Can WADA’s whereabouts rule and out of competition doping testing procedures be seen as a justifed(sic) intrusion into athlete’s private lives?

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the British Olympic Association’s (BOA) rules governing three missed out of competition drugs tests. The question will be asked if this rule is a justified invasion of privacy and if so should missing three tests constitute the same punishment as a proven doping violation. It will do this in two chapters, the first will focus on the issue of privacy and whether out of competition drug testing is a justified invasion of athlete’s lives. It will argue that testing takes away from an individuals freedom of choice and prevents athletes from becoming autonomous agents by coercing and forcing athletes to submit to out of competition testing. It will also discuss the concept of strict liability and argue that strict liability rulings can only be justified if they are seen as the most effective form of doping prevention, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. The second chapter will follow on from the arguments presented in chapter one, discussing whether athletes have a duty or responsibility to waive their rights to privacy beyond the formal rules of the sport because they are seen as role models for children. The chapter will concur with the conclusion of the first that there is no reason to justify such an invasion of athletes lives because even though athletes are role models, whether they accept that fact or not. There is a distinct difference between this claim in a descriptive and normative sense and between being a role model and a moral exemplar. Athletes are regular people, in the same way as all other public figures are and should not be held accountable for the actions of others.