This Article is written by Naina Kumari of Pt. Som Chandra Dwivedi Vidhi Mahavidyalaya pursuing BA LLB , 5th year during her internship at Ledroit India.
Scope of the Article
This article covers the following aspects:
- Concept and evolution of sports litigation
- Meaning and forms of doping in sports
- International anti-doping legal framework
- World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and WADA Code
- National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA): structure and powers
- Doping control procedure under Indian law
- Disciplinary proceedings and sanctions for doping violations
- Burden of proof and standard of evidence in doping cases
- Appeals mechanism under NADA
- Role and jurisdiction of Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
- Landmark international doping case laws
- Important Indian doping case laws
- Recent developments in doping jurisprudence
- Challenges in doping litigation
- Conclusion and future outlook.
Abstract
The World Anti-Doping Agency aims to promote clean sport through the introduction and implementation of harmonised rules under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2021 (the Code). Since WADA relies heavily on National Anti-Doping Organisations to implement the Code, the experience of anti-doping differs across countries. Some scholars argue that the current framework disproportionately impacts athletes from developing countries. This paper contributes to this debate by analysing systemic issues in the implementation of the Code in one such country—India.
The legitimacy of anti-doping in India has been questioned as a result of the recent suspension of the National Dope-Testing Laboratory, a series of false positive tests, accusations of significant procedural and substantive errors by domestic tribunals, and access to justice challenges. Given the prevalence of doping in India, alongside the accumulation of recent controversies and push for reform, a deeper analysis of anti-doping in the country is warranted. The lack of compliance in India with certain requirements set out in the Code, as well as the failure to meet “best practice” standards set by other jurisdictions, is evidence that there is a lack of harmonisation in implementing anti-doping rules and procedures across countries.
This paper contributes to the debate on the impact that a lack of harmonisation in the implementation of the Code can have on the legitimacy of the anti-doping framework. From a policy perspective, the proposed research agenda and recommendations can be applied to promote reform in India and other jurisdictions, especially in developing and emerging countries.
Keywords: Anti-doping, Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), India, Harmonisation
Introduction
Doping threatens to undermine the spirit of fairness that underpins sport. Accordingly, governments and international organisations have built a framework to restrict, deter and sanction doping in sport. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) aims to promote clean sport through the introduction and implementation of harmonised rules under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2021 (the Code).The implementation of the Code relies on the cooperation of national governments which ratify the provisions of the Code according to their specific constitutional requirements.WADA has acknowledged that “a central pillar” of its mission is to monitor signatories to ensure that they are in compliance with the Code so that “all countries follow the same set of rules and implement compliant anti-doping programs”.
According to WADA, uniform compliance by all signatories is critical for the anti-doping system since “harmonization means that athletes know what to expect from the anti-doping system no matter where they are from or where they are competing.”
While the Code has now been adopted by most international sport federations and national governments, the experience of anti-doping differs across countries. To date, most scholarship on the effectiveness of the implementation of anti-doping policy has focussed on developed countries such as the UK.However, scholars have argued that the current framework disproportionately impacts athletes from developing countries. and, therefore, any holistic discussion on the effectiveness of the harmonisation of the anti-doping system ought to take into account the implementation of the Code in such nations. Limited research has been conducted on the impact of the adoption of the Code in developing and emerging countries.
This paper contributes to this debate by analysing systemic issues in the implementation of the Code in one such country—India. Indeed, India has a high prevalence of anti-doping rule violations amongst its athletes, with the majority of athletes’ cases being determined by domestic tribunals.Recently, the legitimacy of the anti-doping framework has been questioned as a result of the suspension of the National Dope-Testing Laboratory (NDTL).
A series of highly publicised false positive tests.Accusations of significant procedural and substantive errors by domestic tribunals,and access to justice challenges before the High Court.In addition, there has been discussion of anti-doping reform, with the introduction of the National Anti-Doping Bill (2021), in Indian Parliament, as well as separate government policy with respect to regulation of supplements.
Concept of Doping in Sports
Doping refers to the use of prohibited substances or methods to enhance athletic performance unfairly. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, doping is not limited to consumption alone but includes possession, trafficking, evading testing, tampering, and complicity.
Definition (WADA Code, 2021):
Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) as set out in Articles 2.1 to 2.11 of the Code.
Evolution of Anti-Doping Laws
Historically, doping regulations were fragmented and inconsistent across countries. The death of Danish cyclist Knud Enemark Jensen (1960 Olympics) triggered global concern, leading to structured anti-doping policies.
The establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 marked a turning point, bringing uniformity through the World Anti-Doping.
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
WADA is an independent international organization responsible for:
Maintaining the Prohibited List.
Drafting and enforcing the WADA Code.
Promoting harmonization in anti-doping rules.
Monitoring compliance by national agencies.
The Prohibited List is updated annually and is binding on all signatories.
National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) – India
NADA was established in 2005 as an autonomous body under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.
Functions of NADA
- Conduct doping tests
- Investigate anti-doping violations
- Prosecute athletes before disciplinary panels
- Educate athletes on anti-doping norms
Doping Control Procedure under NADA
The procedure includes:
- Sample collection (urine/blood)
- Laboratory analysis (WADA-accredited labs)
- Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)
- Provisional suspension
- Hearing before Disciplinary Panel
- Failure at any stage may render proceedings invalid due to violation of natural justice.
Landmark International Case Laws
a) World Anti-Doping Agency v. Sun Yang (2020)
CAS upheld an eight-year ban for refusing sample collection.
