Dennis Koolaard – Dennis@mirbar.co.il
A.
General introduction on Doping
B.
General introduction on the WADC
C.
System of the WADC
2
IAAF enacted an anti-doping provision (1928)
Knud Enemark Jensen (1960)
Tommy Simpson (1967)
IOC established list of Prohibited Substances (1968)
Ben Johnson (1988)
Tour de France (1998)
Creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (1999)
First version of WADC was enacted (2003)
Recognition of WADC by UNESCO Convention
(2005)
 Revised WADC enacted (2009)









3

I. Purpose of the WADC

II. Differences between sports

III. Differences between countries
4

The purpose of the World Anti-Doping Code and the
World Anti-Doping Programme which supports it are:
 To protect the Athlete’s fundamental right to participate in
doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and
equality for Athlete’s worldwide, and;
 To ensure harmonised, coordinated and effective anti-
doping programs at the international and national level
with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of
doping.
5

Signatories of the WADC:






The IOC
International Paralympic Committee
All National Olympic Committees
All Olympic International Federations
Almost all International sports-governing bodies
Governments are not signatories:
 In 2005 UNESCO enacted the International Convention
Against Doping in Sport. 139 countries ratified, entered
and/or accepted this Convention, whereby the
Governments expressed their support of the Code.
6

Why would International Federations
implement the WADC?
 Pressure and responsibility because of being the
global governing body of a sport.
 Art. 43 Olympic Charter: “The World Anti-Doping
Code is mandatory for the whole Olympic
Movement.”
7

The WADC sets forth specific anti-doping rules and principles
that are to be followed by Anti-Doping Organizations
 Some provisions are mandatory
 Other provisions only establish mandatory guiding principles

Consequence:
 Not the WADC, but the Anti-Doping Regulations of the National/
International Federation are directly applicable as a lex specialis.
 Differences between sports

Examples:
 Differences in testing pools
 Different appeals procedures
8
International
Federation
FIFA
FIBA
FINA
IAAF
Doping test
conducted by
National Federation
Relevant Tribunal
of National
Federation
Relevant Tribunal
of National
Federation
Relevant Tribunal
of National
Federation
Relevant Tribunal
of National
Federation
Doping test
conducted by
International
Federation
FIFA Disciplinary
Committee
FIBA Disciplinary
Panel
FINA Doping
Panel
Relevant Tribunal
of National
Federation
Internal Appeal
FIFA Appeals’
Committee
Appeals’ Tribunal
of FIBA.
External Appeal
International-level
athletes: CAS.
Others: national
appeals procedure
and possibly CAS.
Internationallevel athletes:
CAS. Others:
national appeals
procedure and
possibly CAS.
Internationallevel athletes:
CAS. Others:
national appeals
procedure and
possibly CAS.
International-level
athletes: CAS.
Others: national
appeals procedure
and possibly CAS.
9

Compliance of national laws with the WADC

Examples:
 Art. 14.3 WADC:
▪ “(…) Athletes in a Registered Testing Pool shall provide accurate,
current location information (art. 11.3.d IST: including temporary
lodgings, hotels, etc.)
 Art. 45.1.c. (Spanish Law)
▪ Although Athletes must provide information regarding their
whereabouts, this information only includes the habitual residence
and the training place of the athlete.
10

I. Burden and Standards of Proof

II. Burden of Proof

III. Standard of Proof

IV. Anti-Doping Rule Violations
11

Art. 3.1 WADA Code:
 “The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of
establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The
standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization
has established an anti- doping rule violation to the comfortable
satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness
of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases
is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the Code places the burden of
proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed
an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish
specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by
a balance of probability, except as provided in Articles 10.4 and
10.6 where the Athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof.”
12

The Burden of Proof:
 As a general principle of law, the party claiming a right on
the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
 “The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of
establishing (…)”
  The Anti-Doping Organisation, except where:
 “(…) the Code places the burden upon the Athlete (…)”
▪ Art. 3.2.1: Departure from the International Standard for
Laboratories
▪ Art. 10.5.1: If the Athlete establishes in an individual case that he or
she bears No Fault or Negligence
▪ Art. 10.5.2: If the Athlete establishes in an individual case that he or
she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence
  The Athlete
13

Beyond any reasonably doubt
 The highest standard of proof used as a burden of proof
and typically only applies in criminal proceedings.

Balance of probabilities
 Common standard in Civil proceedings. “For the Panel to
be satisfied that a fact is demonstrated on a balance of
probability simply means, in percentage terms, that it is
satisfied that there is a 51% chance of it having occurred.”

Comfortable satisfaction
 “(…) in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability
but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
14

Anti-Doping Organization:
 Comfortable Satisfaction

Athlete :
 Balance of probability
15

Violations:
 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or







Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited
Method
Refusing to submit to Sample collection
Violation of Out-of-Competition Testing
Tampering of Doping Control
Possession of Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods
Trafficking or Attempted trafficking of any Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method
Administration, assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting,
covering up or any other type of complicity
16

Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its
Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
 Strict liability principle:
▪ “(…) Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance (…)
found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not
necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the
Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping
rule violation under Article 2.1.”
▪ “Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is
established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited
Substance (…) in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athelete
waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed;
or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of
the B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance
(…) found in the Athlete’s A Sample.”
17

Prohibited & Specified substances:
 “There is a greater likelihood that Specified Substances, as opposed to other
Prohibited Substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non-doping
explanation.”
 All Prohibited Substances shall be considered as “Specified Substances” except
Substances in classes S1, S2.1 to S2.5, S.4.4 and S6.a, and Prohibited Methods
M1, M2 and M3.
 Examples:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Testosterone: Prohibited substance
Furosemide: Specified substance
Ephedrine: Specified substance, only if threshold is reached
Cocaine, Cannabis: Prohibited substance, only prohibited in competition
Alcohol: Prohibited substance, only in particular sports and if threshold is reached
18

Specified substance:
▪ 1. Establish how the substance entered the body
▪ 2. Establish that it was not intended to enhance sporting performance
▪ Established?  Sanction:
▪ Minimum: Reprimand
▪ Maximum: Two year period of Ineligibility

Prohibited substance:
 No Fault or Negligence
▪ 1. Establish how the substance entered the body
▪ 2. Establish that the Athlete bears No Fault or Negligence
▪ Established?  Sanction eliminated
 No Significant Fault or Negligence
▪ 1. Establish how the substance entered the body
▪ 2. Establish that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence
▪ Established? Sanction:
▪ Minimum: 1 year period of ineligibility
▪ Maximum: 2 year period of ineligibility
19