Editor’s note: Thomas Terraz is a fourth year LL.B. candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on International and European Sports Law.

1.     Introduction

 On March 05, the T.M.C. Asser Institute hosted ‘Mega-sporting events and human rights: What role can EU sports diplomacy play?’ a Multiplier Sporting Event organized in the framework of a European research project on ‘Promoting a Strategic Approach to EU Sports Diplomacy’. This project funded by the European Commission through its Erasmus+ program aims to help the EU adopt a strategic approach to sports diplomacy and to provide evidence of instances where sport can help amplify EU diplomatic messages and forge better relations with third countries. In particular, Antoine Duval from the Asser Institute is focusing on the role of EU sports diplomacy to strengthen human rights in the context of mega sporting events (MSE) both in Europe and abroad. To this end, he organized the two panels of the day focusing, on the one hand, on the ability of sport governing bodies (SGB) to leverage their diplomatic power to promote human rights, particularly in the context of MSEs and, on the other, on the EU’s role and capacity to strengthened human rights around MSEs. The following report summarizes the main points raised during the discussions.

2.     Context to the Event

Before diving into the panels, the scene was set by a few speakers who described the background and some of the main issues encircling the event. First, Antoine Duval (Asser Institute) kicked the day off by describing the general goal of the project and his role within it. Specifically, Duval strives to explore key questions such as: to what extent are SGB’s diplomatic actors and do they have human rights responsibilities? Also, what is the role of the EU’s sports diplomacy with regard to human rights at MSEs? Can it and should it get involved and if so, what could it do to be most effective?

Having laid the foundation of the event, Richard Parrish (Edge Hill University) described the background to the project ‘Promoting a Strategic Approach to EU Sports Diplomacy’. Parrish explained that while many countries have a clear sports diplomacy strategy, the EU has been rather ‘late’ to the party. He explained that there may be room for a soft power approach to EU sports diplomacy. The project aims to continue the political momentum gained from a 2016 report on EU sports diplomacy and has now held several events across Europe that analyze this subject from different lenses. Parrish concluded by explaining that the EU has started to be more conscious of this issue and has, for example, now included sport in its dialogue with China for the first time.

Simon Rofe (SOAS) then brought some introductory remarks to help frame the discussions that would follow. Rofe started by pointing out how human rights and diplomacy have not exactly gone hand in hand and that many diplomatic instruments are rather silent on human rights, which often has been intentional. Furthermore, there are also issues when trying to identify which and what form of human rights should be promoted, although the UN has played a leading role in this regard. There are also questions regarding what capacity for change there is within SGBs. Rofe also gave the example of how human rights have already been disseminated through sport, such as during apartheid in South Africa. Nevertheless, as SGBs gain greater roles in non-sport matters, their responsibility to respect and further human rights is significantly increased.

3.     The Panels

a.     Panel 1: Leveraging the Diplomatic Power of the Sports Governing Bodies for Human Rights

Now that the stage was set, the first panel took the floor with Antoine Duval acting as chair. Claire Jenkin (University of Hertfordshire) was the first to speak and examined the concept of legacies, especially in terms of children and young people. In other words, how can SGBs help leave positive human rights legacies in the MSEs host nations? Jenkin took the example of the International Inspiration Programme from the London 2012 Olympics, which was the first ever international legacy initiative linked to the Olympics and ran from 2007-2014. Its goal was to reach out to young people and bring sport to the youth beyond the context of the Games. In the end, it helped influence 55 national policies, strategies and legislative amendments. Jenkin highlighted, once more, how defining which human rights values to promote can be challenging. There are also many in a position that can promote human rights through sport but are simply not aware of their position as a ‘sport diplomat’. Hence, creating awareness, defining the appropriate human rights perspective and ensuring that young voices are heard in this process are essential to developing the SGBs’ human rights diplomacies.

Next up was Florian Kirschner (World Players Association/UNI Global Union) who looked at how SGBs have exercised their human rights diplomatic role. Kirschner illustrated how sport has a fundamental role in our society and is naturally connected to several human rights. The sports movement also clings to principles such as fairness, solidarity, equality and inclusion. However, Kirschner argued, SGBs have not always upheld these principles and pointed to several examples, such as widespread corruption, the award of MSEs to countries with questionable human rights records, suppression of free speech and violations of worker’s rights. There have also been instances of ‘sportwashing’, where states use sport events to try to give the impression that they are compliant with human rights, while coming short of their obligations in practice. The World Players Association, NGOs and other trade unions have come together to push SGBs, under the UN framework, to take greater account of human rights. Kirschner closed with the case of Hakeem al-Araibi and highlighted how many actors, including FIFA, were able to use their influence to push for his release.

