Current anti-doping sanctions:

An empirical analysis of Brazilian and English legal rationality

Abstract

The fight for fair play in sports and against doping in Brazil is led by the Anti-Doping Sports Justice Tribunal (TJD-AD) and in England by the United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) arbitration. Neither is organizationally detached from the public administration of their respective States. Both operate under rules compiled in 2021: the Rules in England and the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code (CBA) in Brazil. This regulatory temporal coincidence between distant nations is not accidental. There is no room for regulatory rebellion in Brazil or England against the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), whose latest version is from 2021. The same should occur in the fight against violence and discrimination, for example, in soccer. That is to say, the Brazilian Sports Justice Code (CBJD), which dates back to 2009, should be updated by the National Sports Council (CNE) as soon as the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) produces a new disciplinary code. Thus, the article's objective is to analyze the extent of the difference, if any, in the legal rationality between English arbitral decisions and those of the Brazilian TJD-AD. To achieve this, an empirical research approach is applied using a descriptive-analytical method combined with bibliographic, documentary, and historical techniques. Jurimetrics of the 44 sanctions applied and in force in England by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP), administered by Sport Resolutions, as well as the 69 punishments enforced and in force in Brazil by the TJD-AD, reveal an average suspension difference of 5.92 months for the 16 substances that could be compared between the TJD-AD and NADP. In this regard, English anti-doping legal rationality is found to be more lenient than the Brazilian one for cases involving the following prohibited substances: S1.1 19-norandrosterone, S1.1 1-androsterone, S1.1 Boldenone, S1.1 Drostanolone, S1.1 Methandienone, S1.1 Oxandrolone, S1.1 Stanozolol, S1.1 Testosterone, S1.2 Clenbuterol, S1.2 Ostarine (enobosarm), S2.2 hGH (human growth hormone), S4 Clomifene, S4.1 Anastrozole, S4.2 Tamoxifen, S4.4 Acetic acid GW1516 or GW501516, and S6.A Cocaine. On the other hand, regarding the fight against prohibited methods, the situation changes, with an average English suspension of 8 years compared to the Brazilian average of just 4.43 years. Consequently, by combining the averages of sanctions in force as of February 29, 2024, for prohibited substances and methods, it can be partially affirmed that the TJD-AD applies lighter sanctions than the NADP of UKAD, managed by Sport Resolutions, under a legal rationality that results in a lesser difference of 1.54 years or 18.46 months for those under its jurisdiction.