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.

Add your comment

[Click to expand]




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

asylum refugees immigration climate change Parliament elections Australian foreign policy social security health financing women Australian Defence Force taxation welfare policy welfare reform sport Medicare employment illicit drugs gambling Australian Bureau of Statistics higher education disability statistics private health insurance Middle East Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency health reform emissions trading industrial relations united states Carbon Pricing Mechanism United Nations school education steroids WADA federal budget 43rd Parliament politics labour force Australian Federal Police transport indigenous Australians aid detention criminal law child protection ASADA Afghanistan governance international relations poker machines law enforcement people trafficking Fair Work Act Australian Public Service pharmaceutical benefits scheme International Women's Day Australian Crime Commission parliamentary procedure National Disability Insurance Scheme children's health food OECD debt defence capability federal election 2013 Australian Electoral Commission aged care Asia Australia in the Asian Century environment Senate income management pensions planning skilled migration Papua New Guinea multiculturalism people smuggling social media doping HECS Higher Education Loan Program paid parental leave health High Court corruption federal state relations dental health New Zealand terrorist groups ALP election results constitution UK Parliament public service reform forced labour aviation coal seam gas crime customs ADRV Census Newstart Parenting Payment employee employer Federal Court foreign debt gross debt net debt European Union domestic violence firearms Constitutional reform food labelling Australian economy carbon tax banking political parties public policy terrorism welfare Australian Security Intelligence Organisation intelligence community Drugs research and development voting mental health health system human rights Northern Territory Emergency Response science Electoral reform regional unemployment violence against women accountability China military history Indigenous Indonesia Pacific Islands speaker health risks superannuation middle class welfare welfare systems question time animal health Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry trade unions integrity same sex relationships foreign bribery Australian Secret Intelligence Service export liquefied natural gas local government referendum children mining forestry Tasmania financial sector Canada United Nations Security Council climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership expertise Senators and Members family assistance by-election US economy housing affordability ASIO carbon markets new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC reserved seats regulation Parliamentary remuneration Population Hung Parliament federal budget 2011-12 paternalism public health slavery Trafficking in Persons Report homelessness school chaplains ministries water federal election 2010 Medicare Locals primary care regional students Youth Allowance entitlements salary sea farers productivity Special Rapporteur transparency money laundering early childhood education national security sexual abuse bulk billing disability employment World Trade Organization Australia renewable energy US politics terrorist financing language education royal commission Italy roads international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies standard of proof arts World Health Organisation disciplinary tribunals railways infant mortality honorary citizen suspension of standing and sessional orders live exports contracts workplace policies peace keeping disorderly conduct same-sex marriage Parliament House retirement Rent Assistance constitutional recognition of local government anti-dumping national heritage NHMRC nutrition GDP world heritage submarines Somalia United Kingdom defence budget First speech election timetable sitting days prime ministers standing orders public housing cancer gene patents genetic testing universities Ireland public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission vocational education and training limitation period Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping leave loading political engagement Korean peninsula counselling pests suicide social policy alcohol computer games plebiscites therapeutic goods Therapeutic Goods Administration federalism federation preselection Iran sanctions baby bonus early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin citizen engagement policymaking biosecurity hendra environmental law COAG Ministerial Councils nuclear Work Choices republic hospitals qantas ANZUS Norway President Barack Obama Presidential visits advertising electricity energy maritime floods ADHD stimulant medication ABS Trade Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings 44th Parliament 2015 e-voting internet voting nsw state elections Indigenous health procurement child care funding refugees immigration asylum ACT Assembly Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors social services EU fishing asylum refugees immigration political finance donations Antarctica Diplomacy Disability Support Pension by-elections state and territories China soft power education Fiji India fuel Scottish referendum Members of Parliament Middle East; national security; terrorism Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy innovation Bills NATO workers anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform standards copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry Governor-General Animal law; food health policy employment law bullying asylum seekers Economics efficiency foreign aid human rights; Racial Discrimination Act smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Work Health and Safety Asia; Japan; international relations youth Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine political financing Australia Greens Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling Stronger futures rural and regional political parties preselection presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act Australian Greens obesity competition policy US presidential election evidence law sacrament of confession international days codes of conduct consumer laws

Show all
Show less
Back to top