19th Colloquium of the Francophone Network of International Law
Organized by the Research Chair on Anti-Doping in Sports, the Master’s Program in Applied International Law and International Politics, and the Center for Studies on Integration and Globalization.
Tuesday, May 9, 2023 – Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil Campus.
Program:
Welcome
David Pavot, Prof. at the University of Sherbrooke and holder of the Research Chair on Anti-Doping in Sports.
Valère Ndior, Prof.at the University Bretagne Occidentale and Pres. of the Francophone Network of International Law.
Marc et Danielle Mainguené, founders of the Anthony Mainguené Foundation.
Roots, Modalities, and Limits of State Commitments in the Fight Against Doping in Sports – Panel Discussion.
Cécile Chaussard, Associate Prof. at the University of Bourgogne.
Franck Latty, Prof. at the University of Paris Nanterre (CEDIN).
Aboubacar Diakité, Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Sherbrooke.
Mathieu Maisonneuve, Prof. at Aix-Marseille University.
The Doping System in Russia Since Sochi 2014: a Violation of the Multilateral Anti-Doping System?
Chair : Me Kristine Plouffe-Malette, Prof. at the University of Sherbrooke, Director of the Master’s Program in Applied International Law and International Politics.
Me Dick Pound, Founding Pres. of the World Anti-Doping Agency, Member of the International Olympic Committee: “Various Investigative Reports on the Doping System in Russia.”
Jean Levesque, Prof. at the University of Quebec in Montreal and Director of the Eurasia Observatory: “Are we witnessing a resurgence of Soviet doping practices?”.
Sètondji Roland Adjovi: “The Arbitral Tribunal’s Decisions on the Doping System in Russia.”.
The Unilateralism of the Rodchenkov Act: a Response to the System’s Inability to Sanction Non-Compliant States?
Chair : David Pavot, Prof. at the University of Sherbrooke and holder of the Research Chair on Anti-Doping in Sports.
Me Travis Tygart, Dir. général – CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA): “The Genesis of the Rodchenkov Act.”.
Geneviève F.E. Birren, Prof., SUNY Cortland: “Cooperation Challenges Raised by the Act and its Potential as a Means of Persuasion and Modeling.”.
Thibault Fleury Graff, Prof. at the University of Paris Saclay: “The Extraterritoriality of the Rodchenkov Act and International Law.”.
Closing Remarks
David Pavot, Professor at the University of Sherbrooke and holder of the Research Chair on Anti-Doping in Sports: “Alternative Pathways to the UNESCO Convention.”.
So hello everyone welcome to charlock University my name is David Pavo I’m a professional I’m a teacher in uh professional rights and an in doping in sports and I’m your host today I have the privilege of welcoming you all today for this meeting about the international resp responsibility of the states in
Anti-doping in sports as you know this uh conference is in the frame of uh Char Russo who’s a simulate in sports today and we have a chance today of welcoming about 150 people coming from all the French speaking world today we’re going to have some speakers that will speak French and
English therefore we have translators if you are in the room you can take uh the headphones with translation or online click on the icon of interpretation so that you can have interpretation simultaneous interpretation so organizing a conference is not uh an easy thing it requires uh
Means which is why for this meeting I want to thank uh the titular of Rights uh represented by its president the professor Val and the three people who allowed this uh meeting to happen the University of sherbrook and the master of politics applicated politics uh and rights by shv present
Here the center of study of uh Quebec in monreal about this the sports different several professors here in the room today that we will be able to hear today several professors are members of it we see je once again Christine pmet myself and the um managing School in Shu
Where is that anti-doping school in here we have some also Partners uh which is the the Council of research in Canada who allowed the financing of that coll meeting and a specific uh partner mag Foundation who will be able to talk in a couple minutes right after
Um sh valer who he comes all the way from uh the Atlantic who is the leader of the of that uh international meeting here thank you David I think we should thank you for uh taking on this load of work thank you um I’m going to be quite
Brief welcome to everyone here dear friends colleagues members of the member Cho I want to associate to David to welcome uh this 19th conference uh for international rights directed by David Pavo who is the theme of the responsibility International responsibility of the states in terms of anti-doping
Sports I’m going to be brief because we will have later uh a ceremony an opening ceremony with the cocktail of Nations we will allow to explain a little bit what’s going to happen during the week but I wanted to um bring uh a welcome to David Pavo and all the team that
Organized for all the reflections that we’re able to bring and start from now this is really going to contribute to uh the that that Network to add um to the learning experience also um a research a scientific research really uh fine about uh that theme we’re really happy to have that theme uh
Because it allows for a couple months those people to think and to um related to the sports rights and the international rights especially a couple months ago from uh the El pink games of 2024 I wanted to uh thank and uh celebrate David Pavo and his team I
Think he will be able to go back to the work that was done and thank also the support of um that meeting DPA and uh also the center of application on integration and last word about the teams that are represented different institutions across the world first of all welcome I
Think that you had a nice trip and that it happened in the best condition I know that some of you are still uh bothered by jetti but I think I hope that you’re going to go through it quite well little warning this morning did today which is usual everything that will be said
During this half of half day of studying is quite possible to um maybe um influence the judges in uh the games later so maybe be careful about some doctrinal elements that could uh come up during the spefic discussions uh of practicians this being said thank you
For the organizer for his work and may the work start right after um the couple speakers we’re going to hear thank you Val to start this conference we have two people that want to let us know something they’re online Danielle and M lagun from the foundation an Anon
Mun they accepted to finance largely this conference So Daniel Mark we see you online thank you once again and we let you introduce yourself a little bit we listen to you and thank you for your support we would have liked you to be here but I know it’s far away
And it’s a all the way across the Atlantic so we hope that we can welcome you once to monreal everybody’s listening to you and looking at you hello David I don’t know if you can hear us well because we hear very low maybe it’s a problem of connection I don’t
Know we hear you very well okay perfect so I really wanted to thank you for allowing us some minutes to present you uh the foundation and talk about the ethics especially about this important uh framework which is the sports Dimension uh briefly uh hello everyone Danielle my my wife and myself in all
The names of the anony Mong Foundation we want to thank all the organizers and especially also David Pavo for their engagement we know how hard that is actually of organizing a conference especially this one about the international responsibility of the states in antidoping and sports above all today in our society
Where the human Dimension is the sense of values tend to go the ethics is important now especially today in sports which is the same thing that the foundation mang mang has it to heart it was created in July 2015 in the foundation of France to uh promote the ethic element
Of anon M who died um of a heart attack at 40 years old he was an expert in uh Network and cyber security was a leader of cyber SEC Security in the information system his skills and managing skills allowed uh efficiency at work his Integrity were really appreciated and
Agreed by all which is why we want to continue his work by the new aiten region uh wants to continue that um that’s ethics understanding by training men and women who will be um fully capable with a critical mind to raise up the great um challenges of our time it
Wishes to bring awareness that ethics can only be realized by action because our world is changing and ethics allows us to ask ourselves questions and to be fully responsible equity and respect of the other person to do so the foundation has five rights numeric human science development it has uh conferences it
Supports conferences meetings just like the conferen the conference and and thec meeting that we thanks and also recently was created about the word um which has there’s going to be an important conference in um Bordeaux and Quebec in June so the foundation is supporting Works often the problems of
Such big problems in the world in um high education institutions Etc 35 events were supported last year we would like of course that you can go see uh the website of the foundation to know to know a little bit a little bit more about it but since uh couple years ago
Since last year we haven’t been able to update the website but you can still look at it we are really um booked indeed today we are living through a time of worry it seems therefore that for the good of everyone and the future of our Humanity it is important to think again
Of what is society what is the problem and our way of thinking of things the foundation Aton magun hopes that these ethics in a of respect of Human Rights can lead to better understand how to live we also wish it in the word of sports because Sports is effort
Exence going above yourself and courage and also letting go of yourself it’s also Integrity respect of each other and yourself Val of value of example and this is also an ethics problem the lack of consideration of yourself the illusion of of success and health risks or it’s about
Doping so to find those values again which makes of the Sportsman a man who can be proud of himself to allow through education the equality of chances of justice and of course the engagement in the behavior the ethics can be Lighthouse to light this problem I’m going to finish this with two quotes
From juvenile first of all a Latin author was repeated by uh KU The Same Spirit in the same body and then the second quote who shared this hope of a word uh for many ethnics and who open to the consideration of everyone humanity is a responsible Adventure which go
Through the the other world and only lives through the other one so in the name of all the members of the foundation thank you for listening to us and putting this conference to uh to work dear Daniel and Mark thanks a lot for your support and your nice words I
Hope that you will stay online even though it will be quite late for you in France but of course you’re quite welcome to stay online with us and enjoy that uh conference which is going to be uh of course recorded and placed on video platform so that you can continue
To watch it for everyone that’s interested without waiting uh because we’re on time I’m going to call uh valer I’m gonna invite you to leave uh the platform and I’m going to invite Cil Shar master of conference in bgan University expert known and from doping in sports she’s a counseling in the French
Um conference in the French University Abu bakar he has a master’s doctorate in rights Matthew MV professor in X Mar University a great expert in sports right right now um he’s doing research in stopping in sports and he’s in orbit at uh a referee at the
Sports and the last one not the least Ki professor at Pin University redactor of jusu of this year so it’s through him that uh you’re going to be Mar you’re going to live martydom and also Frank is also an expert known in uh public rights and sports
Rights he’s also a referee in in uh the international referee Sports this first um meeting is going to go about the roots and how the countries limit themselves in sports and doping maybe you didn’t follow the news I see that there are a couple spies in the room in
From the uh mea word antidoping agency but it’s a topic that’s really on time in 2014 we realized kind of Stupify that some practices that we thought were over with were happening in today and following this the Sports World tried to react with sanctions adopted according to the
Antidoping Russia Etc the sports and Universal International Community try to react according to the UNESCO uh and the word anti-doping agency trying to develop a a strengthened uh framework with the government we didn’t have much success actually and today this questioning about the responsibility of the governments in terms of violation of the
Anti-doping laws is a subject that’s quite um relevant relevant at the UNESCO because there’s a work that is really uh placed that tries to strengthen that uh responsibility framework but in the W word antidoping agency two meetings were um were held in last March we were talking about that question and there’s
Some questions Rising about the next uh opening of the rights of anti-doping we know it’s happening quite often and this question will come back also there’s some also reports that were published so the question is here before setting up a responsibility right we have to ask first what are the
Rights the obligations of the government are there any are they constraining enough too too constraining I want to ask the question to my fellow uh speakers here at the very basis we know today that the doping fight is double we have a system that is um system that is constructed by the world
Anti-doping agency from Switzerland and we have a system also we have this word anded agency that connects both uh uh between all the different states so the fight against uh doping I’m going to go to Cil is it right is it not true can you share a couple words about it
The mic is turned off I’m going to ask the technician it’s recorded and for the translators they going to need otherwise they won’t hear you perfect okay thanks a lot so yes indeed regarding to the construction of the dispositive of anti-doping or uh there’s no doubt about the fact that actually
It’s the sports movement who put it in place for a simple reason uh because not linked to the doping but because of how Sports is created and the origins of that movement Federal of course but also through Olympic we have to understand that the states did not participate to
The construction of the sports system the sports system put itself in place by itself I’m not going to describe the story of of modern sports but so some clubs created themselves uh through universities of course and then those clubs re reunited to meet and when you
Meet uh we need some rules because if we don’t play according to same rules then it’s not the same thing because the Sports is a comparing of results and performances so created federations who are in charge of putting this unique uh rules of games first of all and then the
National of course uh National federations were not enough because we have to compare the performances outside of the L so we had the international ones and we had to put all those rules back in the game of course we had only game rules of course fors evolved and
When the game is evolved well the federations created more and more rules that are not only technical rule G technical game rules but also uh in discipline now what is the fundamental principle that sport system was created from for competition to organize competition when you go to run alone you
Don’t have a license from a federation you don’t need it but if you participate to competition you have rules uh that are fixed by those federations so those Federation then the CIO create were created for this purpose now there is a foundational principle The participants have to be equal we have to compare
Performances loyally which is what we called the Loyalty of competition the equality of competitors that’s the base of competition otherwise competition doesn’t make sense otherwise we can’t compare performances if we are not in the same situation of equality at the beginning and here doping when it happens it opens it it happens quite
Fast Sports people always dope themselves we of course maybe we had some music oh it’s the money the business Etc no the first case was in Antiquity so there’s no problem why do we do because we want to win there’s money there’s no money we want to win
Anyways even if there’s no money at the end you have some people old people who run marathons who are 75 years old and they use the dope it’s not for their age for their Glory you know but when doping happens quite early we realize it also because there’s some terrible
Accidents and there’s deaths and we can identify the death because they took substances whether it was drugs Etc it’s quite the opposite of the principle of equality of the players it’s a of that principle of equality so that Federation had to react to to cheating so they had to realize
