Doping is a Sporting, Not an Economic Matter / Ian Blackshaw. –
( International Sports Law Journal (2005) 3/4 : p. 51-52)
The European Court of Justice ruled in the important case of David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-313/02; Judgement 30 September 2004).
This was an appeal brought by two professional swimmers, who had tested positive for nandrolone and banned from competition, against a decision of the Commission (Case COMP/38158 - Mecamedina and Majcen/IOC) rejecting their claim for a declaration that certain rules adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and implemented by the Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA) - the World Governing Body of Swimming - as well as certain doping control practices were incompatible with the Community Competition Rules and the Freedom to provide Services in the European Union (Articles 81, 82 & 49 of the EC Treaty).
The case was brought by the swashbuckling and pioneering Belgian lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont, of Bosman fame. However, on this occasion, he failed to persuade the Court, which upheld the Commission’s decision of 1 August, 2002.
In Meca-Medina, anti-doping rules were held to be purely sporting rules with no economic purpose and, therefore, outside the scope of Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC. And also held not to be discriminatory - applying a ‘level playing field’ to all athletes subject to them.
As far as the Court was concerned, anti-doping regulations fulfilled two important social functions: fair play in sport and safeguarding the health of athletes and these were worth upholding. Furthermore, these regulations did not restrict the economic freedoms of athletes, as claimed by the appellants.
