Introduction: The new WADA Code 2015
Day 1: The impact of the revised World Anti-Doping Code on the work of National Anti-Doping Agencies
Day 2: The “Athlete Patient” and the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code: Competing Under Medical Treatment
Day 4: Ensuring proportionate sanctions under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

Editor's note

Howard Jacobs is solo practitioner in the Los Angeles suburb of Westlake Village, California. Mr. Jacobs has been identified by various national newspapers and publications as one of the leading sports lawyers in the world. His law practice focuses on the representation of athletes in all types of disputes, with a particular focus on the defense of athletes charged with doping offenses.Mr. Jacobs has represented numerous professional athletes, Olympic athletes, world record holders,  and amateur athletes in disputes involving doping, endorsements, unauthorized use of name and likeness, salary issues, team selection issues, and other matters.  He is at the forefront of many cutting edge legal issues that affect athletes, winning cases that have set precedents that have benefited the athlete community. More information is available at www.athleteslawyer.com.

Introduction

Historically, under the anti-doping rules of most organizations (including the World Anti-Doping Code), the concept of “strict liability” has meant that the proof of intent (or lack thereof) was irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the athlete has violated the anti-doping rules. However, so long as the rules provide for sanction ranges instead of a set sanction for all offenses, the issue of intent to dope has always been somewhat relevant to the issue of sanction length. The 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, with its potential four-year sanctions for a first violation based on whether or not the anti-doping rule violation was intentional, will make the question of intent an important issue in virtually every anti-doping case. This article analyzes these new rules allowing for four-year sanctions for a first violation, in the context of how intent (or lack of intent) will be proven.

I.         Why Intent Matters under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

It should be remembered that under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”). intent is still irrelevant to the issue of whether or not an athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.  This is clear from the Comment to Article 2.1.1: “An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to
an Athlete’s Fault. This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.”

Article 10 of the WADC – dealing with length of sanction, has always taken “intent” into account in determining whether or not a sanction should be reduced[1]. In other words, a sanction that would ordinarily be 2 years could be reduced to no sanction where the athlete had no fault or negligence whatsoever, or could be reduced to some degree if the athlete was not significantly at fault or negligent. In this way, intent is indirectly relevant to the issue of how much, if at all, an otherwise applicable sanction (sometimes referred to as the “default sanction”) could be eliminated or reduced. This is because an athlete who can prove that he or she did not intend to violate the anti-doping rules would be much more likely to establish a lack of significant fault or negligence in committing the violation in the first place.

Now, however, the 2015 WADC makes the issue of intent directly relevant to the first issue of the length of the default sanction itself. Therefore, intent is now not only relevant to the issue of reducing the default sanction, but is also relevant to the threshold issue of what the default sanction is in the first place.

Specifically, Art. 10.2.1 of the 2015 WADC provides: 

“The period of Ineligibility shall be four years where:

10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance, unless the athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance and the anti-doping organization can establish that the anti- doping rule violation was intentional.”

Art. 10.2.2 of the 2015 WADC goes on to state that “if Article 10.2.1 does not apply, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years.” Therefore, under the 2015 WADC, the default sanction is determined as follows: 

1.        where the violation does not involve a “Specified Substance,” the default sanction is four years unless the athlete can prove that the violation was “not intentional;” if the athlete meets this burden of proving “lack of intent,” then the default sanction is two years.

2.        where the violation involves a “Specified Substance,” the default sanction is two years unless the National Anti-Doping Organization (“NADO”) or the International Federation (“IF”) can prove that the violation was “intentional;” if the NADO or IF meets this burden of proving “intent,” then the default sanction is four years.

In either case, “intent” is now directly relevant to the length of the default sanction; the only difference is who bears the burden of proving “intent” or “lack of intent,” depending on whether or not the substance involved is a Specified Substance.

II.        How will the NADO / IF prove “intent” in cases involving “Specified Substances”?

Many older CAS cases have discussed the difficulty that a NADO or IF faces in proving that an athlete “intended” to use a prohibited substance, in their discussions of the justification of the “strict liability” rule.[2]

While this difficulty in proving that an athlete “intended” to use a prohibited substance to enhance their sport performance has not changed in theory, it has changed in practice with the definitions that WADA provided for proving “intent” within the meaning of Art. 10.2.1 of the 2015 WADC.  Specifically, Art. 10.2.3 now provides the following definition of “intent:” 

“As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an adverse analytical finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably presumed to be not “intentional” if the substance is a Specified Substance and the athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was used out-of-Competition. An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an adverse analytical finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was used out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.”

