WADA - Initial Human Rights Impact Assessment

World Anti-Doping Agency Initial Human Rights Assessment (Final Draft) Snezana Samardzic-MarkovicPage 1/44 Initial Human Rights Impact Assessment (Final Draft) – December 2025 Table of content

Executive summary 2

Chapter I: WADA’s Exiting Acquis 5

World Anti-Doping Code 5 International Standards (IS): 7 Statutes and Governance Regulations 7 Strategic 8 Some 8

Chapter II: Context 10

Already identified human rights issues in anti-doping 10 Multilateral initiatives by public authorities 12 Human Rights initiatives in the world of Sport 13 The Russian scandal 14

Chapter III: Understanding WADA’s role 15

From a reactive approach to a proactive one: the role of human rights 15

Harmonization vs nuances: the place of human rights 15

Legitimacy and human rights 16 Effectiveness and human rights 16 Deterrence as a strategy and human rights 17 Strict liability, burden of proof and human rights 18

Chapter IV: Challenges 21

Fear as a risk 21 Inadvertent doping 25 Paralympic athletes 27 Minor athletes 29 Risks in Education 30 Meaningful engagement of Athletes 32

Chapter V: Recommendations 34

Immediate 34 Mid-term 36 Long-term 42Page 2/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025

Executive summary While studying the World Anti-Doping Code and International Standards, reading independent observers reports from the major international events, consulting with athletes and numerous other stakeholders, I have noted the quality (the scientific knowledge, professional competence and commitment of many individuals and organisations), as well as the quantity of significant human and financial resources invested in the highly developed and intricate anti-doping system which exists today. This leaves me with a sense that the entire system is indeed guided by the best intentions outlined in the values of the Code.

professional competence and commitment of many individuals and organisations), as well as the quantity of significant human and financial resources invested in the highly developed and intricate anti-doping system which exists today. This leaves me with a sense that the entire system is indeed guided by the best intentions outlined in the values of the Code. On the other hand, my mandate is to understand athletes' perceptions and try to examine from their perspective where - in the interaction between the anti-doping system and individual athletes - the risks for their human rights might occur. Many athletes I consulted understand that being an athlete, and in particular an elite, high-performance athlete, entails a corresponding “elite” public responsibility and a dedicated commitment to clean sport. The Code firmly outlines that the rules and institutions are there for athletes, “to protect the Athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport”1. However, many of them often perceive the system not first and foremost as a service established to support and protect athletes and their rights, but rather as a means to monitor and catch them. They may trust WADA2 and ADOs, and yet this makes them no less perceived as “policing” bodies. This potential discrepancy between the considerable efforts which have been put into the system on the one hand and the athletes' perceptions and feelings about that system on the other, is a challenge. And it is a missed opportunity for greater enhancement of the common fight against doping.

Beyond that: if the athletes perceptions are of unequality of arms, disproportionality of sanctions, dangers of contamination, possible system errors, risk of a serious loss of income, isolation and mental health concerns; if they sometimes feel that they are being exposed to anarchy3 where they are the object of demands without accountability on the other side, then - in spite of all the enormous efforts invested, is it surprising they doubt that the system is there for them?

In its Strategies WADA has recognised the importance of trust4, acknowledging that trust and credibility cannot be given as won or be taken for granted. I believe that more attention to the human rights of individual athletes can only contribute to this strategic goal. This means both

there for them? In its Strategies WADA has recognised the importance of trust4, acknowledging that trust and credibility cannot be given as won or be taken for granted. I believe that more attention to the human rights of individual athletes can only contribute to this strategic goal. This means both the rights of clean athletes, but also those against whom an Anti-doping Rule Violation (ADRV) has been established, particularly because the all-important and ostensibly lasersharp borderline between the two is established on the balance of probabilities. This Initial Human Rights Impact Assessment (IHRIA) aims to help WADA’s further understanding of how regulation, policies and programs may adversely impact human rights of athletes, to ascertain if improvements in practice could be made to better serve the athlete community, and to exhibit a commitment to addressing any weaknesses or deficiencies. It ensures an athlete-centred approach by examining not only norms and policy, but how antidoping policy is being applied.

