The post War on Doping in Sport: 2027 updates to the World Anti-Doping Code appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

Sports lawyer Paul Horvath explains that the policy is welfare‑focused, voluntary, and distinct from performance‑enhancing drug rules. He says strict privacy and confidentiality obligations apply, with information shared only on a need‑to‑know basis to support player rehabilitation. As a result, club doctors and senior administrators may be informed, but coaches are not, unless it relates to player availability.

The post Paul Horvath on 3AW with Tom Elliot about the AFL’s newly finalised illicit drugs policy appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

Australia Anti-Doping Processes: Balancing a Level Playing Field Against Unintentional OffencesRead More »

The post Australia Anti-Doping Processes: Balancing a Level Playing Field Against Unintentional Offences appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

You can find Case In Point in all of the podcast apps:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• iHeart
• Player.FM

The post Doping in Sport Podcast: The Shayna Jack case appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

This interview is part of the Best of ABC sport podcast and can be found on this website:

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/best-of-abc-sport-podcast/tennis-paul-horvath-on-jannik-sinner/104943200

The post Paul Horvath speaks on ABC Sport Podcast about the Jannik Sinner doping case appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

It is not uncommon for some athletes to try to work around the risk of doping charges by doping outside of competition time. A typical scenario is that an athlete might travel to other countries for a ‘doping holiday’ and a belief that, whether abroad or at home, if it is done outside of competition time, the risk of getting caught out is minimal. The usual motive is to see if doping can push them to the next level of competition. It could also be used to enhance and speed-up injury recovery. A ‘just this one time’ mindset. However, often the things we promise ourselves and reality, diverge. Regardless, even if it is just one time, this does not eliminate the risks, or absolve the crime.

Sub-elite athletes would usually not expect to be caught out. They are unlikely to be part of any kind of formal testing pool, and therefore would not usually be tested outside-of-competition, and probably will not be tested in competition either. 

This mindset coupled with evidence of being able to overcome any possible consequences is particularly problematic if you are a coach, support staff or on the board of a sub-elite sporting organisation. Why? Because the consequences of a doping charge are not limited only to the athlete themselves. Doping activities can generate consequences for your club more broadly, as we will explore.

With athletes acutely alert to issues like age and time against them, and with consequences of doping potentially seen by some as a temporary issue in the quest to reach elite competition, clubs and organisations like yours face a real challenge. 

This article has been written to help you, in whatever role you hold in your club, league or organisation, to get up to speed with the new ways in which doping can be discovered and what to do to avoid the consequences that only one doping charge can bring.

The Unassumed Risk

Many sub-elite athletes may believe they only run the risk of being discovered if they are doping around competition time, or that because they are only at the sub-elite level and unlikely to be tested, they may believe there is no risk of being caught. This is probably because they have not heard about this landmark case from New Zealand.

The case, referred to as the ‘Athlete XYZ’ case, relates to a volunteer and participant in social inter-club golf and masters competitions in lifesaving. Athlete XYZ, whose name was suppressed by the tribunal given his recreational status, ordered and paid online for clenbuterol and Dianabol (anabolic agents) in 2014. XYZ said he purchased the products for weight loss rather than for performance benefits. 

But it wasn’t through testing that his activities were revealed. Before anything came to light about Athlete XYZ, it was the seller of these products that was first of interest. He was one of many operators under investigation that led to New Zealand’s largest black market steroids bust.

By 2015 they had managed to halt the operation of a number of operators. Medsafe, the national regulator of therapeutic goods, along with other government agencies including Customs, NZ Police and the national anti-doping agency, have an information-sharing agreement. It was part of this inter-agency sharing that emails and customer databases were reviewed and subsequently led to a number of investigations into sportsmen and women at all levels of sport, through reviewing the names against athletes registered with different sporting organisations.

While there is quite a lot of complexity to the Athlete XYZ case and others connected to these busts, there was much criticism about why the agency followed through with their investigations to the lower levels of sport. However, the fact remains that the discovery of this activity, by way of an electronic database is of international significance for athletes and sporting organisations. The digital trail is yet another means to the discovery of prohibited behaviours in sport. If a recreational athlete with no aspirations to compete at the elite level can be caught out in this way, then there is no reason why a sub-elite athlete aspiring to reach the elite level could not also be discovered cheating in a similar manner. 