Therefore, for the purpose of proving “intent” within the meaning of WADC Art. 10.2.1, in the case of Specified Substances, the NADO / IF can meet its burden by proving simply that the athlete engaged in conduct where the athlete “knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.” However, practical realities of this “proof” must be considered against the following questions:

(i)             How will this definition of “intent” contained in WADC Art. 10.2.3 be read in connection with the seemingly contradictory comment to 2015 WADC Art. 4.2.2 that specified substances are “substances which are more likely to have been consumed by an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance”?

(ii)           How will an athlete who knowingly takes a “risky supplement” without knowing that the supplement contained a banned “Specified Substance” be viewed in connection with this definition of “intent” contained in WADC Art. 10.2.3?

Furthermore, in cases where an athlete intentionally used a supplement, but the athlete did not know that the supplement contained a prohibited substance (and where the lack of knowledge was reasonable, such as in cases involving misleading ingredient lists), what will the NADO /IF be required to prove? Will the burden be to prove that the athlete knew or should have known that the supplement contained a prohibited substance, or will it be sufficient to prove that the type of supplement or the supplement manufacturer itself could be viewed as risky, such that the athlete’s use of the supplement could be considered as a manifest disregard of a significant risk, for which the athlete should receive a four-year sanction? The manner in which CAS tribunals resolve this use could dramatically impact the applicable “default sanction” in cases involving nutritional supplements.

III.       How does the athlete prove “no intent” in cases not involving “Specified Substances”?

In cases that do not involve “Specified Substances,” the athlete carries the burden of proving “no intent” to avoid the application of a four-year default sanction. In many cases, therefore, this burden of proof will mean the difference between a career-ending sanction and one from which an athlete could potentially return. Therefore, the manner in which this burden of proof is applied by the arbitral tribunals will be critical.

As mentioned above, Art. 10.2.3 of the 2015 WADC provides that “an anti-doping rule violation resulting from an adverse analytical finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was used out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.” Therefore, in cases involving non-specified stimulants, an athlete can avoid a “default sanction” of four years by proving that the stimulant was used out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. This raises a number of important issues:

            a)         will arbitral tribunals accept a low concentration level of the prohibited stimulant in the anti-doping test, which low levels would be inconsistent with the purposeful use of the stimulant “in Competition,” as sufficient proof of out-of-Competition use?

            b)        will arbitral tribunals accept a polygraph finding that the athlete was truthful in stating that he did not use the prohibited substance at issue on the day of the competition at issue as sufficient proof of out-of-Competition use ? [3]

            c)         how will arbitral tribunals analyze the issue of whether the out-of-Competition use of the stimulant was “in a context unrelated to sport performance?”  As has been seen in past cases, arguments can be made that virtually any substance that an athlete consumes, including food, is done in a context related to sport performance.  Therefore, in order to avoid an analysis that renders this phrase meaningless, arbitral tribunals must apply a common-sense and realistic meaning to the issue of when something is consumed in a context that is actually related to sport performance, as opposed (for example) to consuming a product for general health purposes.

For substances that are banned at all times, such as anabolic agents, the analysis of “in-competition” vs. “out-of-Competition’ use will be unnecessary. In these cases, in order to avoid a “default sanction” of four years, the athlete will be required to prove that he or she did not take the substance intentionally. It is therefore critical to consider what will happen to the athlete who has no idea what caused his or her positive test, and who, despite investigation, is unable to prove the source of the prohibited substance. For these athletes, how will arbitral tribunals analyze this issue, which could mean the difference between a career-ending four-year sanction and a “default sanction” of two years?  Some important questions arise:

            a)         Will the athlete’s failure to prove how the prohibited substance entered his or her system (within the meaning of 2015 WADC Art. 10.4 and Art. 10.5.2) automatically result in a 4-year default sanction? Arbitral tribunals should recognize the difference between (i) proving the source of the prohibited substance as a pre-condition to receiving a reduction in the “default sanction,” and (ii) the requirement of proving “no intent” in order to avoid the application of a “default sanction” of four years. An athlete should be able to prove “no intent” without proving the source of the prohibited substance, at least in the abstract.

            b)        Assuming that the failure to prove how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s system is not automatically equated with intent to use the prohibited substance, how will the athlete who cannot prove the source of the prohibited substance prove lack of intent? Will it be sufficient, for example, for an athlete to submit a polygraph finding that the he was truthful in stating that he did not knowingly use the prohibited substance at issue, as sufficient proof of lack of intent, such that the applicable “default sanction” is two years instead of four? Or, even in the absence of a polygraph exam, could an athlete establish “no intent” within the meaning of 2015 WADC Art. 10.2.1.1 solely through her own credible testimony that she did not knowingly ingest the prohibited substance at issue? These will be important evidentiary issues for arbitral tribunals to consider, and the manner in which they are determined will have a significant impact on the sanction length for many athletes under the 2015 WADC.

