138. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi (2007), para. 92, p. 34.

  139. Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi use “cheating” instead of knowledge as an essential element of aggravating circumstances. On the other hand, I explained above that there is a difference between “cheating” and “knowing” anti-doping rule violation. Therefore, I argue that it is more suitable to use the word “knowing”, as used in Article 10.4 of Code 2021.

  140. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.1.

  141. See, amongst others, Exner (2018a); Duval et al. (2016), p. 108–109; Rigozzi et al. (2015), p. 27–28.

  142. Haas (2020), p. 34.

  143. Code 2021, Art. 10.4.

  144. CJEU, T-93/18, International Skating Union v. Commission, ECLI:EU: T:2020:610, paras. 90–95

  145. Weatherill (2021).

  146. Code 2021, Art. 10.14.

  147. Costa 2017, p. 5.

  148. See also Exner (2018b).

  149. Haas (2020), p. 33.

  150. Haas (2020), p. 33.

  151. Haas (2020), p. 33.

  152. Haas (2020), p. 33. See also Manninen and Nowicky (2017).

  153. Code 2021, Art. 10.10.

  154. Code 2021, Annex 1 (Definitions): Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations.

  155. Code 2021, Art. 9.

  156. Code 2021, Art. 10.10.

  157. Haas (2020), p. 34.

  158. Haas (2020), p. 34.

  159. Haas (2020), p. 34, referring to CAS (29.11.2016) 2016/O/4464 IAAF v. All Russia Athletics Federation & Ekaterina Sharmina, no. 190.

  160. Haas (2020), p. 34, referring to CAS 2017/O/4980 (4.8.2017) IAAF v. Russian Athletic Federation & Svetlana Vasilyeva, no. 92 et seq.

  161. Haas (2020), p. 33–34.

  162. Haas (2020), p. 33–34.

  163. Haas (2020), p. 33–34.

  164. Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Minor. See also Kleiderman et al. 2019.

  165. Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Fault. See also Costa 2013, p. 8.

  166. Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): No Fault or Negligence, No Significant Fault or Negligence.

  167. Code 2015, Art. 14.3.6. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 19.

  168. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Minor, Art. 14.3.7.

  169. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Protected Person, Comment to Protected Person.

  170. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Protected Person. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 19.

  171. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Comment to Protected Person.

  172. Kleiderman et al. 2019. See also Costa (2019), p. 17–20 and Haas (2020), p. 36–37 who argue that the concept of protected persons is compliant with human rights, especially with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  173. WADA EC, 16 May 2018, 10.5., p. 48–49; WADA FB, 17 May 2018, 10.5., p. 33; WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 23; WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20; WADA EC, 15 May 2019, 10.1, p. 29; WADA FB, 16 May 2019, 10.1, p. 33.

  174. 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 19.

  175. Comment to Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Protected Person.

  176. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 23. WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20.

  177. Comment to Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Protected Person. Athletes’ Anti-Doping Rights Act, Art. 10.

  178. WADA EC, 23 September 2019, 6.1, p. 30-31.

  179. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Recreational Athlete.

  180. 2021 Model Rules for National Anti-Doping Organizations, Introduction, p. 7, Definitions, p. 74. As an example, see Regulations for Doping Control and Sanctions in Sports in the Czech Republic 2021, Introduction, p. 7, Definitions: Recreational Athlete, p. 66.

  181. Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  182. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Recreational Athlete. See also Haas (2020), p. 29; 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 19.

  183. Haas (2020), p. 29.

  184. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Athlete, Comment to Athlete; Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Athlete, Comment to Athlete. See also Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 26, p. 12; WADA FB, 17 May 2018, 10.5., p. 33. WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20; Haas (2020), p. 29.