Additionally, this case took some five years to conclude after appeals. No athlete can lose this amount of time and no sporting organisation wants to see their name associated with these issues for years in the media. We have had similar cases where a medical practitioner prescribing banned substances has sparked a broad multi-sport investigation, and other cases where ordering products from overseas that are detected through customs bring about an investigation and led to prosecutions. 

Doping

Doping refers to the use of any drug that can improve the athlete’s performance. 

Doping includes Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs (PEIDs), which are commonly used to enhance muscle growth or reduce body fat. PEIDs include anabolic steroids, androstenedione, human growth hormone (HGH), diuretics, anti-estrogens, and even something as familiar as creatine or stimulants used in cold medicines. Even some contaminated meats contain clenbuterol (steroid), and certain sports drinks and gels can also be problematic. In some cases, the use of a drug classified as performance enhancing might not be known and becomes introduced to the body through something eaten or via medical treatment.

Doping Offences and Defences

As you may well know, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code applies to athletes at the sub-elite and community levels when an anti-doping organisation (e.g. Sport Integrity Australia – SIA) elects to apply the code to athletes. For the majority of sports in Australia, this is the case. 

In applying the WADA code, under the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy, the penalties for sub-elite and community athletes may be the same as for elite athletes competing at the national or international level. In order to understand the WADA Code and its application to Australian sport, it is important to understand a number of definitions, because they can determine how an athlete who commits an anti-doping violation may be treated. 

An ‘Athlete’ for the purposes of the WADA Code is any person competing at sport at an international level or the national level, but depending upon the approach of the National Anti-Doping Association (SIA in Australia), it may also include other individuals (as is the case in Australia). In Australia, athletes who are not a National-Level Athlete, or part of a SIA Registered Testing Pool or Domestic Testing Pool, but are also not a ‘Recreational Athlete’ will be classed as a ‘Lower-Level Athlete’, pursuant to the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy. 

A ‘Recreational Athlete’ is defined under the Australian Doping Policy as a person who engages or participates in sport or fitness activities for recreational purposes (although a range of exceptions applies to this under the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy). 

A Protected Person is defined in the WADA Code to include an athlete who is: 

• under 16 years of age; or 
• under 18 years of age and 
  • who is not included in a Registered Testing Pool; and 
  • who has not competed in an International Event in open competition. 

A Lower-Level Athlete in Australia who commits a non-presence anti-doping offence such as use, attempted use or possession of a prohibited substance or method may receive a reduced penalty depending on their degree of fault and other circumstances. However, penalties will be applied in the same way to Lower-Level Athletes who: 

• are found to have a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in their sample; 
• have evaded, refused or failed to submit a sample; or 
• have tampered or attempted to tamper with a sample. 

In cases where the offence is not a substance of abuse and fault or negligence is insignificant, the sentence may be reduced for someone classified as a ‘Recreational Athlete’ or ‘Protected Person’. Recreational athletes and Protected Persons are not held to the same standard of proving exactly how a substance entered their body if they are arguing no fault or negligence. Additionally, violations of the rules on tampering, evading, refusing, or failing to submit to sample collection have lower sanctions for anyone considered a ‘Recreational Athlete’ (as compared to a Lower-Level Athlete). 

However, for most sub-elite athletes competing in sport within Australia, if they are not a minor (and therefore potentially classed as ‘Protected Person’), they would likely fall within the meaning of a Lower-Level Athlete or a National Level Athlete, and therefore would be held to the higher standard of proof. Therefore the consequences of prosecution of a sub-elite athlete can be very serious.

But, just how likely is there a risk of doping charges for your sub-elite athletes?

Increased Scrutiny

The majority of sub-elite athletes wouldn’t normally expect testing at their level of play, but testing is now occurring at a greater frequency. As SIA has become aware of a greater prevalence of doping in sub-elite sports, it has upped its vigilance, creating significant risk for your athletes and your club for even inadvertent use.

