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?
- Presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample (the colloquial conception of doping)
- 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)
- Refusal to submit a sample for collection after being notified or evading notification
- Failure to file athlete whereabouts information or missing scheduled tests
- Tampering with any part of the doping control process (for example, trying to switch urine or blood samples)
- Possession of a prohibited substance or method
- Trafficking a prohibited substance or method
- Administering a prohibited substance or method to an athlete, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting or covering up an ADRV
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.
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 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.
Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.