Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• yaser khosrozade ¹
• Nejadali Almasi ²
• hossin safaii ³
• Mansoor Amini ⁴

¹ PhD student, Department of private law, SR.C, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

² Emeritus Professor, Department of private and Islamic law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

³ Professor, Department of private and Islamic law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

⁴ Associate Professor, Department of law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Today, one of the national and international problems in the field of sports competitions is the use of performance-enhancing substances by athletes. Doping leaves unwanted and harmful side effects on the athlete's body, which can be irreversible in some cases, and therefore causes irreparable damage to the athlete's health. Doping is contrary to the highest goals of sport, which are to improve the health of the body and mind, and is contrary to the current regulations of sports organizations because it creates an unfair advantage in the sporting arena. Therefore, doping is prohibited for the basic physical, moral and legal reasons mentioned.
To combat this problem, several measures have been taken, the most important of which is the establishment of the principle of strict liability for athletes who commit doping. Today, the principle of strict liability for athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs has been universally accepted. In fact, the principle of strict liability is one of the most central anti-doping policies in sports.
According to the above principle, which is reflected in Article 2.1.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, "It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1."
The aforementioned principle has a wide scope, in such a way that its scope is wide in various aspects: subject matter, mentality, degree of impact, and method of intervention. From a subject matter perspective, the mere presence of performance-enhancing substances in an athlete's body does not lead to disqualification of the athlete, but rather eleven violations as described in the World Anti-Doping Code lead to disqualification. In terms of mentality, it is not only the intentional act that causes the violation, but even if an athlete has completely unintentionally, mistakenly, ingested banned substances into his body, he is subject to the aforementioned principle. In terms of the degree of effect, it does not matter whether the stimulants improve the athlete's performance or have no effect. In any case, the responsibility is fulfilled. Of course, exceptional cases, such as medical exemptions if it is done according to the regulations, will result in the exempting athlete being held liable.
In fact, even if the athlete's sample tested positive due to mislabeling or contamination of dietary supplements or vitamins, the prohibited substances were administered by the athlete's personal physician or sports nurse without the athlete's knowledge, as athletes are responsible for choosing their own medical personnel and must remind their medical personnel that they should not give them any prohibited substances, this does not justify liability. Also, tampering with an athlete's food and drink by their spouse, coach, or other people in the athlete's circle of companions has no effect, as athletes are responsible for what they consume and must be careful in choosing who has access to their food and drink. Therefore, these cases are only effective in reducing the penalty and not in determining whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.
Research into doping cases involving Iranian athletes also confirms that decisions in these cases were made similarly to those in foreign countries, and in no way was the athlete exempted from liability because she or he was unaware of the presence of prohibited substances in her body or provided medical documentation. Thus, it can be assumed that in sports legal practice, proving that prohibited substances entered the athlete's body by mistake, accident, or even therapeutic use does not in any way remove liability, as required by the principle of strict liability.
Exceptional cases, such as a therapeutic use exemption (TUE), may justify liability if carried out in accordance with the regulations. Athletes with a therapeutic use exemption are not subject to disqualification if their sample test results are positive for a prohibited substance that a medical professional has prescribed as a therapeutic drug. However, if an athlete does not have this TUE and her sample tests positive, providing medical documentation will have no effect on her condition. Thus, if an athlete uses a drug that is prohibited and is considered doping for a professional athlete, with only a medical prescription, he is guilty and will be disqualified. However, if he files a medical exemption application according to the prescribed conditions, he will not be disqualified.

Keywords

• sports law
• strict liability
• doping
• Court of Arbitration for Sport
• WADAi-Iranado

Main Subjects

• Private Law