The Naked Spirit of Sport: A Framework for Revisiting the System of Bans and Justifications in the World Anti-Doping Code

Abstract

As the World Anti-Doping Code is up for revision, the paper proposes a framework for reading the Code based on a relatively literal approach and an almost exclusive focus on the ‘spirit of sport’ as a key element of the Code. The author argues that this single element can contribute to revealing the underlying rationale of the Code, as it serves to justify bans of doping substances and methods, in some cases without recurring to evidence sustaining the claims made. For a substance/method to be banned, the Code requires that two out of three criteria be met: performance enhancement, health risk and the spirit of sport. The paper demonstrates how these provisions link to other parts of the Code, (under the rules of the Code 2009) in the absence of performance-enhancing properties combined with a health risk. The paper draws implications from these findings regarding terminological (im)precision, legal certainty/predictability, transparency/accountability, limits to arbitrary exercise of power and internal/external validity.

Como el Código Anti-Dopaje está ahí para ser revisado, este artículo propone un marco desde el que leer el Código en base a una propuesta relativamente literal y a centrarnos casi exclusivamente en el “espíritu del deporte” como el elemento clave del Código. El autor propone que este simple elemento puede contribuir a mostrar la racionalidad de fondo del Código, en tanto que sirve para justificar la prohibición de sustancias y métodos dopantes, sin recurrir en muchos casos a evidencias que sustenten las afirmaciones realizadas. Para que un método/sustancia sea prohibido, el Código exige que dos de tres criterios se cumplan: mejora del rendimiento, riesgo para la salud y el espíritu del deporte. Este artículo demuestra cómo estas cláusulas enlazan con otras partes del Código, (bajo las reglas del Código de 2009) en ausencia de propiedades mejoradoras del rendimiento ligadas a riesgos para la salud. Este artículo esboza implicaciones derivadas de estos hallazgos relacionadas con la (im)precisión terminológica, la certeza/predictibilidad legal, la transparencia/credibilidad, los límites del ejercicio arbitrario de poder, y la validez interna/externa.

Anlässlich der aktuellen Überarbeitung des „World Anti-Doping Code“ schlägt dieser Essay eine wortwörtliche Interpretation des Codes vor, die sich an dem zentralen Element des „Sportsgeistes“ orientiert. Der Autor argumentiert, das dies die dem Regelwerk zugrunde liegende Logik offenbart und damit ausreicht, um Verbote von Dopingsubstanzen und –praktiken zu legitimieren und in Einzelfällen gar Verbote ohne beweiskräftige Überführung zu rechtfertigen. Der Code verlangt, dass für das Verbot einer Substanz oder einer Praxis zwei von drei der folgenden Kriterien erfüllt sein müssen: Leistungssteigerung, eine Gesundheitsgefährdung oder ein Verstoß gegen den „Sportsgeist“. Dieses Papier soll darum veranschaulichen, dass sich diese Bestimmungen mit anderen Teilen des Regelwerks (gemäß der Bestimmungen in der Fassung von 2009) verbinden lassen, ohne der Bestimmungen der „leistungssteigernden Eigenschaften“ und der „Gefahr für die Gesundheit“ zu bedürfen. Aus dieser Erkenntnis zieht der Essay Schlussfolgerungen zur terminologischen Präzisierung, der rechtlichen Sicherheit, der Transparenz sowie den Grenzen der Macht des Regelwerks und seiner internen/externen Gültigkeit.

Comme le Code Anti-Dopage Mondial est en cours de revision, cet article propose un cadre pour lire ce Code de manière littérale et avec un accent presque exclusif sur “l’Esprit sportif” comme un élément clé du Code. L’auteur soutient que ce simple élément peut contribuer à révêler le raisonnement sous-jacent du Code, la manière dont il se sert des interdictions de substance de dopage et des méthodes, dans les quelques cas qui, sans recourir à l’évidence de la prevue, sont l’occasion de réclamations folles. Pour une substance/méthode qui est interdite, le Code exige que deux des trois critères soient respectés : amélioration de la performance, risque pour la santé et l’esprit du sport. Cet article démontre comment ces dispositions sont liées à d’autres parties du Code (conformément aux règles du Code 2009) en l’absence de propriétés ameliorant la performance combinées avec un risque pour la santé. Cet article dessine les implications de ces découvertes quant à la précision (non)terminologique, la certitude/prévisibilité légale, la transparence/responsabilité, les limites de l’exercice arbitraire du pouvoir et ma validité interne/externe.