IV.       Conclusion

The concept of giving longer sanctions to athletes who intend to cheat, and shorter sanctions to those athletes who do not have such an intent, is certainly laudable, and the 2015 WADC has introduced a number of new legal and evidentiary issues in an effort to further differentiate between intentional and non-intentional “dopers.” However, as is often the case, the 2015 WADC has provided very broad concepts, which the arbitral tribunals will have to interpret and apply to real-world situations. How these general concepts are applied in reality will – for many athletes – mean the difference between a two-year sanction that is “merely” devastating and a four-year sanction that is career ending. In those cases where an athlete has no idea where the prohibited substance came from, the arbitral tribunals must be very careful in how they apply these new concepts.

 These new concepts related to “intent” will change the manner in which arbitral tribunals address the preliminary issue of the applicable “default sanction”. They will not materially affect the manner in which these tribunals address the issues related to the reduction in the “default sanction.” However, because of the limitations in how much the “default sanction can be reduced (in cases of no significant fault, the maximum reduction in the “default sanction” is 50 percent), the determination of this new “intent” issue as related to the “default sanction” will be doubly important in cases where the older “exceptional circumstances” rules are being asserted as a basis for sanction reduction.

[1] See, e.g., 2015 WADC Art. 10.4: “if an athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears no fault or negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated”; and Art. 10.5 on the Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.

[2] See, e.g., C. v. FINA (CAS 95/141) Digest of CAS Awards, Vol. 1, at p. 220, par. 13: “Indeed, if for each case the sports federations had to prove the intentional nature of the act (desire to dope to enhance one’s performance) in order to be able to give it the force of an offence, the fight against doping would become practically impossible”.

[3] Prior arbitral tribunals have already accepted that polygraph test results are admissible in anti-doping proceedings. See, e.g., UCI v. Contador (CAS 2011/A//2384).

In the last five years, the Striani case has been the main sword of Damocles hanging over UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Regulations. At the very least, the only real judicial threat they have faced (apart from the relatively harmless challenge mounted in the Galatasaray case at the CAS). Indeed, a Belgian player agent, Daniele Striani, represented by Bosman’s former lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, attempted, in various fora, to challenge the compatibility of UEFA’s CL&FFP Regulations with EU law. Striani lodged a complaint with the European Commission (which was quickly rejected in October 2014) and initiated a private action for damages before the Brussels Court of First Instance. The latter deemed itself not competent to decide on the matter, but nevertheless accepted to order a provisory stay of the enforcement of the UEFA FFP Regulations pending a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the EU (see Ben van Rompuy’s blog on the case here). The CJEU unsurprisingly rejected to enter into the matter, but UEFA and Striani decided to appeal the first instance ruling to the Court of Appeal, which rendered its decision on 11 April. It is unclear at this stage whether Striani will attempt to challenge it at the Belgian Cour de Cassation (Highest Civil Court), however this would entail considerable risks and costs and his lawyers to date have not indicated that they would do so (see here). 

While the ruling of the Court of Appeal does not touch upon the much-discussed question of the compatibility of UEFA’s FFP Regulations with EU law (see our many blogs on the question here, here and here), it remains an interesting decision to discuss broader questions related to the procedural ease in challenging regulatory decisions passed by sports governing bodies (SGBs) based in Switzerland. Competition law constitutes the main legal tool available to sports stakeholders looking to challenge existing regulatory arrangements from the outside (e.g. not going through the internal political systems of the SGBs or the CAS route). Recent cases, such as the ISU decision of the European Commission, the Pechstein case in front of the German courts or the Rule 40 decision of the German competition authority, have demonstrated the potency of competition law to question the legality of the rules and decisions of the SGBs.[1] In this regard, the decision of the Brussels Court of Appeal narrows the range of parties allowed to challenge in European courts the SGBs’ rules and decisions on the basis of competition law.

