Editor’s note: Stefano Bastianon is Associate Professor in EU Law and EU sports law at the University of Bergamo and lawyer admitted to the Busto Arsizio bar.

1. EU law and the CAS case-law

Bearing in mind these questions, it is possible to affirm that under EU law, the specificity of sport

i) refers to the inherent characteristics of sport that set it apart from other economic and social activities and which have to be taken into account in assessing the compatibility of sporting rules with EU law; and

ii) under EU law these inherent characteristics of sport must be  considered on a case by case  basis, per the Wouters test as developed by the ECJ in the Meca Medina ruling.

Both aspects can be found in the CAS case-law too, although the CAS case-law shows some remarkable differences and peculiarities. From a general point of view, the application of the principle of specificity of sport in the CAS case-law represents an aspect of the more general issue related to the application of EU law by the CAS. However, the purpose of this paper is not to fully examine if and to what extent the CAS arbitrators apply EU law rules on free movement and competition; rather, the aim is to analyse the way the CAS deals with the concept of the specificity of sport, highlighting similarities and differences compared to the ECJ.

Taking for granted that ‘a CAS panel is not only allowed, but also obliged to deal with the issues involving the application of [EU] law’,[1] as far as the compatibility of sporting rules with EU law is concerned the CAS case-law shows different degrees of engagement. For instance, in the ENIC award concerning the so-called UEFA integrity rule, the CAS panel went through a complete competition-law analysis in perfect harmony with the Wouters et al. ruling by the ECJ.[2] On the contrary, in the above-quoted Mutu case, the issue of compatibility of the FIFA’s transfer regulations with EU competition law was analysed in a rather simple way, merely stating that the FIFA rules at stake were not anti-competitive under EU competition law without giving any reason to support this conclusion. More recently, in the Galatasaray and Milan A.C. awards, concerning the UEFA’s financial fair-play regulations, the CAS  applied a detailed analysis of EU competition law. However, in both cases, according to the CAS the proportionate character of sanctions listed in the UEFA’s financial fair-play regulations cannot affect the evaluation of the legitimacy of these regulations under Art. 101 TFEU. This conclusion represents a clear breaking point with respect to the ECJ case-law, according to which the evaluation of the restrictive effects of a rule necessarily presupposes the analysis of the proportionate character of the sanction imposed in the event of a violation of that rule as well.[3]   In regard to EU free movement, the CAS case-law tends to be less analytical in terms of the principle of proportionality. For instance, in the RFC Seraing award  which concerned both EU free movement and competition law, the CAS panel mainly focused on the legitimate objectives of the contested rule (FIFA’s ban on Third-Party Ownership – TPO), merely affirming that the restrictive measures under EU free movement were justified and inherent in the pursuit of those objectives.

2. Art. 17 FIFA RSTP and the specificity of sport

In practice, the CAS case-law on the specificity of sport is mainly related to the application of Art. 17 (1) of the FIFA Regulations on the status and transfer of players concerning the consequences of terminating a contract without just cause.[4] According to Art. 17(1), ‘the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject to the provisions of Art. 20 and Annexe 4 in relation to training compensation, and unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation for the breach shall be calculated with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport, and any other objective criteria. These criteria shall include, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period’.

Although written in very general terms, from Art. 17(1) it is possible to derive that:

 i) it does not provide the legal basis for a party to freely terminate an existing contract at any time, prematurely, without just cause;

ii) the provision clarifies that  compensation is due;

iii) the amount of compensation to be awarded must necessarily take into account all of the specific circumstances of the case. It is for this reason that Art. 17.1 of the FIFA RSTP does not establish a single criterion or even a set of rigid rules, but rather provides guidelines to be applied to fix  just and fair compensation.

It is evident that Art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP involves or points to the specificity of sport. Beyond what Art. 17 implicitly states, the CAS case-law has contributed to defining the scope of the specificity of sport.

