Intent, substances of abuse, aggravating circumstances, protected persons and recreational athletes: does the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 provide proportionate sanctions?
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F21%3A10433111" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/21:10433111 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=JiBkgPFjfc" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=JiBkgPFjfc</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40318-021-00200-3" target="_blank" >10.1007/s40318-021-00200-3</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Intent, substances of abuse, aggravating circumstances, protected persons and recreational athletes: does the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 provide proportionate sanctions?
Original language description
This paper examines the proportionality of sanctions in the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 ("Code 2021"). The author argues that Code 2021 improved the proportionality of sanctions compared to the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 ("Code 2015"), but problems persist. Sanctioning framework of Code 2021 introduces several provisions that modify the basic period of ineligibility and the margin of appreciation of hearing panels to reduce, but also aggravate the basic sanction. Since it would be practically impossible to cover all the modifications in one paper, the author analyses four groups of provisions converging in the criterion of fault that he considers the most fundamental novelties in terms of proportionality. The author argues that the new approach towards sanctioning of the ingestion, use or possession of substances of abuse is more suitable and proportionate compared to the one in Code 2015. Moreover, he considers the creation of two new categories of protected persons and recreational athletes and adjustment of their sanctioning a step forward compared to Code 2015 in terms of both suitability and proportionality. On the other hand, the author argues that hearing panels need to consider the difference between cheating and mere knowing to impose a proportionate sanction based on the revised definition of intentional presence, use or attempted use or possession of prohibited substances or methods that abolished the reference to "athletes who cheat". Moreover, he claims that hearing panels should prefer shorter ineligibility to disqualification of only some competitive results to impose a proportionate punishment in cases involving aggravating circumstances and their combination with the disqualification of results. Overall, the text of Code 2021 is a good start to the race for the proportionality of sanctions. Nevertheless, hearing panels must keep the pace and ensure proportionate punishments in particular cases.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
50501 - Law
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Others
Publication year
2021
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
International Sports Law Journal [online]
ISSN
2213-5154
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
2021
Issue of the periodical within the volume
1
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
23
Pages from-to
1-23
UT code for WoS article
000710819600001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
—