When Rules Meet Reality: Liability, Athlete Rights, and the Growing Complexity of Anti-Doping

When Rules Meet Reality: Liability, Athlete Rights, and the Growing Complexity of Anti-Doping

By Peter Van de Vliet, CEO of iNADO, and Blake Davidson, Executive Vice President, RealResponse

The most recent data from the World Anti-Doping Agency on anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) found that while collected samples grew 13% from 2022 to 2023, ADRVs increased by 21%. 

With National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) collecting over 80% of all samples worldwide, you can argue that these numbers prove the efforts of NADOs are working. But numbers alone don’t paint a full picture of the role NADOs play in safeguarding athletes and protecting the integrity of sport.

NADOs are the backbone of day-to-day anti-doping operations—not only when it comes to testing, but for leading prevention and education programs, supporting athletes during investigations, and collaborating with law enforcement.

On a perfect day, NADO work is challenging. In today’s sporting and regulatory climate, it’s incredibly complex. 

A string of recent events has added complexity in the world of anti-doping, threatening the clarity NADOs require to function. Thoughtful reform is needed now more than ever to ensure the future of anti-doping is collaborative, fair, and effective. A few examples:

Strict liability is in the spotlight

One issue exemplifying the anti-doping world’s current inflection point is the interpretation of the strict liability principle. 

For decades, the principle stipulated that athletes are solely responsible for any prohibited substance found in their blood or urine samples, regardless of how it got there or whether there was intent to cheat. Today, questions arise about whether this principle is still fair given the rise of inadvertent doping from sources such as contamination. 

Contaminated food, certain medications, or (as in the case of Norway’s Vålerenga football club) environmental exposure can lead to devastating consequences and place the burden on innocent athletes to prove the source of a potential ADRV. It took seven months for the Vålerenga player to be exonerated after exposure to a crumb from an artificial pitch—consider how much more difficult this would be for an athlete having to defend an 8-year old sample that gets reanalyzed with new technology.

The legacy definition of strict liability makes sense if you operate under the assumption that anti-doping is solely focused on detecting noncompliance. The reality, however, is that anti-doping work also serves to protect athletes’ health, which means we need better ways of distinguishing intent from outcome.

Balancing clean sport with athletes’ rights

Another issue that potentially stands to shape the future of anti-doping is public disclosure of noncompliant athletes. 

The World Anti-Doping Code currently mandates—with very few exceptions—that the names of sanctioned athletes will automatically be published. The motivation here is twofold: To deter other athletes from violating the rules, and to prevent accused athletes of circumventing the rules by switching to a different sport or playing for another country.

An opinion published by EU Advocate General Spielmann in 2025, however, could upend this standard. Spielmann argues that public disclosure must be proportionate to the infringement, and that the current practice of publishing athletes’ names (among other details) violates the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations. While the end of public disclosure may be a win for athletes’ rights, it could create an operational nightmare for the anti-doping community, with different provisions applying to different players depending on their jurisdiction.

Along similar lines, experts have recently sparked conversation around balancing individual rights. Specifically, should those rights reflect those of an athlete or those of an athlete employed by a professional club or team?

These examples illustrate the straddle in the anti-doping world between the need to uphold integrity and the desire to adopt a more athlete-centric culture. NADOs are caught in the middle, waiting for clear direction to best support their communities. 

Shifting NADOs’ role from detection to prevention 

NADOs have long played a crucial role in the fight against doping. As this new era of anti-doping unfolds, their work must evolve accordingly. In practice, this means:

• Establishing a reputation beyond testing. An outsider may mistake NADOs’ sole purpose to testing samples and policing athletes—a gross misconception. Their responsibilities include education, preserving public health, and safeguarding young athletes across disciplines. Going forward, NADOs need the resources to prioritize doping deterrence through targeted programs and athlete engagement. An athlete’s first exposure to anti-doping procedures shouldn’t be through testing.
  
  

• Taking a more targeted approach to testing. Effective testing is not only about numbers. It’s about smarter testing. Rather than deplete resources by collecting samples and having labs analyze these for every possible substance, the anti-doping community needs more intelligence, more thorough investigations, and more alignment between stakeholders (including leagues and law enforcement). Platforms like RealResponse are necessary for elevating the athletes’ voices in this process, giving them a safe, anonymous way to flag concerns and share valuable information that supports investigations. 

  
  

• Evolving capabilities to match the reality of anti-doping. As recent examples show, a failed test does not always reflect intent to cheat. The truth is much more nuanced. Beyond investigation and intelligence-gathering muscle, NADOs also need access to medical and scientific expertise to better understand when prohibited substances are being used for valid therapeutic reasons, or when contamination could be at play. 

As long as there are competitive sports, there will be a need for anti-doping infrastructure. But the frameworks and principles that got us here must match for where sporting culture is headed. 

NADOs are not exclusively in control of the regulatory environment or in a position to dictate future rule changes. They can, however, start planning for a future that emphasizes prevention, global collaboration, and the athletes’ voice. 

Learn how RealResponse helps organizations amplify critical voices and insights, and how iNADO advances global anti-doping through collaboration, best practices, and advocacy for NADOs.