Lucy Amis (Unicef UK/Institute for Human Rights and Business) then explained to the participants the importance of transferring the policies SGBs have adopted in relation to human rights into actual practice. This means developing strategies that enforce the values SGBs claim to uphold. There are numerous cases where sport has not lived up to these values: including cases where migrant workers are exploited to build MSE sport facilities, cases of child labor, and various instances where fans chant homophobic and racist slurs. Amis highlighted that SGBs must be especially diligent in cases affecting children because they face the highest risk of exploitation. On the other hand, sports diplomacy has helped initiate positive changes in some countries. In Rwanda, sport was used to help rebuild its society amidst significant adversities. There have also been encouraging developments in Qatar. Despite many calls to cancel the World Cup, FIFA’s persistence to hold the World Cup there has helped bring an end to the kafala system. All in all, challenges do remain. For instance, many national SGBs are limited to a very small and amateur staff, which creates greater challenges in creating, implementing and enforcing human rights strategies.

Finally, Guido Battaglia (Centre for Sport and Human Rights) closed the panel and began by giving an overview of the Centre for Sport and Human Rights’ goals and work. Battaglia described how the Centre’s main priority is helping those who are most affected by sports - the athletes, workers, and fans, among others - based on international human rights standards. The Centre promotes and fosters human rights in sport by bringing a wide variety of actors together, including SGBs, local organizing committees, governments, sponsors, broadcasters, international organizations, civil society and trade unions. The aim is to help these groups share best practices, increase their capacities and improve accountability on human rights issues. Battaglia then shared examples of how the Centre has been active in the field. One of these cases concerned Semyon Simonov, a human rights activist in Russia, who had been arrested while interviewing workers building World Cup stadiums in Volgograd. During this time, the Centre held a conference during which Human Rights Watch directly requested FIFA to monitor the situation. This eventually prompted FIFA to attend one of Simonov’s court hearings, acting as a sort of diplomatic pressure and signaling the sports world was watching. Battaglia concluded that pushing human rights through sports diplomacy, while still in its infancy, is gaining momentum and that there is enormous potential to help unite society through sport.

b.     Panel 2: A Human Rights Dimension for the EU’s Sports Diplomacy?

The second panel, chaired by Carmen Perez (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), then directly confronted the central question of how the EU could develop a human rights-based sports diplomacy. Arnout Geeraert (Utrecht University) launched the panel with a purposively provocative statement that EU sports diplomacy is ridiculous and that fundamentally there should be a deepening rather than a widening of its action in this matter. Since the EU has limited resources to focus on its sports diplomacy, it should work to strengthen its current efforts. Generally, the EU promotes liberal norms such as liberty, anti-discrimination, democracy, human rights and good governance in its actions. In the sports sector, the EU has had the greatest success in steering SGBs through negative integration and soft power measures, and SGB usually comply because they seek to be on good terms with the EU. In the end, Geeraert contends that the EU’s sport diplomacy should be to place more pressure on SGBs through a variety of existing channels, including coordinating EU member state positions in international organizations like the Council of Europe, and forming alliances with non-member states. The EU could then push human rights through these various relationships, which would indirectly compel SGBs to respect human rights.

Agata Dziarnowska (European Commission) took a different view from Geeraert and argued that a widening of the EU’s sport diplomacy should also be a part of the EU’s strategy in this field. Fundamentally, Dziarnowska argued, soft power is the EU’s most effective tool, and when you add the fact that Article 165 TFEU gives the EU the ability to cooperate with third countries on issues related to sport, there is a clear path for the EU to act. When it does so, it should be promoting EU values, including those related to human rights. In this context, the EU has already begun to take action within this strategic framework. For example, promoting the aforementioned values will be part of the new Erasmus programme. Additionally, the Council relatively recently adopted Conclusions related to sports events to ‘enhance integrity, transparency and good governance in major sport events’. These Conclusions specifically addressed business and human rights principles and highlight the importance of the selection process. Dziarnowska closed by underlining that EU action will greatly rely on strong political support, particularly from the Member States.