How to act against cheating so Abu bakar how did the uh how was it reacted the rights of sports reacted to create um the sports rights maybe I’m going to talk about right now we are talking the sports right we’re not talking about the interstate rights well we start to identify uh
Anti-doping laws from the very very beginning not what we know today of course in 1928 the athletism uh Federation start to put in place some roles but we don’t have any substances that are identified we don’t have a list for all the disciplines we don’t have
Any test of course we don’t know how to test so that’s going to take a lot of time and finally what we need to realize in uh that understanding through the sports is that it’s something that is not linear it’s something that reacts to some events where we say actually well sport
Is not that sport is supposed to be something healthy good for health and we realize that it’s something that is the opposite of healthy and one of the first element that is going to make the CIO react in uh Rome 1960 we’re going to have the death of a cyclist during the
Games and it’s not acceptable it’s not acceptable for the sport movement but also for the public the CIO reacts to that react to that death which is of course realized um related to doping the C CIO is going to vote in 1962 or first law but it’s really the first of it
Maybe back then C if I’m not wrong tell me if I’m wrong but we were not talking about of equity but we’re talking about health protection actually because it was death the problem at the very beginning what caused that now of course the first regulations and La RS was okay we need
To be equal but the real resolution was because of a death that was due to drugs which is why we have that element of Health protection now we have two foundations and the two same in the anti-doping fight equity and health protection they’re both now and it’s
Ever since that’s element on my left on my left Frank now what about the sports movement today does it fight also for uh antidoping I’m kind of uh jumping on you well today we are in the regulation the state started to get into apped in the anti-doping law when there
Were deaths because you have health public health issues it’s not only equality of sports Etc the states are not really attached to sports it’s not their mission in and of themselves but when you have thefts on the tour to France or uh Olympic competitions you have of course health problem uh that
Lead to govern governments to engage in the anti-doping fights and because because you already have the Federation sport Federation in that middle we have to know how to cooperate in order to fight against opening and it starts ever since the 80s actually I think the Canadian government was really
Involved for a First Corporation with the CIO saying it was right after uh de Ben Johnson maybe you were not born but it was a big uh Canadian who was uh positive to drugs in SE 1988 so big Scandal uh it was 100 meters that he was a
Sprinter he had won this he had won the Medal gold medal and we realized that he was disqualified because of drugs a real Scandal and the government Canadian government was really concerned by the question he worked with the CIO and that’s where uh the work between governments is going
To start with the sports Federation in order to find a way to fight efficiently against doping I’m just stopping you because I’m going back to Abu bakar who started to tell us that in Europe Europe also the Europe Council appears as um an idea laboratory they have a regional uh
Meeting because it’s also open to the other states in antidoping can you tell us a couple words about that convention yes it’s the convention of the Council of Europe which was done in 1989 as you said uh it helped uh as uh a brainstorming for uh the antidoping laws
Of UNESCO it was the first multilateral lateral uh elements to allow building a frame between states and the federations of sport what is nice about that interesting about that convention is that it lists uh elements that are forbidden so we start to see a Harmony between
Those laws and the UNESCO is going to is going to use that Convention of Europe law for different aspects a first brainstorming uh possibility we see uh also the debate that is starting matov I wanted to add that there was an a middle ground period first it was the sports movement that
Launched uh the premises of the text for anti-doping in the 20s 60s and then Frank was explaining that Canada tried a international corporation which was with the convention which we talked about there’s a middle in between there’s some states for example B Belgium for example France in the
60s in my knowledge of Belgium started it first by a national law anti do antidoping law in ‘ 65 and then France does the same couple weeks later in June 665 so we have that moment where the federations do it then the states start to work on themselves and we have a
Fight against doping which is quite fragmented of course which is uh what the W is going to do uh between the states link the states and the sports movement those two laws Belgium and France which were well intentioned maybe caused more problems than they resolved them for a simple reason that France and
Belgium penalized um doping now we have discipline uh problems so if they athletes today have doping discipline uh consequences if if we say or a fine Etc but back then it was prison prison consequences of course according to the place we were doped or the amount we had we had quite a different
Um sometimes penalty sometimes we could have prison theoretically of course because those laws were almost never applied never in my knowledge a jurisdiction from Belgium or France send someone to prison because they dop themselves so we had laws that were very repressive that in practice were never applied because the the sanction the
Penalty was too strong compared to what was done so we had that those couple initiatives from the States from this of penalties that were not adapted and we wanted to put an end of it with the uh European Council convention and then the convention of UNESCO of 2005
Just because you really give us the way of making the link between that period between the 60s and 80s let’s say what’s really interesting is that when when you look at the Council of Europe the Europe canil we talk about that that convention 1989 it’s an interesting one but the EU uh Council
The first resolution it did against the sport was in 1967 about doping and when we talk about the states and the sports movement 1977 1967 is what the creation by the CIO of the medical uh field the first list of uh doping elements the first controls organized in the games
Were made by that CIO reglementation and saw the and were created in 1968 so between 60 and 80 parallel to that there is an exchange between States but at the same time we see uh an evolution that is parallel with the states and the federations of course we’re not limited because from the
Beginning we are on a cultural convention that is about uh 50 countries then the European Council is going to continue 79 uh we have problems of test problems of uh checkups but still the Federation uh of CIO continues to put in place elements for competition
We have a second date 81 et1 is the Congress one Olympic Congress which is Baden Baden Congress where we adds again that the dup the doping is the first problem of sports that’s what it was said and straight after that the European sh was created by uh the European Union meaning that the
Council of Europe listens to what the sports team is doing and reacts also uh through the states and the European chart against doping in sports which was of course negotiated by 1881 and arrived in 84 in parallel to Baden bden and 88 what happens Ben Johnson as you said it uh
Problem the France leader is uh considered positive CIO reacts 88 new reaction and then European Council we need a convention so in that period we have a parallel action but and the beginning of cooperation of course we’re not uh in the water area but each of them without
Listening to each other and talking they were acting and the European Council said that the responsibility uh belongs to the sports uh Federation but the states have to encourage them that’s quite clear in their text h you wanted to say something then Matthew to to add on to what Cecil was saying
What’s really interesting is that the action of the states the collective action of the states you’re uh International rights jurists so there’s not a lot of stuff there’s the soft law the convention of Europe but uh the real element is occupied by the Sports organization and
The CIO he’s the one who’s gon to try to harmonize this because each Federation had its own laws its own uh procedures of control its own list own sanctions so it was kind of going everywhere there was no uh easy way to read it and the CIO from the end of the
80s is going to try to harmonize it it’s going to adopt a medical code make it so that it becomes the the the rule it doesn’t have much success then you have an antidoping code of the Olympic movement also some federations are going to adapt because
The C has some arguments I mean the the Olympic Games can can uh uh convince them of uh of adopting it but in a tour to France in 1998 we have a situation where some rules are harmonized about the but some for example the FIFA had its own anti-doping laws that had
Nothing to do with the CIO so the norm is really occupied by the Federation this is not public uh rights it’s uh the rights of sport in that case but the international rights existed by the convention of Europe and is going to come later by the UN UNESCO
Uh convention who going to normalize those activities Matthew uh what we just said of course this reminder of history of that fight against doping is interesting in the past but it’s also interesting about the future if we resume what we just said it’s that it’s always more cooperation try to avoid uh initiatives
Um that would be separate from a state and Federation that’s what the history taught us and now with the roen act the law about the doping that the United States voted a couple months ago we have a little bit of a turn back in time with a state that
Decides for good or bad reasons we could discuss about it but a states that decides to do things on its own about this question is it a good thing I don’t know is it a bad thing I don’t know it’s but we’re kind of going back uh in
Time I see Frank is about to jump on his mic right now we’re in 98 so we talk about uh the the that Scandal and then we say if I go back to what C was saying and what Abu Bak mentioned there’s that parallel construction that’s happening and now we’re going towards a
Collaboration what what happens after 98 in 98 are we still in a correct regulation together because it was kind of considered as the uh staring stone for anti-doping rights after 98 you have 99 awesome and 99 was the creation of the uh World anti-doping agency
Water 98 uh tour the France is going to be like a starting point in word Sports because when discovered that a lot of cyclist were doped there are some French people who had the who were preparing the doping material so the governments are implied and the Scandal uh is brought to the
Light and they’re scared that uh so the Olympic team is going to react it’s going to start an International Conference in lisan beginning in 19989 that should have met have all the governments and the sports team uh Co was also deep in some problems the Scandal for the attribution of the games
Of uh Sul 60 we realized that some CEO G uh people were bought so that uh the the vote could be bought for Salt Lake City so there was kind of a a problem is moral Authority was uh not very good uh Fe February 1999 uh loan convention had
Kind of mixed um reactions but the decision was taken to create an agency uh wordy doping that should um bring in the states and uh the sports they also wanted to bring in some pharmaceutical uh sponsors and teams and it was not well received by the states but the principle was uh
There’s an agency that’s created it’s decided the CIO CEO created it um by a under the order of a foundation of Switzerland right Swiss rights so the end the agency at the beginning is not independent from the CEO but over time the status status is going to um advance
And the states are going to get involved and the principle of that agency is uh to have that uh that participation of both the public States and um the Sports organization equally the mission of that water is to substitute the CEO in the direction of the fight uh against
Doing it’s the that agency that’s going to take the those responsibilities and the first one was to elaborate the uh word code against doping that you must know all here which became uh the reference text which substituted it to uh to to that uh rule but there is a the old iPic
Anti-doping law and the new one now there’s a lot of things that are in common of course it went way further and the whole issue actually is to be like how authoritarian is going to be that code especially in terms of governments Abu actually I go back to you we did we
Didn’t hear you a lot Frank was asking what is the authority of the code in terms of for to government I know you worked in it in your thesis in your recent research because we talk about an instrument created by a foundation of swits right so for us
International uh right jurists we have a problem to categorize that thing it’s not International uh organization kind a struggle but how did the governments how are they targeted and how do the governments are how are they Associated to the code historically first of all first of all historically were they
Associated did they ratify it they didn’t sign the code today so yeah no at the beginning we wanted to associate them and condition the organization of the Olympic Games according to the ratification of the code uh it was a private instrument so I think they were maybe a bit of
Apprehension from the states to give a jic jur Judicial Force to the code so it was ask okay for the Olympic Games should the states ratify the code and eventually it ended up on the article three and four they should now you’re talking about the convention we already
Further so what I understand is that in the first version of the code which should come in effect for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens the question is 2004 we had to be to sign to participate the games and the question was after 2004 the states should they be should they have
Signed it what I detend from your answer is that the states did not sign the code why because it’s a private instrument and jur J judicially it’s hard to do it so I think they went through uh the UNESCO convention because it doesn’t correspond to uh the architecture of
What we see in international rights the states were like we cannot sign of ratifying this because we don’t know what it is actually therefore the choice was to go to UNESCO and why do we go to UNESCO actually Matthew why do we go to UNESCO and what do we do in it
Actually to for doping and what happens in there after 2004 actually about the question why did the states sign the UNESCO uh law I guess there a uh an image point and consistency and judicial after the fistina Scandal that Frank was talking about in 1999 tour the France people kind of were
Saying okay we’re Sports we’re Sportsman you’re supposed to do something it doesn’t really have anything it doesn’t really do anything so we’re going to say something but after just saying that it’s hard for the state to say okay something happened Lama the code but we don’t sign the code because we cannot
For a certain reason to suddenly negotiate and sign the convention of the UNESCO was a consistency that they themselves were involved in the future of it then there’s an image question for those who joined afterwards the UNESCO conferences because you had first assers and then who those who arrived later
It’s in order not to um appear as though you were alleged with the sports convention kind of staying back seems that we are a country in which sports is not its own we don’t want to uh engage in it there’s also a jici Judicial question in the code antidoping I don’t
Remember the article number that a states which didn’t sign the convention of UNESCO cannot welcome any international sports event we could say okay whatever because the code does not impose itself on the States they’re not sign they didn’t sign the code it’s inter IR ly it applies but yeah but
Who gives uh who chooses where the um the countries are selected the CIO who signed the code and the sports conferences who signed the code the Olympic uh National committees are the one who participate so the people who signed should now attribute sports events to states that did not sign the
Convention whether the there’s um there’s a real judicial point for it so there’s more than 180 uh countries who signed and ratified that convention I would say to end on this that they have less reasons to not sign the convention maybe to say it brutally uh it doesn’t engage too much