To fully understand the relevance of specificity of sport in the context of Art. 17 FIFA RSTP, it is important to investigate the rationale of this provision as well as the principle of positive interest. To expand, the rationale of the rule is to foster the maintenance of contractual stability between professionals and clubs. In the post-Bosman era, the concept of contractual stability was introduced to replace the former transfer-fee system by compensation due for the breach or undue termination of an existing agreement.[5] According to the CAS jurisprudence, Art. 17 of FIFA RSTP plays a central role: ‘the purpose of Art. 17 is basically nothing else than to reinforce contractual stability, i.e. to strengthen the principle of pacta sunt servanda in the world of international football, by acting as deterrent against unilateral contractual breaches and terminations, be it breaches committed by a club or by a player. This, because contractual stability is crucial for the well functioning of the international football. The principle pacta sunt servanda shall apply to all stakeholders, "small" and "big" clubs, unknown and top players, employees and employers, notwithstanding their importance, role or power. The deterrent effect of Art. 17 FIFA Regulations shall be achieved through the impending risk for a party to incur disciplinary sanctions, if some conditions are met (cf. Art. 17 para. 3 to 5 FIFA Regulations), and, in any event, the risk to have to pay a compensation for the damage caused by the breach or the unjustified termination. In other words, both players and club are warned: if one does breach or terminate a contract without just cause, a financial compensation is due, and such compensation is to be calculated in accordance with all those elements of Art. 17 FIFA Regulations that are applicable in the matter at stake, including all the non-exclusive criteria listed in para. 1 of said article that, based on the circumstances of the single case, the panel will consider appropriate to apply’.[6]

The concept of positive interest, is strictly linked to the way of calculating the compensation. In case of breach or unjustified termination of the contract, the judging body will have to establish the damage suffered by the injured party, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the arguments raised by the parties and the evidence produced. In so doing the judging authority shall be led by the principle of the so-called positive interest (or “expectation interest”), i.e. it will determine an amount geared towards placing the injured or aggrieved party in the position they would otherwise have been, had the contract been performed .[7] More specifically, according to the CAS case-law, ‘the principle of the “positive interest” shall apply not only in the event of an unjustified termination or a breach by a player, but also when the party in breach is the club. Accordingly, the judging authority should not satisfy itself in assessing the damage suffered by the player by only calculating the net difference between the remuneration due under the existing contract and a remuneration received by the player from a third party. Rather, the judging authority will have to apply the same degree of diligent and transparent review of all the objective criteria, including the specificity of sport, as foreseen in Art. 17 FIFA Regulations’.[8]

Pursuant to the above-mentioned jurisprudence, in the joint cases FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine) v/ Mr. Matuzalem Francelino da Silva (Brazil) & Real Zaragoza SAD (Spain) & FIFA and Mr. Matuzalem Francelino da Silva (Brazil) & Real Zaragoza SAD (Spain) v/ FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine) & FIFA, the Panel emphasised that ‘by asking the judging authorities, i.e. the competent FIFA bodies and, in the event of an appeal, the CAS, to duly consider a whole series of elements, including such a wide concept like "sport specificity", and asking the judging authority to even consider "any other objective criteria", the authors of Art. 17 FIFA Regulations achieved a balanced system according to which the judging body has on one side the duty to duly consider all the circumstances of the case and all the objective criteria available, and on the other side a considerable scope of discretion, so that any party should be well advised to respect an existing contract as the financial consequences of a breach or a termination without just cause would be, in their size and amount, rather unpredictable. At the end, however, the calculation made by the judging authority shall be not only just and fair, but also transparent and comprehensible’.^[9]

Similarly, in the joint cases FC Sion v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Al-Ahly Sporting Club and E. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Al-Ahly Sporting Club, according to the Panel ‘Art. 17.1 of the FIFA Transfer Regulations also asks the judging body to take into due consideration the “specificity of sport”, that is the specific nature and needs of sport, so as to attain a solution which takes into account not only the interests of the player and the club, but also, more broadly, those of the whole football community (…). Based on this criterion, the judging body should therefore assess the amount of compensation payable by a party keeping duly in mind that the dispute is taking place in the somehow special world of sport. In other words, the judging body should aim at reaching a solution that is legally correct, and that is also appropriate upon an analysis of the specific nature of the sporting interests at stake, the sporting circumstances and the sporting issues inherent to the single case (…). Taking into account the specific circumstances and the course of the events, a CAS panel might consider as guidance that, under certain national laws, a judging authority is allowed to grant a certain “special indemnity” in the event of an unjustified termination. The specific circumstances of a sports case might therefore lead a panel to either increase or decrease the amount of awarded compensation because of the specificity of sport (…). However, in the Panel’s view, the concept of specificity of sport only serves the purpose of verifying the solution reached otherwise prior to assessing the final amount of compensation. In other words, the specificity of sport is subordinated, as a possible correcting factor, to the other factors’.[10]

Pursuant to such case-law, in the well-known Webster cases the CAS referred to the specificity of sport from two different perspectives:

i) based on the fact that Art. 17.1 expressly refers to the specificity of sport and that it is in the interest of football that solutions to compensation be based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of national law chosen by the parties led the panel to the conclusion that it was not appropriate to apply the general principles of Scottish law on damages for breach of contract;

ii) the Panel recalled that ‘in light of the history of Art. 17 (…) the specificity of sport is a reference to the goal of finding particular solutions for the football world which enable those applying the provision to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of contractual stability, on the one hand, and the needs of free movement of players, on the other hand, i.e. to find solutions that foster the good of football by reconciling in a fair manner the various and sometimes contradictory interests of clubs and players’.[11]

More specifically, in FC Pyunik Yerevan v. L., AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA, the panel considered ‘that the specificity of the sport must obviously take the independent nature of the sport, the free movement of the players (…) but also the football as a market, into consideration. In the Panel's view, the specificity of the sport does not conflict with the principle of contractual stability and the right of the injured party to be compensated for all the loss and damage incurred as a consequence of the other party’s breach. This rule is valid whether the breach is by a player or a club. The criterion of specificity of sport shall be used by a panel to verify that the solution reached is just and fair not only under a strict civil (or common) law point of view, but also taking into due consideration the specific nature and needs of the football world (and of parties being stakeholders in such world) and reaching therefore a decision which can be recognised as being an appropriate evaluation of the interests at stake, and does so fit in the landscape of international football. Therefore, when weighing the specificity of the sport a panel may consider the specific nature of damages that a breach by a player of his employment contract with a club may cause. In particular, a panel may consider that in the world of football, players are the main asset of a club, both in terms of their sporting value in the service for the teams for which they play, but also from a rather economic view, like for instance in relation of their valuation in the balance sheet of a certain club, if any, their value for merchandising activities or the possible gain which can be made in the event of their transfer to another club. Taking into consideration all of the above, the asset comprised by a player is obviously an aspect which cannot be fully ignored when considering the compensation to be awarded for a breach of contract by a player’.[12]

In Al Gharafa S.C. & M. Bresciano v. Al Nasr S.C. & FIFA, the panel first identified the following basic principles:

i)  the fundamental importance to reach a solution that is legally correct and appropriate to the specific nature of the sporting interests at stake, and

ii)  the sporting circumstances and the sporting issues inherent to the single case;

The panel then underlined that ‘the “specificity of sport” is not an additional head of compensation, nor a criteria allowing to decide in ex aequo et bono, but a correcting factor which allows the Panel to take into consideration other objective elements which are not envisaged under the other criteria of Art. 17 RSTP”.[13] On that basis, the panel decided to increase the amount of compensation for  damages, taking into account the sporting importance of the player for the team and the behaviour of the player at the time of the termination. To the contrary, in FC Senica A.S. v. Vladimir Vukajlovic & FIFA, the panel referred to the specificity of sport and that neither club  or player was interested in maintaining their labour relationship, as the basis for excluding any compensation to the player.[14]

3. Concluding remarks

It should be rather clear that the concept of specificity of sport has different meanings and purposes in the ECJ and CAS jurisprudence. According to the ECJ case-law, ante its Meca Medina ruling, the reference to the special character of sport was a way to deal with purely sporting rules in the context of EU law; on the contrary, after the judgment in 2006, this approach seems rather questionable. Unfortunately, at present the specificity of sport looks less like a guiding principle than a concept in search of itself. Perhaps also for this reason the ECJ has always carefully avoided defining it or expressly mentioning it; at the same time, the 2011 definition by the Commission – i.e. the specificity of sport encompasses all the characteristics that make sport special – sounds rather tautological.On the contrary, in the CAS case-law the concept of specificity of sport is expressly referred to in cases of breach or unjustified termination of football contracts and amounts to a criterion, among others, to be taken into account to make the compensation just and fair not only under a strict civil law point of view but also taking into due consideration the specific nature and needs of the football world. In this context, according to the CAS jurisprudence the specificity of sport is neither an additional basis for compensation nor a criterion allowing a decision one way or the other in equity. Instead, it represents a correcting factor allowing the panel to award extra compensation in cases where the panel is not convinced that the costs so far awarded fully compensate the party entitled to compensation under Art. 17 FIFA RSTP. That said, the concept of specificity of sport remains rather unclear and vague in the CAS case-law as well.

[1] CAS 2008/A/1644 Adrian Mutu v. Chelsea Football Club Limited, award of 31 July 2009, para. 100,

[2] CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).

[3] See S. Bastianon, The proportionality test under Art. 101 (1) TFEU and the legitimacy of UEFA Financial fair-play regulations: From the Meca Medina and Majcen ruling of the European Court of Justice to the Galatasaray and AC Milan awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, 14 October 2018, https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/

[4] M. Colucci, F. Majani, The specificity of sport as a way to calculate compensation in case of breach of contract, European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin, 1/2011, p. 125.

[5]M. Colucci, R. Favella, La stabilità contrattuale nei regolamenti FIFA e nella giurisprudenza rilevante, RDES, 1/2022, p. 39; K. Futtrup Kjær, Substituting at Half-Time: Contractual Stability in the World of Football, https://law.au.dk/fileadmin/Jura/dokumenter/forskning/rettid/Afh_2017/afh1-2017.pdf

[6] CAS 2008/A/1519-1520, para 80.

[7] ‘Given that the compensation to be granted derives from a breach or unjustified termination of a valid contract, it will be guided in calculating the compensation due by the principle of the so-called “positive interest” or “expectation interest”… [and] accordingly… determin[e] an amount which shall basically put the injured party in the position that the same party would have had if no contractual breach had occurred’ (CAS 2009/A/1880 & 1881, at para. 80).

[8] CAS 2008/A/1519-1520, para 88

[9] CAS 2008/A/1519 and CAS 2008/A/1520, para 89.

[10] CAS 2009/A/1880 and CAS 2009/A/1881, para 109.

[11] CAS 2007/A/1298; CAS 2007/A/1299; CAS 2007/A/1300, para 40.

[12] CAS 2007/A/1358, para 40.

[13] CAS 2013/A/3411, para 118.

[14] CAS 2013/A/3089, para 83.

Introduction: The new WADA Code 2015
Day 1: The impact of the revised World Anti-Doping Code on the work of National Anti-Doping Agencies
Day 3: Proof of intent (or lack thereof) under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code
Day 4: Ensuring proportionate sanctions under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

Editor's Note
Marjolaine Viret: An attorney-at-law at the Geneva bar, specialising in sports and health law. Her doctoral work in anti-doping was awarded a summa cum laude by the University of Fribourg in early 2015. She gained significant experience in sports arbitration as a senior associate in one of Switzerland’s leading law firms, advising clients, including major sports federations, on all aspects of anti-doping. She also holds positions within committees in sports organisations and has been involved in a variety of roles in the implementation of the 2015 WADC. Her book “Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law” is scheduled for publication in 2015.

Emily Wisnosky: An attorney-at-law admitted to the California bar, she currently participates in the WADC 2015 Commentary research project as a doctoral researcher. She also holds an LLM from the University of Geneva in International Dispute Settlement, with a focus on sports arbitration. Before studying law, she worked as a civil engineer.

Introduction

Doping often results from the illegitimate use of a therapeutic product. As a result, many Prohibited Substances and Methods are pharmaceutical innovations that are or have been developed to serve legitimate therapeutic purposes. Much is being done within the anti-doping movement to coordinate efforts with the pharmaceutical industry in order to prevent abuse of drugs that have been discontinued or are still in development phase. Conversely, at the other end of the range, some Athletes may require legitimate medical treatment and wish to receive that treatment without being forced to give up their sports activities.

This post takes a cursory look at how the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC” or “Code”) tackles these issues and provides a summary of the main changes that affect the modalities for Athletes to receive medical treatment after the 2015 revision. The first part discusses the avenues open to an Athlete to compete while under treatment, namely by applying for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) or, in some cases, navigating the provisions governing conditionally prohibited substances. The second part addresses the consequences in case an Athlete should fail to take the proper avenues. The post closes with observations regarding the current system in light of one of the pillars of the anti-doping movement: the Athlete’s health.