Alexandre Mestre (Sport and Citizenship) built on Dziarnowska’s contention that there is indeed an avenue for the EU to intervene on human rights. Given the wording of Article 165 TFEU, there are a multitude of areas for EU action. Mestre explained that crucial issues such as fighting against human trafficking, doping, child labor, sexual abuse of athletes, excessive commercial/economic exploitation of athletes are matter that deserve the EU’s attention. Furthermore, recent cases, such as Caster Semenya’s dispute with World Athletics, has shown how the SGBs’ eligibility rules could be another area where the EU could add value, given its previous experience with eligibility. Moreover, the EU has tremendous experience dealing with cases of discrimination and could use this expertise as a basis to promote human rights issues. Like Geeraert, Mestre also sees the EU increasing its cooperation with other entities, such as with the Council of Europe, civil society and third countries hosting MSEs. Mestre, nevertheless, also envisages direct cooperation with SGBs as part of the EU’s sports diplomacy strategy.

Lastly, Christian Salm (European Parliamentary Research Service) gave a historical perspective on the EU’s sports diplomacy, emphasizing the European Parliament’s role. Salm described how the 1970s were truly pivotal in this story, especially since it was the ‘decade of breakthrough’ for human rights. There were two events that placed human rights as a top priority: the World Cup in Argentina in 1978 and the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Concerning the first, the European Parliament’s Political Affairs Committee decided to have a hearing concerning human rights to counter political propaganda from Argentina’s right-wing military regime. While the hearing was blocked by a vote, the socialist group decided to hold its own debate, which created a significant media interest. The hearing generated calls for the release of the opposition leader in Argentina and led to a wider debate concerning sport events, specifically with regards to boycotts. Salm then described how leading up to the 1980 Moscow Olympics the international situation following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the wave of oppression on human rights activists stimulated majority support amongst the European Parliament to boycott the Olympics. While the European Parliament was in many ways limited, it understood its role as a guardian of human rights and was able to generate significant attention to these issues. More recently, in February 2014 the European Parliament also held a public hearing on migrant workers building stadiums. With this perspective, Salm explained, the European Parliament can definitely play a part in developing a human rights dimension to EU sports diplomacy.

4.     Conclusion

After each of the panels, participants were able to ask questions which stimulated many fruitful discussions, such as the importance of including human rights considerations in MSE bidding processes and defining an overall EU diplomatic strategy that would effectively use the EU’s leverage on these questions. On the latter issue, to prevent a fragmented diplomatic approach, the second panel concluded that coordination between all EU actors and informal policy making – such as raising awareness through public hearings and conferences – can help create a cohesive and effective EU sports diplomacy scheme. In any event, from all the discussions, it is evident that human rights will need to play a greater role in any EU sports diplomacy strategy given the inherent human rights concerns that MSEs carry.

On behalf of the organizers, we would like to thank all the speakers and participants for ensuring a remarkably productive and rich event in difficult times. We look forward to seeing you at the Institute again soon!

Editor's note: Marjolaine is a researcher and attorney admitted to the Geneva bar (Switzerland) who specialises in sports and life sciences.

I.               Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the manner in which we approach human interactions that suppose close and prolonged physical contact. Across the world, authorities are having to design ways to resume essential activities without jeopardising participants’ health, all the while guaranteeing that other fundamental rights are paid due respect. The fight against doping is no exception. Anti-doping organizations – whether public or private – have to be held to the same standards, including respect for physical integrity and privacy, and considerate application of the cornerstone principle of proportionality.

Throughout this global crisis, the World Anti-Doping Agency (‘WADA’) has carefully monitored the situation, providing anti-doping organizations and athletes with updates and advice. On 6 May 2020, WADA issued the document called ‘ADO Guidance for Resuming Testing’ (‘COVID Guidance’). A COVID-19 ‘Q&A’ for athletes (‘Athlete Q&A’) is also available on WADA’s website, and has been last updated on 25 May 2020. This article focuses on these two latest documents, and analyses the solutions proposed therein, and their impact on athletes.

Like many public or private recommendations issued for other societal activities, the WADA COVID Guidance is primarily aimed at conducting doping control while limiting the risk of transmission of the virus and ensuing harm to individuals. More specifically, one can identify two situations of interest for athletes that are notified for testing:

1. The athlete has or suspects that they may have been infected with COVID-19, or has come in close contact with someone having COVID-19;
2. The athlete fears to be in touch with doping control personnel that may be infected with COVID-19.

Quite obviously, either situation has the potential to create significant challenges when it comes to balancing the interests of anti-doping, with individual rights and data protection concerns. This article summarises how the latest WADA COVID Guidance and Athlete Q&A address both situations. It explores how the solutions suggested fit in with the WADA regulatory framework and how these might be assessed from a legal perspective.

