About: A level playing field in anti-doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: A level playing field in anti-doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
title	A level playing field in anti-doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings
Creator	Kelly, Sarah Star, Shaun
source	PMC
abstract	The WADA Code upholds the virtues of procedural fairness. Minimum procedural guarantees have been strengthened under the 2021 WADA Code and the International Standard for Results Management. However, implementation of these guarantees by National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) and domestic anti-doping panels are critical in ensuring that athletes are afforded procedural fairness. While some countries have enacted reforms in anti-doping dispute resolution infrastructure, other jurisdictions are arguably lagging behind. Since few doping disputes are heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a strong domestic dispute resolution framework should encourage independence, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as promote consistency and procedural fairness at all levels of hearing. First instance hearings are particularly significant given that CAS is not considered a practical option for many athletes, especially those from developing countries, predominately due to challenges of access to justice and affordability. Irrespective of procedurally unfair decisions at first instance, CAS has the de novo right of review to correct any such irregularities. However, this approach alone is inadequate, especially given that most athletes do not appeal to CAS. CAS, WADA and NADOs all have significant roles to play in ensuring procedural fairness for athletes. WADA and NADOs need to do more to ensure compliance with procedural guarantees at first instance. This paper advances the debate on the importance of procedural fairness and proposes a research agenda to support future reform, arguing that the current anti-doping model needs to reconsider how these important standards are upheld, from first instance until final appeal.
has issue date	2020-08-28(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1007/s40318-020-00176-6
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	b509fd8100795c56bd7c30981f00b7bb6a50e1ff
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-020-00176-6
resource representing a document's title	A level playing field in anti-doping disputes? The need to scrutinize procedural fairness at first instance hearings
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7453375
schema:publication	Int Sports Law J
resource representing a document's body	covid:b509fd8100795c56bd7c30981f00b7bb6a50e1ff#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'guarantees' named entity 'guarantees' named entity 'Since' named entity 'While' named entity 'However' named entity 'Results' named entity 'cost-effectiveness' named entity 'current' named entity 'disputes' named entity 'ACCESS' named entity 'OPTION' named entity 'DOPING' named entity 'ATHLETES' named entity 'SPORT' named entity 'DE NOVO' named entity 'JURISDICTIONS' named entity 'levels' named entity 'standards' named entity 'However' named entity 'athletes' named entity 'National' named entity 'domestic' named entity 'developing countries' named entity 'CAS' named entity 'reform' named entity 'procedural' named entity 'procedural fairness' named entity 'cost-effectiveness' named entity 'anti-doping' named entity 'anti-doping' named entity 'ensure compliance' named entity 'dispute resolution' named entity 'level playing field' named entity 'ISRM' named entity 'disciplinary code' named entity 'WADA Code' named entity 'ECHR' named entity 'WADA Code' named entity 'developing country' named entity 'ISRM' named entity 'ISRM' named entity 'Europe' named entity 'developing countries' named entity 'criminal offense' named entity 'elephantine' named entity 'pro bono' named entity 'ECHR' named entity 'doping in sport' named entity 'judicial review' named entity 'common law' named entity 'developed countries' named entity 'Dispute Resolution' named entity 'ISRM' named entity 'socio-economic' named entity 'Covid-19' named entity 'ISRM' named entity 'ISRM' named entity 'frequency analysis' named entity 'informed decisions' named entity 'developing countries' named entity 'WADA Code' named entity 'standard of proof' named entity 'physical distancing' named entity 'common law' named entity '28 February 2020' named entity 'doping in sport' named entity 'ISRM' named entity 'international human rights law' named entity 'Court of Arbitration for Sport' named entity 'common law' named entity 'developed countries' named entity 'dispute resolution' named entity 'international law' named entity 'WADA' named entity 'WADA Code' named entity 'dispute resolution' named entity 'ADAP' named entity 'developing countries' named entity 'appellate court' named entity 'obiter dicta' named entity 'judicial review' named entity 'civil rights'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software