Explain The Appeals Process In Cases Like These Who Has The

Explain the appeals process in cases like these. Who has the burden of proof?

The appeals process in doping cases involving athletes such as B.K. Stroker is governed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Regulations and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) procedures. When an athlete is sanctioned by a sport governing body like FINA, she has the right to appeal to CAS, which functions as an independent arbitration tribunal specializing in sports disputes. The process begins with the athlete submitting a Notice of Appeal within a specified time frame, generally 21 days from notification of the decision. The appeal is based on allegations that the sanction was improperly imposed or that the process was flawed. The CAS panel then reviews submissions from both parties—the athlete and the sport body—and may conduct hearings or request additional evidence.

As to the burden of proof, the World Anti-Doping Code clarifies that athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance found in their bodies, under the principle of strict liability. However, in cases where the athlete claims inadvertent ingestion, the burden shifts somewhat, requiring the athlete to establish a "no significant fault or negligence" defense in accordance with CAS jurisprudence. The athlete bears the responsibility of proving that she was not deliberately doping and that her contamination was unintentional. The CAS must assess whether the athlete exercised "due diligence" in avoiding contamination. Therefore, while the initial presumption is that the athlete is responsible, the athlete can present evidence to mitigate sanctions.

Will the CAS apply a strict liability approach to Stroker’s case, or will it decide in her favor and overturn her suspension?

The CAS generally applies a strict liability framework in doping cases, meaning that if a prohibited substance is found in an athlete's sample, liability is presumed. However, CAS also recognizes that exceptions exist if the athlete can prove that the violation was unintentional, or that she exercised no significant fault or negligence. In Stroker’s case, her assertion that her coach inadvertently provided her with a contaminated capsule introduces the possibility that CAS might consider her conduct as exhibiting a lack of significant fault. Given her reputation for moral integrity and her detailed account of the inadvertent ingestion, CAS may find that her violation was unintentional and reduce or overturn her suspension. Nonetheless, the initial assumption remains strict liability, with the case hinging on her ability to demonstrate her lack of blame.

If the CAS finds Stroker to bear very little of the blame, will it reduce the severity of the penalty imposed by FINA, or is proportion of blame irrelevant to CAS decisions?

Under CAS jurisprudence, the level of fault or negligence substantially influences the severity of sanctions. The CAS has the authority to reduce or annul penalties if the athlete demonstrates "no significant fault or negligence," as outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code. In line with this, if Stroker can prove that her contamination was inadvertent and that she took all possible precautions, CAS may decide to reduce her suspension or overturn it altogether. The Code encourages proportionate discipline based on the athlete’s degree of fault. Therefore, the degree of blame is highly relevant, and CAS decisions often reflect a nuanced consideration of individual circumstances rather than strict adherence to a one-size-fits-all approach.

Do you think the NCAA certification process is structured in a way that enables it to fully accomplish what the Knight Commission intended? What changes would you recommend?

The NCAA certification process is designed to ensure that member institutions adhere to academic integrity, financial stability, and ethical standards that promote student-athlete well-being. However, critics argue that its effectiveness in fully achieving the Knight Commission’s vision of integrity and fairness is limited. The process often relies heavily on self-reporting and compliance documentation, which can be susceptible to superficial or strategic compliance rather than substantive change. Additionally, the certification process may lack the rigorous oversight and transparency necessary to detect systemic issues or misconduct effectively. To better align with the Knight Commission’s goals, reforms should include more independent audits, increased transparency in certification outcomes, and stronger sanctions for non-compliance. Implementing third-party evaluations and fostering a culture of accountability can enhance the process’s credibility and effectiveness in promoting integrity in college sports.

References

• Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2023). Guidelines for Sports Dispute Resolution. CAS Official Website. https://www.tas-cas.org
• World Anti-Doping Agency. (2023). WADA Code. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/the-code
• Rao, A. (2020). The Impact of Strict Liability in Sport Disciplinary Proceedings. International Journal of Sports Law & Commerce, 14(2), 123-143.
• Andranovich, G. D., & Burbank, M. D. (2018). Institutional Frameworks in Sports and Anti-Doping Enforcement. Sports Management Review, 21(3), 233–245.
• Levine, M. (2019). Ethics and Inadvertent Doping: A Case Study. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 43(4), 317–334.
• National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2022). Student-Athlete Wellbeing and Certification Policies. NCAA Official Site. https://www.ncaa.org
• Knight Commission. (2018). Reforming College Sports: A Path Forward. Knight Foundation Reports.
• Sparrow, R. (2021). Involuntary Contamination and Legal Responsibility in Sports. Law & Society Review, 55(1), 57–85.
• Smith, J. (2020). The Role of Coaches in Preventing Doping Violations. Sports Ethics Journal, 34(2), 211–227.
• Johnson, M. (2022). Transparency and Oversight in NCAA Certification: Challenges and Opportunities. Higher Education Policy, 35(2), 147–165.