Appeals in doping cases
A positive test or another anti-doping rule violation is not an automatic verdict. Between notifying the athlete and the final decision lies a procedure with a hearing, and then the possibility of appeal all the way up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. The editorial team examines how this system is arranged, what deadlines apply and what one can realistically count on.
From notification to the first decision
Results management is governed by Article 7 of the World Anti-Doping Code and the International Standard for Results Management (ISRM). After an adverse analytical finding, the anti-doping organisation checks whether the athlete has a valid therapeutic use exemption and whether there were obvious deviations from the standards that could have caused the result.
If there are no grounds for closing the case, the athlete is notified in writing, told which rule was likely violated, and their rights are explained: to demand analysis of the B sample, to obtain the laboratory documentation, to provide explanations. For most prohibited substances, apart from so-called «specified» ones, a mandatory provisional suspension applies.
Next the case passes to the first-instance hearing body. The Code requires this to be a fair, impartial and operationally independent body, and the athlete to have the right to a timely hearing, a lawyer, an interpreter, presentation of evidence and the calling of witnesses.
The athlete may also admit the violation and accept the proposed consequences. The 2021 Code introduced a mechanism whereby an early admission within 20 days of notification of a charge carrying a four-year disqualification can reduce the term by a year. This is a tactical decision that should be made with a lawyer.
The first-instance decision must be in writing and reasoned. It is from the moment of its receipt that the deadlines for appeal begin to run, so the date of receipt is important to record.
Who can appeal and where
Article 13 of the Code determines which decisions may be challenged and who has such a right. A fundamental feature of the anti-doping system is that not only the athlete may appeal, but also anti-doping organisations, the international federation and WADA itself, if they consider the sanction too lenient.
| Athlete level | Where the appeal is filed | Who may appeal |
|---|---|---|
| International level or a case from international competitions | Exclusively to CAS | Athlete, IF, NADO, IOC/IPC (where relevant), WADA |
| National level | Independent national appeal body (unless otherwise provided by the rules) | Athlete, NADO, IF, WADA |
| Decision of the national appeal body | For WADA and the IF — a further appeal to CAS is also possible | WADA, IF |
For appeals to CAS the Code sets a general deadline of 21 days from receipt of the decision. WADA has additional time, since it often learns of a decision later than the parties. Missing the deadline usually means the decision becomes final.
An appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of a decision. If a disqualification has already been imposed, it continues to apply until it is overturned, although the athlete may ask the arbitration for interim measures.
Importantly, an appeal to CAS is heard de novo — that is, the arbitrators examine the case in full, not merely check for procedural errors of the first instance. This gives a chance to correct defects in the defence, but also creates a risk: the court may either reduce or increase the sanction if another party requests it.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport: how CAS works
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was founded in 1984 and is located in Lausanne. It operates under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and has a special appeals division that hears most doping cases. During the Olympic Games, ad hoc divisions operate, issuing decisions within a few days.
A case is usually heard by a panel of three arbitrators: each party chooses one, and the president of the appeals division appoints the chair. A sole-arbitrator hearing is also possible. The procedure includes written submissions, exchange of evidence and, if needed, an oral hearing, which increasingly takes place remotely.
A CAS decision is final within the sporting system. It can be challenged only before the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, and only on very narrow grounds: violation of the right to be heard, improper composition of the panel, lack of jurisdiction, breach of public policy. The Federal Court cannot review the assessment of evidence.
Proceedings at CAS cost money: a registration fee, expenses for arbitrators, experts, lawyers. For athletes with limited resources there is a CAS legal aid system, but it does not cover all costs.
The independence of CAS has repeatedly been the subject of debate. In the case of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (2018), the European Court of Human Rights found that CAS generally meets the requirements of independence but pointed to the athlete's right to demand a public hearing. Since then CAS has more often held open sessions at a party's request.
Arguments that change the sanction
The Code sets basic terms: four years for an intentional violation with a non-specified substance and two years if intent is not proven or the substance is specified and the anti-doping organisation has not proven intent. An appeal most often fights not for full acquittal but for moving from one category to another or for reducing the term.
- Absence of intent:for non-specified substances the burden of proving the absence of intent lies with the athlete, and in practice they must show how the substance entered the body.
- No fault (Article 10.5):full exemption from the sanction; applied extremely rarely, for example in the case of a proven act of sabotage by a third party.
- No significant fault (Article 10.6):reduction of the term, especially for specified substances and contaminated products.
- Substantial assistance (Article 10.7.1):partial suspension of the sanction in exchange for information that helps expose other violations.
- Substances of abuse:for proven out-of-competition use unrelated to performance, the basic sanction is three months, and on completion of a treatment programme — one month.
The strongest defence cases rely on concrete evidence: product residues, laboratory analysis of a supplement's contents, batch numbers, receipts, testimony, experts' pharmacokinetic calculations. General statements such as «I would never have done this» have no evidentiary weight.
A separate line is challenging the analytical part: compliance with the chain of custody, the correctness of applying thresholds and reporting levels, the quality of the laboratory documentation package. Such arguments require independent chemist experts.
Illustrative cases and typical mistakes
Among the best-known examples is the case of tennis player Maria Sharapova, who in 2016 returned a positive test for meldonium shortly after the substance was added to the Prohibited List. The International Tennis Federation's initial disqualification was two years; CAS reduced it to 15 months, finding that the athlete had not acted intentionally but bore responsibility for insufficient checking.
Another well-known example is the case of cyclist Alberto Contador regarding clenbuterol. The athlete explained the result by contaminated meat, but CAS in 2012 considered such an explanation unproven and imposed a two-year disqualification with annulment of results, including the victory in the 2010 Tour de France.
Typical mistakes by athletes in appeals recur: missing the 21-day deadline, refusing analysis of the B sample without consultation, destroying supplement residues, contradictory explanations at different stages, public statements that are later used against the athlete.
Another mistake is to expect that a procedural violation will automatically close the case. As already mentioned, a deviation from an international standard matters only when it could have caused the adverse result.
Editorial conclusions
The appeals system in anti-doping law is multi-level: a first-instance hearing, a national or international appeal, CAS and the very limited oversight of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
The main factors of success are meeting the deadlines, an evidentiary basis for the origin of the substance and a qualified defence. An appeal is double-edged: WADA and federations can also challenge decisions, seeking a harsher sanction.
The best «appeal strategy» begins long before the case: documenting medicines and supplements, keeping receipts, obtaining therapeutic use exemptions.
We also recommend reading our articles on the rights of an athlete during doping control, on prohibited supplements and on the therapeutic use exemption.
References
- World Anti-Doping Agency. World Anti-Doping Code 2021. Montreal: WADA; 2021.
- World Anti-Doping Agency. International Standard for Results Management (ISRM). Montreal: WADA; 2021.
- Court of Arbitration for Sport. Code of Sports-related Arbitration. Lausanne: CAS; чинна редакція.
- European Court of Human Rights. Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland. Applications nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10. Judgment of 2 October 2018.
- Court of Arbitration for Sport. Maria Sharapova v. International Tennis Federation. CAS 2016/A/4643.
- Court of Arbitration for Sport. UCI & WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC. Award of 6 February 2012.
Andriy Melnyk
A strength-sports coach and author of programs for beginner and intermediate levels. Writes about training planning.