The focus will be on the hypothesis in which international sports federations – i.e. private entities usually organised as associations or similar structures – are asked to implement the COVID Guidance within their sport. National anti-doping organizations are strongly embedded in their national legal system and their status and obligations as public or semi-public organisations are likely to be much more dependent on the legislative landscape put in place to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in each country. Nevertheless, the general principles described in this article would apply to all anti-doping organizations alike, whether at international or national level.

II.              Addressing the risk of the athlete tested having been exposed to COVID-19

Obviously, sample collection personnel must not be exposed to unnecessary risks as a result of collecting samples from athletes who could have come into contact with COVID-19. This concern is legitimate, whether anti-doping organizations conduct sample collection through their own doping control officer network, or outsource this task to external service providers.

A.     The solutions provided for in the WADA COVID Guidance

A first set of measures in the COVID Guidance is designed to keep individuals at risk from having to go on testing missions at all. The Guidance does so in two ways: on the one hand, by identifying categories of ‘Vulnerable Populations’ of sample collection personnel which anti-doping organizations should avoid sending on testing missions (section 3(e)), and on the other hand by making it clear that “the ADO should clearly communicate that any SCP who are not comfortable collecting samples during this time do not have to do so” (section 3(a)).

A second set of measures seeks to identify whether the individual athlete at stake presents any symptoms or heightened risk of having be exposed to COVID-19, or is even confirmed to be infected. To this effect, anti-doping organizations are invited to develop an additional Athlete Information Letter for the sample collection session, as well as appropriate information and education material.

The material should stress, in particular, that “additional personal information may be requested from athletes during sample collection. Identify the additional health information that the ADO will be asking athletes to provide to ensure their health and safety as well as that of SCP, and the manner in which this information will be used, stored and shared” (section 4(a)(iv)). The Athlete Information Letter should include “outline of the potential consequences to the athlete should they refuse to comply” (with the testing), as well as “request that the athlete contacts you (ADO) if their health situation changes”.

It is further recommended that a specific ‘COVID-19 Athlete Questionnaire’ be developed by each anti-doping organization (section 4(d)). Annex A of the COVID Guidance outlines the details:

• Athletes must be asked at the door, before proceeding with formal notification: “Are you or anyone present with you at this location/living at this residence/who lives with you, experiencing any COVID-19 symptoms” or “do you, or anyone present with you at this location/living at this residence/who lives with you, have COVID-19”?;
• Athlete who answer YES must then fill out the questionnaire: according to the WADA COVID Guidance, the sample collection personnel must “inform the athlete that they must complete this questionnaire truthfully and to the best of their knowledge and that if they purposefully provide any information which is inaccurate or incorrect, it could be construed as an anti-doping rule violation (e.g. tampering or attempted tampering) and they may be subject to a sanction of up to four years. Confirm that the athlete understands this”;
• Athletes must be informed that because they have declared they or someone close to them have COVID-19 or symptoms, “sample collection will not proceed due to the risk of infection with COVID-19”.

Beyond individual testing attempts, Section 4(f) provides that athletes who are tested and subsequently contract COVID-19 “should be encouraged” to inform the ADO. The Athlete Q&A also advises athletes, if they are concerned that they may have acquired the virus, that “you should advise your ADO of your situation with your whereabouts submission or when sample collection personal notify you for testing so that they can adjust their plans accordingly” (Question 5).

B.     Assessment of the situation in the light of data protection requirements

Through various tools (oral questions, COVID-19 Athlete Questionnaire, whereabouts submission), the COVID Guidance provides that information be obtained from athletes about whether they, or their close entourage, exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 or have been diagnosed with COVID-19. This type of information represents health data, which is sensitive data that typically enjoys special protection under data protection laws.

The question arises, then, how athletes can be required to provide such data, and what the consequences should be if they refuse to do so, or if they provide inaccurate data.

A first issue that deserves analysis is whether the data can be requested pursuant to the current WADA regulatory framework and what sanctions can be attached to failing to comply based on the WADA Code.

