Proving doping: the ADRV enforcement process and the role of sporting tribunals (doping in sports pt. 3)

Parliament house flag post

Proving doping: the ADRV enforcement process and the role of sporting tribunals (doping in sports pt. 3)

Posted 11/04/2013 by Jaan Murphy

The previous FlagPost in this series explored what constitutes doping under the World Anti-Doping Code (the WADC) and the standard of proof required to prove Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs).
 
This FlagPost examines what happens once a possible ADRV is detected, either through evidence collected as part of an investigation or as a result of an adverse analytical finding (the detection of the presence of a substance or the use of a method on the Prohibited List in a sample provided by an athlete).

So how is an ADRV proved and prosecuted?

For all Australian sports that have adopted the WADC, ADRVs are primarily prosecuted in a sporting tribunal, which is administrative (rather than judicial) in nature. These sporting tribunals have jurisdiction to hear ADRV matters as athletes (by reason of their membership of the relevant sporting administration body (SAB) and/or by participation in events conducted by the SAB) agree to abide by the rules of the sport.

The Australian sporting tribunal system

Many of the professional sporting codes have their own tribunals. Examples are the AFL Tribunal, the NRL Judiciary and Anti-Doping Tribunal and the A-league (soccer) Disciplinary Committee and Anti-Doping Tribunal. Other sports refer ADRV matters to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Under the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 (ASADA Act), a potential ADRV must be referred to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP) to determine whether an adverse analytical finding or a possible non-presence ADRV has occurred. The ADRVP is a decision-making body established under the ASADA Act, but independent from ASADA, whose members are appointed by the Minister for Sport.

Prior to the referral of the possible ADRV, ASADA puts formal allegations of a possible ADRV to the athlete or support person. The ADRVP reviews ASADA’s processes and evidence and considers any submissions made by the athlete or athlete support person. If the ADRVP confirms the finding on the evidence before it, the athlete or support person’s details are entered onto the Register of Findings (ADRVP finding).  ASADA then notifies the athlete or athlete support person of:
 
  • the details of the Register of Findings entry and
  • their right to appeal the decision to enter their name on the Register.

A person whose name is entered on the Register of Findings has 28 days to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). In the absence of any appeal or any successful appeal to the AAT, the matter will be finally determined before the relevant sporting tribunal (such as CAS) in accordance with the sport’s anti-doping rules. The tables below outline the anti-doping processes from testing and investigation to possible final hearing.
 

The Hearing and Appeals Process arising from an Adverse Analytical Finding 

The Hearing and Appeals Process arising from an Adverse Analytical Finding

The Hearing and Appeals Process for non-Adverse Analytical Finding based ADRVs

The Hearing and Appeals Process for non-Adverse Analytical Finding based ADRVs

Administrative sanctions

The sporting tribunal is responsible for determining, on the evidence, whether an ADRV has been committed and for imposing any relevant administrative sanction including:
As part of this decision making process, the relevant sporting tribunal will consider a variety of factors, including whether the athlete or support person provided substantial assistance towards establishing ADRVs by others. The WADC strictly governs any reduction in sanction imposed for ADRVs. However, providing substantial assistance may result in up to a ¾ reduction in the applicable sanction imposed.
 
Subject to the appeal rights contained in the relevant Sporting Administration Body’s (SAB’s) anti-doping code, a sporting tribunal decision (the findings and/or sanction) may be appealed to the Appeals Division of the CAS by the athlete, support person, SAB, ASADA, WADA or relevant international federation.
 
The ADRV may only be publicly disclosed by ASADA once any appeal to the AAT is finalised, and if the athlete is sanctioned by the sport. Once this has occurred, the ADRV must be publicly disclosed no later than 20 days after the hearing. The matter must also be publicly reported within 20 days of any appeal decision.
 
In our next FlagPost, the dual use of evidence in both sporting tribunals and criminal proceedings will be examined.


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

Refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment indigenous Australians Sport illicit drugs gambling people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations health financing Asia Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA income management Industrial Relations emissions trading dental health Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police people smuggling poker machines National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission 43rd Parliament slavery election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service constitution International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection Aviation debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment Census politics High Court skilled migration voting mental health Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS governance youth paid parental leave environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs Senate doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur UK Parliament Electoral reform political parties banking firearms public policy Population violence against women domestic violence China ADRV terrorism science research and development social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation accountability public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning Senators and Members United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs health reform Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing health system money laundering United Kingdom early childhood education Canada Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity transparency Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration Australia Greens federal election 2010 servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship human rights emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency productivity human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits ANZUS qantas counselling

Show all
Show less
Back to top