A comparative study of the application of strict liability principles in sports: critiquing anti-doping policies; examining "illicit crowd chanting" and match fixing / Shivankar Sharma and Pranav Menon
In: Nirma University Law Journal: Volume 4, Issue 1, July-2014, p 79-108

Sports are an integral part of our lives and are constantly looked at for encouraging the values of competition, integrity and team work in our lives. In the modern day and age with the increase in the various forms of sports played and the application of various scientific and technological principles come more complications than we could have ever imagined. With mammoths amount of money riding on these sports, winning has become all the more important. The reason athletes, teams and their management are resorting to more unethical means of finishing on top, making sure no means (how much ever illicit or disdainful) are left unexplored. These gives rise to questions of regulating such behavior of these sportsmen and women. How should the questions of doping and using banned substances be addressed from a legal perspective? What are the bodies at the international and domestic sphere to address these issues? The principle of strict liability and its application to these above-mentioned questions are some of the issues which have been addressed in this paper.
The researchers during the course of this study would like to make a comparative study on how are principles of strict liability applied differently in cases of doping, illicit chanting by the crowds and how are the managements of teams often held vicariously liable with no fault or negligence when their players are accused of match fixing, the latter becoming ever important specially after the recent allegations on spot fixing on some cricketers and their managements.

Sports arbitration / Antonio Rigozzi and William McAuliffe
In: The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review / 2013. - P. 15-22, 118. - Global arbitration review [© Law Business Research Ltd]

Given that the sports industry is estimated to account for between 3 and 6 per cent of total world trade, it comes as no surprise that it is also a major source of legal disputes. Of particular interest to the international arbitration community, however, is the fact that arbitration is now firmly established as the dispute resolution method of choice throughout the sports industry, with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne now receiving a new case almost every working day.
Although sports arbitration shares many characteristics with commercial or investment arbitration, and although many sports arbitrators also sit in standard commercial and investment cases, it also has many interesting features that distinguish it from nonsports-related arbitration. For example, most arbitration practitioners would probably be surprised to learn that some of the world’s leading sports arbitral awards were issued at the conclusion of an expedited 24-hour arbitral process involving all-night deliberations by the arbitral tribunal. Another striking feature of sports arbitration is publicity: CAS arbitrators must be prepared not only to have their awards pored over by the parties to the arbitration, but also to have their findings analysed in detail by the world’s media and critiqued over morning coffee by millions of sports fans around the globe. The Swiss Supreme Court has even suggested that, although CAS cases are heard in private, should an athlete request it, it would be desirable for a public hearing to be held.

In conclusion, arbitration has proven to be an extremely successful method of resolving sports disputes, and as a result it has gained the favor and confidence of the sporting world. This success has inevitably led to a massive increase in the number of sports arbitrations taking place in recent years. Unfortunately, the expectations of the sports community, created largely by the high-profile activity of the CAS, are somewhat at odds with the
reality of many national level sports dispute resolution bodies, as well as some of the international ‘arbitral’ bodies that have been created by international federations.
Perhaps the greatest challenge that the sports arbitration community is now faced with is the need to put structures in place to ensure that the increase in the number of arbitrations does not lead to a decrease in the quality of the awards being issued. To this end, it is arguable that the bulk of resources, both financial and intellectual, should be dedicated to the establishment of a high-quality ‘national CAS’ in every country for the resolution of national level disputes, and a similarly high-quality arbitral body in each sport, to resolve international disputes. If these two types of bodies became established in each individual country and sport, the right of appeal to the CAS could be restricted, and the role of the CAS could evolve from that of a body which re-hears appeals on a de novo basis, to that of a review body whose primary function would be to scrutinize the procedural fairness of the arbitral proceedings at previous instances.
In effect, it would fulfill a similar role to that which is currently performed by the Swiss Supreme Court in relation to the CAS. This development would eventually lead to a pyramidal structure in the world of sports dispute resolution. National level athletes would have access to high-quality dispute resolution services in their own countries, which would eliminate language barriers and reduce the costs that are currently associated with international tribunals, thereby increasing access to justice. In addition, each sport would have its own independent arbitral service for
international disputes, which would ensure even greater understanding of disputes by arbitral tribunals.
This structure would allow the CAS to utilize its resources in a new way. During the early stages of this development, it could share its institutional knowledge and the experience of its secretariat to assist with the creation of the new arbitral bodies. Then, once the bodies are established, the role of the CAS, at the top of the pyramid, would be that of a watchdog, or a safety net, to ensure that fairness and independence were being maintained at all times. In this way, the CAS would play a significant role in ensuring that both domestic and international arbitral tribunals maintain a high standard of arbitral awards in sports arbitration, while providing an even more accessible and specialized arbitral service to sports people and sporting entities worldwide.

Related cases:

• CAS 2009_A_1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
  November 12, 2009
• IBU 2009 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
  August 11, 2009
• IBU 2013 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
  July 14, 2014
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_620_2009 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
  May 7, 2010
  
  

On 11 August 2009 the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (ADHP) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Russian Athlete Ekaterina Iourieva after she tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Thereupon in 2014 the Athletes samples - provided in December 2013 and in January 2014 - again tested positive for rhEPO. Consequently on 14 July 2014 the ADHP decided to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility for her second anti-doping violation.

