Intent, substances of abuse, aggravating circumstances, protected persons and recreational athletes: does the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 provide proportionate sanctions?

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Intent, substances of abuse, aggravating circumstances, protected persons and recreational athletes: does the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 provide proportionate sanctions?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This paper examines the proportionality of sanctions in the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 (&quot;Code 2021&quot;). The author argues that Code 2021 improved the proportionality of sanctions compared to the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 (&quot;Code 2015&quot;), 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 &quot;athletes who cheat&quot;. 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Intent, substances of abuse, aggravating circumstances, protected persons and recreational athletes: does the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 provide proportionate sanctions?

Popis výsledku anglicky

This paper examines the proportionality of sanctions in the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 (&quot;Code 2021&quot;). The author argues that Code 2021 improved the proportionality of sanctions compared to the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 (&quot;Code 2015&quot;), 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 &quot;athletes who cheat&quot;. 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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Sports Law Journal [online]

ISSN

2213-5154

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2021

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

23

Strana od-do

1-23

Kód UT WoS článku

000710819600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—