Sample collection is governed by the WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations (‘ISTI’). The ISTI – whether incorporated by reference or directly transposed into the anti-doping organization’s rules – is the only binding document in this context. While the term ‘guidance’ is not one that has an established status under the WADA Code, it is probably closest to the Level-3 document defined as ‘Guidelines’ (section Purpose, Scope & Organization). This type of document enshrines recommendations to anti-doping organization, but is not mandatory upon them. These documents cannot, therefore, result in amending the ISTI. Any departure from the ISTI could give rise to an objection to invalidate the finding of an anti-doping rule violation, as per the regime set forth in Article 3.2.3 WADA Code.[1]

The ISTI section 7.4.5 provides a bullet-point list of the data to be collected during the sample collection session, which is introduced as follows: “In conducting the Sample Collection Session, the following information shall be recorded as a minimum” (emphasis added). Despite this wording, it is submitted that the ISTI cannot be read as authorizing anti-doping organizations to collect additional health information on their doping control forms, certainly not subject to the penalty of an anti-doping rule violation. Athletes risk a so-called ‘failure to comply’ (e.g. tampering) violation if they refuse or provide false information at sample collection.[2] They cannot be asked to provide information that is not either listed in the ISTI, or – where the anti-doping organization has adopted its own standard – reflected in the implemented rules. Otherwise, anti-doping organizations could come up during sample collection with random additional requests for data and turn a refusal to provide such data into an anti-doping rule violation at will.

The Athlete Q&A states that “you may see enhancements that seek to strike the balance between the protection of clean competition and personal health” (emphasis added). These may include “a self-declaration concerning your health status” (Question 4). In spite of the euphemistic language used, the additional information requested and the related COVID-19 Athlete Questionnaire are purported amendments to the ISTI requirements. This is all the more concerning since the questionnaire also may also require athletes to give out health data concerning identifiable third parties.

Accordingly, the blanket statement in the COVID Guidance whereby athletes should be informed that they may be charged with an anti-doping rule violation for failing to truthfully fill in the Athlete COVID Questionnaire may prove unenforceable to a large extent. Asking for such data represents a departure from the ISTI. Applying the proof regime set forth in Article 3.2.3 WADA Code, such departures invalidate the finding of an anti-doping rule violation at the very least if they ‘caused’ the anti-doping rule violation.[3]

Furthermore, one should distinguish cases in which athletes refuse the data outright, or hide COVID-related symptoms, from the situation in which an athlete falsely states having COVID-related symptoms. Obviously, if the athlete refuses to provide a sample because of the anti-doping organization making the health data compulsory to complete sample collection, in breach of the ISTI, the departure is directly causative for the refusal, which as a result cannot be prosecuted under Article 2.3 WADA Code (refusal to submit to testing). The same would, arguably, apply if the athlete answers the questions but fails to provide genuine health data which could have led to aborting testing (e.g fails to mention COVID-19 symptoms). This could impossibly result in charges for tampering with the doping control process under Article 2.5 WADA Code, in the absence of a regulatory basis for requesting the information in the first place.[4]

The only scenario in which one could imagine charging athletes with a tampering violation is where the athlete is shown a posteriori to have invented COVID-19 symptoms or a COVID diagnosis, and deliberately used it as an excuse for not being tested. The anti-doping organization would, however, have to demonstrate intent,[5] specifically show that the athlete had no symptoms whatsoever, or that the athlete did not believe in good faith that the symptoms could be evidence of COVID-19. Such proof would probably prove impracticable in all but the most exceptional situation.

Thus, what seems most concerning about the WADA COVID Guidance in the way it informs athletes on the consequences of not filling the questionnaire truthfully, is its utterly generic wording. The Guidance is misleading insofar as it implies that athletes are under an obligation to provide the health data at stake, under the threat of disciplinary sanctions of up to four years. With respect to the equivalent self-certification recommended for the sample collection personnel as to their symptoms or contacts with COVID, the Guidance clarifies that introducing such self-certification is subject to being “permitted by applicable data protection, health, and employments laws”. Though the Guidance does not include the same caveat when it comes to the COVID-19 Athlete Questionnaire, the same reservations must obviously apply for health declarations that athletes are asked to make.

This leads over to the second issue, which is whether athletes can be compelled to provide the data and sanctioned for refusing to do so based on grounds outside the ISTI and WADA regulatory framework. There may be – in the current spread of the pandemic – state law under certain jurisdictions in which there is a legal obligation to declare COVID symptoms or COVID diagnosis, under one form or another. It seems highly unlikely, however, that this type of obligation would extend to an obligation to give out non-coded health information – including data regarding third parties – to private entities. If there is, the legal basis should be specified on the COVID-19 Athlete Questionnaire.

