Kutafin Law Review

Advanced search

Anti-Doping Rules as a Unique System of Legal Relations: Background and Regulatory Issues

Full Text:


Coordinated efforts of the States and sports organizations to eliminate doping in sport all over the world have formed a unique legal model that stands out for high uniformity in its implementation and enforcement despite differences in national regulations, and this legal model continues to evolve. Erosion of the principles of amateurism, growing governmental interest in sport, concerns about the health of athletes have affected the shape of the modern anti-doping legal system. This study analyzes the key historical stages in the development of anti-doping rules and regulations, as well as the prerequisites for the formation of its modern legal principles and methods. The study details the first anti-doping rules adopted by the Jockey Club at the beginning of the 20th century and describes the legal activities of the International Olympic Committee, States and intergovernmental organizations on creating anti-doping rules and legislation before the adoption of the UNESCO Convention in 2005. Special emphasis is placed on the explanation of ideological and political influence on the development of anti-doping rules and assessing the roles of the main actors in the antidoping system.

About the Authors

A. A. Orlov
Moscow Bar Association “GRAD”
Russian Federation

Alexander A. Orlov, Cand. Sci. (Law), Advocate, Vice-President


A. A. Gali
Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU)
Russian Federation

Anastasia A. Gali, Master’s Student, Senior Researcher, ANO “Sports Law Centre”



1. Beamish, R., (2013). Olympic Ideals versus the Performance Imperative: The History of Canada’s Anti-Doping Policies. In: Thibault, L. and Harvey, J., (eds), (2013). Sport Policy in Canada. Canada; University of Ottawa Press.

2. Bird, E.J. and Wagner, G.G., (1997). Sport as a Common Property Resource: A Solution to the Dilemmas of Doping. The Journal of Confl ict Resolution, 41(6), pp. 749–766, doi: 10.1177/0022002797041006002.

3. Boje, O., (1939). A study of the means employed to raise the level of performance in sport. Bulletin of the Health Organisation of the League of Nations, 8, pp. 439–448.

4. Burke, P., (2022a). Bańka hails fi nal set of WADA governance reforms as “historical moment.” Inside the games. Available at: [Accessed 23.05.2023].

5. Burke, P., (2022b). Norway fears WADA non-compliance over testing rules for young athletes. Inside the games. Available at: [Accessed 23.05.2023].

6. Cart, J., (1988). World Anti-Doping Conference Was a Challenge Itself. Los Angeles Times. Available at: [Accessed 23.05.2023].

7. D’Angelo, C. and Tamburrini, C., (2010). Addict to win? A different approach to doping. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(11), pp. 700–707, doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.034801. Dimeo, P., Hunt, T., and Bowers, M., (2011). Saint or Sinner?: A Reconsideration of the Career of Prince Alexandre de Merode, Chair of the International Olympic Committee’s Medical Commission, 1967–2002. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 28, pp. 925–940, doi: 10.1080/09523367.2011.557912.

8. Fear of Regulation, (2004). Economic and Political Weekly, 39(33), 3659–3660. Available at: [Accessed 23.05.2023].

9. Franke, W. and Berendonk, B., (1997). Hormonal doping and androgenization of athletes: a secret program of the German Democratic Republic government. Clinical Chemistry, 43 (7), pp. 1262–1279, doi: 10.1093/clinchem/43.7.1262.

10. Gleaves, J. and Llewellyn, M., (2014). Sport, Drugs and Amateurism: Tracing the Real Cultural Origins of Anti-Doping Rules in International Sport. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 31(8), pp. 839–853, doi: 10.1080/09523367.2013.831838.

11. Gleaves, J., (2011). Doped Professionals and Clean Amateurs: Amateurism’s Infl uence on the Modern Philosophy of Anti-Doping. Journal of Sport History, 38(2), pp. 237–254, doi: 10.5406/jsporthistory.38.2.237.

12. Kayser, B. and Smith, A.C.T., (2008). Globalisation of Anti-Doping: The Reverse Side of the Medal. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 337(7661), pp. 85–87, doi: 10.1136/bmj.a584.

13. Lee, Y.-H., (2006). Performance Enhancing Drugs: History, Medical Eff ects & Policy (Third Year Paper).

14. Meier, H.E. and Reinold, M., (2018). Immunizing Ineffi cient Field Frames for Mitigating Social Problems: The Institutional Work Behind the Technocratic Antidoping System. SAGE Open, 8(2), doi: 10.1177/2158244018780954.

15. Merkel, U., (2003). The Politics of Physical Culture and German Nationalism: Turnen versus English Sports and French Olympism, 1871–1914. German Politics & Society, 21(2 (67)), pp. 69–96, doi: 10.3167/104503003782353501.

16. Mottram, D., (1999). Banned drugs in sport. Does the International Olympic Committee (IOC) list need updating? Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 27, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.2165/00007256-199927010-00001.

17. Owen, D., (2022). Exclusive: IOC suff ers sharp run-up in medical and anti-doping spend following “full reassessment” of programmes at past Olympics. Inside the games. Available at: [Accessed 23.03.2023].

18. Star, S., (2022). The quest for harmonisation in anti-doping: an Indian perspective. The International Sports Law Journal, 23(3), doi: 10.1007/s40318-022-00220-7.

19. Wilson, S., (1998). Scandal Ignites Debate on Banned Substance. Associated Press, The Washington Post. Available at: www. [Accessed 23.03.2023].

20. Yesalis, C. and Bahrke, M., (2003). History of Doping in Sport. International Sports Studies, 24, pp. 42–76.


For citations:

Orlov A.A., Gali A.A. Anti-Doping Rules as a Unique System of Legal Relations: Background and Regulatory Issues. Kutafin Law Review. 2023;10(2):281-314.

Views: 148

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2713-0525 (Print)
ISSN 2713-0533 (Online)