1.     Obtaining Clearance to Compete – Therapeutic Use Exemptions and Conditional Prohibitions

Amendments to Procedural Requirements for Granting a TUE

An Athlete undergoing medical treatment that involves a Prohibited Substance must seek a TUE from the competent Anti-Doping Organisation (“ADO”). The 2015 regime preserves the “national vs international” distinction that existed under the previous rules. The basic principle is that International-Level Athletes request TUEs from their International Federation, while National-Level Athletes request TUEs from their National Anti-Doping Organisation (“NADO”)[1]. During the consultation process leading to the 2015 Code, recommendations were made for an international independent TUE Committee that would grant TUEs in a centralised manner. No such system has been introduced at this point, but the 2015 revision does take steps to ease the procedural burden and enhance clarity for those Athletes whose competition schedule would require multiple TUEs (e.g. those transitioning from national-level competition to international-level competition). In particular the 2015 Code:

§  Provides a streamlined process for Athletes seeking international recognition of a national-level TUE. These Athletes are now relieved from having to go through a whole new application process if they already have the benefit of a TUE granted by their NADO: they can have the TUE “recognised” by the International Federation, which “must” grant such recognition if the TUE is in compliance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“ISTUE”).

§  Encourages the automatic recognition of TUEs. ISTUE 7.1 newly encourages International Federations and Major Event Organizers to declare automatic recognition of TUEs, at least in part – e.g. those granted by certain selected other ADOs or for certain Prohibited Substances.

Another key procedural change reflected in the 2015 revision is an increased storage time for application data, in accordance with the extended statute of limitation period for initiating anti-doping proceedings from 8 to 10 years (revised WADC 17). During the TUE process, the application must include the diagnosis as well as evidence supporting such diagnosis[2]. This sensitive medical data is newly stored for 10 years under the revised 2015 regime for the approval form (versus 8 years under the 2009 regime). All other medical information must be kept for eighteen months from the end of the TUE validity[3].

Amendments to Substantive Requirements for Granting a TUE

The requirements to receive a TUE have been slightly adapted in the revised 2015 ISTUE, but not in a manner that would significantly alter the assessment. In short, the TUE Committee must find that the following four criteria are fulfilled:

1. Significant impairment to the Athlete’s health if the substance or method were withheld,
2. Lack of performance enhancement beyond a return to a normal state of health through the use of the substance or method,
3. Absence of any other reasonable therapeutic alternative, and
4. Necessity for use not a consequence of prior use without a valid TUE.

With regards to the manner in which these criteria operate, the 2015 revision:

§  Places the burden of proof on the Athlete. The 2015 ISTUE received an explicit addition that confirms and codifies the interpretation of the CAS panel in the recent ISSF v. WADA award (Article 4.1, in initio): “An Athlete may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following conditions is met” (emphasis added). While a welcome addition for legal predictability, the hurdle for the Athlete to overcome is high and can lead to nearly insurmountable evidentiary situations, such as in ISSF v. WADA regarding beta-blockers in shooting and lack of additional performance-enhancement[4].

§  Remains silent as to the standard of proof. The requisite standard of proof to establish these substantive criteria is still not explicitly stated. Although the issue was left undecided in ISSF v. WADA, the solution most in line with the WADC and general principles of evidence seems the “balance of probability”-standard, as per the general provision for establishing facts related to anti-doping rule violations (WADC 3.1)[5].

§  Newly allows retroactive TUEs for “fairness” reasons. As a rule, TUEs must be obtained prior to using the Prohibited Substance or Method (ISTUE 4.2). Exceptionally, a TUE may be granted with retroactive effect, which mostly concerns lower-level Athletes for whom the applicable anti-doping rules accept such possibility (WADC 4.4.5), or for emergency situations (ISTUE 4.3). The 2015 ISTUE contains a new possibility to grant a retroactive TUE if WADA and the relevant ADO agree that “fairness” so requires. The scope of this new exception remains unclear. A recent award rejected an Athlete’s plea that (s)he did not “timeously” request a TUE based on ignorance of the system[6]. One may wonder whether fairness related reasons could offer a solution for situations of venire contra proprium factum, i.e. when the Athlete received assurance from a competent ADO that the substance or method was not prohibited^[7] and the latter could thus reasonably be considered estopped from pursuing a violation based on a subsequent positive test.

Transparency for Conditionally Prohibited Substances

Only minor changes were made in the 2015 revision in the context of conditionally prohibited substances. Some categories of Prohibited Substances are widely used to treat minor conditions, including in the context of sports medicine. Moreover, their effects on the Athlete may depend on the mode of use. Thus, the Prohibited List prohibits the following substances only conditionally:

§  Beta-2 agonists (class S.3) – e.g. Salbutamol, the active ingredient of “Ventolin” –widespread against asthma in endurance sports. “Limits of use” have been determined that are deemed to reflect an acceptable therapeutic use of the substance^[8].

