The doping investigation into Essendon Football Club, the Australian Football League (AFL) team, by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has brought into sharpe focus some of the difficulties in constructing effective and fair anti-doping policy. In this article Paul Horvath, an Australian sports lawyer, discusses the penalities under the World Anti-Doping Code, reductions for substantial assistance and the ASADA bill with reference to the Essendon investigation.
The media was quick to dub the Al-Zarooni decision British horseracing’s Lance Armstrong moment; it was the moment that doping in racing was brought to the attention of the world at large. The decision has proved to be the catalyst for widespread debate concerning both the need for reform and whether it would be possible for horseracing to adopt an approach similar to that taken by the Word Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”).
How far should the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list “catchall” phrases reach in the context of the control of the use of supplements and culturally/ethnically relevant "complementary and alternative medicines" (CAM)? This article examines the potential inconsistency of the prohibited list, as a universally binding document, and the implications for athletes.
2012 was a year of epic sporting battles, Mourinho's Madrid found a way to defeat the brilliance of Guardiola's Barcelona, the European Ryder Cup team overcame the odds during the 'Miracle at Medinah', and Bradley Wiggins conquered the French mountains to become Britain's first yellow jersey winner. However, while 2012 will be remembered for the accomplishments of the athletes on the field, it is possible that the most important contest of 2013 will take place in the court room of Spanish judge Julia Patricia Santamaría.
Twenty-twelve was the year sport dominated the news. Fans were spoilt for choice in a record-breaking year including the Tour De France, Euro 2012, The Ryder Cup and the London Olympics. However, 2012 also saw the fall from grace of a sporting hero, a man who transcended sport and whose achievements were revered by sporting fans and the general public alike: American cyclist Lance Armstrong.
The cycling world has been turned on its head with the recent developments surrounding Lance Armstrong and the allegations that he cheated his way to his sporting and financial success. During his reign as Tour de France champion, Armstrong was a sporting superstar, with some of the top brands in sport clamouring to be associated with him. However, with the recent publication of a report labelling him a 'serial cheat' and alleging that he systematically used performance enhancing drugs, the question of whether he deceived sponsors and employers for financial gain has come to the fore.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) last month reduced the ban imposed on American tennis player Robert Kendrick from one year to eight months following an appeal by the player.
Kendrick tested positive for the banned stimulant methylhexaneamine following the French Open in May. His case on appeal was that the substance was contained within medication he consumed to combat jetlag.
It was previously reported in 2012 that Germany’s National Anti-doping agency (NADA) had investigated the use of UV light blood treatment by athletes as potentially a violation of national anti-doping rules1. While the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on 30 January 20122 and the German Sports Arbitration court on 2 Nov 20123 had both deemed that such UV treatments prior to 2011 were not in violation of the anti-doping code, the German NADA disagreed with that position and raised the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for clarification.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) and the National Football League Players’ Association (“NFLPA”) have been in a long running debate over the application of Human Growth Hormone (“HGH”) blood testing in the National Football League (“NFL”). Howard Jacobs (The Athletes Lawyer) reviews both sides of the debate in light of the recent the Court of Arbitration for Sport decision in the Veerpalu v. FIS case.
On the 26th September 2012 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) imposed a 4 year period of ineligibility on the rugby league player, Terry Bridge1, effectively concluding a significant multi-agency investigation into the activities of a gang set up to supply steroids in the Lancashire heartland of Rugby League. That investigation, involving UKAD, Merseyside Police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, led to convictions and sentences of imprisonment for the five men involved, and the first two bans imposed by UKAD on athletes for trafficking violations.
The British Olympic Association (BOA) has lost its appeal against WADA's ruling on lifetime Olympic bans for athletes found guilty of doping offences. The ruling opens the door for athletes serving BOA bye-law bans to compete at the London Olympics, subject to meeting relevant qualification criteria.