1 WADC 2021, Purpose, scope and organisation of the world anti-doping program and the Code. 2 2023 Strategic KPIs Survey by WADA, on Strategic Priority “Be Athlete Centred”, indicator of athlete Engagement and Satisfaction: 74% of athletes believe WADA is concerned about their welfare, 61% of athletes have a positive perception of WADA (i.e. would speak positively of WADA). 3 As expressed by Ryan Pini, the Chair of WADA’s Athlete Council, at WADA Annual Symposium in Lausanne, 2024 4 The WADA Strategic Plan 2020-2024, Priority be visible, activity 3. “Position and reinforce WADA as the leading voice in anti-doping, cementing trust and credibility of the global anti-doping system”. Wada Strategic Plan 20242029 identifies among the areas to deliver impact: “enhancing public trust and confidence in sport”.Page 3/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025

The IHRIA was based on the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 version, its supporting

2029 identifies among the areas to deliver impact: “enhancing public trust and confidence in sport”.Page 3/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025

The IHRIA was based on the World Anti-Doping Code 2021 version, its supporting International Standards, Guidelines, and other relevant documents. However, due to the unique timing of the Code update process taking place alongside, the findings and recommendations from the IHRIA were able to influence that process. Encouraged both by invitation from the WADA Code Drafting Team and by CAHAMA, I participated in the Code update process. The draft version of the 2027 Code includes changes that, from a human rights perspective, represent clear improvements. Once the Code update process is closer to its finalisation, at the end of this document an Annex will provide a non-exhaustive list of changes that were inspired by—or are related to— the IHRIA. Otherwise, the document in front of you comprises five distinct chapters. The inaugural chapter delves into an analysis of WADA's existing human rights acquis, revealing numerous commendable achievements. For example, a comparison of various editions of the World Anti-Doping Code shows an obvious evolution over time toward greater acknowledgment of athletes' rights. These historical strides, as well as the existing standards, should instil confidence in WADA and its stakeholders that the human rights of individual athletes are not in disbalance with the rights of athletes to fair competition. This impact assessment and its recommendations will argue that a fortified dedication to the fundamental rights in the future would only enhance the strength of the anti-doping system in promoting fair play, not weaken it. The second chapter briefly outlines the backdrop against which WADA decided to embrace the then Athletes Committee’s initiative and to commission this Assessment. Both public authorities and sport movement have recently exhibited more interest for human rights in sport. Athletes have been actively testing and continue to test the anti-doping standards in tribunals and courts across the globe, including human rights courts, thereby subjecting

the then Athletes Committee’s initiative and to commission this Assessment. Both public authorities and sport movement have recently exhibited more interest for human rights in sport. Athletes have been actively testing and continue to test the anti-doping standards in tribunals and courts across the globe, including human rights courts, thereby subjecting these standards to a sort of rigorous ongoing contest and audit. Although the anti-doping standards withstood these tests, the complex and diverse global landscape, challenges, and crisis give no space for complacency, necessitating the continuing enhancement of human rights norms and practices. The third chapter is trying to better understand WADA’s genesis and role, and through these lenses to comprehend the reasons how certain concepts such as the principle of strict liability, or harmonization, or deterrence strategy, relate to human rights. Although a common pattern in the evolution of organisations and systems, WADA’s mission, legal standards, and its methodologies are shaped as reactive, addressing issues as they arose. This Assessment, however, was not driven by a response to any immediate scandal. This will hopefully prove to be a compelling argument for human rights’ appraisal to be seen as a proactive approach, one that goes beyond crisis management. Consequently, the logic of a proactive approach strongly influenced the fourth, and most extensive, chapter of this report, which endeavours to pinpoint both perceived and genuine human rights risks. Certain significant topics are intentionally omitted as they have already been adjudicated by human rights courts. Risks are delineated through the narratives of athletes, highlighting potential adverse impacts on their human rights across the entire spectrum of the anti-doping process, from the sample collection to the result management. Additionally, it identifies groups that may be particularly vulnerable, such as minors or paraathletes, and specific areas that are susceptible, such as inadvertent doping, anti-doping education, and meaningful engagement of athletes. The identification of these risks does not automatically ascribe legal liability or primary responsibility to WADA in all cases. In many instances, responsibility may lie with other entities within the diverse anti-doping ecosystem,

education, and meaningful engagement of athletes. The identification of these risks does not automatically ascribe legal liability or primary responsibility to WADA in all cases. In many instances, responsibility may lie with other entities within the diverse anti-doping ecosystem, and could be attributed to implementation issues, to an omnipresent lack of resources, and/or to inadequate prioritization.Page 4/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025

