Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/print/article/analysis-dcms-select-committee-report-combatting-doping-sport-part-3-uk-athletics
Timestamp: 2019-10-21 17:23:22
Document Index: 45177909

Matched Legal Cases: ['§113', '§114', '§117', '§127', '§128', '§142', '§141', 'art-3']

In this, the third and final part of our series on the DCMS Select Committee Report on“Combatting doping in Sport”, Sports Shorts looks at the Report’s findings in relation to performance versus health considerations, record-keeping inadequacies, problems arising from under-funding, and the proposal that doping be made criminalised.
Rogers told the Committee that nasal calcitonin “affected calcium metabolism” and in Farah’s case “there was a background medical issue that could have been affected”.[1]As for the vitamin D supplementation, his concern stemmed from the particularly high dosage, which can apparently cause high blood calcium levels, whilst the iron supplementation could have gastrointestinal side-effects.
“the sanction process for athletes, which includes a right of appeal to the Court ofArbitration for Sport (CAS), is a settled process, accepted by all governments of the world, and further that the sanctions for a doping violation by an athlete, which now includes a longer, four-year period of ineligibility, have been globally accepted by sport and government. As such, the Agency does not believe that doping should be made a criminal offence for athletes”.[6]
[1] §113
[2] §114
[3] §117
[4] §127
[5] §128
[6] §142
[7] §141
Source URL: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/analysis-dcms-select-committee-report-combatting-doping-sport-part-3-uk-athletics