This paper researches the roles and responsibilities of National Olympic Committees (NOC), especially the Czech Olympic Committee (Czech NOC), in anti-doping education. Good governance is an increasingly important condition of the self-regulatory autonomy of anti-doping organizations (ADO) in the European Union (EU). Moreover, the principles of good governance identified by both, the EU bodies and institutions, and the IOC, cover education. In this context, the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) outlines the educational roles and responsibilities of NOCs. Nevertheless, concrete form and implementation of such roles and responsibilities remain vague and unclear, which may jeopardize NOC’s good governance, integrity, and management in the fight against doping. Therefore, the research objective of this paper is to clarify and establish concrete roles, responsibilities, and strengths of NOCs, particularly the Czech NOC, in anti-doping education. This paper initially reviews the social science research and the existing knowledge on the concrete roles and responsibilities of NOCs. Consequently, it presents the conducted empirical research, employing three main data collection techniques: surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Finally, this paper formulates recommendations and an action plan on how the Czech NOC, and similarly all NOCs, should use their strengths to exercise their roles and responsibilities in anti-doping education effectively and sustainably. It simultaneously suggests how the Czech NOC and other NOCs should plan, implement, and evaluate their education programs to prevent doping in sports and strengthen their good governance in and beyond the EU.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper examines the proportionality of sanctions in the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 ("Code 2021"). The author argues that Code 2021 improved the proportionality of sanctions compared to the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 ("Code 2015"), but problems persist. Sanctioning framework of Code 2021 introduces several provisions that modify the basic period of ineligibility and the margin of appreciation of hearing panels to reduce, but also aggravate the basic sanction. Since it would be practically impossible to cover all the modifications in one paper, the author analyses four groups of provisions converging in the criterion of fault that he considers the most fundamental novelties in terms of proportionality. The author argues that the new approach towards sanctioning of the ingestion, use or possession of substances of abuse is more suitable and proportionate compared to the one in Code 2015. Moreover, he considers the creation of two new categories of protected persons and recreational athletes and adjustment of their sanctioning a step forward compared to Code 2015 in terms of both suitability and proportionality. On the other hand, the author argues that hearing panels need to consider the difference between cheating and mere knowing to impose a proportionate sanction based on the revised definition of intentional presence, use or attempted use or possession of prohibited substances or methods that abolished the reference to "athletes who cheat". Moreover, he claims that hearing panels should prefer shorter ineligibility to disqualification of only some competitive results to impose a proportionate punishment in cases involving aggravating circumstances and their combination with the disqualification of results. Overall, the text of Code 2021 is a good start to the race for the proportionality of sanctions. Nevertheless, hearing panels must keep the pace and ensure proportionate punishments in particular cases.