The document presents a comprehensive analysis of the regulatory framework and jurisdictional conflicts surrounding anti-doping measures in sports, particularly focusing on the roles of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), International Federations (IFs), National Olympic Committees (NOCs), and national sports bodies. The case study involves a dispute between the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) regarding the suspension of an Italian cyclist for doping. Initially, the Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) imposed a two-year suspension based on CONI's guidelines, but this was later reduced to three months in alignment with UCI's Anti-Doping Control Regulations. This conflict prompted both the UCI and CONI to seek advisory opinions from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to clarify the hierarchy of anti-doping rules and resolve discrepancies between international and national regulations.
The CAS consolidated the cases and addressed four key questions: the competence of UCI, CONI, or other national bodies in regulating doping for national and international competitions; resolving conflicts between UCI and national rules; CONI's obligations when international federation rules differ from IOC rules; and whether lighter IOC penalties should apply automatically and retroactively. The CAS emphasized the need for uniform global standards in anti-doping regulations, highlighting the IOC Medical Code as the foundational document for prohibited substances and penalties. The Code applies to athletes, coaches, and officials under the jurisdiction of recognized IFs and NOCs, which must reference the Code in their statutes and ensure its provisions are applied. The CAS concluded that the IOC holds primary competence for anti-doping regulation in international competitions, with IFs and NOCs expected to align their rules accordingly.
The document underscores the tension between international sports governance and national legal frameworks, noting that IFs generally hold primary authority in anti-doping matters, with their rules taking precedence over those of NOCs or national federations. However, national bodies like CONI may face conflicts when domestic laws appear to mandate compliance with IOC rules. The analysis found that Italian law does not explicitly require CONI to enforce IOC anti-doping regulations over those of IFs, leaving IF regulations as the prevailing authority in doping-related disputes. The document also addresses the principle of lex mitior, which favors the retroactive application of more lenient penalties, suggesting that athletes should benefit from newer, less severe rules if the penalty has not been fully executed.
Ultimately, the document calls for collaboration and harmonization among sports organizations to ensure consistent and fair anti-doping measures. It highlights the importance of respecting the autonomy of IFs while promoting unified regulations under the leadership of the IOC. The advisory opinion from the CAS serves to clarify the hierarchy of rules and the balance between international consistency and national sovereignty in sports regulation, aiming to enhance legal certainty and effectiveness in the global fight against doping. The document concludes by stressing the need for coordinated efforts to maintain integrity and fairness in sports, ensuring that all stakeholders work together to uphold anti-doping standards.