Social Protection of Athletes in the Anti-Doping Sphere: Which Legal Safeguards Work in Practice

In 2019, WADA adopted the Athletes’ Anti-Doping Rights Act — a document that systematized the rights of athletes within the anti-doping framework. 

Formally, it has a recommendatory nature and does not create new legal norms. However, its significance is much deeper. In essence, it reflects a rethinking of the athlete’s role within the anti-doping system. Whereas previously the focus was primarily on detecting violations and imposing sanctions, today the emphasis is shifting toward the protection of rights. 

The right to a fair hearing, access to legal assistance, confidentiality, protection of personal data, and the right to receive complete and comprehensible information about procedures — these are not “additional options,” but fundamental standards. 

In our view, the systematization of these rights is of fundamental importance. It establishes a clear benchmark for national anti-doping organizations: anti-doping policy must comply with human rights standards rather than exist in isolation from them.

A distinct place within this system is occupied by the athlete’s right to medical treatment and the protection of health. 

Within the anti-doping framework, this right is implemented through the TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) mechanism — authorization for the therapeutic use of prohibited substances or methods where there is a justified medical need. 

On the one hand, the TUE procedure is designed to preserve the integrity of fair competition. 

On the other, it is intended to prevent situations in which an athlete is forced to choose between health and career. 

In our view, it is precisely through the practical application of TUE that the real level of social protection in sport can be assessed. The existence of a transparent procedure, the possibility of appeal to WADA or CAS, and the independence of the medical commission are key safeguards ensuring this balance.

 At the same time, practice indicates unequal access to such mechanisms across different countries, which creates a risk of de facto discrimination. 

In this context, the right to treatment ceases to be merely a technical element of regulation and becomes part of a broader concept of respect for the dignity and health of the athlete.

An important step in strengthening safeguards has been the introduction of the anti-doping ombudsman institution. At the WADA level, this program was formally endorsed in 2021, and similar models have subsequently been implemented at the national level, including in Ukraine. 

The idea is simple, yet conceptually new: an athlete should have access to independent, confidential, and free support outside the framework of disciplinary bodies and federations. 

In our view, this responds to a systemic issue — the complexity of procedures and the imbalance between the resources of anti-doping authorities and the capabilities of an individual athlete. 

The principle of strict liability significantly increases risks for athletes, while procedural errors may have long-term consequences for both their careers and reputations. 

Within this model, the ombudsman acts not only as an advisor, but also as an institutional mechanism for restoring trust between athletes and the anti-doping system.

Traditionally, anti-doping has been perceived as a field of disciplinary regulation. However, the modern development of standards demonstrates that it is a much broader phenomenon. 

Provisional suspensions, public disclosure of information about violations, and multi-year disqualifications — all of these entail not only sporting but also social consequences: loss of income, contracts, reputational risks, and psychological pressure. 

For this reason, we consider it justified to view legal safeguards in the anti-doping sphere as an element of social protection for athletes. 

This involves the integration of human rights standards into sports policy and the development of procedures that simultaneously protect the integrity of sport and respect for the individual. 

In this dimension, anti-doping ceases to be solely an instrument of control and becomes part of a broader system of guarantees — with clearly defined rights, mechanisms for their implementation, and institutional tools of support.