The Strict Liability Principle and the Human Rights of the Athlete in Doping Cases
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ATHLETE IN DOPING CASES Het Astrict-liability@-beginsel en de mensenrechten van de atleet in dopingzaken Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam op gezag van de rector magnificus Prof.dr. S.W.J. Lamberts en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties. De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op vrijdag 3 maart 2006 om 13.30 uur door JANWILLEM SOEK geboren te Rotterdam Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof.mr. H. de Doelder Overige leden: Prof.dr. R. Blanpain Prof.mr. K.F. Haak Prof.mr. P.A.M. Mevis Copromotor: Dr. R.C.R. Siekmann Der Philpsoph glaubt, der Wert seiner Philosophie liege im Ganzen, im Bau: die Nachwelt findet ihn im Stein, mit dem er baute und mit dem, von da an, noch oft und besser gebaut wird: also darin, daß jener Bau zerstört werden kann und doch noch als Material Wert hat. Friedrich Nietzsche I am deeply grateful to Dorine Christ and Rob Siekmann for their relentless support. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PART I SUBSTANTIVE LAW CHAPTER 1 THE PURPOSE OF THE BAN ON DOPING (ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE OF DOPING) 1. Introduction 2. The use of doping endangers the athlete's health 3. The use of doping leads to an unfair advantage 3.1. Doping enhances athletic performance 3.2. Athletes using doping gain an unfair advantage 4. The use of doping is contrary to fairness 5. The use of doping is contrary to ethics 6. The use of doping is contrary to the rules of sport 7. The rationale of the WADC 8. Conclusion CHAPTER 2 DEFINITION OF DOPING AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DOPING OFFENCE 1. Introduction 2. The evolution of the description of the offence of the use of doping 2.1. Main categories of the use of doping 2.1.1. Doping is the use of substances and methods for a specific purpose 2.1.2. Doping is the use of certain, specified substances and methods 2.1.3. Doping is the use of certain, specified substances and methods for a specific purpose 2.1.4. Doping is the presence of a prohibited substance in the body of an athlete (strict liability) 2.1.5. The description of the offence of the use of doping in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (OMADC) 2.1.6. The description of the offence of the use of doping in the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) 2.2. The description of the ancillary doping infractions 2.2.1. The failure to report to doping control and the refusal to submit to doping control 2.2.2. No change of address 2.2.3. The admission to having used a prohibited substance or method 2.2.4. Masking agents and methods 2.2.5. Possession of a prohibited substance 2.2.6. Criminal conviction 2.2.7. Elastic provisions 3. Offences relating to the use of doping 3.1. Third-party assistance in the use of doping 3.2. The doping of horses 3.3. The illegal trade in prohibited doping substances 4. Doping substances and methods 4.1. Doping substances 4.1.1. Doping substances which are prohibited unconditionally 4.1.2. Doping substances which are prohibited conditionally 4.2. Doping methods 4.2.1. Blood doping 4.2.2. Gene doping 5. Conclusion CHAPTER 3 THE PUNISHABILITY OF THE ACT OF DOPING 1. Introduction 2. Defects in the Achain of custody@ 2.1. Mistakes made during the doping control 2.2. Mistakes made during the transport of the sample 2.3. Mistakes made during the analysis of the sample 3. Absence of formal illegality 3.1. Use of conditionally prohibited substances 3.2. Use of substances not appearing on the doping list 3.3. Endogenous production of prohibited substances and the Agrey area@ 4. Conclusion CHAPTER 4 THE LIABILITY OF THE PERPETRATOR FOR THE ACT OF DOPING 1. Introduction 2. The metamorphosis of the material rule 3. The prima facie liability rule 4. Interpretation by the CAS of the prima facie rule 4.1. Between the old and the revised material rule 4.2. The reasons for the CAS's preference for the strict liability rule 4.3. Punishment without guilt? Strict or prima facie liability? 