Cooperation and reporting obligations in sports investigations

Abstract

The importance of internal sports investigations is often overlooked. Sports federations and anti-doping organisations have an increasing interest in investigating asserted sports rule violations in order to impose sanctions upon athletes (unless otherwise stated, the term ‘athlete’ also refers to other sportspersons, such as officials or referees) in breach of sports regulations. However, the gathering of intelligence may cause difficulties, because athletes involved may leave no trace of any wrongdoing. This problem arises not only in cases of manipulation of sports competitions or unethical behaviour (for example bribery, misappropriation of funds, sexual harassment or discrimination.), but also in regard with alleged anti-doping rule violations without positive doping tests (so-called non-analytical positive). To overcome these obstacles during the course of sports investigations, sports associations have incorporated measures into their frameworks for the purpose of gathering evidence, i.e. cooperation and reporting obligations. Athletes are subject to these obligations, which may include the duty to provide personal information upon request of the investigating sports authority. Any failure to comply with such a demand can lead to harsh sanctions of up to a lifetime ban. Cooperation and reporting obligations also have an impact on fundamental procedural rights of athletes, especially if criminal proceedings have been commenced against the athlete at the same time due to the criminalisation of sports-related misconduct. The aim of this article is to examine the legality of cooperation and reporting obligations in sports proceedings, taking into consideration the fundamental procedural rights of athletes as well as the interconnection between sports investigations and criminal procedures. In particular, it discusses whether the infringement of athletes’ basic procedural rights in the course of internal sports investigation proceedings is justified in order to achieve the pursued objective of investigating and prosecuting asserted sports rule violations. It concludes that compulsory provided evidence is disproportionate and, thus, incompatible with the fundamental rights of the alleged athlete guaranteed under Article 6 of the ECHR.