Rethinking the Burden of Proof for 'Not Intentional' Doping Cases & the 2027 WADA Code
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has recently rendered and published the award in CAS 2024/A/10655 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Japan Anti-Doping Agency & Masaki Toyoda.[1] This represents the first case where an arbitral award of the Japan Sports Arbitration Agency, established in 2003, was appealed to and adjudicated by the CAS.
The principal issue in the dispute was how to evaluate whether a violation is not “intentional” under Article 10.2.1.1 of the Japan Anti-Doping Code (JADC), which mirrors to Article 10.2.1.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADA Code). This case is significant because the Athlete successfully proved lack of intention despite being unable to establish the source of the prohibited substance. During the consultation phase for the revision to the WADA Code scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2027, the case not only provided an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the current WADA Code but also raised important questions regarding the future direction of the WADA Code revision.
This article outlines the background of this case and the findings of three panels hearing this case and proposes an appropriate approach to the assessment of “not intentional” under the current WADA Code, together with recommendations concerning the relevant provisions in the 2027 WADA Code.
Article Outline
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Anti-Doping | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Japan | WADA Code | WADA Code 2021 | WADA Code 2027 | World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) | World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code)
Related Articles
- Must athletes prove how a banned substance entered their body to establish lack of intention?
- Does the Shayna Jack CAS Appeal decision give hope to innocent athletes in contamination cases?
- Entourage selection, athlete responsibility, & 'substantial assistance': Lessons from Mitoglou v FIBA doping case
- A guide to the expected changes to the WADA Code in the 2027 edition
- The Mario Vušković case: EPO detection and the limits of legal challenge
- Game, set and mismatch: Inconsistency in tennis' recent anti-doping cases
- Can athletes beat biological passport charges? Assessing the Simona Halep & Norah Jeruto anti-doping cases
Written by
Shoichi Sugiyama
Shoichi is a partner at Field-R Law Offices. He specialises in sports dispute resolution, including football, anti-doping and athlete human rights protection. Shoichi has extensive experience representing athletes before sports forums, including CAS. He is also an arbitrator at Arbitration Center of Daini Tokyo Bar Association, the Vice Chair of the Sports Arbitration and Mediation Committee at Japan Arbitrators Association and a board member of the Japan Sports Law Association.