在準備修訂世界反運動禁藥規範的同時, 本研究提供以文字分析取徑的架構來解讀禁藥規範, 並主要著眼於其中的關鍵要素: 運動精神。作者認為此單一要素可以用來揭示規範背後的理論根據, 並點出規範可藉此項要素, 在某些沒有充足證據支持的情況之下, 合理化禁止使用禁藥與方法。要禁止某項禁藥成分與方法, 禁藥規範至少需要符合下列三項標準其中之二: 運動增能、健康風險與運動精神 。在禁藥缺少運動增能的特質與健康風險(依據2009年的規範條文)的情況下, 本文指出這些與運動精神相關的規定如何與規範的其他部分連結。藉由上述發現, 本研究對用語精確與否、合法確定性/可預測性、透明度/可解釋性、任意運用權力的限制, 以及內部/外部效度等議題提出相關建議。

KEYWORDS:

• World Anti-Doping Code
• World Anti-Doping Agency
• spirit of sport
• policy
• evidence
• legal drafting
• transparency

Acknowledgements

The author is a civil servant in the European Commission, but opinions expressed are strictly those of the author and do not render official Commission positions. This paper is the revised version of a paper delivered at the British Philosophy of Sport Association, annual conference, University of Gloucestershire, 8–9 April 2013. It covers some common ground with an earlier (German-medium) book chapter (Kornbeck 2011), while focussing more strongly on conceptual and theoretical aspects of the problems identified and while also taking more recent publications and developments into account. Thanks are owed to Professor Mike McNamee (Swansea University) and Steven Teitler (Dopingautoriteit Nederland) for comments, proposals and encouragement.

Notes

1. For an overview, see http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/Code-Review/.

2. The following text was foreseen in draft 2.0: ‘4.3.1 WADA shall consider a substance or method for inclusion on the Prohibited List if it determines in its sole discretion that the substance or method alone or in combination with other substances or methods has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance and the substance or method meets, in addition, one of the following two criteria: 4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete; 4.3.1.2 WADA’s determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the Introduction to the Code’ (WADA 2012).

3. 'These sport-specific rules and procedures aimed at enforcing anti-doping rules in a global and harmonized way are distinct in nature from and are, therefore, not intended to be subject to or limited by any national requirements and legal standards applicable to criminal proceedings or employment matters. When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral hearing panels and other adjudicating bodies should be aware and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport.' – A few amendments are foreseen for the Code 2015 yet the tenor of the text remains the same.

4. In the summer of 2013, Belgian Minister of Justice Annemie Turtelboom (Flemish liberal) stirred considerable controversy with her proposal that, as a rule, courts of appeal (cour d'appel/hof van beroep) should sit with one judge rather than three (Matgen 2013b). The Minister's concern was the reduction of case backlog (though the argument was countered by judges who thought that sitting alone they would need more time for preparation) and had an air of New Public Management (though critics pointed out that the buildings portfolio would be insufficient, as more session chambers would be needed). Significantly, the proposal was criticised by a professor of criminal procedure on the ground that defendants must be entitled, at this higher level of judicial review, to have their case tried by more than one judge (Matgen 2013a).

5. See e.g., ‘The more outré and grotesque an incident is, the more carefully it deserves to be examined, and the very point which appears to complicate a case is when duly considered and scientifically handled, the one which is most likely to elucidate it.’ [The Hound of the Baskervilles, 1902] – See also: ‘It is only the colourless, uneventful case which is hopeless.’ [The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place, 1927].

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jacob Kornbeck

Jacob Kornbeck, Policy Officer, European Commission, Sport Unit, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. Please see acknowledgements section. E-mail: [email protected]