"Strict Liability" in Doping Bans and Penalties

1. Introduction: Doping in Sports — A Crime That Can Ruin Even the Winner

Doping is a crime committed not only against competitors but also against justice, sports, and society.
However, in today's legal system, doping offenses are often punished on the basis of "strict liability," which challenges the presumption of innocence.

The termination of an athlete's career due to the use of banned substances by a doctor or technical staff without the athlete's knowledge has raised serious questions regarding the right to a fair trial and the right to defense . Therefore, the assessment of proportionality, fault, and intent in doping penalties should be central to sports law.

2. The Legal Basis of Doping and the Principle of Strict Liability

2.1. WADA Code and National Regulations

Anti-doping measures are implemented based on the WADA Code , established by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) . In Turkey, these rules are enforced by the Turkish Anti-Doping Commission (TDMK) ; the Turkish Football Federation (TFF), the Athletics Federation, and other sports branches are integrated into this system.

2.2. Principle of Strict Liability

According to WADA Code Article 2.1 and TFF Disciplinary Regulations Article 44:

"The presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete's sample constitutes a doping violation, regardless of fault or intent."

This "no punishment without fault" does not apply in sports law.
In other words, the athlete's intent, the defense of ignorance, or even medical malpractice do not eliminate the punishment; however, for a reduction in the sentence .

3. A Critique of Strict Liability

3.1. Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Defense

Article 38 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR , everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
However, in doping regulations, a laboratory result alone is accepted as "proof of guilt".

This approach effectively restricts the athlete's right to defend themselves, creating a reverse burden of proof.
The athlete is forced to prove that they "unknowingly took the prohibited substance" or that it "was administered by a doctor"—which is often impossible.

3.2. Disproportionality in Criminal Justice

Doping offenses sometimes result in severe penalties, such as bans of two years or even lifetime bans . However, the same sanction is often applied regardless of whether the offense was committed intentionally or negligently

This violates the principle of proportionality , as the law should determine punishment "according to the severity of the offense."

4. Sanctions and Criminal Aspects in Turkish Law

4.1. TFF Disciplinary Sanctions

According to Article 45 of the TFF Disciplinary Regulations, regarding athletes who use or facilitate doping:

• Ban for up to 4 years,

• Cancellation of match results,

• The revocation of medals and awards,

• Clubs will face point deductions and financial penalties .

Furthermore, the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) can impose a "lifetime ban" for repeated violations.

4.2. Criminal Law Aspect

Turkish Penal Code Article 194:

"A person who uses or causes another person to use a substance that poses a danger to health shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years."

According to this article, doping can be considered not only a disciplinary violation but also a criminal offense . Therefore, if a doctor, manager, or club official's "prescribed medication" causes a banned substance to be detected in an athlete, joint liability arises.

5. Supreme Court and CAS Case Law

5.1. Decision of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber

Supreme Court 7th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2018/2431, Decision No. 2019/5129:

“It is clear that administering a banned substance to an athlete, even without the athlete's knowledge and consent, is contrary to public order and sports ethics. The responsibility for this action is shared jointly with the doctor and the coach.”

This decision established an important balancing act in terms of criminal justice by extending the principle of "strict liability" in doping cases from the athlete to those who assisted them

5.2. CAS Decision

CAS decision 2011/A/2384 (WADA v. RFU & Player X) :

“The principle of strict liability also covers the athlete's unintentional actions, but the severity of the penalty may be reduced according to the degree of fault.”

This precedent has emphasized that penalties should be reduced in cases of limited fault or negligence on the part of the athlete.

6. The Fine Line Between Proportionality and Deterrence

Doping penalties should be severe enough to deter the athlete, but proportionate enough to be fair. The aim of punishment is prevention and rehabilitation , not revenge

A "lifetime ban" that destroys an athlete's career can, in some cases, have effects no different from a lifelong suspension.
Yet, the law is a system that gives people a second chance.

However, on the other hand, these penalties should set a frightening example for clubs or doctors who systematically use doping

"Injecting a banned substance into an athlete's vein essentially kills their confidence in the sport."

7. The Athlete's Right to Defense and the Issue of Proof

In doping investigations, athletes have the right to request sample collection, laboratory analysis, and independent expert opinion.
Violation of these rights may lead to the annulment of the penalty.

CAS decision 2015/A/4195:

"If procedural errors were made during sample collection and the right to a fair trial was violated, the disciplinary decision is invalid."

Therefore, instead of simply "accepting the accusation," the athlete should actively exercise their right to gather evidence and appeal.

8. Proportionality of Administrative Fines

Administrative fines imposed on clubs or agents by the TFF and TDMK are also limited by the " principle of proportionality ". The 8th Chamber of the Council of State, in its decision numbered 2022/3416 K., stated:

"The severity of the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the violation and the degree of intent."

Otherwise, the penalties may be annulled, and the administration may be held liable for damages due to "gross negligence in imposing penalties.".

9. Conclusion: Fair Liability Instead of Strict Liability

Doping law is necessary to keep sport clean; however, an unfair zero-tolerance policy can crush innocent athletes.
Therefore:

• "Proportional liability based on fault" should be adopted instead of " strict liability "

• An athlete's unintentional actions and their deliberate doping should not deserve the same punishment.

• Arbitration and judicial mechanisms must be brought into line with fair trial standards.

It should not be forgotten:
"An athlete who uses doping has not only used a substance, but has also betrayed the ethics of the sport."
However, while the law punishes betrayal, it must not forget justice.