1. ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY — DEPARTMENT OF LAW & CRIMINOLOGY — TEOH YEE CHERN * MICHELLE OLIVIA ROBERT * LOO MAN KEITH * KAYATHIRI KANNAN * SATYAPRIYAA DHANAPAL
References:
1. World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘World Anti-Doping Code’ (2015) page 1.
2. World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘World Anti-Doping Code’ (2015) page 2.
3. World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘World Anti-Doping Code’ (2015) page 3.
4. Owen, David, Inside The Games (2015) para.3.
“Drug testing and classification should be a scientific affair,
unfortunately WADA appears to have little to no understanding
of the criteria for science.”
World Anti-Doping Code
A fundamental and universal document upon which the World Anti-Doping Program in sport is based. The
purpose of the Code is to advance the anti-doping effort through universal harmonization of core anti-doping
elements. It is intended to be specific enough to achieve complete harmonisation on issues where uniformity is
required, yet general enough in other areas to permit flexibility on how agreed-upon anti-doping principles are
implemented. The Code has been drafted giving consideration to the principles of proportionality and human
rights.1
Fundamental Rationale for the World Anti-Doping Code
To preserve the intrinsic value of what is often referred to as “the spirit of sport” and “the essence of Olym-
pism”, the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents, it is
how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in
values we find in sport:2
“Ethics, fair play and honesty, health, excellence in performance, character and education, fun
and joy, teamwork, dedication and commitment, respect for rules and laws, respect for self and
other participants, courage, community and solidarity.” 3
Keep Sports Clean!
The current approach towards PEDs in sports is uncompromisingly paternalistic in nature. In this
jurisprudential aspect, paternalist would argue that the unregulated use of PEDs could contribute to the
deficiencies of sports such as;
 Fairness - All athletes should be given an equal chance in the pursuit of victory and consuming PEDs
confers an unfair advantage. Hence, the need to eliminate PEDs from sports.
 Harm - An endless debate in this area revolves around the fact that PEDs are harmful to the health of
athletes. This is because PEDs may have dangerous side-effects on different individuals depending on
their health and physical condition.9
 Integrity - The notion of integrity in sports implies wholeness, moral soundness and freedom from
corruption. It will be negatively affected if PEDs are used to achieve victory as it violates the central
tenet of attaining sporting achievement in a fair and just manner.10
Are Paternalists Being Overly Idealistic?
Today, sport’s dirty little secret is drugs, and it is high time
we made them legal!
 Fairness - Though all athletes should be given an equal chance in sports, paternalists’ arguments failed
to take into account other factors such as biological and environmental inequalities, resource
implications and access to facilities between athletes, depending on their countries of origin.
Empirically speaking, rather than attributing performance inequalities solely down to the use of PEDs,
these arguments are better in touch with the realities of performance enhancement in sport.11
 Harm - Legalisation of doping would encourage more sensible and informed use of drugs in amateur
sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping. Finally, by
allowing medically supervised doping, the drugs used could be assessed for a clearer view of what is
dangerous and what is not.
 Resources - It is argued that doping in sports is mainly confined to the elite professional level where
lucrative financial rewards are involved which are such that athletes are willing to endanger their health
for the sake of fleeting sporting success. Continuous use of resources to monitor the use of PEDs
among athletes in light of more sophisticated, undetectable, ‘designer’ drugs will not be viable nor
sustainable in the long-run.12
 Effectiveness - According to the International Olympic Committee‘s (IOC) Director General’s remark,
out of 11,000 Olympic competitors tested for the use of PEDs, only eight athletes were caught. The
number of positive tests is an extremely poor indicator of the prevalence of doping and raised further
doubts over the continual justification on the use of resources to combat doping by paternalists.13
In conclusion, it is submitted that current anti-doping measures does not adequately prevent
damage from doping in sports, creates health problems of its own besides diverting health-care
resources away from more worthwhile pursuits. In light of these criticisms, allowing the use of
PEDs under a medically regulated environment presents a more viable alternative to the
current method of regulation centred around strict eradication on the use of PEDs.
5. World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘A Brief History of Anti-Doping’ (2015) para.2.
6. ProCon Organization, ‘Historical Timeline—Drug Use in Sports’ (2013) para.1-11.
7. World Anti-Doping Agency, ‘Who Are We?’ (2015) para.1.
8. Neff, Matt De, ‘Anti-doping Has Failed : it’s time to allow drugs in sports’ (2014) para.1.
9. Sharon, Ryan, ‘What’s So Bad About Performance Enhancing Drugs? (2008) page 7.
10. Caouette, Justin, ’Should Athletes Be Allowed To Enhance Their Abilities?’ (2013) para.4.
11. H.Murray, Thomas, ’Drugs, Sports & Ethics’ (2009) para.6.
12. BioMedical Central, ‘What Should The Physicians Role in Elite Sports Be? (2007) para.3.
13. ProCon Organization, ‘Should Performance Enhancing Drugs Be Accepted in Sports’ (2009) para.5.
5
6
7
8