The fifth and last chapter contains 24 recommendations structured around immediate, midterm and long-term actions. They attempt to respond to identified risks and like the rest of the report, are inspired by the UNGP on Business and Human Rights. WADA has already made pioneering efforts to use its leverage in introducing the notion of human rights among its stakeholders. As a result, the anti-doping system steadily improved over time. However, more must be done for individual athletes who bear both the primary responsibility and direct sanctions. Enhancing respect for their rights offers the best chance to transform athletes from objects of doping control into proactive subjects in the global protection of clean sport. This is the main underlining idea of the Initial Human Rights Impact Assessment and its recommendations.Page 5/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025

Chapter I: WADA’s Exiting Acquis Many historical sources maintain that doping, in its different forms, existed even in Ancient Greece, where the Olympic games brought to the athletes both glory and considerable income.

On the other hand, the recognition of the connection between athletes’ fundamental rights and doping is far more recent. For example, in 1967 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution (67) 12 on the Doping of Athletes, that acknowledged the detrimental effects of “certain practices known as ‘doping’, which (…) jeopardize the health and dignity of those who resort to it and offend against the spirit of fair play that is essential to all sports”. Furthermore, the Council of Europe Convention against doping, from 16 November 1989, includes provisions that emphasize the importance of respecting the fundamental rights of

health and dignity of those who resort to it and offend against the spirit of fair play that is essential to all sports”. Furthermore, the Council of Europe Convention against doping, from 16 November 1989, includes provisions that emphasize the importance of respecting the fundamental rights of suspected athletes during disciplinary procedures5. The UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, which was adopted in 2005, does not explicitly mention human rights in its provisions. However, in its preamble there is a reference to “existing international instruments relating to human rights”. By acknowledging the impact of doping on athletes' health, dignity, and fair play, these resolutions and conventions lay the foundation for addressing the intersection of doping and human rights in the context of sports. In 1999, a significant development occurred with the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) through a collaboration between the Olympic movement and public authorities. The primary objective of WADA was to coordinate and harmonize the diverse rules and actions related to doping that existed within sports organisations and national legislations. Over time, WADA also began incorporating the notion of human rights into its own documents and practices. In some instances, human rights are explicitly emphasized, while in others there is implicit recognition of their importance. An evolution can be noticed when comparing the different versions of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) 6, as well as when cataloguing other important documents and practice in WADA. World Anti-Doping Code The Code is the core document that sets out the anti-doping rules and principles, bringing consistency to the regulation and practices of the different international federations and States across the globe. The original version of the Code, dating back to 2003, explicitly mentions human rights only once, in a comment related to Article 10.5.2, titled "No Significant Fault or Negligence". The comment explains that the option to reduce or eliminate a sanction (period of ineligibility) aligns with basic principles of human rights, aiming to strike a balance between Anti-Doping Organisations advocating for a much narrower exception or no exception at all, and those

comment explains that the option to reduce or eliminate a sanction (period of ineligibility) aligns with basic principles of human rights, aiming to strike a balance between Anti-Doping Organisations advocating for a much narrower exception or no exception at all, and those who propose reducing a two-year suspension when the athlete admits fault. While the inclusion of human rights in this early version is commendable, their invocation is primarily pragmatic -to strike a balance between different ADOs. They are mentioned only in a comment, and they are not explicitly referenced elsewhere in the text. Surprisingly, the subsequent iteration of the Code, released in 2009, does not explicitly mention human rights at all. Still, in its substance, this version embraces human rights

5 Specifically, Article 7, para 2d of the convention highlights the need to conduct disciplinary procedures while “applying agreed international principles of natural justice and ensuring respect for the fundamental rights of suspected sportsmen and sportswomen”. 6 Further on, I will mainly refer to it as “the Code”.Page 6/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025 principles to a greater extent. It expands the grounds for sanction reduction, introduces more flexibility in determining the start of the ineligibility period, reiterates the fundamental rights to health and equality of athletes worldwide, just as the initial 2003 version did, and incorporates educational programs into the rationale of the World Anti-Doping Code. Nevertheless, the concept of human rights remains only implicitly inferred, awaiting better recognition in the next generation of the Code. The 2015 version of the WADC stands out as the first iteration to explicitly acknowledge and prioritize human rights as a crucial principle conscientiously integrated throughout the document. Notably, in the introduction and overarching purpose of the Code, it states that: "The Code has been drafted giving consideration to the principles of proportionality and human rights". The emphasis on human rights is echoed when explaining how those bound by the Code should incorporate its standards into national legislation or sport rules. This