Sanctions

With the increased scrutiny from SIA, both athletes and clubs need to understand the consequences as defined by WADA and the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy. For example, athletes can be ruled ineligible for four years when a specific substance or a specified method is involved or is present, and it can be established that the violation was intentional.

Each violation type has a specified ineligibility term, with most recommending two or four years. For violations such as administering (or attempting to administer) a prohibited substance to an athlete, or complicity (or attempted complicity), the penalties can extend to lifetime ineligibility. This could affect a coach or sports administrator that assists an athlete to dope.

Cases ruled ‘no fault’ or ‘negligence’ could see the period of ineligibility eliminated. When no significant fault or negligence is ruled, sanctions may be able to be reduced. However, the goal is to avoid these issues to begin with.

Consequences for Feeder Clubs

Doping sanctions never impact just the athlete. Your club can suffer both culturally and financially. The most common issue, particularly in team sports, is the loss of an athlete during their period of ineligibility. The temporary loss of a team member can be impactful on a team, but where there are cheating allegations, there can also be disharmony. The culture of your club or organisation can be significantly impacted in both the short and long term by just one allegation or offence.

Reputational risk is one of the most critical considerations for clubs due to the lasting damage it can cause. The degree of that damage is highly dependent on the amount and severity of violations across a range of areas in a club’s history. We have seen issues like these lead to loss of club or fan support. It is likely to impact upon any sponsorship arrangements, as very few organisations will want to be associated with cheating. Doping suspensions or allegations may also reduce the organisation’s appeal for incoming athletes, impacting your ability to attract your choice of athletes, as can be seen in the case of Gabriela DeBues-Stafford, who left the prestigious Bowerman Track Club due to the doping suspension of an athlete at the club.

And, where the violation involves one of your coaches or support staff, the sanctions can be amplified tremendously, leading to team bans, sanctions on athletes associated with that coach or staff member, and a very considerable reputational impact. One athlete’s doping can be harmful, but an instance of an assumed conspiracy or trafficking within the club can result in heightened media attention that could potentially take years to repair.

Preventative Action

The most impactful thing your sporting organisation can do to prevent doping and its detrimental impacts is through the proactive education of coaches, staff, and your athletes about the risks, sanctions, and what constitutes doping. Your athletes should know their rights and their responsibilities, and the risks of intentional and unintentional doping associated with using supplements.

Doping education needs to be regular, scheduled and proactive. It should stem from your anti-doping policy, which should be up to date, comprehensive, easy to read and referenced with appropriate frequency.

Management should be clear that it is their responsibility to investigate even the slightest hint of a concern, including rumours. When individuals in management are clear about their obligations this can go a long way in minimising risk and preserving your organisation’s current good position and reputation.

As you know, doping can happen inadvertently, just through the use of store-bought supplements. Regularly educating athletes about your policy and risks of such supplements and how to/the need to check against the list of banned substances or seek the advice of experts helps mitigate your athletes’ and club’s risk. And, as the Athlete XYZ case highlights, educating athletes that the digital trail, whether it be theirs or someone they know, may lead to prosecution, should be a deterrent.

While knowledge of banned substances is technically the athlete’s responsibility, it is in the best interests of your organisation to take initiative on these fronts, especially at the sub-elite level where athletes may be balancing study or work commitments and may not have the time to educate themselves in the same way that a professional elite athlete might. This includes providing insights into considerations for medications when travelling overseas during holiday periods. It may also involve coaches being aware of potential signs of doping, including unexplained and rapid improvements in performance. A little consistent effort to ensure your policy is up to date and you educate your athletes signals your organisation’s commitment to ensuring doping doesn’t happen can make all the difference.

Article by Alexandria Anthony

Related Articles: Sport Leadership and Management | What to do when an athlete is charged with doping offences

Our team specialises in working with sporting organisations of all sizes, across all capital cities and regions of Australia. We focus on managing and minimising your risk, so you can focus on your sport. To enquire about our services, fill in this form or call our office on (03) 9642 0435.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this article should be relied upon as legal advice. The contents of this article should be regarded as information only, and for specific legal matters, independent advice should always be sought. Please contact Paul Horvath on info@sportslawyer.com.au or phone (03) 9642 0435 to discuss any matter or to arrange an appointment.