Actually and by that I mean that there’s no mechanism of control of the respect of the convention there’s a simple system of reports based on a self evaluation by the states who signed in but in the disposition of itself most most have the soft right uh the states encourage uh facilitates
Promotes and for the couple dispositions who are more constraining couple one two three about uh food compliments for example about uh the relatives of the sportsmen about the principle of the code that the states should normally respect those dispensations who are more uh according to the Norms because the
States engaged themselves to they are quite blurry actually meaning that it’s not too constraining it’s not the problem it’s the content of the obligation and we will be able to continue to talk about it when we talk about what does the C would mean that the states meant to um Respect by
Signing the UNESCO convention code and Matthew to go back on what you said the UNESCO convention does not talk about the principle of the code it talks about it’s more precise actually the convention mentions that the states engage themselves to respect the principles said in the code and not the principles of the
Code make maybe there’s a question here that’s more Dynamic and larger here I know that Frank you thought about the principle and ccil to maybe we can ask you the states what are they committed to in that code because on top of that to complexify things the code is
Evolving so we have new principles who appear so are the new principles given to a private uh private entity and so uh now all the states are all okay you do what you want and we don’t look at it it’s the beauty of international rights actually when the states have a
Problem uh getting together on something they agree on uh saying that could eventually mean several things but something that’s going to agree be agreed with by everyone which is going to satisfy uh something if you want to be more strict about it so during the negotiations of
The Convention of UNESCO there were some disagreements about the authority of uh the anti-doping code some states were really far and some didn’t want this in private instrument to um to be opposed to sovereign states formally private of course because they were on the foundation of
Swiss F Swiss rights even though it was um equally created by rights and by sports team and States so we had negotiations I don’t have the secret of the negotiations but globally that’s saying uh okay the the sayings the things said in the code and not it was what was
Adopted now it’s all to interpreters to um believe and say what you think is in there the question is really there and you’re you’re here also you can give your interpretation what are the principles named in in that code we can say we can make it say what
We want now we have a Judicial question but also a linguistic question because the terminology can mean some other things in other languages actually that’s maybe a food for thought but it’s not the same thing in French English Spanish German Cil on the principles I think that of course
There’s what you said in terms that every state didn’t agree they were not in the same line of thoughts of being imposed or under that private right even though they participated to that to that redution because they were in the W and they were invited to give their
Observation when the code redaction was B but also think and maybe it’s not what was done at the beginning of that term but I believe that it represents well that highst that’s present in the fight against doping and that that link between uh Sports movement and
The states meaning at some point why are the states interested in that fight against doping uh the equity of uh competition of course every state is attached to that but honestly it’s not a problem in terms of a state that competition should be equal and loyal but ever since the doping and
That’s what happened in Festina in 98 f it’s not only okay there’s a cyclist team that’s is doping and maybe the other ones we take products police the operation doesn’t come from the sports element it comes from a state and it comes from a police um area and customs and it’s a traffic
Of product we are in a trafficking area a problem uh maybe uh money laundering so it starts to interest the states actually who say okay if there’s no correct fight against doping now of course link to the competition but that have if problems and Link outside of the competition the
States have to be interested in it but at the same time the states want be interested about the rule of competition itself but when we read the mon the wordwide code it’s linked to sports elements it’s not linked to mon laundering even if doping is a trafficking but it’s linked to the the
Relatives of the Sportsman the trainer they need to be in a loyal competition so technically it’s always a little bit that problem meaning we have the competition and it’s really uh the sports movement who’s in place to know what they need in terms of sports interest but at the same time there’s a
Teaching a sports teaching that has impact uh on elements that interest the state so they have to agree all to fight against to fight together but against different elements with different goals so maybe is it going to be a able to apply the code in itself we are one of the states in
France that’s that applies the best the code and yet it’s really really difficult we ask okay is it the sports team that should uh apply it or the state and of course each team according to its priorities is going to put in place what he wants we don’t want to put to put
Anything uh clearly for every state for some State it’s going to be uh trafficking for some it’s going to be uh competition so maybe that formulation helps uh uh the states not to be too determined and to determine what’s important for it Matthew you wanted to add something
Because you’re the one actually who started the discussion I wanted to add something but I also wanted to say something about what Cil just said it’s true that every state puts what he wants in it so that blurry element uh of the principle said in the code is of course
Convenient all the text adopted uh in in France all the law recently was law of transposition of the principles of the code but in those texts we don’t transpose the principle we transpose almost all the code meaning it’s a way sometimes easy to make us think that we
Have because of the convention of UNESCO to uh retake all the code when we don’t actually have to it’s easier to say okay we do this because there international engagements ask us to rather than to say well we submit to a private text and now an institution hybrid institution in the
Sport movement now we close uh the French uh elements but maybe we have a policeman of the convention who needs to be convinced when we talk about that fight against doping they all they have a a talk uh to talk it for it to be transposed because the in Canada the
Transposition is uh the W which is a private state is puts it in the Canadian element and that’s it in the Continental System there’s France but also there’s other ones where we have to transpose it to add it in our law and to convince the judge also the state Council or eventually the
Constitutional state if there’s discussions we attach that to the convention to demonstrate that there’s some uh engagements when we talk about the French uh jurist against doping they also say themselves that sometimes they do some uh Hard Exercise to convince the judge that indeed it’s principles that
Are correct and that they fit into this text yes there’s two categories in the state there’s uh the states that don’t intervene for example English speaking and their role is mainly of not putting any um blocks on the road of that code for example in South America uh Etc Italy
They have to the state has to adapt the rights so that it can apply um it be applied by the sports elements the principle said in the code that’s what is said by unisco convention first problem what is the principle what does it mean even if we uh stick to the
Judicial uh element of it there’s a collock in Leon in 2007 about the principle in rights and the first part part was about 100 Pages was just about what is a principle in right we can hear it as meaning uh rules that are not judicial moral laws
Political Etc that are at the base of judicial elements for example we could say that some principles of the code is harmonization cooporation equ equity with maybe a problem to separate uh the prin principle of values and uh principles and David wrote it in an article that American law is opposite
Actually to the law because it’s opposite of coroporation of harmonization and then we also have the principle in another side in dorin that distinction between principle and rule the two should be uh judicial Norms but the principle should be rules that are more abstract structural well the rules are norms are precise
About that point so first of all what is the principle second problem principle said in the code if we understand what is a principle what are the principle of the code the principle does the code doesn’t say it there’s no definition in it of course there’s some article in the code
That’s um make reference to something that is called principle but is it’s made voluntarily we don’t know because those principles that are stated in the code sometimes or details such as the suspension Provisions suspensions education points so what are the principle of the codes and then last
Point but that Frank uh made me think about it a couple weeks ago does the UNESCO convention make obligatory mandatory to the states all the principles said in the code or only some principle stated in the code when we read not the third article but the Fourth Article of the convention it said
That the states uh are uh required to follow the the the principles stated in the code in agreement with the um elements mandatory in the code so meaning that it would only be mandatory for the state that the principles of the code would only those in link with obligations contained in the convention
Of the UNESCO but the convention of the UNESCO does not deal with all the aspects that we find today in the code so there’s three problems here to understand what uh principle stated in the code means I don’t only have an answer for each of them but it’s a a
Notion here there’s two jurisdictions that pronounce themselves quite indirectly quite accessor on the notion of cod principles first of all the Tas there’s a sentence in 2011 and then uh the German federal court in P case 2016 both of them very indirectly was not the main question that was as to
Them but while uh to the sentence we can read it somewhere they concentrated an element of the code which is uh an appeal to the task in international cases of doing maybe we shouldn’t say more to to them what to what they say those decisions are not principal but it seems
That those two TR jurisdiction understood that there’s an answer to all three elements principle it’s an it’s a jurisic jial Judicial right principle of the code can be something else that’s something that is literally identified as a principle by the code itself the code never says uh
That the Tas is a principle even though we could understand that it’s something that’s structural and general and then those two jurisdiction don’t seem to consider that the principles that the states are required would be only those linked to the convention because in the convention there’s not much uh that
Talks about the intervention of the task in those case so here we have a Juris prence of course there’s a lot of precaution here because it’s not about knowing if a state or not respected the convention if he respected his obligation Etc but we have the beginning of something that could be an
Interpretation not an authentic one but maybe of what is a principle stated in the code Abu Baka quickly and then I’m gonna ask one last question before uh asking questions in the room I’m sure there’s questions we’re still not sure about what principles are of course you understand that we’re going to talk
About it this week that’s why I kind of go backwards about it uh regard to what St Matthew we cannot empty a Convention of its meaning saying there’s no principle especially if it’s not judicial principles otherwise we would empty uh the meaning if it’s we say it’s judicial
Principles and not legal so I think this a global understanding of the dispositions we talk about harmonization coroporation we could say on the opposite that the objective or harmonization uh comes from transposition that’s what I’m saying yes in both senses even if we hear it in the
Sense of non show uh case the non-judicial rules that are present by harmonization it’s a princip principle loyalty is a principle good faith Abu Baka and then I will ask a question quickly I would say that the notion of principle uh and the lack of definition
Was also made so that it could be adapted to the evolution of the fight against doping for example um the ones who throw the the whistleblowers who uh the protection of whistleblowers is interesting in the last uh in the last loss the protection of the whistleblowers maybe the students or the
Audience would like to have your advice your understand I think there’s other dispositions that were focused uh in the last code maybe I’m going to take that uh opportunity to to talk about the power of supervision uh about the W to supervise the Conformity of the organizations against doping I think it
Allows for the agency to Define some principles for example uh the one you talked about the the courts it was it wasn’t the Amma the W decided that France was not agree was not correct on that for example about that example I could also talk about I think during the
Last transposition we were talking about the strengthening about the inquiry um uh of uh of all that elements I have a question that is maybe more precise and that’s kind of brought back my idea here that was raised by what Cecil you said you said the code doesn’t have
Application on the states but in an international uh of a jur Judicial judicial part maybe there’s the code and the standards present are applied to the states if we are in a Judicial uh uh laboratory uh lab for anti-doping they have mentions the uh the director is uh
Named by the the government there’s public State we could say that the code can be applied to the government directly even some uh International Organization again anti-doping who are members of the state or integrated to Ministries which is why we have kind of a a different position here the code
Anti-doping the movement says it should be uh independent uh things kind of closing the eyes important independent uh organizations but when we take the perspective of international public right as a jurist of international right it’s okay it’s members of of states and when we test okay it’s governments I go
Towards Frank because I know you have an expertise uh in between both so what should we think about that because C was saying it doesn’t apply to States but now what would be your perspective when we read uh carefully the the code of anti doping we understand that indirectly the governments can be
Concerned we talked about the agencies against doping with there’s the article 22 that lists the requirements of the people signing for example the uh anti-doping Federation Sports Federation so all the people signing the code had expectation they’re not obligations but there are expectation in the government for towards the governments
And apart from those expectations through the labs through the what through those people signing there’s possibility to uh add indirectly through the to this to act on the state so I’m going to site one again the French uh the French state was not in Conformity to the to the antidoping law
And it was was at it was actually in France it’s adopted by the by the state not by the Sports Association with the Olympic Games of Paris 2024 there was a strong judicial pressure so that the friend so that friends could be in Conformity and the penalty could
Be uh a deleting of the world agency antidoping in France so there was an indirect pressure on the French P services so that it could be in Conformity with the law it passed through the water worth the agency that talked with the ministry to have a law that could be agreeing with
The worldwide anti-doping law so there’s no direct law on the governments but there’s indirect possibilities to um put it in action for the French Labs is the same thing according to to the standards on Labs the what standards labs are supposed to be independent of the public
Of the states of the sports Ministry especially of the Olympic local committee Etc they’re supposed to be independent if ever you have a state that integrates the lab in its own structure and makes it an attachment to the sports Ministry the penalty is not going to be against the state but uh the
Lab could be suspended and uh take we could take off his accreditation now it’s a political uh problem with the water fany attentive enough does it really check uh that every lab is independent that’s another question but once again indirectly through the means of the signat people who sign that we