  185. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Athlete; Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Athlete. See also 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 26, p. 12; 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standard Framework: Development and Implementation Guide for Stakeholders, p. 19; WADA EC, 16 May 2018, 10.5., p. 48-49; WADA FB, 17 May 2018, 10.5., p. 33; WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20. For the exception, see Code 2021, Art. 4.4.5, International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, Art. 4.1d, 4.3: Code 2021 provides recreational athletes with the right to apply for a retroactive TUE.

  186. Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  187. Haas (2020), p. 26.

  188. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 26, p. 12.

  189. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 23-24; WADA EC, 16 May 2018, 10.5., p. 48-49.

  190. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 26, p. 12.

  191. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 23-24.

  192. 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 26, p. 12.

  193. WADA EC, 16 May 2018, 10.5., p. 48-49.

  194. WADA FB, 17 May 2018, 10.5., p. 33.

  195. Hinke Schokker, Aarhus University (online), 15 March 2021, available here.

  196. Haas (2020), p. 29; Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  197. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 23-24; WADA EC, 15 May 2019, 10.1, p. 29; WADA FB, 16 May 2019, 10.1, p. 33.

  198. Synrem (2020).

  199. Haas 2019, p. 29, Synrem (2020).

  200. World Conference on Doping in Sport, Katowice, Poland, 5-7 November 2019, Intervention on behalf of the International Ice Hockey Federation delivered by its legal director Ashley Ehlert, p. 2.

  201. On top of that, Code 2021 shortens the upper limit of the basic period of ineligibility for evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection, or tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control to two years, instead of four years in Code 2015 (Code 2021, Art. 10.3.1). Moreover, the public disclosure of an anti-doping rule violation committed by a protected person, or a recreational athlete is not mandatory, but optional and must be proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case (Code 2021, Art. 14.3.7).

  202. Code 2021, Art. 10.6.1.3.

  203. Code 2015, Art. 10.5.1, 10.5.2. See also Greene and Kaiser (2021).

  204. Code 2021, Art. 10.6.1.3. See also 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 22, p. 9-10; WADA EC, 16 May 2018, 10.5., p. 48-49; WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20; WADA EC, 23 September 2019, 6.1, p. 30-31. See also Haas (2020), p. 36.

  205. Code 2021, Art. 10.6.1.3.

  206. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): Fault.

  207. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): No Fault or Negligence, No Significant Fault or Negligence; Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): No Fault or Negligence, No Significant Fault or Negligence.

  208. Haas (2020), p. 35-36, referring to CAS 2015/A/3925 Traves Smikle v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission, no. 129; CAS 2016/A/4626 WADA v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency & Mhaskar Meghali, no. 53; CAS 2018/A/5853 FIFA v. Tribunal Nacional Disciplinario Antidopaje & Damián Marcelo Musto, no. 138; CAS 2006/A/1032 Sesil Karatancheva v. International Tennis Federation (ITF), no. 116 et seq.; CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386 WADA & UCI v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC, no. 493.

  209. Haas (2020), p. 35-36, referring to CAS 2019/A/6131 Jarrion Lawson v. IAAF, no. 73 et seq.

  210. Haas (2020), p. 35-36, referring to CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386 WADA, Union Cycliste Internationale v. Alberto Contador Velasco & Royal Spanish Cycling Federation, no. 253 et seq.; CAS 2018/A/5853 FIFA v. Tribunal Nacional Disciplinario Antidopaje & Damián Marcelo Musto, no. 139.

  211. Code 2015, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): No Fault or Negligence, No Significant Fault or Negligence. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code Review: Questions to Discuss and Consider as per the decision of the WADA FB on 16 November 2017.

  212. Code 2021, "Appendix" 1 (Definitions): No Fault or Negligence, No Significant Fault or Negligence. See also 2021 Code Revision—Third Draft (Following the Third Consultation phase), Summary of Major Changes, para. 22.

    p. 9-10; WADA FB, 17 May 2018, 10.5., p. 33. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 23. WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 18-20; Haas (2020), p. 37.

  213. WADA EC, 23 September 2019, 6.1, p. 30-31. See also 2021 World Anti-Doping Code Review: Questions to Discuss and Consider as per the decision of the WADA FB on 16 November 2017.

  214. Code 2021, Art. 10.2.1.1.

  215. Haas (2020), p. 35, referring to CAS 2018/A/5580 Blagovest Krasimirov Bozhinovski v. Anti-Doping Centre of the Republic of Bulgaria & Bulgarian Olympic Committee, CAS Bulletin 2019/02, p. 57; CAS 2016/A/4534 Mauricio Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, CAS Bulletin 2017/02, p. 42, 43; CAS 2019/A/6313 Jarrion Lawson v. IAAF.

  216. Code 2021, comment to Art. 10.2.1.1. See also Haas 2019, p. 34–36, Nuriev (2019).

  217. Haas (2020), p. 35, referring to CAS 2018/A/5768 Dylan Scott v. ITF, no. 137 seq.; CAS 2017/A/5178 Tomasz Zieliński v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), no. 87 et seq.; Costa 2013.

  218. 2021 World Anti-Doping Code Review: Questions to Discuss and Consider as per the decision of the WADA FB on 16 November 2017; WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 23.

  219. WADA FB, 15 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 20.

  220. WADA EC, 14 November 2018, 6.1.1, p. 21.

Abbreviations

ADO:

Anti-Doping Organization

CAS:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

CJEU:

Court of Justice of the European Union

Code:

World Anti-Doping Code

Code 2015:

World Anti-Doping Code 2015

Code 2021:

World Anti-Doping Code 2021

ECHR:

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights)

ECtHR:

European Court of Human Rights

EU:

European Union

FIFA:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

IAAF:

International Association of Athletics Federations (World Athletics)

ITF:

International Tennis Federation

NADO:

National Anti-Doping Organization

Prohibited List:

List identifying the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods

TUE:

Therapeutic Use Exemption

WADA:

World Anti-Doping Agency

References

  • Barak A (2012) Proportionality. Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown A (2019) WCDS day one – 2021 code: more flexible, but challenges remain. The sports integrity initiative (online), 6 November 2019

  • Costa, J., P. (2013): Legal opinion regarding the draft 3.0 revision of the World Anti-Doping Code. World Anti-Doping Agency, pp. 27

  • Costa JP (2017) Legal Opinion for WADA dated 27 April 2017 regarding a proposal of the International Olympic Committee for a revision of the World Anti-Doping Code 2015

  • Costa J-P (2019) Legal opinion 2019 (expert opinion) on the World Anti-Doping Code, World Anti-Doping Agency

  • Duval A (2014) Cocaine, doping and the court of arbitration for sport. Int Sports Law J 15(2015):55–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A, Ram H, Viret M, Wisnosky E, Jacobs HL, Morgan M (2016) The world anti-doping code 2015: ASSER international sports law blog symposium. Int Sports Law J 16:99–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exner J (2018) Anti-doping and athletes’ rights under EU law: four-year period of ineligibility as disproportionate sanction? Int Sports Law J 17(3–4):128–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exner J (2018) Světový antidopingový kodex 2021: Quo vadis? Právní prostor (online) 3 August 2018

  • Exner J (2019) fixed sanction framework in the world anti-doping code: can hearing panels go below the limits in the pursuit of proportionate sanctions? Charles University in Prague Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2019/II/4

  • Exner J (2019) Rekreační drogy v návrhu Světového antidopingového kodexu 2021 aneb O sportu, dopingu a kokainu. Právní prostor (online), 25 March 2019

  • Exner J (2020) Fixed sanction frameworks in the world anti-doping codes 2015 and 2021: can hearing panels go below the limits in the pursuit of proportionate punishments? Int Sports Law J 20:126–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exner J (2020) Sanctioning framework of the world anti-doping code 2021: a proportionate response to doping? Charles University in Prague Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2020/III/5

