Creating equality through differentiation in doping control

The International Sports Law Journal - Tập 23 Số 3 - Trang 293-313 - 2023
Marjolaine Viret1, Martial Saugy2, Francesco Botrè3
1Institute of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Synathlon, Lausanne, Switzerland
2Center of Research and Expertise in Anti-Doping Sciences, Institute of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Synathlon, Lausanne, Switzerland
3Director Center of Research and Expertise in Anti-Doping Sciences, Institute of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Synathlon, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

Tóm tắt

AbstractAwareness of human rights and related principles, such as equality and non-discrimination, is growing in sports. While debates on doping regulation typically target the contours of the prohibition and the sanctioning regime, much less attention has been given to how anti-doping detection impacts the level playing field, i.e. whether equality is realised in the manner in which the substances and methods are detected in athletes’ samples, or whether athletes are all equal when it comes to the analytical cut-offs that the regulations set. This article seeks to fill this gap and explores the implications of differentiation—or non-differentiation—in anti-doping detection for principles of equality and non-discrimination. After discussing notions related to equality in anti-doping detection, the article presents case studies from current anti-doping analytics, to make differentiation in that context tangible. Based on case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Swiss Supreme Court and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, we submit that anti-doping authorities should resort to an operational ‘discrimination test’ when drafting technical regulation for anti-doping, in order to incorporate these principles ‘by design’ into the detection system. The article also demonstrates that—apparently—technical rules are not value-neutral, but that scientific data and policy choices are entwined in a way that warrants debate on the political scene, and creates duties of transparency and justification on part of the decision-makers.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Badoud F, Boccard J, Schweizer C, Pralong F, Saugy M, Baume N (2013) Profiling of steroid metabolites after transdermal and oral administration of testosterone by ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography coupled to quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2013.05.018

Biaggini G (2017) BV Kommentar—Bundesverfassung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. Orell Füssli.

Boudia S, Henry E (2022) Politiques de l’ignorance. Presses universitaires de France

Chappelet J-L (2022) The olympics’ evolving relationship with human rights: an ongoing affair. Sport Soc 25(1):1–22

Dimeo P (2007) A history of drug use in sport 1876–1976: beyond good and evil. Routledge, London

Duval A (2022) Lost in translation? The European convention on human rights at the court of arbitration for sport. Int Sports Law J. (Online first 1 June 2022)

Duval A, Heerdt D (2022) IOC adds human rights punch to the lex olympica: the IOC’s strategic framework on human rights. Verfassungsblog on matters constitutional, 11 October 2022. In: IOC adds Human Rights Punch to the Lex Olympica – Verfassungsblog

Ekström L, Cevenini L, Michelini E, Schulze J, Thörngren JO, Belanger A, Guillemette C, Garle M, Roda A, Rane A (2013) Testosterone challenge and androgen receptor activity in relation to UGT2B17 genotypes. Eur J Clin Invest 43(3):248–255

Gonin L (2018) Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH)—Commentaire des articles 1 à 18 CEDH. Berne, Stämpfli.

Heerdt D, Rook W (2022) Remedy and redress for sport-related human rights abuses. Int Sports Law J 22:85–92

Loland S (2018) Performance-enhancing drugs, sport, and the ideal of natural athletic performance. Am J Bioeth 18(6):8–15

Loland S (2020) Caster Semenya, athlete classification, and fair equality of opportunity in sport. J Med Ethics 46:584–590

Loland S, Hoppeler H (2011) Justifying anti-doping: the fair opportunity principle and the biology of performance enhancement. Eur J Sport Sci 12:347–353

Manica A, Prugnolle F, Balloux F (2005) Geography is a better determinant of human genetic differentiation than ethnicity. Hum Genet 118(3–4):366–371

McNamee M, Parnell R, Vanlandewijck Y (2021) Fairness, technology and the ethics of Paralympic sport classification. Eur J Sport Sci 21(11):1510–1517

Murray T (2017) A moral foundation for anti-doping: how far have we progressed? Where are the limits? In: Rabin O, Pitsiladis Y (eds) Acute topics in anti-doping. Med Sport Sci, Basle, vol 62, pp 186–193

Parkhurst J (2017) The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Routledge, Abingdon

Pérez González C (2022) The effective application of international human rights law standards to the sporting domain: should UN monitoring bodies take central stage? Int Sports Law J 22:152–164

Perruchoud M (2020) Le droit à l'égalité des chances dans le sport - Concept, mise en oeuvre et concrétisation. Bâle, Schulthess

Proctor RN (2008) Agnotology: a missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and €y). In: Proctor RN, Schiebinger L (eds) Agnotology. The making and unmaking of ignorance (pp. 1-37). Stanford University Press

Rane A, Ekström L (2012) Androgens and doping tests: genetic variation and pit-falls. Br J Clin Pharmacol 74(1):3–15

Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Bâle

Saugy M, Viret M, Giraud S (2016) The view of the laboratory and the scientist (The WADA Code 2015—most relevant changes). In: Bernasconi M (ed) Arbitrating disputes in a modern sports world—5th conference CAS & SAV/FSA Lausanne 2014. Weblaw, Berne

Schulze J, Pettersson-Bohlin K, Thörngren J-O, Ekström L (2021) Re-evaluation of combined ((ES/EG)/(TS/TG)) ratio as a marker of testosterone intake in men. Drug Test Anal 13(8):1576–1579

Schweizer RJ, Bigler-Eggenberger M, Kägi-Diener R (2014) In: Ehrenzeller B, Schindler B, Schweizer RJ, Vallender KA (eds) Die Schweizerische Bundesverfassung—St-Galler Kommentar (3rd edit.), Dike Verlag, pp 201–256

Sottas PE, Saudan C, Schweizer C, Baume N, Mangin P, Saugy M (2008) From population- to subject-based limits of T/E ratio to detect testosterone abuse in elite sports. Foren Sci Int 174(2–3):166–172

Viret M (2016) Evidence in anti-doping at the intersection of science and law. T.M.C Asser/Springer, The Hague

Viret M (2020) Pistorius revisited: a comment on the CAS award in Blake Leeper v. In: IAAF, Asser International Sports Law Blog, 20 November 2020

Viret M (2023) Comment CAS 2020/A/6807, Blake Leeper v. IAAF, Award of 23 October 2020. In: Duval, Rigozzi (eds) Yearbook of international sports arbitration 2018–2020, pp 235–261

Viret M, Favre-Bulle F (2008) L'intérêt de la lutte contre le dopage confirmé par le Tribunal fédéral. In: Jusletter 19 mai 2008

Viret M, Wisnosky E (2016) ‘Controlling ‘Femaleness’ in Sports: regulatory challenges at the intersection of health, performance and identity. Comment of CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. AFI & IAAF, 24 July 2015. In: Duval, Rigozzi (eds), Yearbook of international sports arbitration 2015. The Hague

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

The International Sports Law Journal

Tập 23 Số 3

293-313

Thông tin tác giả