What is doping in sport? (doping in sports pt. 2)

Parliament house flag post

What is doping in sport? (doping in sports pt. 2)

Posted 11/04/2013 by Jaan Murphy

The previous FlagPost in this series explored the reasons why particular substances and methods are included on the World Anti-Doping Code Prohibited List (the WADC Prohibited List) and hence banned in sport. This FlagPost examines the legal definition of ‘doping’ in sport provided by the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code).

So what is doping?

Since the turn of the 20th century the term ‘doping’ has referred to the practice of enhancing performance through artificial means, such as the use of foreign substances.
However doping is not (and has not been for many years) confined to the return of a positive test result for substances or methods on the WADC Prohibited List. Doping includes a variety of anti‑doping rule violations (ADRVs) related to an athlete’s whereabouts, test tampering and evasion, as well as use, possession and the trafficking of substances or methods on the List. The Code defines doping as:  
"the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.8”

What are the eight ADRVs that constitute doping?

  1. Presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample (the colloquial conception of doping)
  2. Use (or attempted use) by an athlete of a prohibited substance or method (that is, using a substance or method on the List without testing positive)
  3. Refusal to submit a sample for collection after being notified or evading notification
  4. Failure to file athlete whereabouts information or missing scheduled tests
  5. Tampering with any part of the doping control process (for example, trying to switch urine or blood samples)
  6. Possession of a prohibited substance or method
  7. Trafficking a prohibited substance or method
  8. Administering a prohibited substance or method to an athlete, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting or covering up an ADRV
Only the first ADRV relies solely on urine or blood sample test results to confirm an adverse analytical finding. As noted by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) ‘an ADRV can be established against an athlete without a positive test’ and hence can be proved by a range of different types of evidence, including testimony from other appropriate people. The Lance Armstrong case (where he was banned for life by USADA largely on testimony from 26 people with knowledge of his doping activities) is an example of the use of non-test based evidence to prove ADRVs.
The recent Australian Crime Commission report into Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport has resulted in significant media attention and public interest in issues surrounding the supply, distribution and use of substances and methods on the WADC Prohibited List by athletes, and what might be done to combat doping in sports more generally.
The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport conducted an inquiry into the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 (the Bill) which, amongst other things, seeks to strengthen the investigative powers of ASADA. As part of this process, the Bill proposes to provide ASADA with coercive powers aimed at compelling individuals to answer questions, and provide information and/or things to ASADA where there is a reasonable belief that this will assist an investigation into a possible ADRV. This would strengthen the ability of ASADA to obtain non-test based evidence to pursue ADRVs.

How is doping proved?

The evidence required to prove an ADRV will vary, depending on:
  • whether the ADRV is one of ‘strict liability’(such as an ADRV based on an adverse analytical finding) or
  • if the ADRV has a ‘fault element’ (for example, a non-presence ADRV).
For a non-presence ADRV, such as tampering, possession, trafficking or administration, both the physical (conduct) and fault (state of mind) elements must be proved.
For an adverse analytical finding, the presence of a prohibited substance in a sample is a WADC strict liability offence, which is proved by the physical elements alone (that is, the adverse analytical finding alone is proof). As explained by WADA this means:  
This applies even when the athlete unintentionally or negligently used a prohibited substance or method on the List. Under the Code the defence of honest and reasonable mistake only applies to the imposition of the sanction - the offence remains (see below).
As recent events involving the Essendon AFL and Cronulla NRL football clubs demonstrate, there can be confusion about the nature of supplements or drugs, and if they are banned. This has led to concerns about the application of strict liability ADRVs in the context of inadvertent doping by athletes. Athletes are responsible for ensuring that any substance that they ingest is not included on the List.
However the sanctioning process must consider the circumstances surrounding any ADRV, providing some flexibility in terms of the sanctions applied to athletes who inadvertently commit an ADRV.

What standard of proof is required?

An ADRV is proved when the evidence establishes the elements of the ADRV to the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ of the tribunal, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation. In other words, the more serious the alleged ADRV, the stronger the evidence must be before the tribunal can be comfortably satisfied the ADRV is proved.
This standard sits between the civil (on the balance of probabilities) and criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) standards of proof. Despite adverse commentary overseas, this sliding scale of proof is a long-established Australian legal principle known as the Briginshaw test (named after the High Court Case). In our next flag post we will examine what happens once an ADRV is detected.

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


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

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




refugees asylum immigration Parliament climate change Australian foreign policy elections social security women welfare reform Australian Defence Force welfare policy school education higher education private health insurance Taxation Indigenous Australians health financing emissions trading Australian Bureau of Statistics employment people trafficking statistics Middle East illicit drugs gambling health reform federal election 2010 Senate income management Medicare disability Sport United Nations Asia transport Australian Public Service politics criminal law Afghanistan health forced labour aid Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget Industrial Relations Carbon Pricing Mechanism dental health public service reform OECD constitution Australian Electoral Commission WADA child protection environment poker machines Australia in the Asian Century steroids National Disability Insurance Scheme detention aged care 43rd Parliament slavery health system Electoral reform accountability defence capability multiculturalism ASADA Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Fair Work Act governance labour force people smuggling debt international relations New Zealand food Australian Crime Commission pharmaceutical benefits scheme voting China regulation leadership Census election results UK Parliament Papua New Guinea banking International Women's Day corruption pensions children's health Aviation federal election 2013 foreign debt gross debt net debt parliamentary procedure Senators and Members ALP Newstart Parenting Payment Youth Allowance sea farers vocational education and training domestic violence military history by-election political parties High Court skilled migration mental health Federal Court terrorist groups science social media Higher Education Loan Program HECS federal state relations youth paid parental leave same sex relationships coal seam gas customs planning doping crime health risks Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery Special Rapporteur Northern Territory Emergency Response social policy Productivity United Kingdom firearms public policy Population violence against women ADRV terrorism transparency research and development welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation carbon tax mining employer employee renewable energy regional unemployment fishing European Union family assistance United Nations Security Council Australian economy forestry food labelling Drugs welfare systems Indonesia children Constitutional reform local government codes of conduct terrorist financing homelessness Parliamentary remuneration money laundering Trafficking in Persons Report energy social inclusion human rights paternalism administrative law universities TAFE Ireland election timetable citizenship asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity standards NATO Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse World Trade Organization Australia public health housing affordability bulk billing water health policy Governor-General US economy trade unions export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation public housing expertise climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets animal health middle class welfare Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government referendum consumer laws PISA competition policy royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition citizen engagement policymaking Australia Greens servitude Trafficking Protocol forced marriage rural and regional alcohol entitlements ministries Hung Parliament social citizenship maritime Iran ANZUS regional students school chaplains federal budget 2011-12 salary Medicare Locals primary care Building the Education Revolution Double dissolution Senators safety vehicles Foreign affairs ODA MYEFO Pathology tertiary education Taiwan Xi Ma meeting family violence government financial advisers financial planners Financial System Inquiry Murray Inquiry China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories 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 Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation 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 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 asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders prime ministers sitting days First speech defence budget submarines workers Somalia GDP world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission limitation period cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders live exports infant mortality 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 Rent Assistance obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements small business Breaker Morant regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Members suspension workplace health and safety marine reserves hearing Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing political education Social Inclusion Board early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits qantas counselling Korean peninsula Work Choices biosecurity hendra environmental law federalism federation preselection therapeutic goods Therapeutic Goods Administration plebiscites computer games pests suicide nuclear COAG Ministerial Councils floods ADHD stimulant medication advertising electricity extradition conscience votes poverty preventative health rural health coastal erosion Parliamentary Budget Office work-life balance

Show all
Show less
Back to top