The authors refer to the exceptional circumstances surrounding Sun Yang’s violation. The athlete intervened in the doping control procedure in several ways. First, he questioned the proper accreditation of the IDTM’s (The company “International Doping Tests and Management”) Samples Collection Personnel, one of which photographed him. This officer was suspended from urine sampling, but there was no longer a male specialist on the IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel. Therefore, the collection of urine samples did not take place due to the athlete’s actions. A general distrust of IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel due to inappropriate photographing was the catalyst for follow-up action. Secondly, the athlete required IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel to confirm his credentials (accreditation) from the anti-doping organization, despite the submission of documents by IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel following the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. Not having received the additional and, in the opinion of the athlete, necessary documents, he refused to participate in the doping control procedure as a whole, tearing up his previously given written consent. Finally, the athlete took part in the destruction of blood samples with a hammer, but his role in this process was controversial. A prerequisite for the destruction process of the samples was the assistance of the IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel, who handed them over to the athlete in response to insistent demands. The listed circumstances, which are exceptional, however, could not affect the reduction of Sun Yang’s period of ineligibility, since the FINA (International Swimming Federation) Doping Control Rules, based on WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Code 2015, do not imply such a basis. The new WADA Code 2021 offers a more flexible concept of liability and takes into account exceptional circumstances that in subsequent disputes about tampering can be established based on the example of the dispute CAS 2019/A/6148.

After the announcement of a Russian special military operation, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on February 28, 2022 offered its Recommendations to the Olympic Movement (international sports federations and other global sports’ organizers) on the participation of subjects of Russian sports. The IOC recommended that Russian athletes should not be allowed to participate in international competitions unless Russian participants act as neutral athletes. Since that date, international sports federations have imposed and continue to impose multidirectional negative measures against Russian athletes. Despite the formally non-mandatory status of Recommendations, the federations have chosen Russian athletes’ suspension and not “neutral status”, with rare exceptions (and the nuances of the decisions): the International Judo Federation (IJF), the International Tennis Federation (ITF), the International Automobile Federation (FIA), the International Cycling Union (ICU). Unfortunately, suspensions of Russian athletes have become a “routine” practice of global sports in 2022. The speed of making suspension-decisions identical to the IOC Recommendations raised a well-founded question about the existence of legal grounds for suspensions in the regulation of international federations. This research is focused on the types and content of “measures” (“protective”, “preventive”, “sports sanctions”) against Russian athletes, including the IOC proposed “protective” doctrine. As a result, at least three main points were identified. First, the names “protective” and “preventive” are artificial, and all measures are identical in content. Second, at the time the measures were adopted, the statutes of the sports federations did not explicitly provide for either “protective measures” or “preventive measures”. Thirdly, the use of “sports sanctions” as “measures” is not based on the statutes and constitutions of international sports federations.