Independent Observers Report Paralympic Games, Tokyo 2020 / Jenny Schulze. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2022

Report of the Independent Observers XXIV Paralympic Winter Games Beijing 2022 / Shafag Huseynli. - Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2022

Independent Observer Report : Tour de France 2003 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2003

Independent Observer Report : Tour de France 2010 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2010

Report of the Independent Observers : the 8th World Games, Kaohsiung, July 2009 / Independent Observer Team. - Montreal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2009

Intelligence and Investigations Professional Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2022

On 6 June 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published a first set of Professional Standards aimed at improving the level of knowledge, skills and competencies of the global anti-doping workforce. These Standards were endorsed by WADA’s Education Committee and presented to the Agency’s Executive Committee in May 2022 for review and consideration.

Developed as part of WADA’s Global Learning and Development Framework (GLDF), the initial set of Professional Standards is targeted at anti-doping practitioners in six roles:

1. Communications and Media Relations;
2. Education;
3. Hearing Panels;
4. Intelligence and Investigations;
5. Privacy and Data Protection; and
6. Results Management.

The Professional Standards -- available in English, French and Spanish -- were created in collaboration with stakeholders and describe: the main functions for a given anti-doping role; the expected standard of competence using performance criteria; and, the knowledge and skills required to perform the role.

Legal Opinion on whether Article 10.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code is compatible with the Fundamental Principles of Swiss Domestic Law / Claude Rouiller. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2005

Contents:

I. THE EXPERT
II. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MANDATE
1. The mandate
2. The documents provided
3. Customary disclaimer
III. THE OVERALL LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE CONSULTATION
1. Preamble
2. The European Convention of November 16, 1989
3. The World Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Code
(a) The World Anti-Doping Agency
(b) The World Anti-Doping Code
4. The UNESCO Convention of October 19, 2005
(a) The adoption of the Convention and its preamble
(b) The Convention and the World Anti-Doping Code
IV. DISCUSSION
1. Preamble
(a) The rules under discussion
(b) The status quaestionis
2. The interpretation of Article 10.2 of the Code and the legal nature of the sanctions it provides for
(a) The interpretation of Article 10.2 of the Code
(b) The legal nature of the sanctions provided for
3. The content of the fundamental rights and general principles of autonomous Swiss law that could be applied by arbitrators reviewing the application of Article 10.2 of the Code and that could come into play in the context of a limited review by the Federal Tribunal
(a) Introductory note
(b) Personal liberty
(c) Economic liberty
(d) Brief outline of fundamental rights practice
(e) The relative practical similarities between the modalities of application of Article 36 Cst. and the modalities of application of Article 27 SCC
(f) Informal examination of the compatibility of Article 10.2 of the Code with fundamental rights and the concrete standard of Article 27, paragraph 2 Cst.
4. The scope of the means of defence available to persons seeking to allege that a sanction based on Article 10.2 of the Code and its confirmation by arbitrators is injurious to their interests legally
protected by these rights and principles of autonomous Swiss law, and the definition in Swiss law of the concepts of arbitrariness and public policy
(a) The right of appeal to an arbitral tribunal
(aa) The ordinary appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
(bb) Appeals to arbitral tribunals established on an ad hoc basis pursuant to Article 13.2.2 of the Code or to the CAS acting as a domestic arbitrator
(b) The subsequent recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal to quash an arbitral award (recourse available under public law)
(aa) Introductory note concerning the recourse available under public law in an arbitration matter
(bb) Appeal from an award rendered by a domestic arbitrator
(cc) Appeal from an “international” arbitral award
(dd) The capacity to challenge an award before the Federal Tribunal
(ee) The concept of arbitrariness under Article 36, letter f of the Intercantonal Concordat on Arbitration
(ff) The concept of public policy under Article 190, paragraph 2, letter e PILS
(c) The consequence of the limits of the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s power of substantive review of arbitral awards for the question at hand
V. THE ANSWER

Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draft World Anti-Doping Code with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes / G. Kaufmann-Hohler, A. Rigozzi. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2007

Contents:

