An Analysis of Athlete Rights in Anti-Doping Regulations and the Impact of Strict Liability For Doping in Sports

Abstract

Doping in sports is a complex web of ethical, legal, and procedural challenges that affect not only the individual athlete but also the integrity of the competitions. While the principle of strict liability is intended to maintain a level playing field, it frequently results in a strict and cruel approach toward athletes who may unknowingly violate anti-doping regulations. In cases of unintentional doping, the conflict between fairness in competition and athletes' individual rights is clearly highlighted. The challenge in showing innocence under the strict liability principle drives up an already difficult situation for athletes. In addition, the lack of transparency in the anti-doping process, combined with a belief of guilt until proven innocent, can have serious consequences. It is critical to discuss this topic in order to shed light on the human element that is often overlooked in the interest of clean sports. Athletes, particularly those who have been doped unintentionally, face not only the loss of competitions, but also tarnished reputations and emotional distress. Being considered a wrongdoer without intent can have serious psychological consequences. While the pursuit of clean sports is still paramount, a balanced strategy that takes intent, education, and individual circumstances into account is required. The importance of a fair and transparent system that upholds justice values while providing a level playing field for all athletes cannot be misrepresented. Harmonizing sanctions and taking a more contextualized approach to doping offenses could be a first step toward a more equitable resolution. This paper seeks to analyse and critique the use of strict liability while also recommending for a system that balances the preservation of fair play with the protection of athletes' rights. It is a call to rethink the current approach and work toward a more comprehensive and just anti-doping framework—one that does not sacrifice the individual for the price of laws.