§  Glucocorticoids (class S.9)^[9], which have been the subject of debates for their use in sports medicine, are prohibited only when administered by certain routes (oral, intravenous, intramuscular or rectal). A contrario all other routes of application are permitted.

These categories require adjustments for establishing an anti-doping rule violation compared to the standard regime, as the finding of a violation calls for information beyond the mere detection of the substance. Unless a distinctive trait for dosage or route of administration can be identified directly during Sample analysis^[10], the information must be gathered during results management and generally supposes explanations from Athletes regarding the causes that led to the findings. In particular, for these types of substances, the 2015 Code:

§  Applies a different burden of proof. Whereas the burden is on the Athlete to show that the criteria for a TUE are realised (see above), or to demonstrate the origins of the analytical findings to obtain a reduced sanction (WADC 10), for S.3 and S.9 substances proving dosage and/or route of administration is part of the requirements for a violation. A specific allocation of the burden to the Athlete is only provided in the Prohibited List for findings of Salbutamol and Formoterol above a certain Threshold. In all other situations, it ought to be sufficient for the Athlete to present credible explanations (e.g. listing the substance on the Doping Control form[11]) that the Prohibited Substance originated from an authorised Use. The burden of proof ought then to be on the ADO to convince the hearing panel to a comfortable satisfaction (WADC 3.1) that a prohibited Use occurred.

§ Prefers short-cut procedures and transparency. The International Standard for Laboratories (“ISL”) introduces the “Presumptive Adverse Analytical Finding” to promote procedural economy by allowing a laboratory to enquire with the Testing Authority whether a TUE exists prior to the confirmation step of the A Sample for a S.3 or S.9 class substance (normally the presence of a TUE is determined after report of the Adverse Analytical Finding, during the initial review by the ADO). The revised 2015 regime maintains this pragmatic solution, but seeks to foster transparency in order to avoid this short cut from being abused by ADOs to stop cases from going forward. The 2015 ISL makes it explicit that any such communication and its outcome must be documented and provided to WADA (ISL 5.2.4.3.1.1)[12].

2.     Sanctions for Legitimate Medical Treatment without a TUE

An Athlete who is undergoing legitimate medical treatment that involves a Prohibited Substance, but does not have a TUE might – if tested – return an Adverse Analytical Finding. As mentioned above, an anti-doping violation cannot be invalidated for reasons of legitimate medical treatment, save in exceptional circumstances where the system allows for a retroactive TUE or for authorized Use of S.3 & S.9 class substances. Thus, Athletes will typically first turn to the options in the sanctioning regime to reduce or eliminate the sanction for Fault-related reasons. The success of this effort varies considerably from case-to-case, with no clear pattern emerging in the CAS jurisprudence.

The 2015 WADC has not improved the clarity of the situation for violations involving legitimate medical treatment, unless contamination is involved. In the 2009 WADC, if Athletes were “fortunate” enough to have inadvertently Used a Specified Substance then the Panel had the flexibility to settle on a sanction ranging from a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, up to a two-year period of Ineligibility; if the Prohibited Substance was non-Specified, the shortest period of Ineligibility available was one year. This raises questions of fairness, since violations under similar factual circumstances, and with similar levels of fault are punished with very different sanctions.[13] The 2015 WADC remedied this disparate treatment when the violation involves a Contaminated Product.[14] No analogous exception to receive a facilitated reduction in the case of legitimate medical treatment is available, even though similar policy arguments could also be lodged in this context.

Before Athletes can seek to establish a Fault-related reduction, newly under the 2015 WADC they must first avoid a finding that the violation was committed “intentionally”. This prospect poses interpretational issues for medications[15]. According to the definition in WADC 10.2.3, “the term ‘intentional’ is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat.” However, the core of the definition defines “intentional” conduct as encompassing both knowing and reckless behaviour[16]. Since the violations considered in this post involve the knowing administration of a medication, it can be expected that Athletes will rely on the reference to “cheating” to argue that their conduct falls outside of this definition[17]. If they were to succeed with this line of argumentation before hearing panels, then their basic sanction starts at a two-year period of Ineligibility that is subject to further reduction for Fault-related reasons[18]. If they were to fail, they face a strict four-year period of Ineligibility, which would inevitably raise proportionality concerns for this type of violation.