Can act on the government with the rules that we talked earlier the rules that um stop them from putting a competition that would happen on on a state that is not respects of the code and that is not part of the UNESCO convention so it’s kind of a a norm uh
Problems through in indirect action so even though the states didn’t site the code are not bound directly by the code there’s ways to act on the behavior of the government Cil she just say in a couple words I think that there’s a real schizophrenia as you said one of the
Fundamental principles pursued by the W and by the code and also the European canil said the same thing is uh how Sports should be independent and also agencies uh anti-doping agencies should be also independent that’s nice but who has the capacities materially of financing a lab with everything that it
Needs in research or anti-doping most Labs actually their their working plan is not viable so at the same time W is saying to the states there should not be uh action of the State uh you should only give the means action of the state in there it should be independent but at
The same time we know that the labs cannot work only through a financial uh support linked mainly to the state then the FD was criticized by the W as being nonconform but when we compare to other states honestly uh I don’t think the FLD was the was is the authority that we
Should uh stigmatize but especially on another side recently as you said with the power of Investigation of the W and that it wants to put in place because that’s how we understand to have some efficient elements the fight against doping well FD is taking as an example why because
Since it’s a state public State uh Authority because in other states it’s Association the French government can lead it to judicial problems the FLD has uh penalty uh problems but the other zat don’t have the equivalent of perquisition in private places to uh take uh to take
Documents the W wants to fight because it’s a a a States government that’s where the schizophren schizophrenia is we don’t want the state to medle in there and we can understand it from the sports movement but the efficiency of the fight depends also a little bit from
The means that the states can put in so we are in the research of that uh balance and sometimes we go too much on the one side too much on another one and that balance is is problem which is why maybe that principle uh point is trying to bring in some
Balance it’s also a really interesting question for for international jurists we are in a uh question of uh transnational right National rights public right Etc I invite you next May to the um convention that is going to be organized by uh h on International Sports rights in May May 24 244 in
Paris but before taking a break because I have uh the pressure of uh the leaders to have a 10-minute break between two sessions there’s a mic in the room I think it’s the possibility opportunity for you to ask questions to take advantage of it to have two questions
You have to get up it’s right to our cameraman if you have any questions you can get up and identify give us your identity if you have questions some comments that he will answer I invited uh the colleagues from Theo conour to ask question if they want of course you understand that we’re
Not going to resolve um the nature of the engagements but we’re not going to find an answer but there a question from mat differently from David and Frank I am not internationalist by training maybe which is why I’m going to say something that might be weird for you I’m not
Sure that there’s a lot of practical interest to resolve the difficulty of knowing what means the principles stated in the code to to which the states are held to because of the convention because as Frank said it there’s indirect indirect ways of constraining the states to respect all
The code and not only the principles by striking to their Labs by striking their International uh agencies of doping by refusing to giving them international sports events Kus can uh can illustrate that fact traditionally of course Russia is not sanctioned of course but for everyone it’s Russia symbolically those indirect sanctions
Are striking Russia and second thing if we really uh want a state to be sanctioned because it doesn’t respect the code and not only the principles of the code I think there’s ways without even um referring to the case without even going to C there are possibilities to sanction a
State that doesn’t respect the code with some uh simple Evolutions that we could think of for example there’s a very simple one when the CIO grants the games to a town and not a country for example Paris or 2024 there’s a city host contract that is signed for example two
Things should be done put in the contract a clause an element saying that the city or of course it’s going to be linked the people signing the contract are engaging themselves during the games to respect all the anti-doping code and to sign that contract not only
By the town as it’s the case today but by the states welcoming them it wasn’t possible before the Olympic chart was modified and the 36 uh Rule pro allows today that that contract of City host can be signed by a States for example a state that would not respect
The anti doping law during the games would not respect the contract and it would be therefore possible to act uh the other uh clause for example by taking the the the the court as it said in the in that in that contract and the it could
Be because of a contract a state could be punished not because of UNESCO not because of the principles but it would not have respected the code of anti-doping during a certain period def defined by the contract and so because of the investment right CL he’s going to talk
More about it FR because he had talked about it from a bilateral investment uh in Brazil are there any questions go to the mic hello everyone thank you first of all for this first part that was really rich I would like to go back on the historical Dimension that was said at
The beginning of the talk you started to answer the question but it was de deviated why is UNESCO uh why was UNESCO Chosen and not another organization historically I’m sure there’s a reason especially around that time H yeah well because we had to find an institution multilateral Mally worldwide
There was not a big possibility of choice choices and unisco had already worked on Sports in 1978 there was an international sports of chart of sports and it was the one that was best corresponding to those questions it was the only one basically who had talked
About sports so it was kind of by default and the UNESCO was okay to hold the convention so that’s how it worked thanks are there any other questions so thank you for that first part I wanted to ask uh with the principal examples that you said from 2021 is there a way that
Uh the convention the code of anti-doping could be acted retroactively Matthew I saw that you were ready to answer you took the mic in the UNESCO convention the code is referenced uh the code being adapted adopted in 2003 so maybe is it the uh amendments that were adopted later maybe
We could talk about it but it’s made said in a way that it could be discussed about retroactively I’m not sure understand correctly for example a state that today would respect would not respect a principle that will be uh adopted tomorrow I’m going to ask a question do
You do you mean that the 2021 version can apply to something that was done in 2019 or uh is it uh we have to go back to a Nord version back then it’s kind of what you explained yes new principles that evolved with time can we reattach them to facts that were
To events that were happened before on that question the code answers on it it references one principle and this one is named of the soft uh soft rule meaning that the only principles that can be applied retroactively are those that are soft for the people uh pursued for
Doping and not those who are uh harder it’s at the end of the code the question is answered at the end of the code about the things that can be applied uh or not real trct back in time maybe there can also be that question because in regards of the
Controls and tests we have a conservation test that’s 10 years now long of course we know that some tests can be made 10 years later and 10 years later the list of substances has changed uh the amount can change and generally we applied the list that was applied when we do the test
Again and yet when we had done uh the test 10 years later that substance maybe was not forbidden back then so there is that problem yes here real questions about the modification of the list because we had a famous uh case of a tennis who when she was tested that product was
Authorized or what not forbidden and then when uh we got the results of the test between that the list had changed and it had become uh forbidden so there was a battle to know which one we applied so there can be a difficulty that are not all resolved because
There’s big battles that can um be present so we’re going to take a break it’s 22 until 32 just 10 minutes we have some editors outside so there’s the pedon editions the international rights can review in Canada in Quebec if you want to Contin consider the elements they have just 10
Minutes we go back at 32 so we’re going to continue our day with our second panel you watched a great uh exchange now we’re going to go to a more traditional uh model meaning that uh we’re going to have our three conference men who are going to present one after
The other and then we’re going to have our exchange time we are now uh at that panel named uh doping system in uh Russia a violation of the multilateral anti-doping law so our three panelist I’m going to present them to you master Richard pound an old Olympian in Nat in
Swimming he was uh six in 1960 and member he presided the Canadian Olympic and founded the anti doing H agency which he was president of of our second conference joh professor in the history um section in monreal director of Eurasia and a teacher in modernization he’s a specialist in the
History of Russia published in 2022 if to from the opin from the Alpin area uh the story of Olympian games from 1928 today and then we’re going to welcome s AI a doctor uh and member of the uh political and traditional he has a long history talked in the
He formed he also trained some uh some tourists in the rights word rights on in doing on in sports I’m going to put the thank you very much I will be speaking in English good afternoon and thank you for the U this invitation to speak I apologize in
Advance for the the risk that this might seem to be drinking water out of a fire hose because 15 minutes is not not enough time to deal with the uh many complex aspects leading to the various investigations into Russian doping and in some cases leading to no investigations uh by way of background
Organized doping and Sport began after World War II the initial choices of substances were stimulants and testosterone based anabolic steroids stimulants were princip race day drugs whereas the anabolic steroids uh were taken during preparation and training periods to increase strength and to recover from training interestingly enough there were
No Sport rules uh that prohibited doping legislation and regulation of drugs was dealt with by domestic authorities and focused essentially on what we call today recreational drugs and quality controls for drugs that were used for therapeutic purposes it was the death of a Danish cyclist at the Rome Olympics in 1960
Those are the ones that I was in I looked like I was I should have been in Melbourne but no I was 1960 and he died du due in part to the use of stimulants that led as we heard this morning the international Olympic Committee to create a medical Commission
And with a subcommittee on doping and biochemistry the latter subcommittee was charged with responsibility of preparing a list of prohibited substances the ioc commenced testing at the Olympic Winter Games in grob in 1968 and has continued to test at every Olympics since then there was a practical and systemic problem within the international
Structure of uh organized Sport and that was that the ioc had the right to test only at its own event that is to say the Olympic Games thus once every four years between Olympic Games athletes were subject to the rules of their respective International federations which did not test the
Athletes nor permit the ioc to test them it’s safe to observe that the international federations had no appetite whatsoever for drug testing particularly by an organization that they did not control during the Cold War countries on both sides were delighted to use the performance of their athletes as demonstrations of the effectiveness of
Their particular societies each of course in their own political contexts and U and social contexts in Eastern Europe doping was essentially organized and administered by the states or state agencies particularly uh among the countries in the Warsaw Pact in the west governments were not actively indol involved in doping programs but on the
Other hand did nothing uh to prevent them knowing full well that their athletes were competing against doped athletes the most scientific doping outcomes particular L we’re in East Germany which had astonishing outcomes particularly with adolescent females but each other country also had its own programs after the collapse of the Soviet
Union doping continued and the Russian Federation took a more visible lead uh in the doping particularly once the two germanies were reunited the known state of play was that Russian athletes were doping with the assistance of State authorities access however to Russia was and still is restricted satisfactory evidence of
The doping was simply not available the formation of the world anti-doping agency in uh 1999 following as we heard this morning or earlier this afternoon rather the 1998 Festina scandal in the tour to France um brought about a a new uh opportunity for an integrated um set of uh International rules this was
Reinforced by the adoption of W’s World anti-doping code in 2003 which in turn was incorporated into the internal rules of the every um element of the Olympic movement prior to the commencement of the games in 2004 in Athens that was followed again as we’ve heard by the adoption of the UNESCO
International Convention on doping and sport in 2005 followed by its ratification um excuse me it’s ratification by the state parties in 2006 pursuant to which those uh State parties undertook to use the code as the basis of their state anti-doping activities focusing on the investigation into Russian doping uh there were
Impediments many International federations were reluctant to investigate doping in their own sports even outside of Russia and many of those federations relied very heavily on Russia to Stage or support uh their their events nor frankly was there much enthusiasm regarding an independent agency such as W to oversee their doping
Activities or their anti-doping activities rather or or the lack thereof this was also true of the public authorities including Russia a measure of all that is that although water was formed in 1999 it was not until 2015 that W was permitted by its stakeholders to conduct its own
Investigations it was allowed to rely on other investigations but it couldn’t do its own I chaired the independent commission which was the first water conducted investigation into Russian Athletics in 2015 it was triggered by revelations of Russian of a Russian anti-doping official ital stepanoff and his wife his athlete wife
Julia after smuggling the stepanovs out of Russia Ard a German broadcaster televised an account of what they had discovered it was so explosive that the Stephanos would have been in grave personal Danger had they remained in Russia water decided to investigate our independent commission found massive corruption throughout Russian Athletics including the covering
Up of positive tests declaring certain athletes coached by certain trainers to be exempt from testing giving advanced notice of outof competition tests using false documentation the active implication of the FSB which is the successor to the legendary KGB uh in the Laboratories and elsewhere providing drugs to athletes uh the involvement of Athletics
Officials in extorting money from athletes to cause positive tests to disappear complicity of the Moscow laboratory and its director unsupervised provision of samples urine samples and much more we at Water had a Scottish president at that stage who in the Scottish effort to be frugal restricted the terms of our reference of our
Commission to Simply Athletics that’s to say track and field and not the entire Russian sport system as a result of our report which we published at the end of 2015 15 the accreditation of the Moscow laboratory was first suspended and then revoked the lab director was discharged the Russian anti-doping organization was
Suspended and the international Athletics uh Federation suspended the Russian Athletics Federation a suspension that remains in force U even today in early 2016 we referred the evidence of criminal expor to Interpol and the French authorities agreed to take up the matter which resulted in criminal prosecutions and convictions against the president of the
International Federation against his son against the chief anti doping officer of the International Federation the Russian treasurer of the inter ational Athletics Federation and the French lawyer who was involved in the extortions on the footsteps of our investigation in early 2016 further Revelations this time across the entire Russian sport system
Emerged the additional information oddly enough coming from the disgraced Moscow lab directory director Gregory renov he too had to be smuggled out of Russia before the information became public and that information led to a second investigation this one by Canadian headed by Canadian law professor Richard
McLaren who had been a member of the commission that I had chaired earlier he uncovered the mechanics of the coverup system the provision of samples to be held in storage which could be substituted for samples provided by Russian athletes during the course of competition how the supposed tamperproof
Containers for samples um could be opened and the urine in them switched for clean urine and resealed how the samples were switched during the SOI games by the fsp uh in 2014 and very likely at the football World Cup also how computer records were manipulated and a a host of other
Fraudulent actions were were carried out since the 2016 Rio Olympics were fast approaching Professor McLaren issued an interim report of his findings the ioc refused to act upon it pronouncing the report to be mere allegations rather than the findings of an experienced investigator in the end U much after all
This took place the ioc agreed with all of the conclusions uh of the full report and the Russian national Olympic Committee was suspended uh just prior to the pong Chang uh Olympic Winter Games athletes who met certain conditions were allowed to compete as Olympic athletes from Russia and the water imposed sanction
Against the whole Russian apparatus uh of four years was reduced to two despite the fact that the the court of arbitration for sport panel which included an arbitrator appointed by the Russians specifically and unanimously found found that the corruption could be traced to the president of the Russian
Federation a related W investigation was directed to the Russian computer records W had obtained a pre-investigation copy um of those records and sought access to the current official records to determine whether or not there had been alterations and alteration were widely suspected water also had to take possession of the samples
Themselves in order to be able to assert and to approve or approve anti-doping rule violations there were many many Russian caused delays in providing both the samples and the computer records but they were eventually and reluctantly uh produced after after we declared their anti-doping agency once again non-compliant after a detailed forensic
Office audit rather of the computer data it proved to be an absolute treasure drove of deliberate manipulations of the database as a result hundreds hundreds of doping violations have been discovered and asserted against the athletes involved throughout all of this Russia has been completely unrepentant and belligerent in asserting that the whole series
Of matters is nothing more than a western political plot directed against uh Russia virtually every charge is routinely denied and resulting actions are very noisily contested Russian officials Sport and other refuse to acknowledge any guilt whatsoever and then then finally of course there is the investigation that
Did not take place and there was some talk about that in the panel before and that is the one that should have been undertaken by the public authorities u in respect to the UNESCO convention Russia was clearly in breach of its obligations under that convention but the state parties have refused to
Act Russia’s soft power is such that the other state parties are unwilling to hold it to account which exposes a fundamental Gap in the anti-doping system thank [Applause] you thanks a lot Master pound we’re going to continue now with Professor LEC he who’s going to present to us a conference
Name are we facing a Resurgence of uh Soviet um Soviet problems of dop doping I’m kind of uh because I don’t have the training so I’m kind of the Intruder here I don’t have the ambition to contribute uh to a a rights uh convention but I want to
Explain that there’s a political point about this question of dopage Russian dop doping thank you that’s better okay I’m from all the old school there’s a political context around that question of Russian doping which is quite interesting to me because as uh the presenter said I interested to uh Olympic Winter Games to
Its political interests which brought me to on the one I’m uh studying right now which brings a lot of uh thoughts for example why should we risk to put in problem soft power 55 Millions Etc in a in a business that in the end today uh reduced the soft power the Russian one
To very low actually they fought against uh paria status and now they are back to a paria uh status which is kind of what we saw back then in Soviet Union where we accepted the rules of the games we were there we were talking about motivation political motivation but we’re not attacking the
Foundations at the arrival point of the crisis of the doping uh uh challenge of Russia is that we are questioning the foundation of the to uh of the associations who accuse us we could talk about sh power instead of self power something a business that wants to strike which will bring me in
Conclusion to have some historical parallels and see where it can bring us maybe I’m going to deceive some people who wanted to know more about the Soviet area because ironically we know more about uh the doping now than when we did in the Soviet area first of all because it’s
Really uh the information is really spare there’s a lot of scandals that appeared in the Russian press uh after the fall of the Soviet Union but nothing like we know uh today with RGA and its Army of old athletes who defied and who try to May to be wealthy somewhere else
There’s no work back then on the Soviet dop doping we know it’s there because it was admitted by uh by uh High people like surve guga who said I have no problem I’m against stoping for young athletes but for older athletes who are in full consciousness of what they do we
Are in the knowledge of trying to perform so it was at the beginning of the ’90s and what I’m trying to explain basically how we arrived there first of all about on the Soviet area the arrival of the Soviets in the sports uh at the
End of the 40s in the in 52 56 Olympic Games and Winter Games with quite High performances for a country that has not a lot of experience in international competition raised of course questions there were some allegations made but nothing fundamental and nothing deep about it as to what we know for the
RDA for example today we agree with Specialists to say that doping of the RDA which comes from the Soviet system but which is quite legitimate in towards the arfa and towards the big brother led to Perfection with a German Precision the practices of doping which from the Soviets came from an interaction
Between the trainers the pressure for performance and the activities of the uh institutions of pharmacology of sports of medicine in USSR the mosco games to give you an idea quite striking were named uh for the formas format uh games because no trainer no G no athlete was recognized
As doping even though it was already happening and the games in 84 the Goodwill um games there was no test there so maybe we could think the worse of it what happened afterward that the fall of USSR and I’m going to be quite precise actually about the period I’m a
Historian after all there’s a time of liberalization and Opening which we can compare to the same opening we had during the the the connections with the replacement of Ino by Mr DV in 92 during that time of course practices doping practices were massive but the controls were almost over because the state was financing uh and it was the
Pride of the Soviet Union back then I was looking at archives and bibl and libraries Etc which the purpose of my training I fell upon a huge um to an area that was that belonged to Russia which had the possibility of selling out of taxes uh some alcohol Etc
To finance his activities during that time Robert edman demonstrated it the historian that the fall of control doesn’t mean that doping practic is fall too but brings a practice which will disappear which is that the Soviet function who were looking to find a place in international institutions are not going to defend
Their um athletes like they did back then and like they will do ever since the end of the 90s with a certain strengthening of it for example in prival cod in pral was uh was tested again and again for example we have the case the case also of a runner
Nadish who had to uh finish uh who went to uh compete for Norway because Russia never defended it and before the games of um Atlanta some all uh LIF waiters kind of left because Russia did not want to sustain them but that period is kind of short the Russians are second in the
Atlantic Atlantic games which is kind of good actually for that time without being doped it’s going to lead to some uh um elements also and the succession of first ministers who are going to be a little bit more firm or conservatives and partakers of a strong case like makov and Vladimir
Putin so during that time the opening is going to be short compared to what we have in the ’90s we now are going to have a return or a syntax I have a problem seeing Putin’s regime a return to Soviet practices but trying going back to what will work in Old Soviet
Union compared to a private finance and then which is going to back go back to a public one there’s a financial area there’s a problem ever since 2004 relations with the West are going to be more complicated especially with uh the extension of the of NATO and the discussion in 2017 gas
Uh TRS are going to be seen as Heroes by send by sending semi semi-private uh financing to sports Russia becomes a great sports power uh going everywhere in this every since 2009 in that context the chain of events of it starts by which is cost Millions even though
It’s Universal games of course Yi 55 million the most expensive uh World Cup in 2018 and formul Formula 1 in SOI which is going to be placed in St Petersburg there’s a a will of Russia to go back but I’m not going to repeat what was said of course
Previously and try to bring new elements of jish but there was a high level doping skills it was the fruits of what the state had done in the past with new elements that are new what I think my last point I think you have five minutes
Perfect the last point I want to bring is are we in this perspective with SOI with the doping to that crisis of Russia are we in the soft power soft power for polites it’s a concept that’s um CHF n which made CHF nine um really famous in 2004
From Harvard and then who was applied to every every country every context it’s the influence that a country can have but that goes beyond and is different from the influence and economical pressure and Military pressures an attraction power of a state on another one that can lead it to change its habits its
Decisions are we in it or are the authority and states such as China who have a different strategy I don’t want to go into right now the authoritarian states are not in the same register and what I want to demonstrate today is that first of all when you have the beginning of the
Doping crisis the Russian answer can be seen as in the Soviet traditionalism of whataboutism for example entering a Critic with a Critic for example uh the treatment of uh sexual minorities in situ so we turn the problem back to the one who has sit we’re going to go back quickly I’m
Going to give a couple cases for example Putin says during the the parm of the crisis in 2016 before the games in Rio that there can be no no support of the state in regards to doping but the next day he says that allegations are part of a uh
Anti-russia political element so we send back the critics to but those who sent it to US pushkov alexe President says it’s an act of political Vengeance for its politic of uh politic of a Ela world champion for for practice that she now says that I won my fake gold medal
Medal I could go on and on but uh in aumn 2016 you have Vali M the president of the ministry of sports who is promoted as Vice Minister as a Defiance act then is going to be commuted to an antidoping she’s for Putin and she’s going to be uh placed in the doping
Agency anti doping agency so we’re going to have both the attack and the return of the critic there’s not a lot of time and I wanted to finish coherently that’s hard power which is a bit stronger for authoritarian states which wants to create to destroy the influence of
Countries is going to lead us to what first of all in 1984 I talked to you about the Friendship Games they were games in parallel to uh Los Angeles once you’re going to understand where I’m trying to go with this in parallel to the Olympic Games that because of the um the good
Relationships that gorbach chfs were securing with the West are going to lead to nothing and the USSR is going to remain part of the Olympic Games you have just before the invasion I’m going to give you two modest example modern example just before the pon Chang games in 2018 there was a logo
Rock or oh c not Earl CK with a bear attacking and showing teeth to show that Russia was ready to fight after the Tokyo games in 2021 there was a campaign um hash We Will Rock You G that had won a medals in Russia who was defying the sanctions in that
Way so maybe we are uh maybe we are going to ban all the Russian athletes maybe there was also the invasion of Ukraine there was also propositions there to organize Russian propositions to organize games in parallel with China it was repeated in March that there were going to be um
Competitions in China this summer and that Russian athletes would be invited like the other ones there was African uh subventions to stop the banishment of Russia so are we gonna have parallel games of Russia I doubt it because Chinese after the uh their reached the summit after their
Walk towards Olympic Games and are have now their own games but diplomacy being what it is they can press tactically on I’m going to say on the Russian Defiance on International rights sorry and thanks again for your attention thanks a lot we’re gonna go now with the presentation of Mr
Ji who presents his communication which is named the sentences of arbitral Courts uh with the doping system in Russia good evening everyone my my presentation is going to be about the arbitral sentences and I have two uh two goals we saw what uh happened after SOI we saw what uh two main
Cases that was L and then the McLaren case with three reports the problem of that uh report was that we had a global system but what is the consequence if we say Russia organizes doping we cannot sanction uh Russia we saw it the system doesn’t allow it at least um technically there
Are ways to do it indirectly to penalize Russia and so through that sentence I’m going to try to show that actually there’s a possibility to confirm and therefore applies appli sentences to the Sports organization one on one side and athletes on another side with an elements uh special for the
Athletes and that this confirmation has an effect a repressive one and dissuasive for the long-term doping of the state we hope it’s going to work so the first category of decisions that we have are decisions that concern the sentences arbitral sentences relative to the Sports organization
Theoc W and word agency are going to sanction uh the Russian Sports organization you won’t be able to present athletes uh the acation is is taken away you’re going to to be suspended from participating you won’t be able to name people who will be presented as candidates uh for the elections uh
Worldwide and those sanctions for most of them have been confirmed because the tests allowed those types of sanctions institutional against the supports organization there’s an important decision from 20120 that talks about something that happens after and that the first conference man said which is once W wanted to collect the data computer data
Russia the the lab of Russia trafficed those data to try to change the narrative by reading the data so here what are uh put in place a procedure against the the anti-doping in Russia and the sentence says that manipulation of data is confirmed between the data that we
Got from The Whistleblower before EMA before wa asked for the data and the the data that anti-doping Russia gave afterwards and therefore uh the sanction which was of three orders especially institutional sanction but also Financial one fine against the anti-doping agency in Russia was confirmed so we had a possibility of