Assuming the absence of extraordinary COVID-related laws, anti-doping organizations have to rely on ordinary data protection rules. In an European context, we can use as a reference the EU General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’), which will be applicable to a significant amount of doping controls, and has otherwise acquired a status of ‘best practice’. According to the GDPR, health data represents ‘special-category’ data which can only be processed based on very restrictive grounds (Article 9 GDPR). One of these is consent explicitly given by the data subject (Article 9(2)(a) GDPR). This ground cannot be used based on the terms of the COVID Guidance, since consent given under threat of a four-year disciplinary sanction can hardly be considered free, and thus valid, under the GDPR.[6]

Much will then depend on whether the anti-doping organization at stake benefits from a basis in national law to process health data in the context of doping control based on public interest grounds (under Article 9(2)(e) or (i) GDPR), and how broadly such legal basis is framed. It is by far not manifest that COVID-related health data would qualify as collected for ‘anti-doping purposes’ within the meaning, in particular, of Article 5.1 WADA Code. No claims are made in the COVID Guidance that the information is necessary for the sake of reliable sample analysis. In addition, the WADA Code certainly provides no basis for collecting health information about the athlete’s entourage.

In sum, any COVID-19 Athlete Information Letter or Athlete Questionnaire should make it crystal clear that athletes cannot be compelled by their anti-doping organization to provide data regarding their current health status. If a questionnaire is introduced, athletes should be informed that they may – voluntarily – provide health information about themselves or their entourage, provided that they have obtained consent from their entourage if the data subject is identifiable. The questionnaire could be treated like consent to anti-doping research, which is declared unequivocally optional on the doping control form, with no consequences arising from an athlete refusing to provide the information requested. Athletes must receive transparent information to the effect that they cannot be charged for an anti-doping rule violation if they refuse to give such data, and that possible charges might, at most, apply if they use false COVID symptoms or a false COVID diagnosis as a pretext to avoid sample collection. If the mere optional character of the questionnaire were, depending on the local pandemic situation, considered to create inacceptable risks for the sample collection personnel and if there is no other basis in national law to request such information, testing should not resume.

III.            Dealing with the risk of sample collection personnel having been exposed to COVID

As mentioned, a second set of concerns addresses the hypothesis of athletes being endangered – or feeling endangered – by the presence of sample collection personnel. These concerns appear equally legitimate since the WADA COVID Guidance acknowledges that some situations may not allow for recommended social distancing requirements to be maintained at all times during testing.

A.     The solutions provided for in WADA COVID Guidance

The WADA COVID Guidance seeks to address these concerns through the following means:

• By defining categories of ‘Risk Groups’ of sample collection personnel (e.g. health care professionals currently employed) (section 3(e)), who should not be sent on testing missions;
• By encouraging a system of self-certification to be completed by the sample collection personnel before a testing mission, “if permitted by applicable data protection, health, and employment laws” (section 3(f));
• By providing that social/physical distancing is to be maintained “as much as possible” (Annex A), and informing athletes of the role that protective equipment (e.g. wearing masks) can play for their safety.

While the consequences of an athlete disagreeing about the anti-doping organization’s assessment of safety is not addressed in the COVID Guidance itself, it is discussed in the Athlete Q&A: “Can I refuse to be tested if I [..] do not feel that adequate precautions are being taken by sample collection personnel?”.

The answer given is that, where confinement measures are still in place, “such a scenario is unlikely as ADOs must exercise sound judgment in these unprecedented times”. The answer continues: “Unless there is a mandatory isolation/lockdown, however, you are advised to comply with testing while following the preventative measures put in place by your ADO, which should be commensurate with the risks at hand. If you refuse to be tested or if you do not complete sample collection process after notification, or if you are not able (or willing) to provide a sample due to a lack of protective measures, your refusal will follow the normal results management process, which may result in a period of ineligibility of up to four years” (Question 8; emphasis added).

B.     Assessment of the solutions proposed in light of protection of the athlete’s health

The WADA COVID Guidance arguably seeks to create a reasonable safety standard and encourages anti-doping organizations to have in place appropriate protective measures. However, WADA takes no responsibility for guaranteeing to athletes that they will suffer no prejudice if those safety standards are not maintained in individual testing attempts. Instead, the Athlete Q&A explicitly warns athletes that if they fail to submit to sample collection “due to a lack of protective measures”, they will be subject to ordinary results management.

Let us be very clear about the starting point, which goes beyond the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: no athlete should ever have to subject themselves to sample collection when they fear for their health and physical integrity.

