Comprehensive Notes on Anti-Doping

Normative Arguments

  • Why is doping prohibited? Should it be?
    • Anti-Doping Arguments
      • Fairness
        • Absolute Fairness
        • Relative Fairness
      • Harm Arguments
        • Harm to Self
        • Harm to Others
          • Harm to Other Athletes
          • Harm to Society in general
      • Harm caused by Bans?
        • Harm to the Spectators
      • Integrity Arguments
        • Unnatural
        • Irrelevancy
        • Dehumanising

Arguments For and Against Banning Doping

  • For Banning:
    • Unfair: Goes against the ideal of a level playing field.
    • Health Risk: Harmful to the individual.
    • Harms Other Athletes: Those who don't dope are negatively impacted (e.g., early exit from sport, career affected by cheating).
    • Contravenes 'Spirit of Sport': Violates values such as fair play, honesty, health, character education, fun, teamwork, respect, courage, and community.
    • Unacceptable Message: Sends a wrong message about the role and impact of sport in society.
  • For Allowing:
    • Level Playing Field is a Myth: Legal performance enhancement strategies are unequally available (e.g., training facilities, equipment, nutrition).
    • Current Bans: Banned drugs are not inherently the biggest sources of risk compared to injury rates in some sports.
    • True Spirit of Sport: Aligns with the Athenian ideal of superhuman effort at any cost, including risks.
    • Supervised Use: Regulated use of performance-enhancing substances would reduce health risks.
    • Prohibition Policies: Create hidden, uninformed, and riskier doping practices, exacerbating harms.

History of Doping

  • Early Examples:
    • BC 776: Greek Olympians used substances like dried figs, mushrooms, magic potions, and strychnine.
  • Modern Era:
    • Early 1900s: Illegal drugging of racehorses.
    • 1904 Olympics: Marathon runner Thomas Hicks used brandy and strychnine, nearly died.
    • Mixtures: Strychnine, heroin, cocaine, and caffeine were widely used.

History of Doping (Modern Era)

  • 1928: IAAF enacted an anti-doping provision.
  • 1960: Knud Jensen incident.
  • 1967: Tommy Simpson incident.
  • 1967: IOC established list of Prohibited Substances.
  • 1968: First doping controls at Winter and Summer Olympics.
  • 1968: Olympic athlete disqualified for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.
  • 1972: Full-scale testing for narcotics and stimulants at Olympics.
  • 1988: Ben Johnson scandal.
  • 1998: Tour de France (Festina Affair).
  • 1999: World Conference on Doping in Sport.
  • 1999: Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport.
  • 1999: Creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
  • 2003: First version of WADC was enacted.
  • 2005: Recognition of WADC by UNESCO Convention.

Anti-Doping Ecosystem - Stakeholders Mapping

  • Key stakeholders include:
    • CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport)
    • UNESCO
    • NADOs (National Anti-Doping Organizations)
    • Governments
    • WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency)
    • IPC (International Paralympic Committee)
    • RADOs (Regional Anti-Doping Organizations)
    • Major Events
    • IOC (International Olympic Committee)
    • IFs (International Federations)

Stakeholders: Roles and Responsibilities

  • World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
    • Fosters doping-free sports.
    • Monitors the global fight against doping as an independent organization.
    • Acts as the regulator and oversees the anti-doping network.
    • Monitors the Code and engages in education, research, and capacity development.
  • Regional Anti-Doping Organisations (RADOS)
    • Unite countries within a geographical area to fight doping.
    • Mobilize resources and ensure compliance with the Code.
  • Governments
    • Facilitate doping control and support national testing programs.
    • Fund anti-doping education and research.
    • Withhold financial support from those who engage in doping.
    • Take measures against manufacturing and trafficking.
  • Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
    • Acts as an independent adjudication body.
    • Facilitates the settlement of sport-related disputes.
    • Serves as the sport supreme court for appeals.
  • National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOS)
    • Responsible for testing and sanctioning national athletes.
    • Receive funding from governments but operate independently.
    • Comply with the Code.
  • Laboratories
    • Process doping control sample analyses.
    • Comply with the International Standard for Laboratories.
  • International Federations (IFs)
    • Responsible for testing and sanctioning international athletes.
    • Require National Federations to establish anti-doping rules.
    • Fund anti-doping education and research.
    • Comply with the Code.
  • National Federations (NFs)
    • Implement the Code at the national level.
    • Respect the autonomy of NADOs.
  • Major Event Organisations (MEOs)
    • Adopt and implement anti-doping rules for their events.
    • Responsible for testing and sanctioning.
  • International Olympic and Paralympic Committees (IOC & IPC)
    • Ensure testing and sanctioning during the Games.
    • Liaise with National Committees to implement the Rules.
  • Athletes
    • Cooperate with Anti-Doping Organisations by being available for sample collection.
    • Responsible for ensuring what they ingest is compliant.
  • National Olympic and Paralympic Committees (NOCs & NPCs)
    • Implement the Code.
    • Take over anti-doping activities where no NADO exists.