  • Greene PJ, Kaiser M (2021) WADA Code – reduced sanctions for substances of abuse, multiple violations and recreational athletes. Law in Sport (online), 3 February 2021

  • Greene PJ, Vermeer R (2018) Why WADA should reclassify cocaine as a "specified substance" - the inequitable case of José Paolo Guerrero. Law in Sport (online), 19 December 2018

  • Haas U (2016) Background to the world anti-doping code 2015. In: Haas U, Healey D (eds) Doping in sport and the law. Hart Publishing, pp 19 et seq

  • Haas U (2016) The WADA code 2015 – the most relevant changes. In: Bernasconi M (eds) Arbitrating disputes in a modern sports world. 5th Conference CAS & SAV/FSA Lausanne 2014, p 39 et seq

  • Haas U (2020) The revision of the world anti-doping code 2021. CAS Bulletin. Budapest seminar October 2019, pp 24–42

  • Jones K (2014) Lunch and learn: WADA Code 2015 – the key changes. Int Sports Law J 14:143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Malinverni G, Rigozzi A (2003) Legal opinion on the conformity of certain provisions of the draft world anti-doping code with commonly accepted principles of international law. World Anti-Doping Agency, pp 1–56

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Rigozzi A (2007) Legal opinion on the conformity of article 10.6 of the 2007 draft world anti-doping code with the fundamental rights of athletes. World anti-doping agency, pp 1-50

  • Kleiderman E, Thompson R, Borry P, Boily A, Knoppers BM (2019) Doping controls and the ‘Mature Minor’ elite athlete: towards clarification? Int J Sport Policy Politics 12(1):179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddell R, Harman V (2020) Sport and anti-doping – the year in review 2019/20. Law in Sport (online), 17 June 2020

  • Manninen M, Nowicky BJ (2017) (2017): “Unless fairness requires otherwise”, a review of exceptions to retroactive disqualification of competitive results for doping offenses. CAS Bull 2:7–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuriev A (2019) Non-intentional anti-doping rule violations: Does a new trend in evidence provision suffice? Int Sports Law J 19:222–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E (2013) Does the world anti-doping code revision live up to its promises? Jusletter 11 November 2013

  • Rigozzi A, Haas U, Wisnosky E, Viret M (2015) Breaking down the process for determining a basic sanction under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. Int Sports Law J 15:3–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E (2018) First draft of the 2021 world anti-doping code: not so light of a review? WADC Commentary (online), 25 June 2018

  • Rigozzi A, Quinn B (2018) The Guerrero doping saga: proportionality questioned. football legal, December 2018, pp 94–106

  • Rouiller C (2005) Legal opinion on whether article 10.2 of the world anti-doping code is compatible with the fundamental principles of Swiss domestic law. World Anti-Doping Agency

  • Schneider C (2018) Recreational drugs in sport: the issue of cocaine. CAS Bull 2:26–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Svetlov S, Kobeissy FH, Gold MS (2007) Performance Enhancing, non-prescription use of Ritalin. J Addict Dis 26(4):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Synrem W (2020) A guide to the main changes under the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code, LawInSport (online), 12 May 2020

  • Weatherill S (2021) Never let a good fiasco go to waste: why and how the governance of European Football should be reformed after the demise of the ‘SuperLeague’. EU Law Analysis (online), 21 April 2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Exner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Exner, J. Intent, substances of abuse, aggravating circumstances, protected persons and recreational athletes: does the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 provide proportionate sanctions?. Int Sports Law J 22, 62–84 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-021-00200-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-021-00200-3

Keywords

  • World Anti-Doping Code
  • World Anti-Doping Code 2021
  • World Anti-Doping Code 2015
  • Proportionality
  • Sanctions
  • Intent
  • Substances of abuse
  • Aggravating circumstances
  • Protected persons
  • Recreational athletes