Sanction uh institutionally and disciplinary measures which will penalize the Sports organization Russia in Russia generally and if we discover a state Discovery a state doping then we can use the same formulation we talked about Russia China earlier I I’m not sure if we know what happens in China
The other states if there’s a transparency nicely enough in the state yes we can see clearly what’s happening in there or at least clear it’s going to be difficult to say there’s that there’s a States doping maybe some organizations some clubs are going to dope but not a state organized doping as as
Per so that institutional doping is an opportunity for other organization if we discover a system that’s in place second category of decisions and sanctions is the sanctions against the individuals and here there’s several problematics problems raised I’m going to raise two and show how they were treated can we sanction collectively all
The Russian athletes can the collective sanctions be allowed can we sanction athletes without giving them the possibility individually to defend themselves to explain what they did part of the first question against the sanction Collective sanction we can see that the decisions that were taken especially uh the facts of
Forbidding the in Russia to present at least that were previously sanctioned for doing questions the court is going to say it’s not correct the arbital court because the sentences Collective sentences are not possible but the institutional ones are collective indirect ones if we sanction all the Russian athletes without um making the sanction
Individual and seeing what each of them would do it would be contrary to the human rights to the presumption of innocence and the rights of to appeal but especially for the case of athletes that were able to be um sanctioned for doping and that we originally exclude
The arbitral court said that it’s a fight of a double sanction so there’s double sanction done without there being a a procedure justifying that sanction that problem actually was present before when that rule was put in place to sanction uh the the state doping in Russia we were not original we took a
Rule that was already existing known as the Osaka rule because it was put in place in Osaka and the court is going to say even in the case of the principle that exist existed before aism yes we already have Juris Prudence who broke it in that case what we do today to ensure
And sanction States doping in Russia is contrary to to the rights and the Olympic chart in my opinion there was a formulation error because if we talk about the Olympic chart specifically the international Olympic Committee has the possibility to exclude athletes without any justification if the committee uh excluded athletes without trying to
Justify maybe there would not have been that many problems as saying we exclude them because they were uh sanctions before for doping to conclude what the inquiries showed those inquiries that were kind of General with reports that were not very specific except the second one the second McLaren report those sanctions those procedures
Are going to confirm what we discovered through the inquiries the state doping in Russia is not a doubt anymore now and the consequences are also confirmed especially in the institutional uh consequences for the organized Sports organization and for the athletes who going to see Case by case if an athlete
Can say he didn’t prove he can prove he didn’t do anything and uh and that it’s penalization um has a bad element on him he can prove it so I didn’t talk about it because it wasn’t part of the topic directly but it’s comes from the first presentation the is also
Allowed to proceed To to an adjustment of all the different elements we realize that there’s complicity institutional complicity internationally and we’re able to take measures against those who were in flight and a break off the the cor corrupted system in the international field with the possibility of a penel uh followup in
France I’m going to continue by saying that doping we talk about it as uh mainly coming from the sports movement but there are many states that consider doping is Criminal and that chuse their penal rights to sanction the doping questions so there are problems that are uh
Present long term and I will stop here thank you thanks a lot to all three of you for your interventions I think we have about 10 minutes per question answers who’s gonna ask the question first Mike is there vet University of monreal thank you for your comments I think we’re good um the
Question that I have concerns R income act I realize that it seems that they have political Um desires I want to know if you know if regarding the international right was it in the thoughts or was it really only political considerations to be able to uh sanction indirectly the anti-doping system the doping system rather in Russia someone wants to answer I I cannot offer
Answers I didn’t look at the discussions in Congress to arrive there so I’m going to make an answer on the basis of what I have of the American system the USA don’t really follow the European the right International rights so they have renko renko is a refugee in the in the
United States they have uh they’re against Russia so I would say it’s mainly political are there any implications in the international right yes there are implications there because this legislation will allow an EXT territorial uh for the American System I practice the sports rights in uh the room so I don’t have an academic answer but what America does what the USA do do every single country that criminalizes doping says that does the same thing there’s a for example to the or some where some athletes Italians Brazilians are going to
Come if they are taken found or doping they can be pursued but they are on the French territory there’s no uh as much extra territorialism As Americans do Americans correct saying as long as they American ath that participate and there’s more than two or three I think in there so that’s extra
Territorialism if states don’t want then the sovereign state is going to instore his regime for reasons that we can hardly detect because everything’s not going to be said Daniel tur professor at the University of monreal I want to take advantage of that Tribune to maybe think that some rules rules that were talked
About in terms of doping and sports and judicial uh rules are because of political fights or imminent I think that we have the chance today of having a fight fighting person in Michelle pound are there any rules today if there are it’s because we owe
Him too lot to the fight of J of pwn because of for the Olympic and federations for the states end up accepting to adopt so Richard I have a question for you in because I think you could might be able to tell us how difficult it was or maybe
Still is to make sure there are some rules and they’re applied and what kind of pressure what kind of maybe even intimidation you were subject to or people that wanted or organizations wanted to make these rules and have them implemented could you share something with us about how difficult it
It has been or might continue to be we how we have all these young people here with the K that might learn a lot on how these legal rol legal roles come came to exist because of battles made by people Regal people that’s a a question that would
Take some time to to answer but starting off in in the U in the creation of what became water uh what we faced was a very difficult group of stakeholders International federations are individual Thoms they they they talk about autonomy all the time and and so they didn’t want an
Independent organization looking after them lots of the countries with State programs and and there are many Russia is not the only one have no interest in in somebody looking over their shoulders National Olympic committees are you know under pressure at home to produce uh results and all that sort of thing so we
Had to go very very slowly uh in in getting consensus to to create water U and then when we started that it was very interesting all of the Federation say my sport is clean your sport may not be but but mine is clean and when we got into the field
Starting in the 2000 to test before the Sydney games we found that and we just looked at the summer federations we found that something like 18 or 19 of those federations did not even have rules that allowed them to test their athletes out of competition so all of a sudden you say
This is talking the talk but it’s not walking the walk and so incrementally we’ve we’ve um we’ve reviewed the code every four years or something like that to to make it tighter and and and and also to take away our stakeholders when we started off with W believe it or not we could
Find and assert uh an anti-doping rule violation but but we couldn’t prosecute it we had we had to depend on an International Federation or a country to take action on its own and of course there was no appetite for that so we now have a a
Process that that that um you our friend here will know we can assert an anti-doping rule violation and the proposed concept consequences the person or organization involved can accept it end of story or they reject it it goes directly to the court of arbitrations for sport you don’t need a
Reluctant International Federation to to take an action against you know maybe a Russian athlete that uh where there’s lots of other pressures but so it was a very much an experimental work and progress I think we’re getting better and better at it now and we have a a certain level of
Confidence generated in the in the sports system as a whole our real problem is the one that I mentioned closing off my earlier remarks is is the countries have no interest in in taking on other countries they don’t care about the sport they care about the the international relationships and and
They’re much deeper than sport so it’s a you you got the the sport Community is pretty good you know we know who the athletes are we know who the where they are we know who the good coaches are we know who the bad coaches are but we
Don’t have the power to go in and seize evidence and and do all of those acts that that state parties can do and so it’s it’s been a I think if I were David Pat I would have one of his students go through the the minutes of of all the the water meetings
Dealing with what are ways that we can make the fight against doping better and see how many I suspected zero of the ideas came from State parties thanks a lot for that answer the organizer tells me that our question answer session is finished finished this closes our second
Panel we are going to start in 15 minutes again if I’m not wrong we’re going to have a break and we’re going to continue in 15 minutes thank you an American law watch and cough anti-doping act and to talk about it we have the chance of having a panel of people
Here I want to say all the panels were amazing and it continues right now because we have online who’s the general director of the agency anti-doping America and who was one of the main people at the origin of the adoption of this law Taver is not unknown in the
Antidoping sports area because he was involved from a long time ago a lawyer by by found by function he allowed uh he worked on um allowing to L Armstrong to fall to show that he was a doped athlete then we have one of our colleagues who comes on the other side
Of the Border jev bin who’s a teacher at the State University of New New York and courland campus professor of of Rights and who wrote one of the first articles on the renov in anti-doping act and on the capacity of duplication and modelization that could be that law in terms of uh
Anti-doping fights in sports and finally we’re going to come out maybe of the American laws or modelization to come back on the international right with tibo f professor at the University of ver vers s tibo is here as an expert of uh extra territoriality and international rights we know that the
Questions of extr terity anti-doping act were at the center of some critics by the uh Olympic agency and the anti-doping agency critics also in the doctrine itself from some others who uh were afraid of that uh of that extra territoriality that antidoping act is relevant today but
Also was also relevant yesterday I I hope that you followed what happened in the states with the accusation of which kind of changed the genevia conference but without waiting I know that he’s online so we’re going to begin uh with Tris TIG Tris TIG who’s going to
Present to us um the beginning of the of that anti-doping act we’ve met in loan last year at the W Symposium and I’m really glad you have accepted hey everybody David thank you for that um overly kind introduction once I figured out how to hit the translation button and
Understand uh what you were saying I I I heard a few nice things so thank you um I’m not sure what was said about the Lance Armstrong case prior to me figuring out the translation button but I’ll assume that was um complimentary as well you know in all seriousness it’s
It’s really great to be here um and before I say anything I think we’re supposed to screen share maybe for my present you can you can share your slides you get the master and you can usually you can share your slides by yourself yeah do I need to share screen oh here we
Go all right perfect so hopefully you all can see we can see you see that all right how about now David we good yeah okay perfect sorry about that so um listen thanks for the invitation to be here I know I have just a a few minutes um so I’ll probably dive right
Into it but I but I’m really honored to have the opportunity to be to be here David and I um had a brief conversation in the lobby of our hotel um at the world uh conference in laon Switzerland not this past March but the year before
In in June of of 2022 and and I and I think we had a really good robust discussion he had just just presented to the inat workshop on the Val Eva case um and it was a fascinating conversation so David I I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and of course um
You know sharing the stage with with two esteemed um people and um geniv and and feeo and the work that they’ve done really just I’m grateful for the opportunity to be here um you know with that I am going to jump right in and without you know taking up too much time
I wanted to um kind of give you what David asked in the title The Genesis of the rinkov act and my guess is um particularly given the international um Forum that this is is the extraterritorial jurisdiction piece of this will be a large part of the
Conversation and and I and I think you know while the overarching theme of of the session was something to the effect of unilateralism of the ra Chinko factor or something to that effect I don’t have it in front of me um I think what’s really important and it’s why I boiled
It down to you know the famous quote from Jerry Maguire I’m sure all sports fans out there have seen that movie um but it showed me the MTH because I think it is a mutual um interaction that is when the rinkov ACT applies and it’s only when US money via a couple
Different mechanisms apply you know is involved does the law itself follow the money and and and thus you know aim to protect the investment um that’s there so so very quickly I think the Assumption I think it that we all should have is that sport wants to be
Autonomous um you hear that comment regularly um particularly in today’s climate with the debate amongst the governments and the ioc of whether or not Russia and Bell Russia should be allowed to compete in in the upcoming Olympic games but bottom line and again I’m not going to go through all the
Proof necessary for this but I but I think it’s fair to say that sport wants to be autonomous and they want to you know govern themselves and make the decisions on all issues themselves and and I think that’s perfectly fine in other contexts where we see that be you
Know become a real issue is on the enforcement side of what sport attempts sometimes to do by itself and particularly anti-doping I mean I would suggest safe sport is another area where there’s just an inherent in our opinion conflict of interest by the the interest of sport are sometimes not always but
Are sometimes you know directly contrary if not heavily influenced close to being directly contrary to what the demands of an independent enforcement regime might otherwise um require and and so I think it’s it’s it’s only fair to keep those issues in mind and and I don’t for a
Second want to conflate sort of you know Sports people that you know aren’t interested in Integrity or anti-doping because that’s not the the case at all I think you you clearly have as a board member of let’s say the world anti-doping agency or an if you clearly have fiduciary relationships and and
Requirements that um each organization that for which you wear a hat demands of you the the issue for us is when those fiduciary relationships um you know are conflicted because the the demands of the organization I your if for example or national Federation for example if
It’s in the nto context is to raise revenue put you know members in place grow the sport and and sometimes when you have to you know take away seven tours to France for example that’s not a very good day um for the financial stability or outcome um for a particular