In the CAS award WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA, the CAS panel held that “as a general matter, athlete should not take matters into their own hands, and if they do they will bear the risk of serious consequences. The proper path for an Athlete is to proceed with a Doping Control under objection, and making available immediately the complete grounds for such objection”.[7]

Though this may appear a rather peremptory statement, the panel also insisted, rejecting WADA’s claim that athletes must always allow a sample to be collected, that “it cannot be excluded that serious flaws in the notification process, or during any part of the Doping Control process, could mean that it might not be appropriate to require an athlete to subject himself to, or continue with, a sample collection session. Rather, they could invalidate the sample collection process as a whole, so that an athlete might not be perceived as having tampered with the Doping Control, or as having failed to comply with the sample collection process”.[8]

It is submitted that, where athletes express legitimate concerns about their physical integrity or broader health, they cannot be referred to submitting to testing nonetheless and subsequently file their objections against the procedure. In fact, the CAS panel in WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA did endorse past CAS jurisprudence to the effect that: “whenever physically, hygienically and morally possible, the sample be provided despite objections by the athlete”.[9] A contrario, where circumstances exist that relate to ‘physical, hygiene or moral’ hazards, the athlete should be entitled to refuse sample collection.

The stakes here reach far beyond the potential to obstruct collection of evidence to support disciplinary proceedings for anti-doping purposes. They concern the rights of an individual asked to provide biological materials, in a way that is either highly intrusive of their intimate sphere (urine sampling), or represents an actual medical act (blood sampling).[10] Filing objections and documenting concerns a posteriori are not measures capable of achieving the goal of protecting those rights where the threat emanates directly from the sample collection process, as opposed to its potential detrimental disciplinary consequences.

Previous guidance issued by WADA on 20 March 2020 included some more details about how cases arising from refusal to submit to testing due to (alleged) lack or preventative measures should be treated:

“If a potential refusal or failure to submit to sample collection is submitted to the ADO, the typical results management process should be followed and the athlete will have the opportunity to submit their defense, including any reasons why they believe their refusal or failure to complete the process was justified. This information will be taken into account when: 1) the ADO determines if a potential anti-doping rule violation should be asserted, and 2) the disciplinary panel hears the case”.

A typical results management process for refusing to submit to sample collection would be handled as a failure to comply under Annex A of the ISTI, according to which the sample collection personnel will submit a report to the anti-doping organization and athletes will be asked to provide explanations.

The claim that the anti-doping organization did not ensure appropriate protective measures should be analysed initially as a departure from the ISTI and treated in accordance with the regime set forth in Article 3.2.3 of the WADA Code. Annex D.1 of the ISTI indeed provides that its objective is: “To collect an Athlete’s urine Sample in a manner that ensures: a) consistency with relevant principles of internationally recognised standard precautions in healthcare settings so that the health and safety of the Athlete and Sample Collection Personnel are not compromised. The same statement is provided for blood sample collection in Annex E.1.

If it becomes apparent that, objectively, no adequate precautions were taken with respect to the risk of COVID-19 (or indeed any other health hazard) during the sample collection session, this represents a departure from the ISTI which – to use the wording of Article 3.2.3 WADA Code – could “reasonably have caused” a refusal. The burden then shifts to the anti-doping organization to establish, to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel (Article 3.1 WADA Code), that this departure was not in reality what led the Athlete to refuse sample collection. If the anti-doping organization cannot discharge this burden – and discharging it should prove difficult once established that safety was objectively lacking – no finding of an anti-doping rule violation can occur.

Whether adequate precautions were taken should be analysed based on the local situation and applicable public health guidelines at the time of collection in the relevant country. The anti-doping organization may reach the conclusion that the standards were inadequate spontaneously when reviewing the failure to comply, or the conclusion may be drawn by the hearing panel. The WADA COVID Guidance can serve as a minimum benchmark, since athletes can legitimately expect that anti-doping organizations would at least comply with these. However, stricter local guidelines in place should always prevail, since doping control cannot claim exemption from the rules that would otherwise apply to medical or similar acts requiring close interpersonal contact. Athletes who are of the view that they are not offered adequate protective measures would be well-advised to document the exact circumstances, the concerns they voiced and the measures that were proposed by the sample collection personnel to alleviate these concerns.

Even if it can be demonstrated, a posteriori, that the safety measures were objectively adequate at the given site and time, and thus no departure from the ISTI occurred, this should not be the end of the assessment. Article 2.3 WADA Code reserves the presence of “compelling justification” for refusing testing.[11] If athletes can demonstrate, by a balance of probabilities (Article 3.1 WADA Code),[12] that their doubts about the protective measures proposed by the anti-doping organizations were legitimate at the time and given the circumstances, this should qualify as a compelling justification. Again, the consequence will be that the finding of an anti-doping rule violation must be rejected.