The post Doping to Win: The Risks for Feeder Clubs and Their Athletes appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

However, there are other anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) that are less well known. In many cases, the athletes charged with, or found guilty of, breaching these rules may not have had any contact with prohibited substances at all. That is what makes these ADRVs so unique. These ADRVs include:

1. whereabouts failures;
2. prohibited association;
3. evading, refusing, or failing to submit to sample collection; and
4. discouraging and retaliating against others for reporting to anti-doping authorities.

This article provides an overview of these lesser-known ADRVs, and discusses some strategies that sports organisations and athletes can use to avoid breaching them.

Whereabouts Failures

Recently, top 50 male tennis player Mikael Ymer was suspended for 18 months after the International Tennis Federation accused him of committing breaches of his whereabouts obligations. Under the WADA Code, athletes in a Registered Testing Pool or National Testing Pool must be available for testing at a given location during an allotted period of time. If they miss a test because they failed to make themselves available at the specified location and time, they will commit an ADRV.

These athletes are required to provide their whereabouts information in advance on a quarterly basis each year. They must keep this information updated throughout those quarters. For each day of a quarter, an athlete will be required to schedule an allotted period of 60 minutes during which they must be available for testing at a specified location the athlete nominates. The specific location nominated by the athlete must be readily accessible to Doping Control Officers, with accurate details provided to them so that they can locate the athlete.

If an athlete fails to be available for testing at the specified location during the allotted period of time on any given date, they will be given a warning for the first two times it happens in any given year. If it occurs for a third time in a year, then this will be considered an ADRV and the athlete may be sanctioned by their sport. Generally, the maximum penalty imposed by a sports body for a whereabouts failure is two years. However, there have been cases where the sports body has imposed longer suspensions for such breaches.

A further recent example of whereabouts failures is the case of Stéphane Houdet v. International Tennis Federation (CAS 2022/A/9031). In this case, wheelchair tennis champion Stephane Houdet was found to have committed three whereabouts failures over a period of twelve months. Houdet argued that he was not at fault for two of the three whereabouts failures:

1. On one occasion, Houdet provided his whereabouts information as his home address in Paris, and his allotted time as being between 10.00pm and 11.00pm. However, he was in fact in Costa Rica at the time. Houdet tried to change his whereabouts information by accessing his Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) portal. The portal required Houdet to input a two-factor verification code which would be provided to him via text message. Unfortunately for Houdet, while he had WI-FI access, he did not have mobile service. Consequently, he could not receive the verification code and so he believed he could not change his whereabouts information.
2. On the other occasion, Houdet provided his whereabouts information as his home address between the times of 10.00pm and 11.00pm. Houdet was home at the time, but did not hear the Doping Control Officer ring his doorbell. He alleged that the doorbell was either malfunctioning so it did not ring, or it was ringing at a reduced volume. He provided that as the reason why he did not hear it.

Houdet argued that he was not guilty of the two instances of whereabouts failures. However, he was eventually suspended from tennis for 15 months.

On the first occasion, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) held that Houdet should have emailed the changes to his whereabouts information given that he had Wi-Fi access. The email sent to him by tennis doping authorities had provided him with an email address to contact should he require assistance.

On the second occasion, CAS found that it was possible for Houdet to hear the doorbell when the Doping Control Officer rang it. Further, the officer also attempted to call Houdet’s phone in the last five minutes of the allotted time, but Houdet did not hear the calls as his phone was on silent. This and the fact that Houdet admitted to being in his room, with the television on that he was probably dozing on and off in that period meant that he was presumed negligent in his conduct and that the officer had taken reasonable steps to contact him. CAS rejected Houdet’s argument that the officer was required to contact his neighbours to provide the officer with access to the building, stating that it was not reasonable to expect that officer to do this given the time of day of his allotted time.

The Houdet case demonstrates that whereabout failures can be judged quite harshly, and could be considered burdensome on athletes as they must continually ensure they provide (and are able to provide) updated information to doping control authorities. They must also make themselves available for testing at their specified location at the allotted time in the vast majority of circumstances – even if some circumstances are outside of the athlete’s control.

