Cloete, Rian2022-12-142022-12-142023-042022-12* Matore BR 2022, The legitimacy of the system of strict liability and the treatment of inadvertent doping amongst athletes from a legal and human rights perspective, LLM mini-dissertation, University of Pretoria, PretoriaA2023https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/88794Mini Dissertation (LLM (Private Law))--University of Pretoria, 2022.Doping in sports is currently a highly debated and controversial issue impacting severely on the spirit of sport and the principle of fair play. It is one of the most debated and controversial issues within the sporting industry itself and has also caused difficulties in law and amongst academics. Within the field of law, criminalization of inadvertent dopers has brought the matters of private law head-on with public laws. It has become a huge concern whether or not anti-doping disputes should be left in the domain of private law, which is that disputes are solved by the contractual parties or that the rules of public law should apply. From time immemorial, the strict liability rules have reigned in the doping laws meaning that any sporting person found with prohibited substances in their bodies would be found liable with or without fault. In South Africa, doping is regulated by the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS). Established in terms of the South African Institute for Drug-free Sport Act, the SAIDS “fulfils an independent testing, education and research function relating to drugs and doping in sport”. Doping is defined, in relation to the practice of sport, as the administration of substances belonging to prohibited classes of pharmacological agents or the application of any method intended to enhance performance artificially. Internationally, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 with the aim of harmonising anti-doping regulations worldwide. In principle, WADA relies on the ‘principle of legality’, the legal ideal that demands that all law should be clear, ascertainable, and non-retrospective, since it would be unfair to impose sanctions for acts that were not illegal at the time of their commission (nullum crimen sine lege, no crime without law). In 2004, WADA adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) with the aim of embracing a strict liability standard for doping offences in sport (regardless of an athlete’s intent, fault, or negligence), disqualifying any associated sporting results and imposing a two year suspension to protect “clean” athletes and “ensure the integrity of results.” According to Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), governing bodies do not have to prove intent or negligence on the part of the athlete to establish guilt. WADC provides that it is incumbent on the athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance finds its way into their bodies. It is without doubt that Article 2.1 and 2.2 raises a myriad of concerns regarding human rights, civil liberties, and the international rules of due process and audi alteram partem rules. It is this controversy between public law rules found in the doctrine of strict liability vis-à-vis private law human rights matters and due processes that premises this study. It shall be endeavoured to show whether and to what extent does the strict liability doctrine in doping laws limit human rights of sporting persons and whether a balance is possible, particularly where inadvertent doping is concerned.en© 2022 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria.UCTDInadvertent dopingMini DissertationU21679623