The Fault-related reductions in the 2015 WADC, like those in the 2009 WADC, rest in an interpretive grey area for violations arising from legitimate medical use. A sanction can be reduced for Fault-related reasons if the Athlete can establish a factual scenario that is accepted to reflect No Fault or Negligence, or No Significant Fault or Negligence. On one hand, it is well-established that medications often contain Prohibited Substances, thus panels expect a high-level of diligence from an Athlete to avoid a violation arising from medications. Thus, these types of violations often are committed with a high level of negligence at least bordering on “significant” and at times approaching “reckless”[19]. As to the level of Fault, CAS panels are not consistent. One CAS panel found that a legitimate medical Use of a Prohibited Substance that could have been (and eventually was) excused by a TUE can implicate only a low-level of Fault[20], whereas others have come to the opposite conclusion, holding that the (alleged) “legitimate therapeutic use” of a medication was “irrelevant”, and contributed to the Athlete’s significant level of Fault[21]. In light of these different characterisations, it is difficult to predict how a panel would sanction these violations under the 2015 Code.

Conclusion – Remember Health Considerations behind Anti-Doping

Athletes do not have it easy when it comes to reconciling necessary medical treatment with high-level competition in sport. The conditions for claiming the right to compete despite Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method are stringent, and the procedure at times burdensome. There is no doubt that the system must strictly monitor any possible abuse of medical treatment as a cover up for doping attempts. Nevertheless, this system should not escalate into penalising Athletes who had a legitimate need for treatment and resorted in good faith to such treatment, especially since in many cases the performance-enhancing effects of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method are hypothetical at most.

The current system requires considerable Athlete transparency in matters related to their health. The TUE process is not the only context in which Athletes may have to reveal information about medical conditions and/or ongoing treatment for these conditions. Apart from the disclosure of medication and blood transfusion that Athletes are required to make on the Doping Control form, the anti-doping proceedings themselves may bring to light information about medical conditions affecting the Athlete. This may occur either because the Athlete is bound to reveal information to build a defence, or because the detection system itself may uncover collateral data indicating a pathology – known or unknown to the Athlete[22].

In return for these expectations, the anti-doping movement must keep in mind one of its key stated goals – the protection of the Athlete’s health – when regulating matters implicating legitimate medical treatment. This protection must include efforts to avoid the Athlete inadvertently committing an anti-doping rule violation while under therapeutic treatment, which may include more systematic labelling of medication with explicit warnings. The attentiveness to the Athlete’s health, however, could go beyond these efforts and exploit the data collected as part of Doping Control also for the benefit of the Athlete. The current regime already allows for suspected pathologies detected on the occasion of Doping Control to be communicated to the Athlete on certain specific aspects[23]. As Athletes agree to disclose large parts of their privacy for the sake of clean sport, it might be desirable to explore paths through which clean sport might wish to pay these Athletes back by providing them and their physicians with an additional source of data on health matters, an aspect of Athlete’s lives that is always on the brink of being endangered in elite sports.

[1]             Article 4.4.4 further addresses the right for Major Event Organisations to provide specific requirements for their Events ; for more details, see Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E, Does the World Anti-Doping Code revision live up to its promises? Jusletter, 11 November 2013, n° 173 et seq.

[2]             See e.g. ISTUE, Annex 2.

[3]             See WADA International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information, Annex A.

[4]             See Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E, The ISSF v. WADA CAS Award: Another Therapeutic Use Exemption Request for Beta Blockers Shot Down, Anti-Doping Blog, 10 August 2015.

[5]             Ibid.

[6]             CAS 2014/A/3876, Stewart v. FIM, April 27, 2015. See, for a detailed analysis, see our comment on the Stewart CAS Award in Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E, Switzerland Anti-Doping Reports, International Sports Law Review (Sweet & Maxwell), Issue 3/15, p.61 et seq, also available online at: wadc-commentary/stewart

[7]             The Prohibited List is an “open list”, which means that simply consulting the list does not always provide a conclusive answer as to whether a particular substance or method is prohibited. Prohibited Methods (“M” classes) need by their very nature to be described in somewhat general scientific terms that always leave a certain room for interpretation (see e.g. CAS 2012/A/2997, NADA v. Y). For substances (“S” classes), the precision of the description of the prohibition under the Prohibited List varies depending on the substance at stake.