For sports organisations, we recommend that it provides all athletes with relevant education on the WADA Code. This is important so that athletes know and understand their obligations with regards to doping protocols. Education may come in the form of seminar, and quizzes which athletes are required to pass in order to be allowed to participate in the sport.

Likewise, sports bodies can introduce training for athletes to help them establish processes to ensure they provide ongoing and accurate whereabouts information to doping authorities. The training can involve a discussion of relevant strategies for the athletes to heed so that they do not breach their whereabouts obligations. Possible strategies could be for the athletes to set relevant reminders or alarms on their phone or smart devices to update their whereabouts information on a quarterly basis or to be at a specified destination at a particular period of time. Athletes could also ensure that they keep their phone ringtone on to ensure that they can hear and are available to take a call from a Doping Control Officer at their allotted time.

Prohibited Association

In 2015, the WADA Code was amended to introduce an ADRV for circumstances where an athlete associated themselves with a prohibited athlete support person.

A prohibited athlete support person can be any person who works with, treats or assists an athlete in their preparation or participation in a sports competition. This includes, but is not limited to, a coach, manager, team staff member, doctor, or the athlete’s parent. Generally, an athlete support person may be placed on a list of prohibited persons if they have been suspended for an ADRV, or they have committed a criminal offence which could otherwise be deemed a breach of the WADA Code. For example, as of September 2023, Stephen Dank is on the list of prohibited athlete support persons. Mr Dank was the sports scientist at the centre of the Australian rules football drug scandal at the Essendon Football Club, in which he allegedly devised the program for injecting the athletes with a prohibited substance.

In order to establish that an athlete has committed an ADRV, the anti-doping authority must prove that the athlete knew that the athlete support person was in fact a prohibited person. Once the anti-doping authority proves this, it is up to the athlete to prove that any association was not professional or sport-related. For example, in 2018, two New Zealand weightlifters were threatened with a two-year suspension if they attended training clinics run by Sonny Webster, a weightlifter who had been suspended for four years for testing positive to the prohibited substance ostarine, while Webster’s ban was increased by a further three years for coaching while suspended.

Like all other doping violations, sports bodies can prevent their athletes from breaching prohibited association provisions of the WADA Code by providing adequate training so that athletes become aware of their obligations. Sports bodies should ensure that the athletes are aware of the list of prohibited persons on the WADA website and provide them with a hyperlink on where they can access this list. Furthermore, sports bodies should also provide athletes with periodic updates when new persons are added to the list. This will give the athletes an improved suite of tools to help prevent a breach of these obligations.

Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection

It is an ADRV for an athlete to evade a doping test, or refuse or fail to submit a sample for testing. The maximum penalty for an ADRV relating to this is the same as that which could be applied if the athlete submitted a sample containing a prohibited substance.

There are many circumstances in which an athlete could commit an ADRV. Probably the most famous case of this is Sun Yang of China, who in 2020 was found guilty of refusing to give a sample and tampering with a doping control test. He was initially given an eight-year ban, but following an appeal in 2021 and re-trial this was reduced to four years and three months (see CAS 2019/A/6148 WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA). He is unlikely to return to swimming at the top level given the length of the ban.

One less well-known example is illustrated by the case of Sarah Klein v Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Athletics Australia (CAS A4/2016). In that case, Australian long distance runner Sarah Klein was in a hurry to get to the Hobart airport for a flight to Melbourne. Klein was at the Domain Athletics Centre, and intending to leave for the airport after finishing the event she was competing in, when she was asked to provide a sample for testing. Klein was initially willing to provide a sample for collection. First, she suggested that the Doping Control Officer accompany her to the airport where she would provide the sample. However, when this request was refused, she went to the toilet to provide the sample. However, she was unable to produce a sufficient sample for testing purposes. She again desperately urged the Doping Control Officers to accompany her to the airport where she would provide the sample. The Doping Control Officers explained to her that they could not do that, urged her to provide the sample several times, and warned her that she could be committing an ADRV if she failed to provide a sample. However, Klein eventually left for the airport without providing a sample. CAS found that Klein had committed an ADRV in these circumstances because she had left the doping control station and failed to provide a sufficient sample for testing. Klein was initially in line for a maximum penalty of a four-year ban, but this was reduced to two years after an expensive legal battle in CAS. She has since returned to the sport, running the marathon for Australia at the World Championships in 2022 and 2023.

Sports bodies should ensure that their athletes are educated on their obligations in providing sample collections in any situation where required to do so by the WADA Code, and the strict liability application of those rules that can lead to harsh penalties. They can provide training on strategies for athletes to avoid breaching these provisions. A possible strategy could be using alarms and/or a diary to ensure that they will be at any scheduled events on time, and allowing for any leeway with travel which may need to be given in case a Doping Control Officer requires a test before or after the scheduled event.

National Sports Body staff should also regularly remind athletes of these duties and audit or check in on recent compliance.

Reporting Protections (Discouraging and Retaliating)

In 2021, WADA introduced a new ADRV into the WADA Code. A person will now commit an ADRV if they discourage or retaliate against another person for reporting information regarding doping activities.

As of the date of this article, there have been no breaches of these new provisions. However, a possible example would be Athlete A’s coach making threats of violence against Athlete B after the coach finds out that Athlete B witnessed Athlete A injecting an unknown substance and wants to report this to the national sports body.

If or when these breaches are subject of a real case, more light would be shed on how sports bodies can best deal with such breaches. However, education courses for athletes and officials about ADRVs and the consequences of breaching them would be important as an obvious preventative measure against breaches.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this article should be relied upon as legal advice. The contents of this article should be regarded as information only, and for specific legal matters, independent advice should always be sought.

The post The Lesser Known Anti-Doping Rule Violations: Breaches Not (Necessarily) Involving Prohibited Substances appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

The post Sporting Clubs and organisations – what you need to know about doping appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

No sporting club, league, organisation or association is immune to their athletes engaging in doping. 

This article explores what to do in the event one of your athletes is charged with doping offences. We also explore the broad range of consequences that can ensue, and what to do now to proactively minimise the risk in your sporting environment.

What to do first

If an athlete in your community is charged with doping offences, management or board members will need to meet urgently to determine their obligations and next steps.

Whether you are involved in the operations of an association or club, league or other sporting organisation, professional or amateur, there will be a number of issues and stakeholders to consider:

• The attention this charge brings to your organisation 
• The impact on the reputation and integrity of your sport/organisation
• Sponsor liaison and relations
• The welfare of the athlete charged with the doping offence/s
• The welfare of fellow athletes
• Coaches, trainers and other support staff; and
• Your broader membership community

Your leadership team will need to ensure that all elements of this charge have been effectively managed.

How you treat the athlete in question during this time, and manage the subsequent effects this charge has put on their fellow athletes, is vital. Equally important is striking a balance that your sport/organisation isn’t perceived to be supporting an alleged “cheat”. Because, as you will be aware, unlike criminal charges, being charged with doping offences generally brings a presumption of guilt.

Before representatives take any action, legal advice should be sought. Any decision making must be made in consultation with a specialist who can advise on the potential legal consequences of any proposed actions.

As specialists in both sports law and employment law, our first steps in situations like this are to review your anti-doping policy, and review any contract you have with the athlete. We also work with other experts to provide you advice about which proposed actions you can move forward with, and identify where you may be at risk. 

Taking action without legal advice often creates additional issues, so to be confident about your next steps, consult a specialist lawyer.

Is there a real risk of doping in your organisation?

In Australia last year (2021), there were a number of sports and athletes involved in breaches of anti-doping rules, resulting in a variety of disciplinary outcomes. Here is a breakdown of the breaches, by sport and the number of athletes:

Violations by Sport 

(with number of athletes sanctioned)

Weightlifting/Powerlifting – 12

Cycling/BMX/Mountain biking – 5       

Rugby League – 5

Rugby Union – 3

Triathlon – 3

Bodybuilding – 2

Australian Rules Football – 2

Soccer – 2

Athletics – 1

Motor Sport – 1

Basketball – 1

Rowing – 1

Source: Sport Integrity Australia (as of 14 February 2022)

These numbers don’t take into account the number of athletes who were investigated and subsequently cleared, or successfully appealed the initial findings of the relevant governing body. As a one-year snapshot, it also doesn’t take into account the sanctions issued in recent years, across other sports. The desire to perform at your best is inherent in every athlete, and at times this may require taking calculated risks, so no sport, team, league or association is immune to this issue. At times, some athletes take greater risks. Doping offences may also occur unintentionally through the use of a tainted supplement, not properly labelled with its contents. 