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Qualifications of the Authors of this Opinion
2. Independence and Disclaimer
3. The Question Posed, the Document(s) Reviewed, and the Issues Addressed
II. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ANTI-DOPING RULES AND THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ATHLETES
1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code)
1.2 The Structure and the Mission of WADA
1.3 The Adoption and the Implementation of the WADA Code.
1.4 The Rationale of the WADA Code.
1.5 The Main Features of the WADA Code
2. Fundamental Rights of Athletes: Concept, Sources
2.2 Human Rights
2.3 General Principles of Criminal Procedure
2.4 Private Law Protection of Fundamental Rights, in particular Personality Rights
2.5 EC Competition Law
III. IS ARTICLE 10.6 OF THE CODE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ATHLETES?
1. Are “Aggravating Circumstances” Defined with Sufficient Precision?
1.2 No Crime nor Punishment without (clear) Law
1.3 Should “Aggravating Circumstances” be Indicated in Article 10.6 itself?
1.4 Is an Open List of “Aggravating Circumstances” Admissible?
1.5 Does the (Open) List of “Aggravating Circumstances” Ensure Foreseeability?
2. Is the Role of Admission Compatible with the Privilege against Self-Incrimination and the Right to Remain Silent?
2.2 Threat of an Autonomous Sanction
2.3 Plea Bargain
3. Is an Ineligibility Period of More Than Two Years Compatible with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes?
3.2 The Unproblematic Condition: Legitimate Aim
3.3 The Real Issue: The Proportionality Test
aa) Capacity
bb) Necessity
cc) Proportionality stricto sensu
IV. GENERAL CONCLUSION AND ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED

Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Certain Provisions of the Draft World Anti-Doping Code with Commonly Accepted Principles of International Law / Gabrielle Kaufmann-Hohler, Antonio Rigozzi, Giorgio Malinverni. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2003

Contents:

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Professional Qualifications of the Authors of this Opinion
2. The Questions Addressed in this Opinion and Documents Reviewed
3. Human Rights: Concept and Sources
II. THE POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-DOPING REGULATION
1. The Policy Rationale for Anti-Doping Regulation
2. The Implementation of Anti-Doping Regulation
Ill. THE ROLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW IN DOPING DISPUTES
1. The Human Rights and General Principles of Law at Issue in Doping Disputes
2. Applicability of Human Rights and General Principles of Law in Doping Disputes
3. Admissibility of human rights restrictions
4. Conclusion: the paramount role of proportionality
IV. ARTICLE 2.1: CONFORMITY OF STRICT LIABILITY DOPING OFFENCES WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. Nullum crinem sine lege certa: The Need for Certainty
2. The Presumption of Innocence
3. Conclusion
V. ARTICLES 9 AND 10.1: CONFORMITY OF DISQUALIFICATION WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. The Expression of a General Consensus
2. Some Issues of Concern
3. Disqualification of All Results obtained during a Multi-Competition Event
VI. ARTICLE 10.2: CONFORMITY OF DOPING SUSPENSIONS WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. The Principle of nu/la poena sine culpa
a. The applicability of the principle of nulla poena sine culpa to doping disputes
b. Does the Code comply with the principle nu Ila poena sine culpa?
2. Presumption of Fault versus Presumption of Innocence
3. Compatibility of the Length of the Suspension with Athletes' Fundamental Rights
4. Compatibility of Fixed Mandatory Sanctions with Athletes' Fundamental Rights
5. Conclusion
VII. OTHER PROVISIONS
1. Article 8: The Right to an Interpreter
2. Athlete's Consent to Binding Effect

Legal Opinion on the Conformity of the Exclusion of « Team Athletes » from Organized Training during their Period of Ineligibility with Swiss Law, including the General Principles of Proportionality and Equal Treatment / Rigozzi, Antonio. - World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2008

Contents:

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Qualifications of the Author of this Opinion
2. Independence and Disclaimer
3. The Question Posed, the Document(s) Reviewed, and the Issues Addressed
II. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ANTI-DOPING RULES AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SWISS LAW
1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code)
1.2 The Adoption and the Implementation of the WADA Code
1.3 The Rationale of the WADA Code
1.4 The Main Features of the WADA Code
1.5 Status During Ineligibility
a. Under the 2003 WADA Code
b. Under the 2009 WADA Code
2. Protection of Personality Rights
2.1 Protection from excessive commitments (Article 27(2) CC)
a. Excessive Duration?
b. Excessive Object or Scope?
c. Conclusion
2.2 Protection against infringements of personality rights by third parties (Article 28 CC)
a. Legal or Statutory Provision
b. Consent
c. Overriding Private or Public Interest
d. Conclusion
2.3 Due process
a. Compliance with the principle of legality
b. Fair Trial
2.4 Fundamental Principles of Law
a. Proportionality
b. (Un)equal Treatment..
3. The Argument of Public Policy
Ill. GENERAL CONCLUSION AND ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED