Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cocaine, doping and the court of arbitration for sport

  • Article
  • Published:
The International Sports Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cocaine is one of the most widely consumed drugs in the world. Not so surprisingly, it is also one of the most often detected stimulants by anti-doping authorities. But cocaine poses serious difficulties to sporting tribunals, as it challenges the legal boundaries of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) drafted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Should it still be considered as doping, when cocaine cannot enhance an athlete’s performance? Are there any legal mechanisms in place to take in account the specific context that has lead to the contamination of an athlete? More generally, how is the sporting justice, and especially the Court of Arbitration for sport (CAS), dealing with cocaine cases? In order to tackle these questions, Sect. 1 will introduce the WADC 2009 rules. Thereafter, I will review the case law of the CAS on cocaine in Sect. 2 and draw some conclusions on the strict interpretation by CAS of the WADC in Sect. 3. The new WADC 2015 and its potential repercussions in the context of cocaine cases will be discussed in Sect. 4. I will conclude by urging the CAS to make a long-overdue interpretative turn in anti-doping cases, leaving more room for contextual analysis and flexibility in the enforcement stage of the WADC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Foschi (2006), p. 476.

  2. CAS 2013/A/3170, Omar Pinzon v. Federacion Colombiana de Natacion.

  3. On the questions raised by the testing of recreational drugs see Parry (2006), p. 287.

  4. Specified substances, as defined by art. 4.2 WADC 2009, are subjected to a specific anti-doping regime. In particular, concerning sanctions, art.10.4 WADC 2009 is applicable.

  5. CAS 2004/A/690, para. 21.

  6. id, para.23.

  7. id, para. 28.

  8. id, para. 33–47.

  9. id, para. 48–55.

  10. CAS 2006/A/1130.

  11. id, para. 39.

  12. id, para. 45.

  13. id, para. 51.

  14. CAS 2007/A/1312.

  15. id, §157.

  16. id, §159.

  17. id, §160.

  18. id, §160.

  19. CAS 2007/A/1364.

  20. id, para. §4.10.

  21. id, para. §7.8.

  22. id, para. §7.11.

  23. CAS 2008/A/1479.

  24. id, para. 46.

  25. id, para. 53.

  26. CAS 2008/A/1515.

  27. id, para. 119.

  28. id, para. 122.

  29. id, para. 125.

  30. Idem.

  31. Idem.

  32. CAS 2008/A/1516.

  33. id, para. 6.2.

  34. id, para. 6.7.

  35. CAS 2009/A/1926 & 1930.

  36. id, para. 29–48.

  37. id, para. 34.

  38. id, para. 36–40.

  39. id, para. 45.

  40. id, para. 46.

  41. id, para. 47.

  42. id, para. 48.

  43. id, para. 53.

  44. id, para. 54.

  45. id, para. 55.

  46. CAS 2009/A/2012.

  47. id, para. 26.

  48. id, para. 29.

  49. id, para. 31.

  50. id, para. 32.

  51. CAS 2010/A/2062.

  52. CAS 2011/A/2307.

  53. id, para. 132.

  54. id, para. 140.

  55. id, para. 157.

  56. id, para. 166.

  57. id, para. 167.

  58. On the need to focus on cheats, Czarnota (2013) and Hard (2010), p. 562.

  59. On strict liability see favoring it Rigozzi et al. (2003), p. 51–52 and McLaren (2006), critical Goldstone (2006).

  60. See above discussion on the WADC 2009 Article 10.4 and 10.5.

  61. Hard (2010), p. 554 and Czarnota (2013), p. 57–62.

  62. CAS 2013/A/3170, Omar Pinzon v. Federacion Colombiana de Natacion.

  63. See for example the Daubney case, CAS 2008/A/1515.

  64. Rigozzi et al. (2013), Rz 90-91 and Rz 122–127.

  65. Article 10 2.1.1 WADC 2015.

  66. Article 10.2.3 WADC 2015.

  67. On the subtleties of the new intentional criteria, see Rigozzi et al. (2014), Rz10-16.

  68. Article 10.4 WADC 2015.

  69. Arguing in favour of such a shift and tracking closely the textual evolution, see Rigozzi et al. (2013), Rz 136–139.

  70. WADA seems to be building a surveillance apparatus very much in line with the institutions depicted by Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish. Such a parallel is also drawn by Kreft (2009) and Burke and Hallinan (2008).

  71. Hard (2010), p. 535.

  72. Bodin and Sempé (2012).

  73. ‘Study Revealing Doping in Track Strikes Hurdle’, New York Times, 24 August 2013.