In our work advising clubs, leagues and competitions, both professional and amateur, we see first-hand the impacts of doping charges. The financial and reputational consequences can be significant and long-term. Not only does a single case take a toll on the athlete charged, but also coaching staff, board members and management, who have to deal with the complexities that a doping charge brings to the whole community or organisation.

However, there is good news…

Having the integrity of your club, league, organisation or association called into question is avoidable.

The considerable financial costs that come with managing the fallout, are also avoidable.

Managing the risks

To reduce the risks, you will need the following:

1. An anti-doping policy that is up-to-date, comprehensive, and easy to read
2. An anti-doping policy education plan and rollout, ensuring a positive culture regarding doping; and
3. Management to take responsibility and actively investigate issues of concern, including rumours about doping.   

While the legal issues around anti-doping can be complex, the policy must make sense to everyone it applies to. We are consistently surprised, when we are sought to review and update policies like these, how confusing they can be. And no anti-doping policy can be retrospectively considered sufficient if it can be proven that the people it applies to weren’t sufficiently informed and updated about it.

Additionally, as we learned from representing the major parties in the Essendon supplements saga, these risks are best managed when all role holders hold each other to account. Full information about any supplements or medication courses used, or to be used, need to be distributed to athletes and their support personnel (coaches, doctors, physiotherapists). Consultation with Sport Integrity Australia as to any supplement or medication is strongly advisable, with detailed records of such conversations kept. If in doubt, advise athletes not to use any medication or supplement. Medical Practitioners trained in and knowledgeable about the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA) Prohibited List only should be consulted before any medication or supplement is used. This includes for medical conditions such as asthma, hair loss etc.  

When one or more athletes are under investigation, as history tells us, this can bring the integrity of other athletes, management, your organisation, and the sport, into question. When faced with these challenges, you will require specialist, straightforward advice and experienced professionals to represent your organisation when called before a tribunal.

Seeking specialist advice

When seeking a lawyer about a matter like this, before providing advice, they should ask you some specific questions. In addition to asking to be brought up to speed on the situation, they should seek to understand specific concerns or sensitivities that may exist in relation to stakeholders and sponsors.

They should also be aware of the rules undertaken by the sport, understand how this process works, and the importance of scientific evidence and awareness of potential scientific errors. It is also ideal if they have experience on both sides of these matters, as this provides additional insights to spot issues that may not be initially apparent.

How you manage an athlete’s doping charge requires sensitivity coupled with clear messaging that sporting integrity is intact in your organisation. The first step to achieving this is to seek specialist advice and have the existing policy reviewed. Who you engage can have a considerable effect on the outcome of any case you are involved in, and the reputational impact on your organisation.

Article by Paul Horvath

Related Articles:  Sports contracts and morality clauses – when a team or athlete brings the sport into disrepute

What you need in your Sport Club Constitution

Doping to Win: The Risks for Feeder Clubs and Their Athletes

Sports Clubs & Organisations | What to know to make this year your best yet

Sports Tribunals | What Happens at a Disciplinary Hearing

Doping to Win: The Risks for Feeder Clubs and Their Athletes

For over fifteen years I have successfully acted in numerous doping cases on local, national, and international levels. This is a high-interest area for us. Our SportsLawyer team specialises in advising clubs, leagues, organisations and competitions, both professional and amateur. We provide representation before tribunals in anti-doping cases and review and draft anti-doping policies. Contact us on 03 96420435 or complete our confidential enquiry form here.

The post Sport Leadership and Management | What to do when an athlete is charged with doping offences appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

Listen to the discussion here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCntMOSK_h7GQtDQWlouH8hA

The post Paul Horvath joins the Sportzfan Radio team as special guest appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.