Facts:
Sun Yang, a Chinese swimmer, refused to allow doping control officers to take his blood and urine samples during an out-of-competition test in September 2018, questioning their credentials. He destroyed the blood sample container and obstructed the testing process. FINA initially cleared him, but WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Held:
CAS held that Sun Yang committed an anti-doping rule violation by tampering with and obstructing doping control. Athletes cannot refuse testing due to procedural doubts. An eight-year ban was imposed considering his prior violation.
b) Puerta v. ITF (CAS 2006/A/1025)
CAS reduced sanction due to lack of intent and proportionality.
Facts:
Mariano Puerta, an Argentine tennis player, tested positive for etilefrine, a prohibited stimulant, after the 2005 French Open final. Puerta claimed the substance entered his body accidentally through contaminated medication and food. As this was his second doping offence, the ITF imposed an eight-year ban.
Held:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) accepted that the ingestion was unintentional and recognized mitigating circumstances. Applying the principle of proportionality, CAS reduced the sanction from eight years to two years, emphasizing fairness while upholding strict liability.
Important Indian Case Laws
1)NADA v. Ravi Kumar (2011)
The Delhi High Court emphasized adherence to procedural safeguards.
Facts:
Ravi Kumar, an Indian athlete, tested positive for a prohibited anabolic steroid during a doping test conducted by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA). He denied intentional use and claimed that the substance entered his body unknowingly through contaminated supplements. NADA treated the case under the principle of strict liability and imposed a period of ineligibility.
Held:
The adjudicating authority held that athletes are strictly liable for substances found in their bodies, irrespective of intent. Ravi Kumar failed to prove absence of fault or negligence. The sanction imposed by NADA was upheld, reinforcing the importance of personal responsibility in anti-doping compliance.
2)Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India (2015)
Court held that natural justice must be followed even in doping cases.
Facts:
Pradeep Kumar, an Indian athlete, tested positive for a prohibited substance during a doping test conducted under the NADA Rules. He challenged the disciplinary action before the court, arguing procedural irregularities, lack of proper notice, and violation of principles of natural justice during the testing and adjudication process.
Held:
The Court held that anti-doping proceedings must strictly follow fair procedure and natural justice. Since procedural lapses affected the athlete’s right to a fair hearing, the impugned order was interfered with. The case emphasized that while strict liability applies, authorities must ensure due process and transparency in doping control.
Role of Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) in Doping Litigation
The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) has emerged as a significant evidentiary tool in doping prosecutions. Unlike traditional testing methods that detect prohibited substances directly, ABP monitors selected biological variables of an athlete over time to identify indirect markers of doping.
The legal relevance of ABP lies in its reliance on longitudinal data rather than a single positive test. CAS has upheld ABP-based sanctions, provided that statistical models and expert evaluations meet the standard of “comfortable satisfaction.” However, concerns regarding transparency of data interpretation and athletes’ ability to challenge scientific assumptions continue to raise due process issues in sports litigation.
Intersection of Criminal Law and Anti-Doping Offences
In several jurisdictions, doping-related activities such as trafficking, administration of prohibited substances, and organized doping schemes attract criminal liability. While India largely treats doping as a disciplinary offence, countries like Italy, Germany, and France criminalize certain anti-doping violations.
This dual-track system—disciplinary sanctions by sports bodies and criminal prosecution by state authorities—raises concerns regarding double jeopardy, jurisdictional overlap, and proportionality of punishment. The absence of criminal sanctions in India has also been criticized for failing to deter large-scale doping networks involving coaches and medical professionals.
Rights of Minors and Junior Athletes in Doping Proceedings
Doping litigation involving minors presents unique legal and ethical challenges. Junior athletes often lack adequate knowledge of prohibited substances and are more vulnerable to influence from coaches, parents, and support personnel.
Although the WADA Code provides for reduced sanctions for protected persons, implementation remains inconsistent. Indian anti-doping jurisprudence has yet to develop a robust child-centric approach that ensures psychological support, legal representation, and rehabilitative measures rather than purely punitive sanctions for young athletes.
Impact of Doping Allegations on Sponsorship and Career Prospects
Beyond legal sanctions, doping allegations have severe civil and commercial consequences. Loss of sponsorships, termination of contracts, reputational damage, and psychological distress often precede the final adjudication of guilt.
Notably, even athletes who are later exonerated rarely recover lost endorsements or public trust. This raises important questions about interim suspensions, media trials, and the need for confidentiality during the investigation stage of doping cases.
Role of Technology and Digital Evidence in Doping Investigations
Advancements in technology have transformed doping investigations. Digital evidence such as WhatsApp messages, emails, training data, and GPS records are increasingly used to establish complicity, trafficking, or evasion of testing.
While such evidence strengthens enforcement, it also raises privacy concerns and data protection issues. Clear guidelines are required to regulate the admissibility and scope of digital surveillance in anti-doping proceedings.
Rehabilitation, Education, and Reintegration of Sanctioned Athletes
Modern anti-doping jurisprudence is gradually shifting from a purely punitive approach to a rehabilitative model. Education programs, psychological counseling, and monitored reintegration into competitive sports are increasingly recognized as essential components of athlete reform.
India’s anti-doping framework remains largely sanction-oriented, with limited post-ban support mechanisms. Incorporating structured rehabilitation programs can reduce repeat offences and promote long-term compliance with anti-doping norms.
Conclusion
Doping litigation represents a delicate balance between maintaining sporting integrity and protecting athletes’ rights. While strict liability ensures deterrence, excessive rigidity may lead to injustice. India must strengthen NADA’s procedural mechanisms, athlete education, and access to appellate remedies. Harmonization with international standards and judicial sensitivity can ensure fairness while preserving the sanctity of sports.