  74. ‘Il y a beaucoup plus de dopés que de sanctionnés’, interview with J. Fahey, in Le Monde, 12 November 2013; see also the Report to WADA Executive Committee on Lack of effectiveness of Testing Programs (2013) at http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/Reports-Assessments/2013-05-12-Lack-of-effectiveness-of-testing-WG-Report-Final.pdf.

  75. See the report to the European Commission by KPMG and ASSER Instituut, ‘Aren’t we all positive’—A (socio) economic analysis of doping in elite sport, 2002 (on file with the author).

  76. Advocating a move from ‘penal-led’ system to a soft or libertarian paternalism see Anderson (2013).

  77. On the role of culture in doping see Nafziger (2011).

  78. Hemphill (2009), p. 320.

  79. Here we side with McNamee (2007) and Corlett (2013).

  80. Despite calls for reform, see Czarnota (2013), p. 68.

  81. For a similar view, see Rigozzi et al. (2013), at Rz 136–139.

  82. We agree with Kornbeck when he states “that the best way to support the fight is to make it more democratic, transparent and inherently just to athletes.” Kornbeck (2013), p. 315. See also Foschi (2006), p. 485.

  83. Straubel (2002), p. 572.

  84. See the recent decision by the LG München, contesting the validity of arbitration clauses imposed on athletes in the framework of the fight against doping. Ruling from the 26 February 2014, 37 O 28331/12, available at http://openjur.de/u/678775.html.

  85. For some examples from the Court of Justice of the EU see Case C-519/04 P, David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities, [2006], ECR I-06991 and Case C-269/12 P, Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc, Judgement of 20 June, Not yet published; and from the European Court of Human Rights, ECtHR, Claudia Pechtein v. Switzerland, Appl. No. 67474/10, Pending.

  86. Indeed, “If anti-doping laws are seen as arbitrary, hypocritical, and over-inclusive they will lose credibility, thus making the burden they place on athletes questionable.” Hard (2010), p. 534.

References

  • Anderson J (2013) Doping, sport and the law : time for repeal of prohibition ? Int J Law Context 9(2):135–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin D, Sempé G (2012) Faut-il légaliser le dopage ? Revue du MAUSS 40:321–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke M, Hallinan C (2008) Drugs, sport, anxiety and foucauldian governmentality. Sport Eth Philos 2(1):39–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corlett JA (2013) Doping: just do it? Sport Eth Philos 7(4):430–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnota PA (2013) The world anti-doping code, the athlete’s duty of « Utmost Caution, » and the elimination of cheating. Marquette Sports Law Rev 23:45

    Google Scholar 

  • Foschi JK (2006) A constant battle: the evolving challenges in the international fight against doping in sport. Duke J Comp Int Law 16:457

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1995) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books, New York

  • Goldstone A (2006) Obstruction of justice: the arbitration process for anti-doping violations during the Olympic games. Cardozo J Confl Resolut 7:361

    Google Scholar 

  • Hard M (2010) Caught in the net: athletes’ rights and the World Anti-Doping Agency, 19. South Calif Interdiscip Law J 19:533

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill D (2009) Performance enhancement and drug control in sport: ethical considerations. Sport Soc Cult Comm Media Politic 12(3):313–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornbeck J (2013) The naked spirit of sport: a framework for revisiting the system of bans and justifications in the world anti-doping code. Sport Eth Philos 7(3):313–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreft L (2009) The elite athlete: in a state of exception? Sport Eth Philos 3(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren RH (2006) CAS doping jurisprudence: what can we learn? Int Sports Law Rev (1):4–22

  • McNamee M (2007) Doping in sports: old problem. New Faces Sport Eth Philos 1(3):263–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nafziger JAR (2011) The influence of cultural variables on the international regime to combat doping in sport. Southwest J Int Law 18:295–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry J (2006) Doping in the UK: Alain and Dwain, Rio and Greg. Not Guilty?, Sport in society: cultures, commerce, media, politics, 9:2, 269–296, at 287

  • Rigozzi A, Kaufmann-Kohler G, Malinverni G (2003) Doping and fundamental rights of athletes: comments in the wake of the adoption of the world anti-doping code. Int Sport Law Rev 2003:39–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E (2013) Does the world anti-doping code revision live up to its promises? Jusletter, 11 Nov 2013

  • Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E (2014) Latest changes to the 2015 WADA code: fairer, smarter, clearer… and not quite finished. Jusletter, 20 Jan 2014

  • Straubel S (2002) Doping due process: a critique of the doping control process in international sport. Dickinson Law Rev 106:523

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ASSER Instituut, R.J. Schimmelpennincklaan 20-22, 2517 JN, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Antoine Duval

Authors
  1. Antoine Duval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antoine Duval.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duval, A. Cocaine, doping and the court of arbitration for sport. Int Sports Law J 15, 55–63 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-014-0063-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-014-0063-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation