DOPING IN SPORT - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

DOPING IN SPORT

Created and Presented by Timothy von BehrenSlide2

DOPING:

using a substance or method which is potentially harmful to an athlete’s health and/or capable of enhancing performance

The WADA was created in 1999The WADC was created in 2004

Revised in 2009

Articles 2 and 10 most relevant to doping cases

Purpose:Make (-) outweigh (+) to discourage future dopingPreserve fundamental right of athlete to participate in doping-free sport (contract law)Make life for professional athletes suck (ergo the issue)Slide3

ARTICLE 2: Anti-Doping Rule Violations

Article 2.1

 The presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s bodily SpecimenArticle 2.2  Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

Article 2.3  “hiding from the Doping Control official”

Article 2.4  Violation of requirement to be available for Out-of-Competition Testing

Article 2.5  Tampering with the Specimen is a VERY BAD IDEA!!Slide4

ARTICLE 10: Sanctions On Individuals

Article 10.7

 Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent to Sample Collection

Medals, points, and prizes

Article 10.8  Commencement of Ineligibility Period

Not necessarily date of sample collection!!Article 10.9  Status During Ineligibility

4-year special ruleSlide5

Other KEY Players

International Olympic Committee (IOC)Supreme authority and leader of fight against doping

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)Legally decides all Olympic related disputes, including doping casesLose precedent due to jurisprudence evolution

Why?Slide6

The Physician’s Fault: A Truly Exceptional

Circumstance?

“At any rate other than in the most exceptional cases, for the purposes of determining whether a no-fault defense succeeds, the fault of an advisor such as a physician must be attributed to the player even if the player is not personally at fault: otherwise the fight against doping in sport would be seriously undermined.”

SOURCE:

Niggli

, O., & Sieveking, J. (2006). Selected Case Law Rendered Under the World Anti-Doping Code. Jusletter, 1-11.Slide7

Player v. ITF

PROBLEMS

Not communicating with physicianPhysician not specialized in sports medicine

Failure to report current medications at time of test

OUTCOMES

Found Negligent  barred from Article 10.5 (COMING SOON!!)2-year suspension

Forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes (Article 10.7)

SOURCE:

Player

v. International Tennis Federation, 1488 A. (CAS 2008).Slide8

Specified Substances: Applicability

Prohibited List

Ingest drugs on list  be sanctionedLess severe sanctions for substances covered under Article 10.3

How can athletes benefit from reduced sanctions under Article 10.3?

S

ubstance must be specified within Prohibited ListAthlete must show that there was no intent to increase performance (BURDEN ON ATHLETE!!)Athlete must demonstrate how substance entered system

SANCTIONS

 ineligibility periods

CASE SCENARIO

ARTICLE

1

st

Violation

2

nd

Violation

3

rd

Violation

Article 10.2

2 years

lifetime

Article 10.3

0

to 1 years

2 years

lifetimeSlide9

The

Proportionality Principle

“circumstances that are truly exceptional ONLY”

Thank you Articles 10.5.1 and I suppose 10.5.2 EX:

No Fault or

Negligence  2-year ineligibility GONE(Requires Duty of Utmost Caution)

No

Significant

Fault or

Negligence

 2-year ineligibility reduced to 1 year

Negligence

 Tough. Luck.

Will my age or professional situation qualify me to use Article10.5?

REVIEW: If I sustain a gunshot wound and am prescribed medication while hospitalized, does Article 10.5.1 or 10.5.2 apply if I test positive for a drug on the Prohibited Substances List?Slide10

Thompson v. USADA

PROBLEM:

Failure to comply to USADA Whereabouts Policy (Article 2.4)

Must be a nation testing pool athlete

Must violate 3 times within 18 months

CONGRATUATIONS ThompsonOUTCOME:

Minimum 1-year suspension under Article 10.3.3

Now called Article 10.4.3 because suspension can be eliminated completely

Forfeiture of all medals, points, and prizes (Article 10.7)

SOURCE:

Thompson

v. United States Anti-Doping Agency, 12 JENF. (AAA 2012).Slide11

The Whereabouts Controversy

2009 WADC update requires professional athletes to provide exact whereabouts 1 hour per day, 7 days per week

Must be submitted 3 months in advanceEarliest time availability moved from 5:00 AM to 6:00 AM

Bose, M. (2009, February 19).

BBC Sport: Athletes air issues over testing

. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/7892590.stmSlide12

The Case of

Cannabis

15 ng/ml LIMIT (scientifically established)

Recreational use v. performance enhancement

Marijuana as an ergolytic drug

Increased HR + decreased SV = reduced max performanceRespiratory tract infection + bronchitis + lung cancer = less O2 for performanceMarijuana as an ergogenic drugEuphoric effect

Anxiety reduction during performance

SOURCE:

University of Washington Alcohol & Drug Abuse InstituteSlide13

FINAL Comments

Suspected athletes have unsuccessfully argued that the sealed containers used to store and transport doping samples could be opened undetectably

Up to this point, convincing contrary evidence has consistently been presented in answer to these claims…Should WADA concern itself less with whether or not an athlete exercised his/her

duty of utmost caution

and more with whether or not an athlete used prohibited substances

intentionally or not?Has the individual freedom of athletes been compromised too much to promote the right of all professional athletes to participate in doping-free sport? Slide14

Works Cited

Bose

, M. (2009, February 19). BBC Sport: Athletes air issues over testing. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/7892590.

stm

Czarnota

, P. A. (2012). The World Anti-Doping Code, the Athlete’s Duty of “Utmost Caution,” and the Elimination of Cheating. Marquette Sports Law Review, 23, 45-73.McLaren, R. H. (2006). CAS Doping Jurisprudence: What Can We Learn, International Sports Law Review, 1, 4-22.

Niggli, O., & Sieveking, J. (2006). Selected Case Law Rendered Under the World Anti-Doping

Code

.

Jusletter

, 1-11.

Player

v. International Tennis Federation, 1488 A. (CAS 2008).

Thompson v. United States Anti-Doping Agency, 12 JENF. (AAA 2012).

World Anti-Doping Association, (2010).

WADA rules for international federations: Models of best practice

(Version 5.0) World Anti-Doping Association.