The regime proposed above seeks to avoid athletes putting their health at risk for fear of facing disciplinary sanctions. It strikes an appropriate balance with the interests of doping control and appears sufficient to prevent athletes using fake safety concerns as an excuse to escape testing. At the very least, they will have to demonstrate plausibly that they were reasonably entitled to hold such concerns.

Hearing panels will inevitable retain considerable latitude in their judgment, since the WADA COVID Guidance leaves ample room for interpretation, and so will most public authorities’ guidelines. Hence, athletes who choose to refuse testing will need to accept the risk that they may be erring about what protective measures should be in place, especially if they claim that the measures should go beyond those advocated in the COVID Guidance. Conversely, they can certainly not be invited to assume and trust a priori that the anti-doping organization is necessarily taking measures “commensurate with the risks at hand”, as the COVID Guidance suggests. Importantly, the athlete’s individual circumstances must be taken into consideration. It is worth recalling that some athletes, just like sample collection personnel identified in the COVID Guidance, may belong to a vulnerable population category, including for reasons that they feel unable to communicate to the sample collection personnel in detail (e.g. because of a chronic condition that would lead them to reveal highly sensitive health data). The assessment of what constituted ‘understandable’ concerns should therefore not be too strict, but should be made in light of the ambient anxiety and scientific uncertainty prevailing during the pandemic.

IV.            Conclusion

The WADA COVID Guidance represents a commendable attempt to strike a balance between maintaining doping control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and safeguarding the health of all participants, sample collection personnel and athletes alike.

Anti-doping organizations will, however, have to apply the Guidance with caution and discernment. As shown above, the Guidance walks a thin line when it comes to athlete privacy and physical integrity. This is all the more so since athletes have no option to ‘take a break’ from exposure to the risks going along with testing,[13] in contrast to sample collection personnel who are given a choice to refrain from participating in missions if they feel uncomfortable.

COVID-19 confronts anti-doping organizations with tough dilemmas. Continued and comprehensive testing is viewed by many, including athletes, as a prerequisite for ensuring that they can return to competition in a level playing field. This does not mean that we can forgo compliance with mandatory standards of law. Where testing proves impracticable in accordance with the law and with applicable sports regulations, and in a way that guarantees safety for all participants, such testing must not take place. As important as the quest for clean sport may be, it cannot override legitimate health concerns and basic privacy rights.

[1] Reference is made here to the currently applicable 2015 version of the WADA Code. Note that the 2021 version purports to restrict even further the athlete’s options for invalidating an anti-doping rule violation based on procedural departures.

[2] Failure to Comply is defined in the ISTI as: “A term used to describe anti-doping rule violations under Code Articles 2.3 and/or 2.5”. Article 2.3 targets refusal to submit to testing, whereas Article 2.5 targets a violation of tampering.

[3] Article 3.2.3 WADA Code reads (2015 version) : “Departures from any other International Standard [i.e., other than the ISL] or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or Anti-Doping Organization rules which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such evidence or results. If the Athlete or other Person establishes a departure from another International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation, then the Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation”.

[4] In any event, it is questionable whether refusal to give health data could ever qualify as impeding sample collection, since the athlete’s silence enabled sample collection which could otherwise not have proceeded.

[5] Tampering is no strict liability violation under Appendix 1 WADA Code and requires proof of an intentional conduct on part of the athlete.

[6] On this, see also Viret Marjolaine, How Data Protection Crystallises Key Legal Challenges in Anti-Doping, International Sports Law Blog, 19 May 2019.

[7] CAS 2019/A/6148, WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA, para. 209.

[8] CAS 2019/A/6148, WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA, para. 208.

[9] CAS 2019/A/6148, WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA, para. 206.

[10] On this, see more broadly Viret Marjolaine (2016), Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law, Springer, e.g. pp 218 & 682.

[11] In CAS 2016/A/4631, Brothers v. FINA, para. 78, the panel cited as hypotheses of justification in relation to health: “if the athlete were to faint unconscious on the floor upon seeing the DCO’s needle, or if he were stone drunk or would experience an epileptic fit at the time of the test.”

[12] Though Article 2.3 does not explicitly so provide, CAS panels typically place the burden of proof on athlete to show the existence of compelling justification (see e.g. CAS 2016/A/4631, Brothers v. FINA, para. 76; or already CAS 2005/A/925, de Azevedo v. FINA, para. 68 & 78).

[13] The WADA Athlete Q&A explicitly warns athletes that they remain subject to testing at any time and anywhere unless public authorities have put in place physical mobility restrictions (Question 1).