This paper studies how sport jurisdiction bodies encounter doping cases when they are called upon, hear the parties involved, and decide in the first or second instance on the sanctions imposed. In any case, the attitude of the sports authorities plays a crucial role not only in the implementation of the regulations, the issuance of decisions and therefore the creation of Lex Sportiva, but also in the attitude of the sports community towards doping. The present study is based on the use of interpretive and jurisprudential review as the core of the methodological approach. Then, there is a comparison between the decisions of the National and International Federations, the WADA (World Anti-doping Agency) and the decisions of the CAS. (Arbitration Court for Sports). The research showed how the attitude of the bodies differs not only in the severity of the crises but also in the imposed sanctions. Through CAS decisions, it is clear that as the authority of the bodies increases, so does the rigor they display. In particular, WADA always appears stricter in doping cases and often brings them before CAS demanding stricter sanctions than those already in place. On the other hand, the International Federations often appear less strict, while the national federations often show the most lenient attitude. Furthermore, there is a difference in the decisions and argumentation of CAS, which comes either from the different legal culture of the referees or from the more tolerant interpretation concerning the athlete objective responsibility. In short, it is observed that the treatment of doping cases lacks stability.