4.4. Absence of guilt 4.4.1. Mistake of law 4.4.2. Mistake of fact 4.4.3. Endogenous production of prohibited substances and the Agrey area@ 4.5. Exceptional circumstances according to the WADC 4.6. Manipulation by the athlete 4.7. Manipulation by third parties 5. Liability in case of ancillary doping infractions 5.1. Refusing or failing to undergo doping control 5.2. Confession 6. Guilt in case of Anon-use@ offences 7. Metaphor or equivalent? Comments on the strict liability system 8. Conclusion CHAPTER 5 SYSTEM OF SANCTIONS 1. Introduction 2. Sanctions for individual athletes in cases of Ahard doping@ 2.1. The various types of sanctions 2.2. Table of Ahard@-doping sanctions 2.3. Sanctions according to the WADC 3. Sanctions for individual athletes in cases of Asoft doping@ 3.1. The various types of sanctions 3.2. Table of Asoft@-doping sanctions 3.3. Sanctions according to the WADC 4. Sanctions for some ancillary doping infractions 5. Team sanctions 5.1. Primary team sanctions 5.2. Secondary team sanctions 5.2.1. The match is declared lost 5.2.2. Disqualification of the entire team 5.2.3. Other sport sanctions for the entire team 5.2.4. Lack of sanctions for the entire team 5.3. Sanctions according to the WADC 6. Sanctions at the national level 6.1. Extreme varieties 6.1.1. First offence 6.1.2. Second offence 6.1.3. Third offence 6.2. AExotic@ varieties 6.2.1. Suspension from membership 6.2.2. Ban from representation 6.2.3. Termination of funding 6.2.4. Suspension in specified areas 5 6.2.5. Sanctions according to category 6.3. Discretionary powers and flexible sanctions 6.3.1. Full discretionary powers 6.3.2. Table of flexible sanctions 7. Proportionality of sanctions and restraint of trade 7.1. Proportionality of sanctions 7.2. Restraint of trade 7.3. The approach of the WADC - exceptional circumstances 8. Reduction of sanction for cooperation in the investigation 9. Sport sanctions 9.1. Disqualification 9.2. Return of prizes, medals, etc. 9.3. Sport sanctions according to the WADC 10. Conclusion INTERIM CHAPTER PART II PROCEDURAL LAW CHAPTER 6 THE NATURE OF THE DOPING TRIAL AND THE DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES 1. Introduction 2. The freedom of association 3. The position of disciplinary doping law within the legal framework 4. Requirements for disciplinary doping law - fair trial 5. Fair trial rights in sports law 5.1. The right to appear in person / The right to be heard (cf. Article 6(1) ECHR) 5.1.1. The right to be heard 5.1.2. The right to submit evidence 5.1.3. The right to conduct the doping trial in writing 5.2. Open court (cf. Article 6(1) ECHR) 5.3. Impartiality of the tribunal (cf. Article 6(1) ECHR) 5.4. The in dubio pro reo principle (cf. Article 6(2) ECHR) 5.5. The right to be informed of the charges (CF. Article 6(3)(a) ECHR) 5.6. The right to inspection of the file (cf. Article 6(3)(b) ECHR) 5.7. The right to representation (cf. Article 6(3)(c) ECHR) 5.8. The right to call witnesses and/or experts (cf. Article 6(3)(d) ECHR) 5.9. The right to be assisted by an interpreter (cf. Article 6(3)(e) ECHR) 5.10. The granting of fair trial rights in practice 5.11. The doctrine of estoppel 5.12. The approach chosen in the WADC 6. Remedies at law 6.1. Opposing a judgment 6.2. Right of appeal 6.3. Right of cassation 6.4. Right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) 7. Fundamental criminal law rights in practice 7.1. The nulla poena sine lege scripta principle (the principle of legality) 7.2. The lex certa principle (the principle of legal certainty) 7.3. The ne bis in idem principle 7.4. The lex mitior principle 7.5. The proportionality principle 8. Conclusion GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CAS DECISIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY 6 INTRODUCTION In 2000 the growing importance of the fight against doping led the budgetary authority of the European Union to include a budget heading to finance pilot projects for campaigns to combat doping in sport in Europe. In this context a study on the ALegal Comparison and Harmonisation of Doping Rules@ was commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture to an international research group consisting of sports law experts from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, the T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands, The Max Planck Institute for International and Comparative Criminal Law, Freiburg i.B., Germany, and the Sports Law Centre of Anglia Polytechnic University, Chelmsford, United Kingdom. The aim of this study was described as follows: AThe current diversity of rules and regulations of sports organisations and of relevant legislation of Member States leads to ineffectiveness as well as a lack of public acceptance and legal certainty in the fight against doping in sport in Europe. Adequate sanctioning of doping offences must be achieved and procedural guarantees for the protection of the rights of the athlete under the responsibility of the sports organisations must be improved.@ Recommendations for improving the existing legal instruments would be based on inter alia the analysis and comparison of the doping rules and regulations of the international sports organisation and their national counterparts in the Member States of the European Union.