document. Notably, in the introduction and overarching purpose of the Code, it states that: "The Code has been drafted giving consideration to the principles of proportionality and human rights". The emphasis on human rights is echoed when explaining how those bound by the Code should incorporate its standards into national legislation or sport rules. This could be seen as WADA’s pioneering efforts to use its leverage and exercise its global leadership in introducing the notion of human rights among the stakeholders. During the consultations for this version of the Code, WADA sought the expertise of late Judge Jean-Paul Costa, former President of the European Court of Human Rights, to assess the compatibility of various provisions in the draft revision with internationally accepted principles of law and human rights. Judge Costa provided a favourable opinion on most proposals and offered valuable suggestions on enhancing the protection of athletes' rights. Seeking expert input and incorporating suggestions to strengthen athlete safeguards was a significant step toward reinforcing the Code's legitimacy in relation to human rights, and a modest step on the course toward human rights due diligence procedure. In addition to the explicit reference to principles of human rights, the amendments introduced in the 2015 version of the Code mark meaningful progress compared to its predecessor. These amendments provide greater flexibility in sanctioning, with longer periods of ineligibility for confirmed offenders while incorporating specific circumstances to accommodate those who can prove their innocence. The Code also places emphasis on concepts such as smart test distribution planning together with better targeting and enhances fairness in the antidoping process. Similarly to its predecessor7, the 2021 version of the WADC explicitly references human rights at the same significant junctures. In addition, provisions are outlined to strengthen fair hearings and appeals processes for individuals accused of anti-doping rule violations, such as timely hearings; panels which are fair and impartial and operationally as well as institutionally independent; the right to legal representation; and the issuance of timely, written, reasoned decisions. Additionally, governments are encouraged to consider human and fundamental rights, along with relevant national legislation, while respecting arbitration as the preferred means of resolving dopingrelated disputes.

fair and impartial and operationally as well as institutionally independent; the right to legal representation; and the issuance of timely, written, reasoned decisions. Additionally, governments are encouraged to consider human and fundamental rights, along with relevant national legislation, while respecting arbitration as the preferred means of resolving dopingrelated disputes. From WADC’s inception, sensitivity towards minor athletes has been evident and different iterations of the Code have progressively enhanced their protection to some extent. However, it was not until the 2021 version that some para athletes and athletes with impairments were also acknowledged, alongside minors, as Protected Persons in the antidoping framework. WADA's leadership in this regard deserves recognition within the broader context of human rights, but there is still a lot of potential for further enhancement, to which I will come back in the last two chapters of this report.

7 Judge Costa was asked again to answer several questions concerning the revised World Anti-Doping Code (the “2021 Code") regarding its compliance with human rights standards.Page 7/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025 International Standards (IS): WADA has developed International Standards for different technical and operational areas within the anti-doping program, which are mandatory for compliance with the Code. They too reflect the evolving recognition of human rights, using in their introductory articles the identical text which confirms that each International Standard “has been drafted giving consideration to the principles of proportionality, human rights, and other applicable legal principles”. Being one of the oldest ISs, and due to its strong potential exposure to adverse human rights impacts, the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI) may be an interesting example. In addition to declaring adherence to the principles of proportionality and human rights, ISTI attempted to reflect this spirit in more specific provisions, such as the need for testing plans and actions to be proportionate to the risk of doping, ensuring that measures taken in testing and investigations are reasonable and aligned with the level of risk involved; or emphasizing integrity, security, privacy, and dignity of athletes during the sample collection process.8

need for testing plans and actions to be proportionate to the risk of doping, ensuring that measures taken in testing and investigations are reasonable and aligned with the level of risk involved; or emphasizing integrity, security, privacy, and dignity of athletes during the sample collection process.8 The Doping Control Officers (DCO) are responsible for ensuring that athletes are informed of their rights and responsibilities9, thus promoting transparency and fairness. The DCO must provide the athlete with an opportunity to document any concerns they may have about how the sample collection session was conducted10 which enables athletes to give their feedback. However, together with the Whereabouts system linked with out-of-competition testing, sample collection is perceived by athletes to be one of the most sensitive issues regarding their human rights. I will come back to these concerns later in the report. Another example relates to one of the International Standards of the newer generation, namely the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information, which refers to different international data protection standards and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights11. This is a modern IS, prepared through a series of consultations with stakeholders in a manner closest to the human rights due diligence procedure. Statutes and Governance Regulations The inclusion of human rights principles in the WADA Statutes and Governance Rules is important in the overall picture. For example, Article 4, point 6 of the WADA Statutes highlights the importance of establishing and promoting harmonized rules, disciplinary procedures, sanctions, and other means of combating doping while taking into account the rights of athletes. Further, Article 6, which pertains to the composition of the WADA Foundation Board, emphasizes regional and gender balance, as well as the requirement for members to demonstrate the highest standard of integrity.