I.               A Strict Interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention 

Striani, supported by a number of fans based in France and the UK (presumably PSG and Manchester City supporters), was challenging the UEFA FFP rules for their indirect effects. In short, the core claim was that the FFP Regulations, by curtailing the ability of clubs to invest on the transfer market, had the effect of depriving Striani from the chance to earn more money for his services as an intermediary and the fans from a chance to see better players join their favorite team and therefore improve the quality of the team’s performance. Undoubtedly, these effects were not primary objectives of the FFP rules, which were aimed at constraining the ability of clubs to invest at a loss. Moreover, the rules were only constraining clubs qualified to the European competitions. The question from the point of view of private international law, was whether Striani and the fans could rely on Article 5(3) Lugano Convention to sue UEFA in front of the the Belgian courts.[2]

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that in this case it was dealing with an action in liability for a breach of competition law but sided with UEFA in considering that the hypothetical damage suffered by the claimants in Belgium was too indirect for it to be competent. It came to this conclusion after a journey through well-known European private international law judgments, such as Mines de Potasse d’Alsace, Dumez France or Shevill, and other less known (mainly French and Belgian) judgments in cases involving Swiss-based SGBs.[3] In the present case, it noted that « the challenged UEFA Regulation does not prohibit M. Striani and MAD Management […] from exercising the activity of an intermediary in Belgium or abroad, nor does it regulate the conditions in which this activity is to be exercised ».[4] Moreover, the targeted provisions « do not prohibit the relevant clubs from having recourse to agents […] nor do they limit this activity ».[5] In fact, the prejudice alleged by Striani and MAD Management « is only an indirect consequence of the adoption of the challenged UEFA Regulation », as « it is not related directly to the activity of the claimants and does not have direct consequences on this activity in Belgium or abroad ».[6] Thus, the Court decided that jurisdictions of the seat of UEFA (the Swiss courts) are sole competent to hear the matter.

This conclusion is not surprising. It was also the one reached by the first instance court, which however still decided quite surprisingly to send a preliminary reference to the CJEU and to order a stay in the enforcement of the UEFA FFP Regulations (the latter move was condemned by the Court of Appeal). Yet, it carries implications in the context of transnational sports regulation. Indeed, this is a domain in which the consumers (e.g. fans) are heavily impacted by decisions taken by international SGBs located mainly in Switzerland. The regulatory decisions of these bodies have undoubtedly structural effects on the way a particular sport is experienced by the fans. Moreover, due to the monopoly positions of the SGBs over their sports, these decisions are rarely challenged by competitors (such as the International Swimming League). They often bind the fans and determine the quality of the competitions they are watching and are doing so without providing them any type of say in the regulatory process. Sure, fans (or agents) will still be able to sue the SGBs in Swiss courts, but those have proven extremely ‘benevolent’ vis-à-vis the SGBs and are unlikely to apply EU competition law. In short, the Belgium court has consolidated the exclusion of actors indirectly affected by the decisions of the SGBs from European courts. What happens in Switzerland stays in Switzerland…

II.              The irresponsibility of the URBSFA for UEFA’s decisions

The second strategy used by Striani’s lawyers to anchor the dispute in Belgium was their attempt to involve the Belgium football federation, URBSFA, in the case. Indeed, as the URBSFA is seated in Belgium, there is no issue with regard to the competence of the Belgium courts in its regard. However, here the problem arises in connection to the URBSFA’s causal contribution to the adoption and enforcement of the challenged UEFA FFP Regulations. Indeed, the court held that « the fact that URBSFA is a member of UEFA does not turn it into a co-author of the regulations; the reasoning of the claimants ignores the separate legal personality of UEFA ».[7] The claimants were also alleging that the URBSFA was contributing to the enforcement of the FIFA rules, yet the court finds that they are « confusing the licensing role conferred to the national federations […] with the specific rules regarding the financial balance of clubs enshrined in Articles 57 to 63 of the attacked regulations ».[8] In fact, the « federal regulations of the URBSFA do not impose any constraints, or sanctions, with regard to the challenged break-even rules; these are of the sole competence of UEFA. »[9] Hence, the court concludes that no particular wrongful conduct can be attributed to the URBSFA linked to the harm alleged by the claimants.

By doing so, the Court of Appeal holds onto the formalist idea of the separate corporate personalities and brushes over the fact that national federations are at least politically co-responsible for the policies adopted, e.g. they hold the voting power inside the international federations. In this context, invoking the corporate veil might let national federations too easily off the hook, even though it is certainly true that a single national federation does not have a decisive voting power or influence inside an international SGB. Here, there is an interesting parallel with the functioning of the European Union itself, as it seems that decisions taken by UEFA (not unlike the EU’s) are not politically (or in this case legally) attributable to the individual member associations (the famous blame Brussels culture). The idea of a joint action between national and international federations leading to the exercise of collective power might be more suitable to capture the transnational regulatory dynamics at play in sports and could lead to some form of joint liability. In any event, this part of the decision highlights another difficulty in anchoring a case outside of Switzerland, as national federations will often be deemed an inadequate defendant due to their relatively passive role in the adoption and enforcement of the regulations of the international SGBs.