In November 2014 the accredited laboratory in Cologne re-analysed the Athlete samples - provided in November 2013 - and the analysis revealed the presence of rhEPO. The IBU notified the Athlete about this new anti-doping rule violation while she was already serving a 8 year period of ineligibility for her second anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete did not respond to the IBU communication and neither did she attend the hearing of the ADHP.

The IBU requested the ADHP to impose an additional period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her third anti-doping rule violation with consideration of aggravating circumstances due to her previous committed anti-doping rule violations.

The ADHP notes that previously the Athlete had admitted her second anti-doping violation and that this violation was committed at the same time of the second violation. However the ADHP finds that the Athlete did not gave a prompt admission for the anti-doping violation in this case and therefore aggravating circumstances can be taken into account for her use of a prohibited substance on multiple occasions.

Although the ADHP considered the reported violations as one single violation, the ADHP holds that it is a matter of fact that the Athlete provided positive samples at four occasions in a time span of five weeks (November 2013 - January 2014) demonstrating systematic use of EPO.

Therefore without exceptional circumstances the ADHP decides on 30 June 2015 to impose an additional 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of expiration of the pending 8 year period of ineligibility, i.e. on 23 December 2021.

Related case:

UKAD 2019 UKAD vs Darren Eales
November 11, 2020

In December 2014 the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Darren Eales after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Boldenone, Oxymetholone and Trenbolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Initially the Athlte admitted the violation but hereafter failed to respond to the communications from UKAD. The National Anti-Doping Panel settled this case based on the written submissions.

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an admitted anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore that National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 19 June 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibiltiy on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 December 2014.

Facts
The International Volleyball Federation allegated Lucia Paz Lozano Lorenzini, the player, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an in-competition doping control at a match in Brasil a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of methylhexaneamine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The player had used a supplement containing the prohibited substance. She had used it without the intention of gaining a sporting advantage but rather merely to control her weight, the use of it was mentioned on the doping control form. Because she had suffered an abdominal injury she had not trained enough and gained weight. She took the product from friends who were no athletes. She had read the ingredients but was unaware that the ingredients were prohibited. She had not had any anti-doping education.
The Panel concludes that, under the circumstances, the Athlete clearly failed to exercise the care that one could reasonably expect from her. However, the Panel finds that the conditions with the ruling are met and a reduction of the standard 2-year period of ineligibility by one half is warranted.

Decision
The decision is a period of ineligibility of one year, starting on the date of the decision.

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged Quentin Gardiner, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. A sample was taken from the athlete after the final of the Touch Nationals on March 8, 2015. The "A" sample tested positive for methylhexaneamine. Methylhexaneamine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 Prohibited List, it is regarded as a specified substance. This case is unusual only in that counsel have filed a joint memorandum recording an agreed submission as to outcome.

History
The athlete had used supplements containing the prohibited substance. He had mentioned the products on the doping control form. Historically the supplements he used contained methylhexaneamine but they longer do so. Probably the contamination derived from an older batch. The athlete has established no significant fault or negligence.

Decision
The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 15 months starting from the date of the sample collection.

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged Andrew Ciancio, the athlete, for failing in providing his whereabouts and evasion for not giving the correct address were he was staying, he tampered with the sample collection by giving false and misleading information as to his whereabouts.

History
The DFSNZ had put the athlete into provisional suspension after the athlete failed to attend the hearing about his case. Several times the athlete failed in responding, he claimed to be awaiting the decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) for an appeal of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). It is unusual to have an athlete subjected to anti-doping proceedings simultaneously in two jurisdictions. However the decision of CAS did not come and ASADA did not want to share their findings. The decisions of the tribunal was based on the existing material. The athlete had failed to bring in any evidence. He had claimed to work as a handyman on several locations for that reason his locations were incorrect.
In the meantime the CAS decision was made known which was a period of ineligibility lasting 7 years. The New Zealand violations occurred after that date. By this it is a second violation but also multiple violations, the first violation in Australia was for trafficking. Although now the hearing could determine if this case was a "lex mitior". As DFSNZ properly notes the orthodox position would be that the new rules would normally be applied but submits that the delay in this matter was in part because the athlete wanted to have the CAS proceedings determined before he had to deal with the New Zealand violations. The substantial delays related to the time taken by CAS to issue a final award. The tribunal wil apply the ruling of 2015.

Decision
The period of ineligibility will last 8 years starting from June 4, 2014.

Canadian Centre for Ethics annual report 2003-2004 / Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

CONTENTS

• Highlights
• Board of Directors
• Canada’s Doping Control Program
• Cultivating Values-Based Sport
• International
• Auditors’ Report

Canadian Centre for Ethics annual report 2004-2005 / Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

CONTENTS

• Board of Directors
• Ethics in Sport Initiatives
• Canada’s Doping Control Program
• Canadian Partnerships
• International Partnerships
• The CCES Team
• Auditors’ Report

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport annual report 2005-2006 / Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

CONTENTS

• Highlights
• Committed to Values
• Governance
• Anti-Doping Leadership
• Community Sport Leadership
• International Leadership
• Auditors’ Report