Court of arbitation for sport (CAS) – September 30, 2016
Shortening the doping barrier by providing the proof of care

Art. 2.1., 10.04., 10.5.2. Tennis Anti-Doping Programs (TADP)

1. An athlete has the possibility to entrust the personal responsibility in connection with doping to a third party.
2. The fault of a doping offense initiated by a third party is not considered to be significant if the athlete is able to provide the right proof of correctness (cura in eligendo, cura in instruendo and cura in custodiendo).
3. To openly and honestly deal with a doping procedure can have a reducing effect on the penalty.

District court Kiel Germany – October 18, 2016
Impact of an unduly imposed doping barrier and disqualification

§§ 133, 157 of the German civil code (BGB) ; IBF / USBA Rules

1. Without a legal agreement, a non-member may not be bound to the rules of a sports club because the statutes and regulations of an association have no public-law effect. A comparison to American boxing is just not applicable, since there are state supervisory authorities.
2. An unduly imposed ban and disqualification seriously damages not only the career but also the reputation of an athlete, which in turn can lead to considerable financial losses if, for example, the fitness of the athlete as an advertising medium is questioned.

Labour court Düsseldorf Germany – September 02, 2016
Damage to ice hockey professional due to unauthorized doping

§§ 276 para. 2, 278, 280, 823, 831 BGB

1. The liability for compensation of a sport club to a player in connection with the application for an exemption for a drug on the doping list.
2. Team physicians will not act as the vicarious agents of the SportClub when applying for an exemption from the doping list for a drug which is on the doping list.

Foto: © marsan / Depositphotos.com