[8]             Not to be confused with a Threshold concentration in the Sample. Only Salbutamol and Formoterol currently have a form of Threshold with a Decision Limit (in TD2014DL), beyond which the finding is presumed not to result from a therapeutic use and the Athlete needs to produce an administration study to invalidate the Adverse Analytical Finding.

[9]             New terminology under the 2015 Prohibited List. Up to the 2014 List, “glucocorticosteroid”.

[10]           In particular by finding Metabolites that differ depending on the route of administration. A solution codified e.g. in the revised TD2014MRPL, Table 1, for the glucocorticoid budesonide.

[11]           The standard Doping Control Form and ISTI 7.4.5 (q) invite Athletes to disclose all recent medication, supplements and blood transfusions (for blood sampling). On the legal implications of this disclosure, see Viret M, Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law, p. 573 et seq.

[12]           On the imprecise use of the term TUE, see Viret M, Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law, p. 379 et seq. ADOs would rely in practice on Athlete declarations on the Doping Control Form. The 2015 WADA Results Management Guidelines encourage ADOs to contact the Athlete to enquire about the route of administration if there is no TUE on the record (Section 3.4.2.2).

[13]           See also our comment on the Stewart CAS award in Switzerland Anti-Doping Reports, International Sports Law Review (Sweet & Maxwell), Issue 3/15, p.61 et seq.

[14]           A new provision (WADC 10.5.1.2) allows for these types of violations to be subject to a flexible zero-to-two year period of Ineligibility, regardless of the type of substance involved.

[15]           “Intentional” violations draw a four-year period of Ineligibility, whereas non-“intentional” violations start with a two-year basic sanction. Only non-intentional violations are subject to further reduction for Fault-related reasons. See, more generally, on intentional doping, the contribution by Howard Jacobs in this Blog Symposium.

[16]           Article 10.2.3 ab initio: “As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term ‘intentional’ is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.”

[17]           For a discussion of the expected role of the term “cheat” in establishing that a violation was “intentional”, see Rigozzi A, Haas U, Wisnosky E, Viret M, Breaking Down the Process for Determining a Basic Sanction Under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, International Sports Law Journal, June 10, 2015. On a related note, an argument akin to those made in the Oliveira/Foggo line of cases under the 2009 Code could also arise here: If Athletes do not have actual knowledge that their medications contain a Prohibited Substance, would purposefully consuming the product still be considered “intentional”?

[18]           Article 10.2.1 places the burden of proof to establish that the violation was not “intentional” on the Athlete if the violation did not involve a Specified Substance, and on the Anti-Doping Organisation to establish that the violation was “intentional” if the violation did involve a Specified Substance.

[19]           See, e.g. CAS 2014/A/3876, Stewart v. FIM, April 27, 2015, para. 79; See also, CAS 2012/A/2959, WADA v. Nilforushan, April 30, 2013, para. 8.21. In rare cases, Athletes have been able to establish No Fault or Negligence under very specific circumstances. See, e.g. CAS 2005/A/834, Dubin v. IPC, February 8, 2006.

[20]           See, e.g. CAS 2014/A/3876, Stewart v. FIM, April 27, 2015, para. 84 where the CAS panel held that the Athlete’s level of Fault must be considered “light” where he was prescribed the medication by a doctor and later obtained a TUE. See also CAS 2011/A/2645, UCI v. Kolobnev, February 29, 2012, paras. 87-90, which does not specifically address the possibility of obtaining a TUE, but confirmed a first instance decision (after weighing a list of factors) that a Prohibited Substance taken for purposes unrelated to sport performance, and upon medical advice fell at “the very lowest end of the spectrum of fault”.

[21]           See, e.g. the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal, ITF v. Nielsen, June 5, 2006, that found that it not relevant “whether the player might have been granted a therapeutic use exemption”. See also CAS 2008/A/1488, P. v. ITF, August 22, 2008, para. 19, which found it of “little relevance to the determination of fault that the product was prescribed with ‘professional diligence’ and ‘with a clear therapeutic intention’”. These cases were both referenced in CAS 2012/A/2959, WADA v. Nilforushan, April 30, 2013, para. 8.20.

[22]          See, as a prominent example, the Claudia Pechstein saga with respect to the explanations – doping or rare pathology? - for her abnormal blood values.

[23]           See the Guidelines for Reporting & Management of Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Findings in male athletes, as well as the recommendations for ABP expert review in the Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines.