The International Convention Against Doping in Sport of 2005

by Renée Kolar

Motivations for Drafting the Convention

At the Round Table of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport in 2003 initiated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), one of the main issues discussed was doping in sport. Paul Marriott-Llyod, Understanding the International Convention against Doping in Sport SHS/2010/PI/H/2, at 2, available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001884/188405e.pdf. UNESCO was concerned not only with the harmful biomedical effects on the athletes, but also with the way doping destroys fair play and equitable competition and causes irreparable damage to the credibility of sport. Id. at 1-2. UNESCO considers sport as a “powerful vehicle for peace by forging social ties and networks, mutual respect and understanding between peoples” and as an important learning tool for young people, especially children, to learn about fair play, teamwork and cooperation. Id. at 1

An important step leading to the creation of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport (ICADS or Convention) was the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC or Code) in March 2003. Id. at 3. The Code establishes a comprehensive framework to protect athletes’ right “to participate in doping-free sport and to ensure harmonized, coordinated and effective anti-doping programmes at the international and national levels with regard to the detection, deterrence and prevention of doping.” Id. at 3. The Code, however, is not legally binding for governments. Rather, the WADC is a non-governmental document that operates in the realm of private or contractual law. Marriott-Llyod at 3. At the UNESCO General Conference in 2003, the decision was made to develop an international convention that would create a binding obligation on states to remove doping from sport. Id. at 3.

Entry into Force and Purpose

After extensive drafting and consultation meetings involving representatives from over 95 countries, the final Convention was adopted on October 19, 2005. Id. at 3. The United States Senate gave its consent to the Convention on July 21, 2008. 154 Cong. Rec. S6980 (July 21, 2008) available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2008-07-21/pdf/CREC-2008-07-21-pt1-PgS6980-3.pdf. The Convention came into force for the United States one month after the United States deposited its instrument of ratification with the Director-General of UNESCO. UNESCO, International Convention Against Doping in Sport, art. 38, Oct. 19, 2005, available at http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/Governments/UNESCO_Convention.pdf [hereinafter ICADS].

The purpose of the Convention is to promote the prevention of and the fight against doping in sport, with a view to its elimination. ICADS art. 1. Where the WADC only applies to members of sports organizations, the ICADS has been designed to coordinate and compel government action allowing for a systemic approach to anti-doping. Marriott-Llyod at 3. The Convention, however, provides flexibility in the approach governments can take to implementation, either by way of legislation, regulation, policies or administrative practices. Id. at 4.

Issues the Convention Seeks to Address

• Availability of prohibited substances. Under the Convention, governments are obliged to limit the availability of prohibited substances and methods in order to restrict their use in sport, including measures against production, movement, importation, distribution, sale and trafficking. ICADS art. 8.

• Athlete support personnel. Governments are also obliged to adopt measures aimed at prohibiting “athlete support personnel” from facilitating doping of athletes. Id. art. 9. This term refers to any coach, trainer, manager, agent, team staff, official, medical or paramedical personnel working with or treating athletes participating in or preparing for sports competition. Id. at art 2.

• Nutritional Supplements. Under Article 10, Governments are required to “encourage producers and distributors of nutritional supplements to establish best practices in the marketing and distribution of nutritional supplements, including information regarding their analytic composition and quality assurance.”

• Doping Control. Article 11 of the Convention, obliges State Parties to provide funding to support national testing programs or assist sports organizations and anti-doping organizations in financing doping controls. Governments are also required to withhold financial support to athletes convicted of an anti-doping rule violation as well as to sports organizations not in compliance with the Code. Id. at art. 11. All doping controls must be consistent with the Code and include no-advance notice, out-of-competition and in-competition testing. Id. at art. 12. The Convention also encourages international cooperation between anti-doping organizations, public authorities and sports organizations. Id. at arts. 13-16.

• Anti-doping education. Under the Convention, governments are required to support, devise or implement anti-doping education and training programs. ICADS at arts. 19-23. States Parties are called to encourage professional associations and institutions to “develop and implement appropriate codes of conduct, good practice and ethics related to anti-doping in sport that are consistent with the Code.” Id. art. 20.

• Research. Articles 24-27 of the Convention seek to promote research on anti-doping and the sharing of research results with other State Parties and the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Related Posts:

• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA’s Successful Arbitration Track Record, Disputing, August 1, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part VI | Right to Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Disputing, July 30, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part V |USADA Expedited Track, Disputing, July 26, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part IV | The Arbitration Hearing, Disputing, July 25, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part III | The Appointment of Arbitrators, Disputing, July 24, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part II | The Review Board Track, Disputing, July 23, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | USADA Files Motion to Dismiss Lance Armstrong’s Suit , Disputing, July 21, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part I | USADA ‘Results Management,’ Disputing, July 19, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | Texas Federal Court Will Hear Lance Armstrong Case on August 10, Disputing, July 18, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong’s Suit and Restraining Order against USADA, Disputing, July 17, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | What is the USADA? Disputing, July 16, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Allegations, Disputing, July 13, 2012
• Lance Armstrong | The Doping Controversy Continues, Disputing, July 12, 2012

Renée Kolar is a summer intern at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert . Renée is a J.D. candidate at The University of Texas School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree in Applied Foreign Languages from l’Université Stendhal in Grenoble, France.