ABSTRACT
The ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the anti-doping case of Meca-Medina v. The Commission has important implications for athletes, domestic governing bodies, international federations and supra-national actors such as World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Meca-Medina has been criticized as an unwelcome interference by the courts in the legitimate activities of sporting organizations, but after Bosman it was fanciful to argue that those organizations should be ‘above the law’ and the courts should have no jurisdiction over their activities. That said, there is a stark difference between the courts having jurisdiction over sports’ decisions and being willing to overturn them – the courts have been, and remain, willing to defer to the expertise of sporting organizations in appropriate cases. However, the ECJ’s ruling in MOTOE confirms that the courts will intervene in appropriate circumstances. In order to avoid sanction on competition law grounds anti-doping organizations must thus be able to justify their provisions on, for example, what is an unacceptable level of nandrolone, show that athletes’ fundamental rights such as the right to a fair hearing have been respected and ensure that any sanctions imposed upon athletes who fall foul of doping regulations are proportionate to the offence committed.
