World Anti-Doping Code Commentary Project

The first fully comprehensive resource for anti-doping practitioners, providing guidance along all steps of the doping control process. With topics ranging from signatory compliance to application of the sanctioning regime, the commentary will assist the anti-doping movement to achieve a more effective implementation and harmonized interpretation of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code.

­

The Johaug CAS award: Too harsh?

CAS 2017/A/5110, International Ski Federation (FIS) v. Therese Johaug & The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, August 21, 2017; CAS 2017/A/5110, Therese Johaug v. The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and [...]

The Ademi CAS award: One substance? No source? No problem.

CAS 2016/A/4676, Arijan Ademi v. UEFA, 24 March 2017. In the Ademi award, the main issue in front of the CAS panel was whether the violation was 'not intentional', a question the panel had to [...]

The Significance of Maria Sharapova’s Fault

CAS Award: CAS 2016/A/4643, Maria Sharapova v. ITF, 30 September 2016. This Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) award puts (at least for the moment)[1] an end to Maria Sharapova (or the “Player”)’s doping ordeal [...]

By |November 23rd, 2016|No Significant Fault or Negligence|0 Comments

Cocaine blues: What the Paolini case suggests about “recreational” drug use under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

The Paolini decision, which was decided by the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (“UCI”) anti-doping tribunal (the “UCI Tribunal”) provides insight into the question of how Prohibited Substances used “recreationally” could be treated under the 2015 World [...]

Meldonium and Moral Fault: Five Lessons Learned from the Sharapova ITF Tribunal Decision

In Fall 2015, WADA announced its decision to add the anti-ischemic drug “Meldonium” to its Prohibited List with effect on 1 January 2016, after the Monitoring Program and observation period 2015 revealed “evidence of its [...]

Talk is Cheap: The Daiders CAS Award on the Evidence Needed for a Contaminated Supplement Defense

CAS Award: CAS 2014/A/3615, WADA v. Lauris Daiders, Jànis Daiders, and FIM, January 30, 2015 While the fact pattern in this case – the unexplained presence of a Prohibited Substance allegedly attributable to supplement contamination [...]