8 The stated objective of conducting the Sample Collection Session, as outlined in ISTI Article 7.1. 9 ISTI Article 7.3.2 10 ISTI Article 7.4.4 11 “A WADA expert reference group reviewed, discussed and prepared this document, and specifically took into

8 The stated objective of conducting the Sample Collection Session, as outlined in ISTI Article 7.1. 9 ISTI Article 7.3.2 10 ISTI Article 7.4.4 11 “A WADA expert reference group reviewed, discussed and prepared this document, and specifically took into account the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) 1980 Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data; the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS. No. 108); the APEC Privacy Framework; the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, EU Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data (General Data Protection Regulation), and other international and regional data privacy rules, standards and case law, such as the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 January 2018 (FNASS and others vs. France).”Page 8/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025 Among the principles that candidates for the positions of President and Vice President should observe12 important requirements are integrated, such as respecting human dignity, rejecting discrimination in any form, and prohibiting harassment, abuse, and any physical or mental injuries to others.

Strategic Plan The WADA Strategic Plan 2020-2024, titled "Leading Anti-Doping in a New Era", outlined WADA's guiding values, objectives, and priorities. While not explicitly quoted as human rights principles, some of these guiding values - such as diversity and inclusivity in ensuring equal opportunities for representation; or the development of policies, procedures, and practices that reflect justice, equity, and integrity; are clearly relevant. The first priority of the strategic plan was to lead by example by taking bold steps to proactively address emerging issues. One of such leadership steps was to explore the intersection between human rights of athletes and anti-doping policies, which further feeds into another relevant priority, namely, to be athlete centred, to seek athletes’ views and

The first priority of the strategic plan was to lead by example by taking bold steps to proactively address emerging issues. One of such leadership steps was to explore the intersection between human rights of athletes and anti-doping policies, which further feeds into another relevant priority, namely, to be athlete centred, to seek athletes’ views and address their feedback. This will be explored in greater depth later in my report.

Some Examples of Good Practice Regarding Human Rights:

− Stakeholder Consultations: The importance of stakeholders’ consultations for WADA cannot be overstated, particularly keeping in mind that one of its main purposes is harmonisation. The Code itself emphasizes the significance of consultations (or “reasonable consultations”) numerous times, in various contexts, in relation to International Standards, Technical Documents, methods of establishing facts and presumptions, the prohibited list, monitoring, testing, athletes' whereabouts information, and most notably, when making amendments to the Code. This inclusive approach to gathering input from relevant stakeholders such as athletes, athlete representatives, national anti-doping organisations, sports organisations, and governments, enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Code and helps ensure that the anti-doping policies and measures developed are informed, practical, and widely accepted. However, it is still important to make a distinction between these consultations in legislative and standardization efforts, on the one side, and the human rights due diligence process suggested by the UNGPs on Business and Human Rights on the other. This distinction will be elaborated later in the last two chapters.

− The Athletes’ Anti-Doping Rights Act: This essential document, included as an attachment to the 2021 Code, represents a significant contribution to stakeholder consultations, particularly involving the athletes. The Athlete's Rights Act outlines a set of rights to which athletes are entitled in the anti-doping context, such as the right to fair and equal treatment, the right to privacy, the right to a fair hearing, and the right to access education and support services.

− Governance Reform: The governance reform undertaken by WADA in recent years represents an important

context, such as the right to fair and equal treatment, the right to privacy, the right to a fair hearing, and the right to access education and support services.

− Governance Reform: The governance reform undertaken by WADA in recent years represents an important development towards recognizing the importance of human rights for athletes. The reform process, initiated in 2016 and concluded by the changes in the Statutes and Governance

12 WADA Governance RulesPage 9/44 Initial Human Rights Assessment – Final Draft – November 2025 Regulations approved by the Foundation Board in June 2023, aimed to improve diversity, independence and representation, particularly for athletes, within WADA's decision-making bodies. Athletes’ engagement played a vital role in a part of the governance reform process, particularly when it comes to improving athlete representation in WADA's governance. One of the key outcomes was the