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

  • Founded in 1999 (following the Lausanne Doping Conference).
  • Swiss private foundation (Lausanne) with headquarters in Montreal.
  • Equal representation of Public Authorities and Olympic Movement (18 Board Members each).
  • Promotes, co-ordinates, and monitors the fight against doping in sport internationally.
  • Acts as the regulatory body.
  • Responsibilities include:
    • Laboratories’ accreditation
    • Compliance monitoring
    • Disciplinary review and appeals (including for Therapeutic Use Exemption)
    • Intelligence and Investigation

WADA Milestones

  • 1998: Sport Movement faces crisis after the Festina cycling affair.
  • 1999: First World Conference on Doping in Sport; WADA is formed.
  • 2003: The World Anti-Doping Code and its International Standards are accepted.
  • 2004: The Code and its International Standards come into force.
  • 2005: UNESCO International Convention approved.
  • 2009 & 2015: Revised Codes come into effect.
  • 2021: Code Review set to come into force.

WADA: Vision, Mission, and Values

  • Vision: A world where all athletes can compete in a doping-free sporting movement.
  • Mission: To lead a collaborative worldwide movement for doping-free sport.
  • Values: Accountability, Excellence, and Integrity.
  • Budget: Total budget of USD$37.4 million with 50% from Governments and 50% from the Sport Movement.
  • Code Signatories: The Code has been adopted by 684 Signatories or Anti-Doping Organizations.
  • UNESCO: 191 State Parties (99%) have ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport.

WADA Accredited Laboratories

  • Africa (1): South Africa (Bloemfontein)
  • America (5): Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), Canada (Montreal), Cuba (Havana), USA (Los Angeles & Salt Lake City)
  • Asia (6): China (Beijing), India (New Delhi), Japan (Tokyo), Korea (Seoul), Qatar (Doha), Thailand (Bangkok)
  • Europe (17): Austria (Seibersdorf), Belgium (Ghent), Finland (Helsinki), France (Paris), Germany (Cologne & Dresden), Great Britain (London), Greece (Athens), Italy (Rome), Norway (Oslo), Poland (Warsaw), Romania (Bucharest), Spain (Barcelona & Madrid), Sweden (Stockholm), Switzerland (Lausanne), Turkey (Ankara)
  • Oceania (1): Australia (Sydney)

WADA Prohibited List

  • Updated annually on January 1st.
  • Follows a year-long open consultation process.
  • Robust and flexible, adapts based on new research.
  • Available on mobile devices and smartphones.
  • Available in seven languages.
  • It is an International Standard.

WADA Regulations: 2021 Framework

  • Includes:
    • Code
    • International Standards
      • Testing and Investigations
      • Code Compliance by Signatories
      • Therapeutic Use Exemptions
      • Protection of Privacy and Personal Information
      • Laboratories
      • Education
      • Results Management

International Testing Agency (ITA)

  • The ITA's slogan is "Keeping Sport Real".

ITA Creation: Addressing Turbulent Times in Anti-Doping

  • Key Events Leading to ITA's Formation:
    • 2014: Russian doping scandal at the Sochi Winter Olympics.
    • 2014-2016: Allegations of widespread doping in Russian athletics and other sports.
    • 2015: Olympic Summit proposes an independent anti-doping testing and sanctioning system.
    • 2015: WADA initiates the Pound Commission and McLaren Investigation.
    • 2016: IOC Session in Rio supports making anti-doping independent from sports organizations.
    • 2016: McLaren Investigation exposes institutionalized manipulation of the doping control process in Russia.
    • 2017: WADA acquires Moscow Laboratory LIMS system, initiates 200+ investigative processes, and launches Speak Up!
    • 2017: IOC bans Russian Olympic Committee from PC2018.
    • July 2018: The ITA becomes fully operational.

ITA: Foundation and Establishment

  • Recommendation 15 of the Olympic Agenda 2020: Calls for the protection of clean athletes.
  • IOC Support: The IOC unanimously supports making anti-doping independent from sports organizations.

ITA: PwC Feasibility Study (2017)

  • Need for Change:
    • Restoring credibility of sport.
    • Improving the effectiveness of the fight against doping.
  • Addressing Conflict of Interest:
    • Real or perceived conflict of interest of IFs and MEOs in conducting testing and other doping activities.
  • Ensuring Independence:
    • Setting up a system ensuring total independence in catching and sanctioning cheats.
  • IOC's Perspective:
    • Improving the effectiveness of the fight against doping.
    • Sending a clear message to athletes about ensuring clean sport.

International Testing Agency (ITA): Who We Are

  • International organization constituted as a not-for-profit foundation.
  • Based in Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Mission: offer comprehensive anti-doping services independent from sporting or political powers.
  • Provides services to International Federations (IFS), Major Event Organisers (MEOS), and other anti-doping organisations.

ITA: Vision, Mission, and Values

  • Vision: To be the world leader in delivering anti-doping programmes for sport.
  • Mission: To earn trust, respect, and loyalty by consistently delivering high-quality services through collaboration and innovation.
  • Values: Integrity, Excellence, and Equality.

ITA Objectives:

  • Guarantee independence and transparency
  • Foster and centralize expertise
  • Ensure compliance of stakeholders
  • Harmonise processes and ensure equal treatment
  • Consolidate and regain trust

ITA: Services & Expertise

  • Testing
  • Athlete Biological Passport
  • Therapeutic Use Exemptions
  • Science & Research
  • Results Management
  • Risk Assessment
  • ADAMS Management
  • Education
  • Long-Term Storage & Re-Analysis
  • Compliance
  • Investigations & Intelligence
  • Major Events

ITA: Implementation and Responsibilities

  • ITA: Implements all aspects of anti-doping programmes; prosecutes cases before competent jurisdiction.
  • CAS ADD/IF Panels: Act as the first instance tribunal for ADRVs; impose disciplinary consequences.
  • International Olympic Committee (IOC): Remains ultimately responsible for the compliance of the AD programme at the Games from a WADA compliance perspective.
  • WADA: Monitors the compliance of the AD programme with the Code.
  • IFs: Remain ultimately responsible for the compliance of their AD programmes from a WADA compliance perspective.

The 11 Stages of Doping Control

  • Notification: Athlete is notified by a Doping Control Officer (DCO) or chaperone.
  • Reporting: Athlete reports to the doping control station as soon as possible.
  • Selection of Collection Vessel: Athlete chooses a collection vessel.
  • Provision of Sample:
    • Minimum of 90mL90mL of urine required.
    • Athlete disrobes from knees to navel and hands to elbow.
    • Observed by a DCO or chaperone of the same gender.
  • Selection of Sample Collection Kit: Choose a kit provided.
  • Splitting the Sample: Split the sample into A and B bottles.
  • Sealing the Sample: Seal the A and B bottles.
  • Specific Gravity Measurement: DCO measures specific gravity.
  • Completing the Doping Control Form:
    • Provide personal information.
    • Note any substances taken (medication, supplements).
    • Note concerns or comments.
    • Confirm accuracy and sample code.
    • Sign the form and receive a copy.
  • Laboratory Analysis: Samples sent to a WADA-accredited laboratory.
  • Results Reporting: Laboratory sends results to the responsible ADO and WADA.

WADA Code

  • The World Anti-Doping Code aims to harmonize anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations within sport organizations and among public authorities around the world.

Concept of Doping - Definition

  • Defining doping requires identifying key characteristics.
  • Is it the intention to dope, use a prohibited substance, or enhance sport performance?

Concept of Doping - Strict Liability Principle

  • It's not necessary to demonstrate intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use by the athlete in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation.

Strict Liability: Presence of a Prohibited Substance

  • It is the athlete's personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters their body.

Proof of Presence

  • Sufficient proof involves analyzing samples.
  • Sample A + B when the second analysis is requested by the athlete and confirms the presence of the prohibited substance.
  • Just sample A when the athlete waives the analysis of B sample.
  • The presence of any quantity is a violation (exception: substances with decision limits).
  • Irrelevant if the substance doesn't have the potential to enhance performance (usually linked to the first one).

Anti-Doping Rule Violations

  • Presence of a Prohibited Substance
  • Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
  • Evading Doping controls
  • Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete
  • Tampering with any Part of Doping Control
  • Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
  • Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
  • Administration of a Prohibited Substance
  • Complicity or Attempted Complicity
  • Prohibited Association by an Athlete
  • Acts by an Athlete to Discourage Reporting to Authorities

Analytical vs. Non-Analytical Findings in Anti-Doping Rule Violations

  • 80% Non-Analytical Findings
  • 20% Analytical Findings

Consequences of Committing an Anti-Doping Rule Violation

  • Two Kinds of Consequences:
    • Automatic disqualification of individual results (forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes).
    • Ineligibility period (suspension from the sport concerned but also in activities authorized by any signatory).
  • Sporting Death: ineligibility period.

Consequences of Committing an Anti-Doping: Ineligibility Periods

  • Presence/Use/Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Method: From 2 to 4 years.
  • Evading, Refusing, or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection: From 2 to 4 years.
  • Tampering or Attempting to Tamper with Doping Control: 4 Years.

The Case of the French Tennis Player

  • Brief Summary of Facts:
    • French tennis player travels to Miami for a tournament.
    • Suffers shoulder pain during training before the tournament.
    • Following the doctor's advice, decides to retire but doesn't formalize withdrawal on Friday night.
    • Goes out with friends that night.
    • Next day, formally withdraws and undergoes a doping control, providing two urine samples.
    • Sample A tests positive for benzoylecgonine, a cocaine metabolite, and a small amount of unmetabolized cocaine.
    • The B sample confirms the presence of benzoylecgonine.

Defending the Case

  • Main fact to consider: the cocaine intake occurred on Friday night after deciding to retire.
  • The first task is to build a credible story on how the prohibited substance entered the player's body.
  • Should we admit that the player took cocaine on purpose?

Strict Liability in the Case

  • Article 2.1.1 states that it is an athletes’ personal duty to ensure that there are not any Prohibited Substances entering their bodies.

Why Not Admit Intentional Cocaine Use?

  • The Billiard Player Case:
    • The player claimed the stimulant entered his system from a single joint or one or two sniffs of cocaine at a party four days before the match.
    • Arguments:
      • The player was young (23 years old).
      • He admitted the anti-doping rule violation.
      • He was not aware of the potential consequences.
      • There was no intention to enhance his sporting performance.

Why Not Admit Intentional Cocaine Use? (Continued)

  • The Billiard Player Case:
    • In light of duty of care, even if the explanation were plausible, the athlete's behavior was significantly negligent.

The Case of Richard Gasquet: Background

  • Mr. Richard Gasquet:
    • French nationality.
    • Professional tennis player with residence in Switzerland.
  • Achievements:
    • Ranked number one in France.
    • Ranked in the top twenty-five in the world from 2004 to 2007.
    • Top 10 in 2007.
    • At the time of the events, ranked 25th in the ATP world rankings.
  • Frequently tested for doping, always with a negative result (except for this case).

The Case of Richard Gasquet: Timeline

  • December 2008: Injury in his right shoulder.
  • February 2009: Had to withdraw from a tournament in Marseille, France.
  • March 22, 2009: Arrived in Miami, United States, to take part in the Sony Ericsson Event (ATP Tournament).
  • March 23 to 26, 2009: Training was hampered by his shoulder injury.
  • March 27, 2009: Advised by tournament doctor to get an MRI scan (significant inflammation was noted).

Richard Gasquet: The Night Out

  • Despite deciding to withdraw, the Player did not immediately formalize it.
  • Went out to see French DJ Bob Sinclair at a club called “Set” as part of the Winter Music Conference.
  • Dinner at “Vita”: The Player, his coach, and others dined with Mr. Sinclar and his wife and socialised a group of women.
  • At midnight, the group went to “Set”.
  • The Player drank a vodka and apple juice prepared by Mr. Champion.

Richard Gasquet: Contact with Pamela

  • The Player admitted in court to drinking from Pamela's glass.
  • Later, he ordered another vodka and apple juice at the bar.
  • At “Set”, the Player talked to Pamela. They kissed about seven times.
  • Left with Pamela to a strip club called “Goldrush”, then left there quickly.
  • The Player kissed Pamela briefly outside “Goldrush” before going back to his hotel.

Questions About the Case

  • Do you believe the theory of contamination through Pamela's kisses?
  • If not, what do you think really happened?

WADA's Suspicion

  • WADA cast doubt on the kissing theory.
  • Claimed intentional cocaine intake was more credible.
  • Recommended a two-year suspension for the player.

The CAS Award Acquitting the Player

  • The Panel concluded that the player could not have known that Pamela might inadvertently administer cocaine to him by kissing her.
  • Impossible for the Player to know that he could be contaminated even by kissing Pamela in an unsuspicious Italian restaurant.

Analysis

  • The Code does not or should not punish a player for kissing a stranger whom he made on the same evening, under the circumstances such as in the present case.
  • No Anti-Doping Program can impose an obligation on an athlete not to go out to a restaurant where he might meet an attractive stranger whom he might later be tempted to kiss.

Practical Exercises

  • WADA provides resources for practical exercises and quizzes related to anti-doping.