Sport so you know having lived and seen that conflict firsthand we can’t really understate how how difficult that conflict is to resolve if you have multiple duties and you’re trying to honor both of those duties or you know if it’s more than two duties so so very
Quickly we see um really going back I think to the Armstrong case the the first time a group of individuals conspire um you know maybe in our since the existence of the world anti-doping agency at least some 99 or 2000 here in the United States when the water code
Went into effect but but you see people sometimes outside of sport walls or Sport rules who aren’t covered by jurisdiction of sport who are conspiring um at a very sophisticated level to both raise money and and profit from sport success taking out insurance contracts for multiple winnings gaining you know significant Global recognition
Sponsorships TV broadcast the whole deal and order to raise money so so we saw that and you know admittedly we saw a number of um individuals who escaped um you know the Sport anti-doping rules that otherwise should have been held responsible of course the FIFA case for brought the attention of these issues
Like never before how certain you know sport operators op you know stand in a place outside of um necessarily Sport rules and kind of in this never Neverland where who whose laws are going to apply when it comes time to bribery or corruption here thankfully in similar extraterritorial jurisdiction was found
Because a lot of the bribery and and Corruption um the bank and wire fraud Acts were utilized where us funds or the US banking system um was implicated even if that those underlying crimes weren’t necessarily done on US Territory you you know these stories and again these are
All kind of in succession um the iwf again president you know taking bribes covering up tests um for for Russians and others allowing them to compete in international events that companies from around the world had sponsored as well as broadcast casted of course you’ve got the lay diak from World Athletics what
Used to be the iaf um prosecuted convicted in in Paris similarly for you know taking bribes covering up tests again having um athletes who never should have by the rules of the sport never the W code never should have been competing in those International competitions you know here most recent most recently I
Think a week or two ago um indictments out of Norway on the head of the IBU again you see the headlines but hunting trips you know BMWs Etc being provided to you know essentially allow athletes in violation of the Sport rules allow athletes to who shouldn’t have been
Allowed to compete to compete thereby defrauding um the Sports World o of course it would be you know remiss of me not to mention the Russia situation because I think at the end of the day um the rinkov ACT is named after gregoryi rinkov he came forward provided evidence
Obviously through both the McLaren report um number one and two and then ongoing cast cases um has also interacted with our Congress and gave the the real inside story about what was going on there what one other point um and this is an email and I’m gonna pull
Out a a portion of this email but just so you see it to Craig REI from one of the Russian whistleblowers and and I’m I haven’t pulled it all out but if you just look at the box that I have pulled out you’ll see know this Russian
Whistleblower is saying hey we ought to have zero tolerance for those in the sports system institutionalized and and Sport around the world is institutionalized from the government it’s government funds it falls under a branch of the miners office you know here in the United States it’s not like
That our US Olympic Comm par Olympic Committee does not get any private funding we don’t have a sports Minister it it’s all private Although our Olympic Committee is set up as a federal Corporation um but around the world that’s a different case you you then see the question of a specific individual
Who was the deputy Sports minister in Russia who’s been convicted now of orchestrating one of the largest you know State sponsor doping schemes that the world has ever seen thousands um you know thousand positive or you know suspicious tests hundreds of athletes around the world many events going back
To 2012 Olympic Games through 2024 2016 have been you know ruined in large part um athletes robbed because of the actions of Noor nor gornick and here the the Russian whistleblower again asks the president of the world anti-doping agency are you going to do anything about this and and the response and this
Is from Craig REI as you see at the time but they they said we don’t have jurisdiction over gornick and there was a promise for the code to have jurisdiction over gornick and other similar situated people and that draft Pro provision was in the code and every
Version that came out in the last code consultation process and it had a clear provision that would have covered the neorx of the world but at the very last minute at an executive committee meeting in Japan in Tokyo in 2019 literally a month or six weeks before the katavich World Conference
Where the code was going to be adopted that provision got pulled from the code if you go and and listen to my remarks at that conference in 2019 in kadiche Poland you will hear me directly State what a terrible you know outcome that was for sport in large part because we
Know there are people like gornick and others that hang outside of the sports system that will dope and conspire to dope and send athletes the games to dope and defraud other competitors as well as um and I’m going to skip that just for time defraud other competitors so so at
The end of the day and and frankly that was a massive reason why Congress got the impetus um behind their effort to pass the rinkov ACT while it was introduced um in the Helsinki Commission in 2018 Around the World Cup it had not yet fully made its way um you know to be
Unanimously agreed to I’m unopposed um in the Senate and and unanimous a committee in the house but but a new Act was was passed and and and here’s the language um hopefully you’ve all had a chance to look at it the the key language International um Sports doping
Is now codified in the US criminal code and it’s those that carry out knowingly so there’s an ATT 10 element obviously criminal um statute to conspire um using a prohibited stance or method any major International Sports competition the key elements are one or more us athletes three or more foreign athletes are at
The competition and this is where show me the money right so US money from a US company has to sponsor the event or the organizer of the event so if hey if there’s a national championship in Russia and there are no us companies that sponsor that championship this law
Does not apply it’s fundamental to the application of this law that US money be involved as a sponsorship dollar or as a broadcast dollar and then lastly um the water code has to apply so all it is really doing is adding a layer of criminality for those that conspire to
Dope athletes where the the rule sometimes might cover them but frequently like Mr gornick frequently do not cover them and again I can’t stress enough the the foundation of the law and the policy standpoint is because the investment of the money and if the money is not invested in the event the law
Therefore does not apply and and this is not unlike some other acts in the United States you know the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act um the travel act there are other areas where us statute and legislature um has gone and done similar things from an extr territorial
Standpoint so you see penalties up to 10 years restitution whistleblower protection and then sharing between or um agencies usada Etc and and hopefully you saw yesterday the timing of this conference was pretty good yesterday was the first plea um of someone who the first indictment under the ACT um lra
Who yes was outside of sports jurisdiction never was a coach never was a an official doctor was just one of these people that operated but ALS but do directly athletes and and importantly athletes are exempt from any crimes under this statute so it’s not criminalizing the athletes behavior um
But but obviously the sharing allows for the information and the evidence to be obtained and then and then handled appropriately through um our process so couple cases that have flown flowed from it excuse me last thing I’ll say is look I don’t know um I’m not a a Chinese
International law expert but here is a glimpse of a law that this was pulled right from the chinata um uh annual report but you see a discussion about major domestic or International competitions around um criminalizing Behavior there so you know what the Hope was not unlike other acts the Sergey
Magnitsky act that was passed in the United States was that other countries who were similarly interested in clean sport also pass laws that would protect their investment in sport in similar ways that the rinkov tag did and then last Point obviously the international cooperation is incredibly important
Here’s a a group of of natos um and others um that we cooperate with on a regular basis you know in the event we get information from a law enforcement investigation like under the rinkoff ACT obviously we’re going to share that with our and it deals with athletes um we’re
Going to share that with our partner natos and allow them and and expect them to to bring discipline against the athletes who may um violate those rules so that was it in a in a really quick nutshell um but again I think my time is up but David I appreciate the
Opportunity I’m going to stand by I do have to head to the airport so um hopefully I’ll be able to hang on at least in the car on the way up there so thanks [Applause] David thank you very much Travis for your time it was very very interesting
To have your perspective on renov foping act and right now we’ll give the floor to um Professor janv ban so can you hear me oh you can okay good so I had slides and things have happened since I made them so they’re no longer being used uh conveniently many of my colleagues today
Have covered half of what I was going to cover as well so I’m going to recap a few things elaborate on a few things and then get into a couple new things um I was going to give you a once over of what the renov ACT covers and its
Penalties but you just had that done I will add that there is also the penalty for non-individuals um individuals can get 10 years in prison $250,000 fines non- individuals so organizations can receive up to million dollar fines so little added added feature um but it also allows the ACT to Target
Organizations um and not just the individuals who may be involved so having skipped through what would have been my first two slides quite quickly um the renov act I don’t want to go into too much EX um extra territorial jurisdiction because we have that coming up next um but it ultimately requires
Cooperation that is really the Imp like to make it work we require cooperation from between the FBI which has recently created the Federal Bureau of Investigation has recently created an Integrity in sport and gaming initiative that is focused um on sport not just doping but that seems to be the primary
Focus in theory it could be other forms of match fixing like G gambling and things of that nature as well well um and that is the that was created in 2001 summer of sorry 2021 summer of 2021 after the Rada Act was passed and that is the FBI group that’s sort of focusing
On the enforcement of the runan COV act but they need cooperation um and they need cooperation from W from usada and other National doping organizations from International federations from all of the various people that Mr tiger just listed in organizations has to happen and both Mr pound and Mr tiger mentioned the ifaf
Investigation what’s now World Athletics but at the time iaf um and the LC investigation and for those of you who are unfamiliar um W essentially raid for lack of a better term in 2015 The Monaco offices of what was then the iaf and after what they found which indicated evidence of money laundering
And other corruption behaviors that had a connection to France they contacted interpole and turned that material over to Interpol and the French authorities ultimately leading to a 2020 finding of guilt um some jail sentences have been served some have not diak son has for example has been found
Guilty in abstention but is still in Sagal and probably won’t be leaving um so that’s the type of cooperation that the rata ACT requires in order to be able to function outside of us borders and the question really becomes if we’re going to get that type of cooperation given the international
Response to the ACT um the the I had debated it it had taken it off of my slide on whether or not to read you but I think I will W’s initial response to to the ACT but as I have a little bit of time I’m going to
We join other stakeholders around the globe in asking why this us legislation which reports to protect athletes and claims jurisdiction overseas specifically excludes the hugely popular and influential professional and college leagues nearly half a million athletes compete in us college sports and thousands more in the professional leagues these leagues were originally
Included in the ACT but were subsequently removed without explanation why are those who surrounded the athletes in these associations and leagues now exempt from the scope of this legislation if it is not good enough for American Sports why is it being imposed on the rest of the world that’s a good
Question um in the sense that it doesn’t apply to our our Sports the criteria and and what makes it not apply going through the the three criteria for the law is the water code must apply to the event occurring and the water code does not apply to us collegate and professional leagues our
Leagues have not signed on to the code and they do not abide by it their doping is dealt with through the collective bargaining process for professional leagues there’s some legal reasons for this like it’s not quite as simp is just we’re going to tell you you have to
Follow it legally speaking um and and the US college sports is just its own own animal um on how it’s run so this creates a challenge on whether or not we’re going to get the cooperation we need in order to enforce this law and I personally would argue that we’re
Probably not going to get the cooperation to the level that we would like at least not anytime soon um there are other criminal laws about sports and Sport doping throughout the world prior to 2014 23 of the than 29 members of the EU had some laws about the trade and
Distribution of doping paraphernalia and criminalized it so there was some criminalization happening prior to this law um Germany had it then passed its own Law related to to trade and distribution in 2016 and then I was going to mention but Mr tiger beat me to it that China strengthens its criminal
Laws just after the r act also covering not athletes but those who surround them so very similar to the Rada act which begs the question about whether or not this law ultimately will result in a many convictions and we’ll go into the fact there’s been one now as of
Yesterday um but whether it will result in many contradictions or whether it will serve as more of a deterrent and a model um wada has been supportive in the past of criminal laws related to sports doping but generally when they’re focused within the country right now the first W I’m sorry
The first Rada um conviction pled guilty yesterday so new thing hence not using my slides um so to give you a little bit of background for those of you who are unfamiliar with the case um it was a his name is Eric lra he was from Texas so an American American
Citizen living in the United States um he was arrested he was a self-proclaimed kinesiologist and neuropath um he was arrested in January of 2020 pled innocent initially in March of 20 sorry 2022 pled March pled innocent in March of to and as of yesterday has now plad guilty we do
Not yet know the terms of his plea what his penalty any criminal any um jail sentence will be that remains at this moment unknown to me what is interesting and now moot but I’m still going to mention is that up until yesterday when he pled guilty his side was making the argument
That the renov Act was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and this goes back to what my colleagues in the very first panel mentioned about private entities International private organizations dictating you know what governments can do and this was the going to be this was the claim being made by lra’s attorneys
Was that the law was unconstitutional because it improperly relied on rules created by the the UN and W and essentially was allowing private International organizations to dictate United States law and United States criminal law and penalty so as those rules change so our Law changes how can
That that was the challenge and that it’s too vague and too broad and thus doesn’t actually meet constitutional requirement now that he has has pled guilty this argument is just out there we don’t know what’s going to happen we don’t know where that’s going to go because it’s not going to continue
