Support personnel and doping = Begeleidend personeel en doping / Marieke Kempe. - Graduation paper (University of applied science Leiden, year of study 2014-2015; RE441C)
This research helps answer the following question: "What recommendations can be given to the Doping Authority, based on case studies and literature, with respect to the disciplinary approach and handling of doping violations committed by support personnel? ". By performing content analysis of applicable anti-doping regulations, case law research and literature research, the author gives an answer to this question.
From content analysis of applicable anti-doping rules shows that the World Anti-Doping Agency World Anti Doping Code (Code) prepared the ruling. The Code provides for harmonization and coordination of the rules concerning doping. The Doping Authority has the code implemented in the National Doping Regulations (NDR). Support personnel falls under the scope of the Code and the NDR by being connected with a sports federation or union, or by a specific provision in a labor or volunteer agreement.
Once support personnel is bound by the Code, the staff can actually commit a doping violation, as described in the Code. Support personnel committing a doping offense then also can be sanctioned in accordance with the Code.
Case law research shows that only 35 rulings are known to the Anti-Doping Knowledge Centre covering accompanying personnel who have committed a doping offense. In this 35 statements a total of 40 people are involved in a conviction or being acquitted. In half of those affected in the decision it is not explained why the disciplinary committee has jurisdiction to take knowledge in the case. As a justification of the power is missing it is unclear whether the disciplinary committee responsible is to take note of the doping case. At the time a disciplinary tribunal is not competent to take knowledge to take the case, the decision of the disciplinary council can not stand. Therefore, this reasoning important for disciplinary handling of a doping matter. The results show that, in "Support personnel and doping" the Doping Authority 13 stakeholders have been used police data or a court ruling, after a conviction followed. It also falls to the jurisprudence examination that there are seven decisions closing minor athlete is involved.
On the basis of the results of the case studies it is recommended to investigate why there are only 35 statements concerning support personnel. It is also recommended to investigate why only half of the cases in which the judgment is justified disciplinary tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the case. In addition, it is recommended to investigate whether an agreement can be concluded with the police, justice and possibly other organizations to obtain relevant information for a doping offense. Also, it is recommended to investigate why there are proportionately much rulings involving an underage athlete.