Conclusion

Striani’s crusade against UEFA’s FFP Regulations came to a strange end. While legal scholars and practitioners have been discussing at length whether FFP can be deemed compatible with EU law or not (I’ve spoken in favor of compatibility under certain circumstances, but many others have disputed it), the much-awaited ruling did not even touch upon this question. Indeed, the Brussels Court of Appeal simply denied its competence to hear the matter and sentenced the claimants to pay quite high legal fees to UEFA. By doing so, it did not simply put an end to a case that felt quite artificial and which might have been a pawn in a wider game between UEFA and some powerful clubs, it also closed the door on a variety of stakeholders willing to challenge the rules and decisions of SGBs outside of Switzerland. Indeed, if this interpretation of the Lugano Convention were to stand, it would for example exclude fans from being able to launch liability claims, on their home judicial turf, against international SGBs for the damage inflicted to their clubs.

Besides those directly impacted, in the case of FFP primarily the clubs (would the players be sufficiently directly affected? Maybe, maybe not), those that wish to challenge the rules and decisions of the SGBs are condemned to turn to the Swiss courts, which are rather well-known for their deference to the wide regulatory autonomy of international SGBs. In short, what happens in Switzerland (e.g. the adoption and enforcement of the SGBs’ regulations) is to stay judicially in Switzerland. This will be a reassuring news for the network of Swiss private associations that rule over international sports as it will reduce the risk of facing civil litigation outside of their well-chartered home turf. In fact, it is extremely rare for those directly affected (e.g. the clubs and athletes) to be ready to go to court to challenge them. As evidenced by the case of Bosman or Pechstein, the short-term costs in doing so are disproportionately high (boycott and career-end for the former, bankruptcy for the latter) while the chances of success remain quite limited. Similarly, a football club is unlikely to take the risk of going against UEFA or FIFA, unless it has nothing left to lose (e.g. like SV Wilhelmshaven). In sum, even if I believe UEFA’s FFP rules could be allowed to stand under EU law, this ruling sheltered UEFA from having to deal with this question, at least for the time being.

[1] In general, see B. Van Rompuy, The Role of EU Competition Law in Tackling Abuse of Regulatory Power by Sports Associations, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (2015), vol. 22, nr. 2

[2] Article 5(3) Lugano Convention provides that: A person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may, in another State bound by this Convention, be sued in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.

[3] See the judgments cited in Cour d’appel Bruxelles, UEFA c. Striani & co, 11 avril 2019, 2015/AR/1282, paras 40 & 41.

[4] « En effet, le Règlement UEFA critiqué n'interdit pas à M. Striani et à MAD Management, qui se présentent comme agent de joueurs de football en Belgique (le premier comme personne physique et la seconde étant la société à travers laquelle le premier exerce son activité), d'exercer cette activité d'agent, en Belgique ou à l'étranger ni ne règle les conditions d'exercice de cette activité. » Ibid, para. 42.

[5] « Par ailleurs, ces dispositions ne font nullement interdiction aux clubs concernés de recourir aux services d'agents, tels les demandeurs originaires, ni ne limitent cette activité. Ibid.

[6] « ll découle de ce qui précède que, sans préjuger de la matérialité du dommage invoqué par M.Striani et MAD Management, ce dommage, à le supposer établi, n'est qu'une suite indirecte du l'adoption du Règlement UEFA querellé. Le Règlement querellé ne concerne pas directement l'activité des demandeurs originaires et n'a pas de conséquence directe sur cette activité, en Belgique ou ailleurs. » Ibid.

[7] « L’URBSFA n'est pas l'auteur des règles d'équilibre financier prévues au Règlement UEFA. Le seul fait que I'URBSFA soit membre de l'UEFA ne la rend pas co-auteur du Règlement; le raisonnement des intimés fait fi de la personnalité juridique distincte de l'UEFA. » Ibid, para. 48.

[8] « Ce faisant, les intimés entretiennent la confusion entre le rôle dévolu aux fédérations nationales pour l'octroi des licences, non critiqué en tant que tel, et les règles particulières concernant l'équilibre financier, prévues aux articles 57 à 63 du Règlement querellé. » Ibid.

[9] « Le Règlement fédéral de l'URBSFA ne comporte dès lors pas d'exigence, ni de sanction, concernant les règles d'équilibre financier querellée; celles-ci sont uniquement du ressort de l'UEFA. » Ibid.