Doping cases before the CAS / Kutlu Tariman. - Tilburg University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2012
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was founded in 1983 with the idea to create a court that has jurisdiction specifically in sports.1 The CAS first has been an appeal court since 1991, when the FEI in its statutes inserted an arbitration clause allowing its members to appeal against its decisions. The Code of Sports-related Arbitration and Mediation Rules was adopted in 1994. By the end of 2000, around 43 international federations officially recognized the CAS. Doping cases account for a large number of the rulings rendered by the CAS. Through these rulings, the CAS developed some judicial principles such as strict liability, burden and standard of proof and doping sanctions.
The thesis is designed to be a case review. Although all the publicly available doping rulings of the CAS between 1994 and April 2012 is read, critically appraised and referred to during the case review when it is relevant, the thesis will mainly focus on the some of the most debated issues in these rulings, i.e. procedural issues, presumption of guilt, the burden and standard of proof and the sanctions. The cases tried to be listed according to the date of the award and the applicability of the principles after the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).
The CAS developed a very wide body of rulings in the area of doping and these rulings form an integral part of the fight against doping. According to the CAS, fight against doping can only be done within the limits of law. Therefore, it seems like the CAS does not create a practice that has no legal basis. Although there are some general evaluations, the CAS has not controlled the validity of the regulations of federations. In addition, the CAS has been very careful not to create a doping offence through its rulings. The approach shows that the work of the arbitrators is limited to the interpretation of the statutes and regulations in force but not to make law. Furthermore, the rulings evaluated shows that the CAS jurisprudence reflects the changes WADC brought. For instance, the consistent application of a different approach in the athlete’s standard of proof, i.e. balance of probability standard, after the adoption of the WADC is a clear example of this. Additionally, one would not be mistaken if he assumes that the CAS is careful to apply the provisions of the WADC as long as it is possible.
