THE STRICT LIABILITY PRINCIPLE AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ...

Although the Real Federación Española de Atletismo included an identical provision to the one
in the abovementioned law in its doping regulations, the clarity of that provision was partly
cancelled out by the provision preceding it: 102
AEl Dopaje es el uso o administración de sustancias o el empleo y aplicación de métodos destinados a
aumentar artificialmentelas capacidedes físicas de los deportistas o a modificar los resultados de las
competiciones deportivas.@
The doping regulations of the Federación Española de Baloncesto and the Real Federación
Española de Vela only included the above definition which was, however, preceded by a
reference to Title 8 of Law 10/1990 of 15 October. 103
The statutes of the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Tennis de Table 104 again contained a
combined definition (essence of doping and designated doping substances/means), but
from the wording of the provision in question it might be concluded that the emphasis was
on the listed substances and means.
AUnter Doping versteht man den unerlaubten Gebrauch durch einen Spieler von Mitteln die seine
sportliche Leistungsfähigkeit sowie seine Leistung selbst beeinflussen ('Dopingmittel') und die auf der
diesbezüglich vom internationalen Olympischen Kommittee erstellten Liste der Dopingmittel
('Dopingliste') als solche gekennzeichnet sind.@
2.1.4. Doping is the presence of a prohibited substance in the body of an athlete
(strict liability)
In practice and over time the Areferring@ description proved to be inadequate. Problems of
an evidentiary nature were constantly causing trouble for the federation having to prove
that the athlete was guilty of the act of doping. It became clear that in order to conclude
that the act of doping was punishable it was not enough to show through doping analysis
that that act had taken place. An additional shortcoming of the first generation descriptions
of the doping offence, namely that the guilt or intent of the athlete had to be proven,
remained unaddressed in the referring description of the doping offence. A description
needed to be found which would make things easier from an evidentiary point of view for
sports organisations that were involved in doping trials. The solution that a number of IFs
came up with consisted of moving the gravamen in the description of the doping offence.
Where the gravamen of earlier descriptions consisted of the act itself, it now came to
consist of the discovery of the prohibited substance. The presence of a prohibited
substance in the sample had to demonstrate that the athlete had committed an act of
doping of which he was guilty prima facie. The description of the doping offence (e.g. the
description used by the international athletics federation) 105 which applied until the
acceptance of the World Anti-Doping Code, for example, stipulated that Athe offence of
102 D) Reglamento de los Controles de Dopaje de la Real Federación Española de Atletismo, Capitolo I -
Disposiciones Generales, Art. 2.
103 Reglamento Contro de Dopaje: Titulo Primero - Disposiciones Generales, resp. Reglamento Anti-Dopaje,
Disposiciones Generales, Arts. 1 and 2. See also Real Federación Española de Balonmano: R.F.E.B.M. Estatutos
y Reglamentos, Reglamento Control de Dopaje; Real Federación Española de Hockey: Reglamento de Control
del Dopaje, Titulo Primero, Disposiciones Generales, Arts. 1 and 2.
104 Statuten, 5. Offizielle Spielordnung, 5.1. Allgemeines, Art. 5.1.151.
105 Rules and Regulations, Rule 55, subsection 2.
40