From the effectiveness of current anti-doping regulations to the clash between the jurisdiction of sporting governing bodies and legal courts, the role of the law in sports-related doping is at best uncertain, but at worst, controversial and undeservingly neglected. This article explores whether the sporting world has been misled by its own doping policies, and why legal intervention is essential to ensure a fair and transparent system for all athletes.

The requirement for a level playing field across all sports necessitates effective anti-doping laws to guarantee the integrity of sporting competitions. The most infamous doping scandal, orchestrated by seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, uncovered how he passed over 500 drugs tests, by only using short lifespan drugs which could remain undetected, accentuating the need for better testing methods and a harsher stance against influential sportspeople who can dominate, shun and bully others through their doping antics. Consequently, some have attempted to instigate harsher measures to overcome doping.

For example, the British Olympic Association (BOA) introduced byelaw 25 to prevent athletes banned for six months or longer for drug offences from representing Team GB at any future Olympic games. The legal question raised was whether this was an unlawful restraint of trade, by affecting future prospects and income. Crucially, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) held the rule inconsistent with the WADA Code, signifying that only WADA, not BOA, would be able to introduce a legally withstanding lifetime ban.

Instead, authorities should place a greater emphasis on improving testing processes and treating the cause, rather than the symptoms, of drug issues, and avoid adopting an unforgiving stance towards offenders, regardless of what led to their positive test result. Whilst science can prove fact, it cannot ascertain guilt; it is difficult to prove intention and how substances have entered the body, especially for naturally produced substances such as testosterone.

There is also a possibility the drug-induced athlete was unaware they had taken a banned substance. Alain Baxter, who won Britain’s first alpine skiing Olympic medal, was banned for 3 months after buying a new inhaler abroad which he believed to contain the same, permitted substances as his usual inhaler, but subsequently tested positive for a banned substance. This was an unintentional breach of the doping regulations, and he was punished for ingesting an amount too small to even impact his performance.

Therefore, the onus should be on anti-doping authorities to ensure their regulations are fair by only punishing substances at performance enhancing levels. By incorporating a tiered-sanctions approach, anti-doping bodies could ensure that punishments are coherent with the crime. Replacing strict-liability with differentiation between intentional doping (which could result in bans) and accidental doping (which could both result in lesser disqualifications) should be welcomed. This would give athletes the opportunity to prove their innocence, and would acknowledge the nuances of each case, saving the most extreme punishments for the most severe breaches.

As well as the regulations often manifesting in unsuitable, out-of-proportion outcomes, sometimes they are also inconsistently enforced by different sporting organisations and governing bodies. During the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva tested positive for a banned substance but was allowed to continue competing due to her young age, yet athletes from other nations have faced immediate bans for similar breaches. Such inconsistencies erode confidence in anti-doping laws and cultivate accusations of preferential treatment based on nationality or political considerations.  This mandates the need for a traditional legal body overseeing sports doping cases, independent of the IOC or WADA, enabling it to reach more transparent decisions.

Furthermore, legal courts are best placed to resolve interdisciplinary matters. When South African runner Caster Semenya contested World Athletics’ rules requiring athletes with high testosterone levels to take hormone-reducing drugs, the European Court of Human Rights found that Semenya’s rights had been violated, highlighting the growing legal scrutiny over doping regulations. Such legal intervention should be embraced as sport cannot progress by being an isolated body remote from other walks of life, but instead transcends across and is interlinked with numerous legal sectors in the same way that other entertainment industries, like film and music, are also subject to the usual legal pyramid.

Therefore, the current anti-doping framework, though well-intentioned, is flawed. As doping cases become more complex, legal intervention is needed to regulate the scope and strictness of sanctions with their ultimate fairness. All athletes deserve a fair trial, clear rules, and a system that truly protects the integrity of sport.

Duped by Anti-Doping Laws?

The Need to Inject Legal Intervention in the Sporting World

Download