An anti-doping sanction reaches further than the competition it removes an athlete from: it affects the ability to earn a living, contractual relationships and reputation, often for years. When a case has passed through a disciplinary body, sports arbitration and, where applicable, a national court, a separate question can arise — whether those proceedings met the guarantees of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We assess that question. We do not conduct the anti-doping defence itself, and an application to Strasbourg is not a substitute for specialist defence before the tribunal, for CAS proceedings or for an appeal on the sporting merits.
Where a procedural issue may deserve review
- Whether there was a genuine opportunity to present a defence and to answer the case put forward.
- Access to the material relied on, and how expert evidence and witnesses were treated procedurally.
- The independence and impartiality of the body that decided — as a matter of composition and appointment, not of sympathy.
- The right to a public hearing where it applies: in Mutu and Pechstein the violation found in respect of the second applicant was precisely the absence of a public hearing before CAS in a doping case.
- Whether objections were preserved during the arbitration and how they were dealt with on review.
- The intensity of national judicial scrutiny where Convention rights are engaged.
Doping merits and human-rights review are different arguments
That a laboratory result was wrong, that contamination explains the finding, or that the sanction is disproportionate to the fault — these are the heart of an anti-doping defence and they belong before the disciplinary body and CAS. They do not become Convention complaints by being repeated in Strasbourg. The Convention question is framed differently: which State is responsible, which guarantee applied, what the procedure actually provided, and whether the admissibility requirements are met.
It is also worth being clear about who is bound. Anti-doping organisations and international federations are private bodies; they are not parties to the Convention and cannot be respondents before the Court. Responsibility arises through a State — most often through the court that reviewed the award, as Semenya v. Switzerland illustrates, where the jurisdictional link to Switzerland arose from the applicant’s appeal to the Federal Supreme Court and extended only to Article 6.
For defence counsel already instructed
The most useful moment for Convention input is earlier than most people assume: while the arbitration is still running, when objections can still be raised and preserved. If a hearing is refused, if evidence is excluded or if the composition of the panel raises a concern, how that is recorded at the time will shape what can be argued later. We can act as a second opinion during the proceedings, or assess the file once the domestic route is exhausted.
How the review runs
- A short, non-privileged enquiry: who is involved and what stage has been reached.
- Conflict screening, before any case material is reviewed.
- Documents by an agreed channel: the decisions, the objections raised, the notification dates.
- An Article 6 and admissibility assessment, with the weaknesses stated plainly.
- Scoped next steps, if there is anything worth pursuing.
Confidential enquiry
In the message field, give us only what a conflict check needs: who is involved, the stage of the proceedings and the relevant dates. Do not send medical records, laboratory documentation or privileged pleadings before we confirm that we can act. Contacting us does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an anti-doping suspension be challenged at the ECtHR?
Not as an appeal against the suspension. What can be examined is whether the proceedings that led to it complied with the Convention, and whether a State is responsible for the shortcoming alleged. The sanction itself is not the subject of the case.
Is every procedural error in a CAS case a Convention breach?
No, and the case law shows it. In Mutu and Pechstein the Court rejected the complaint about the independence and impartiality of CAS while upholding the complaint about the missing public hearing. The guarantee invoked, and the record supporting it, decide the outcome.
Are anti-doping organisations bound by the Convention?
Not directly. The Convention binds States. A complaint has to establish a jurisdictional link to a respondent State, which in sports arbitration normally runs through the national court that reviewed the award.
Does an application suspend the ban?
No. An application has no suspensive effect, and interim measures under Rule 39 are reserved for an imminent risk of irreversible harm of a kind the Court has recognised. A competitive suspension does not ordinarily fall within that category.
What if a national court has already ruled?
That is usually the precondition rather than the obstacle: domestic remedies have to be exhausted, and the final domestic decision normally starts the four-month period. It also means the clock is already running, so the file is worth reviewing promptly — see our page on applications after Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions.