Introduction

The illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs that athletes consume for enhancing their capacities for sports competitions is termed as doping. This practice in the field of sports is highly unethical and is taken very strictly. Doping is generally prohibited by most international sports organizations and athletes involving themselves in such practices are sometimes indefinitely banned from participating in events. In the field of sports law, regulations on doping is not an unknown concept. This area of sporting regulation is developing constantly to keep up with technological advancements and other changes. Ever since the monetary value for winning sporting competitions has become more profitable, a few athletes are prepared to put their ethics aside and break the law by involving themselves in such practices. Accordingly, international and national sporting bodies have maintained a stringent approach in making sure that all athletes abide by anti-doping regulations.  

 Background

The Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Court of 1999 clarified that doping can be classified under either of the following categories:

1. Consumption of any prohibited substance, blacklisted by the World Anti Doping Agency (hereafter referred to as WADA) by the athletes which are either detrimental to their health or help in enhancing their performance, or
2. Presence of any prohibited substance, blacklisted by WADA in the athlete’s body, if discovered as per the results of the tests conducted by the competent and concerned authority.
3. Adopting and performing any illegal method which is blacklisted by the World Anti Doping Agency.

The International Olympic Committee: According to the definition approved by the International Olympic Committee (hereafter referred to as IOC) and subsequently the WADA, the act of doping comes under the category of a strict liability offense. Therefore, it can be said that, if any prohibited substance is found in the athlete’s body, he will be held liable, irrespective of how the substance entered his/her body. The principle usually followed to ascertain the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s body is by establishing the presence or absence of such a substance in their bloodstream.   Defenses taken by the athletes if found doping As above mentioned, doping is a strict liability offense. But this does not mean that the athletes have no legal remedy. Such defences can be relied upon to lower or even do away with the suspension period allotted to the athlete for his violation. One of the most popularly used defenses taken up by the athletes is the defense of ‘no fault or negligence’, also known as ‘no significant fault or negligence’. To seek legal remedy under this defense, the athletes need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not consume the illegal or the prohibited substance voluntarily and that the same entered his body through no fault of his own.   To prove this, the athlete needs to demonstrate that even after he carried out all his training exercises with all due diligence and utmost precautions, he had no knowledge and had no doubt on anyone who could have exposed him to the prohibited substance (Stylianou v. FINA, CAS 2003/A/447). The athlete must show that he/she had taken “utmost care and caution” by inquiring and pursuing inquiry concerning the nature and quality of the supplements that he was consuming and in case of any doubt, he had approached his medical examiner and the concerned authority to report the ambiguity. To successfully seek relief under this defense, the athlete needs to ensure that his act of fault or neglect was not due to any ill-will or mala-fide intention and his acts must be analyzed based on the circumstances.   The athlete can also take the defense that the intake was due to negligence on part of the athlete’s coach or physician, but this is neither a sufficient nor a practical defense (Torri Edwards v. IAAF, CAS/OG/ 2004/003). This defense has been unsuccessfully used by the athletes in the last few years, when they were tested positive for the presence of a prohibited substance in their body, by claiming foul play by their coach/physicians in the dietary supplements. For this WADA has a very firm stand and has said that consuming below par dietary supplements cannot be used as a defense in a doping hearing. Athletes are needed to “be aware of the hazards of potential adulteration of supplements and the critical effect of the principle of strict liability.”   Conclusion Doping for enhancing performance, either willfully or otherwise, hampers an athlete’s reputation and career. It also gives rise to serious health complications and even decreases the athlete’s lifespan. All athletes must be educated about the negative impacts of these illegal supplements and drugs and also be trained to identify adulterated health supplements. They should always be vigilant and check for the official seal and stamps that indicate the quality and authenticity of their health supplements. Athletes are responsible, under anti-doping rules, for not taking the necessary precautions to verify their nutritional supplements, medication, and diet.   The NADA should authenticate certain target criteria and steps to conclude what comprises within the term of “utmost care” regarding intake of any supplement. While case laws provide some advice in this regard, athletes and their team staff often don’t have the necessary legal knowledge. Therefore, supplying a document containing information about the various procedures that need to be followed and abided by an athlete before ingesting any product/supplement to ensure that there is ‘no fault or negligence’ on the athlete’s part, will be beneficial.  

–Anish Mahapatra KIIT School of Law

References

1. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/international-standards
2. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/the-prohibited-list
3. https://www.nadaindia.org/upload_file/document/1493557201.pdf
4. https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/defenses-to-negligence-claims.html
5. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/Jusletter_eng.pdf
6. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-torri-edwards-v-international-association of-athletics-federations-iaaf-usa-track-field-usatf-award-saturday-21st-august-2004