Lifetime ban for anyone who is caught doping?


Michael Phelps, the most successful and most decorated Olympian of all time with a total of 28 medals, said to American news that he wants anyone caught doping to be suspended for life. That has been suggested and even tried a few times and it unlikely it will ever happen.

 

The International Olympic Committee has tried to ban athletes who had a ban longer than six months from the next Olympic Games – even though the sanction was completed. The British Olympic Association tried to stop athletes from being selected for the Olympic Games based on the same criteria. 

Both attempts have been through the Court of Arbitration for Sport and both attempts failed.

One reason is that such a disqualification is to be considered as an extra penalty. More on this later

Lifetime bans will result in less athletes being banned

Ross Tucker, the owner of the website “The Science of Sport” has written many articles on this topic. In the first one, dated back to 2008 titled Lifetime bans for drug cheats, the South African argues that “dopers who test positive will have even more chance of getting away with it”. The reason is that those who delivers their sentence would be under even more pressure to avoid a false conviction.

His views are backed up by sports journalist Andy Brown of the website “The sport Integrity Initiative”

Both points out that the current doping test aren’t good enough. In article published in the british newspaper The Guardian, Tucker writes “…a lifetime ban cannot be supported by the current science of anti-doping, because the science simply cannot guarantee with 100% certainty that an athlete who fails a doping test is actually doping.”

Andy Brown exemplifies this by using the Justin Gatlin case from 2006:

“In 2006, he tested positive for exogenous testosterone, but claimed that the AAF had been caused by sabotage due to a financial disagreement with his physical therapist, who had rubbed a new product on his legs. A four-year ban was imposed, double the standard two-year ban in place at the time.

 Only Gatlin knows if he intentionally doped. He denies doing so. No panel has ever found that he intentionally doped.”

The British “Bye-Law”

The British Olympic Association (BOA) lost a case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2012. The association had added a Bye-Law where it said: “any British athlete “who has been found guilty of a doping offence … shall not … thereafter be eligible for consideration as a member of a Team GB or be considered eligible by the BOA to receive or to continue to benefit from any accreditation as a member of the Team GB delegation for or in relation to any Olympic Games, any Olympic Winter Games or any European Olympic Youth Festivals”

BOA has had the rule since 1992 and up until 2012 there have been 25 appeals by athletes who were affected by the law. All but one of the 25 athletes won their appeal.

In 2012 the Bye-Law was challenged by the World Anti-Doping Agency who in turn pointed at the CAS-case 2011/O/2422 – U.S. Olympic Committee v. the International Olympic Committee where the latter tried to ban athletes who had a sanction longer than six months from the next Olympic Games. The IOC rule is also known as the Osaka rule – or rule 45 of the Olympic Charter.

The Osaka Rule was originally drafted to allow the IOC to prevent athletes who had received a doping sanction of more than six months from representing their country at the Games.

It was introduced by the IOC in 2007 during the World Athletics Championships in Osaka - hence the name.

WADA wrote in a letter to BOA that disqualifying an athlete from the Olympic Games due to a long doping sanction is an extra sanction and is determined to be non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).

One athlete that was in danger of not participating in the London Olympic Summer Games in 2012 was the British sprinter, Christine Ohuruogu. She had been banned for one year back in 2007 after violating the whereabout information rule.

BOA lost the case against WADA at the CAS. The decision allowed sprinter Dwain Chambers and cyclist David Millar to be selected by Team GB for the London 2012 Games.

CAS wrote in a statement: "The by-law is a doping sanction and is therefore not in compliance with the WADA code. The CAS confirms the view of the WADA foundation board as indicated in its decision.”

"Therefore, the appeal of BOA is rejected, and the decision of the WADA foundation board is confirmed."

Hugh Robertson, sports and Olympics minister, expressed his disappointment at the outcome, and called for tougher sanctions for doping offences generally.

Robertson said: "I supported the BOA's position, as our national Olympic committee, in having the autonomy to set its own eligibility criteria for Team GB athletes. I accept this ruling from the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but it is very disappointing.”

You can read the response from BOA here.

Osaka rule resurfacing

The rule where an athlete can be banned from the next Olympic Games has been brought up now and then. The last time was in 2020 after it was decided that the Tokyo Games had to be moved to 2021.

Many athletes who were banned could now participate in the Games because they were no longer suspended when the Games started in 2021.

The website Inside the Games had found that more than 200 track and field athletes could now participate in the Games since their sanctions expired before the end of May 2021.

Some were suggesting that the banned athletes should be disqualified from the Games to be held in 2021. Richard Young and Ulrich Haas wrote in a blog that it was not possible.

Young, a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner law firm in the United States, and Haas, a Professor of Procedural and Private Law, University of Zurich, have both worked on the World Anti-Doping Code.

Gatlin – sparking the lifetime suspension debate

In 2017 Justin Gatlin participated at the IAAF World Championships in London. The American sprinter had two doping sanctions on him, one after testing positive for testosterone. The first was for amphetamine, but he was cleared as he used Adderall to treat his ADHD.

In 2006 Gatlin tested positive again. This time for testosterone. He claimed the positive test was a result of sabotage but were never able to prove it. As a result, he was given an eight-year suspension, since it was his second ban. The American appealed the decision and won. The decision was reduced to four years, and he was able to return to sport in 2010.  

Gatlin is one of the most medaled 100-meter runner ever at major championships, with three Olympic and five World Championship medals in the event, according to the International Olympic Committee website.

In 2017 the American sprinter won the 100-meter finals in London. That sparked the discussion of banning athletes for life. Jamaican Prime Minister and IAAF President Sebastian Coe suggested life bans for doping should now be reconsidered.

It never did. 

Sources:

The Sport Integrity Initiative – Lifetime Bans will not work

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/life-bans-doping-will-not-work/

The Science of Sport: Lifetime bans for drug cheats:

https://sportsscientists.com/2008/02/lifetime-bans-for-drug-cheats/

CAS – BOA vs WADA:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/cas-2011-a-2658-boa.pdf

Osaka rule – 2020 Tokyo Olympic Summer Games

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1093217/tokyo-2020-doping-ban-olympics-blog

The Gatlin Dilemma:

https://sportsscientists.com/2015/05/the-gatlin-dilemma/

Justin Gatlin:

https://olympics.com/en/athletes/justin-gatlin

Should doping result in a life sentence - Cathrine Ordway

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-doping-ban-life-sentence-catherine-ordway/

 

 

Access the world's largest Anti-Doping Database, spanning over 60 years of doping cases and investigations.

Use up-to-date data when reporting or researching on doping in sport, or when defending an athlete in an anti-doping matter.