Through the court it’s done for him the next one we will see if this argument gets revived but it really remains to be seen so will ultimately the renov ACT find itself with constitutional challenge within the the United States possibly but it will take another case for that
To be what happens but this first case has started to lay the groundwork of that potential constitutional challenge within the United States um also mentioned by Mr Tiger but one thing I wanted to go into more detail was the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act so as I mentioned deterrent is one of the
Options that the renov ACT could actually be fairly successful not necessarily because it will result in a great many criminal prosecutions but because it will serve as a deterrent and one such law we in the United States has is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act it is an anti-bribery law um with external
Criminal jur sorry external extr territorial criminal jurisdiction very similar to the renov ACT it almost never results in Criminal prosecutions it very very rarely results in criminal prosecution but it is Sal cited by many multinational corporations as a as an impetus for their anti-bribery compliance so the fear of what it that
Could come under the law results in compliance with it it has also served as a model for laws similar laws in other countries as it appears perhaps the Rada act has done um in China remains to be seen if that continues going forward so
An example of of a law that we have that that serves this type of purpose and is that what the Rada act will ultimately be will it be a model and an example of what others may choose to do because if enough countes start doing it
Then that might actually serve to be a fairly effective deterrent um I do want to be clear about the the one conviction the two athletes involved were not American um he was in contact with a Nigerian Runner and a who herself is currently under an 11year ban so she has
Also that investigation into her positive test and stuff is part of what was involved um and a Swiss athlete as well that less is known about um so both of the athletes he was working with and communicating with were not American athletes but he himself was an American soil so we didn’t
Need entirely the extr territorial aspect of this law in this particular case um there have been other charges of foreign Nationals this is not unique um in 2018 the US charged seven Gru officers for hacking wire fraud money laundering identity theft Gru would be the uh Chief intelligence office of the
Of Russia uh in Germany in 2020 one of those same seven the US charged was charged with breaching the German Parliament website in 2021 Sweden blamed them for Gru for hacking the Swedish sport Confederation but concluded it did not have any authority to bring charges under their existing law
So the rationale and I will kind of close with this the question asked at the end of the last panel about why where this law came from and kind of what the impetus find it was I brought my notes with me in the form of my own
Article um was that the renov Act was created as a response to the hearings generally of the Helsinki commission um in order to quote fill an important Gap with regard to US law enforcement serve as a deterrent to those considering engaging in doping fraud and provide a
Portal to gain visibility into a wider net of international Corrupt Practices that are connected to doping fraud so this law is in many ways to strives to seek broader goals than just let’s get some trainers and some neuropaths who might be funneling certain types of performance-enhancing drugs to
Specific athletes but to try to get at the broader conspiracies for lack of a better term that goes on um involving it how much it will ultimately be successful we have one case um I don’t know we’ll see where that case well not that case but future cases go we’ll see
Where future challenges to the law go um under our own constitution in the United States we may prove to be the biggest barrier to it in some ways would be our our own own uh legal system and um and we’ll see what others do if this starts to look like something that is
Potentially effective will other countries begin to model on it and use it and will it serve as an actual deterrent um it’ll be interesting to see where it goes and uh yeah I had a lot of changes in the last 48 hours to what I was gonna say I’m [Applause]
Good thank you thank you very much and uh now we’re going to go to uh the French language and let tibo fi who’s going to tell us about the question raised about extr territorial elements of the rashing law I’ll let let you speak for about 15 minutes thanks David thanks for the
Invitation going back to the French language again and international law to talk about uh that extra territorial element of the rent act maybe about talking about that those extra territorial elements of the American law such as other elements are recurrent questions in the judicial uh debate for
A couple years it’s quite old actually there was the fcpa that’s from the 70s I believe in then we had to quote about American laws we had the elbon law the Kennedy laws the facta in 2010 that kind of brought um kind of no chased application with
Sentences not pen all or sanctions but civil and financial penals against multinational uh French among them who had uh thousands of dollars of fines to um because they went against the Embargo that those laws had but this extra territoriality was also developed more recently by the cloud act in
2018 and by the more recently by the Roan COA but also by other legislation as EU for example to talk about one case the rgpd about the protection of data which has an extra territorial uh it’s quite an important element here that presents questions there’s one that the renos act
Doesn’t oppose is that it has a very um clear and extra territorial um pretention it’s not always the case for all of them for some in the uh courts of America uh the judge has to see if the there was a purpose for the law to be acted outside of the country
But here in that law there is a extr terrestrial jurisdic in the application of that law is quite clear and that’s what’s led to more reactions critic reactions from many institutions the anti-doping uh Association more more agency also the French French or British um agency who deplored the multilateralism
That should exist in 2005 convention the question that interested me today that I was trusted with was whether or not such a disposition or a pretention of extral ism can be considered correct in terms of international rights generally more precisely it’s about knowing if about the rules of international
Rights that are main rules a state can pretend to apply a rule for facts that are going to happen uh in the foreign country whether uh foreign people are victims or um uh corporates every time I always talk about the Lotus case I’m not going to
Say it but then I say it if I don’t talk about it uh I’m gonna have a question about it later so now I’m going to talk about it the states can they have an international right right the pretention of um people facts Etc of things happening outside the
Territory I have a problem is that this question is quite important in the case uh presented in the cono and I was pres asked also to be a judge on the I’m not going to ask the question actually if you want to go ahead go
I only I’m not going to answer to it because I don’t want you to uh be as you said yesterday during uh the session we know that this law because the law Selena uh is not is inspired not the same but inspired from the rushing act I’ve been talking for four minutes
I’m I’m going to continue to talk what I offer to do actually is to try to explain a little bit the elements are important to me to answer to that question how the articulation of those elements is important to answer um to that element and let you think for the
Next days uh those elements it’s Concepts that of international right that are specially used so it’s not going to be easy to um resume them in 10 minutes but I’m going to try giving you what seems to me fundamental and to see in the roen coov ACT what can
Echo those different principles when we talk about extr territoriality and I think that all those concepts are used without being defined sometimes and often confounded I think there’s five Concepts five main Concepts that we have to mobilize we have to articulate those different concepts it’s power Concepts title Concepts competence skills
Attachment and OPP possibility concept that are theoretical and quite large but I I’m going to try to uh talk about the power concept we have to hear by it that it’s something that’s quite material uh the power that the state has constitutionally effectively if we want to do something and often we consider
That the state has three powers three possibilities judicial the power to make laws the power to judge of the application the power to execute them if needed by strength jic executive power very classical the international right places a framework for the exercise of those power he forces the
State to in to write that faculty not Material not physical but material to write laws in a framework that will allow to say that it’s competent skillful that has another element the state is sometimes uh skillful sometimes not to put in place his J judicial power to know if the state is
Skillful competence the title needs a state the state needs a title sorry for example what is theen of act from that element the international rights are known there’s no real debate about those questions it’s the Territorial state meaning the state is competent when we can add a title person to its
Territory the personal title same for the skill of the state to act towards people that we can attach to uh to its own and then third element that is generally identified third title but we could add other ones I’m going to go to the main ones it’s fundamental ideas are at play
We have the three elements where State can deply its power territory person and interest where things get difficult is the question of attachment and often the distinction is not very well made between that question of title and that element of attachment the attachment is what will allow to say whether a situation person
Of good is attached is connected to the state whether territory person or interest wise there before we have to determine whether or not a situation is connected in a way or another to the territor territorial elements a fundamental element or personal element sometimes it’s easy I am here localized in Canadia
Canada there’s no doubt about it so I’m attached to the territorial element of Canada Canada can have a pretention to fix my situation one way or another if I commit a crime which I don’t wish for myself in the next days Canada can uh because of international
Right apply his penal right to that situation same way the nationality is the criteria of a connection that is quite classical easy to identify once again I am a French nationality and the same way if I commit a crime panel in action friends because of its personal
Active skills can pretend to apply the right is pan panel right but of course those are the simplest elements the most objective elements there are many more situations in which the localization question or the attachment would be actually quite challenging and could be up to several interpretations especially that
Where we can see it the most is in terms of data try to find the data Microsoft in front of the Supreme Court uh shows it quite well it’s quite it’s not difficult it’s that we could say one thing and the other one locate a
Data it could be on a server on on the state or you could say that because it’s accessible uh on the state it’s also located on that territory and actually those connection attack elements are quite it’s hard to give them an objective list for two reason at least
One we are in international right we are in a system in which there’s no interprets that can impose that qualification traditionally saying that that situation is connected to that country whether it’s personally or because of its territory of course the justice and courts are coming in but
They don’t have the same uh they don’t have the same uh element as Supreme Court or Council of State in France they could be uh they could have that element and come in but second problem here that question of connection is a question of judicial qualification depends of the situation each situation
The question is asked again what’s really hard or maybe impossible is to have a list of the connection links where the fights of extract territoriality are present which is why you have very varied connections last concept which I think is important to uh mobilize here the concept of opposability
In reality if we want to talk about extr territoriality in a way that is at the limit of judicial we have to uh talk about not only about the Ley element we can discuss about it of course but in the way of the measure of the reasonability as we say in
America of the reasonability of the pretention extra extraterritorial pretention in America that term is often used taken into account of the committee meaning taking into account the other states in that pretention of extraterritoriality the other states that are facing that pretention do they consider that that that that pretention
Is correctly opposed to them or do they consider that it’s out of measure and that they refuse it therefore so this is the fruit for thought that I leave you uh right now for the PE in reality I’m GNA say this I I hesitate when I think about that I think it’s not
Very difficult in terms of ring KRA I’m not going to say it’s uh the way it’s not very difficult when we look at the text in itself we can see that we can consider on one side be careful there’s another side but that’s there is a Territorial and personal State we saw it
We said it on one side there’s an application of the renko facts when there’s at least one American athlete present we can consider that it’s a personal title we can discuss about it of course because we could oppose to that the argument that you were raising saying that if the worry is
That why should we exclude if the Americans should not be uh taken away from that doping why should the other ones when why should it not be include the universal University teams there’s also a territorial element because the competition to simplify it has to be sponsored by a business having an
Economic uh action in America diffusion rights being sent but this is the typical element of the discussion on what is an attachment connection point because what does it mean to have an economical activity and this is the same debate about uh the dollar uh the dollar use of dollar uh which attaches
Everything to the United States which is a discussion on extraterritoriality some are going to say that when two foreign uh or two foreign states make a transaction in USA there’s no link with America some are going to say that the opposite there are compensation actions which makes it somehow uh transiting
Through the US um land so you see things are all about interpretation and up to now and it’s quite revelatory actually the um Justice trib Court International was not taken was not taken to discuss that extr territorial point to talk about another point also of states for example never directly
Also to two words to conclude first of all that extr territorial pretention is not much before it’s not effectively applied but for the renov ACT to be applied cooperation International coroporation is absolutely necessary the USA cannot judge a person on the territory if somehow that person is not uh is not uh approach
By foreigners if the if the that person is away FBI of course can uh work with uh foreign agencies it’s not of course course I don’t think it’s a a problem I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the person who was condemned yesterday is actually American for the first
Time at the end of a convention who really started controversies questions and debates I’m gonna let myself allow to conclude not necessarily to conclude as of itself but to present some work that I was I’m privileged to be associated with right now about the evolution of the norm framework and
Responsibility Norm uh of uh governments in terms of doping many things were said today that I’m not going to go back over so sorry if I look over it quickly what we know and what we talked about today I’m going back to my side sorry there’s no slides but it’s okay
Perfect what we know today and we talked about it is several points at the following of the scandal in Russia of this the doping Scandal it’s UNESCO there was uh that element to strengthen that law several States after that Scandal European states were pushing so that we could increase the
Responsibility of the government and so that we could um increase the UNESCO point adic also maybe you heard talk about it gave as a score of a rates of 96% of Conformity while actually the antidoping agency um worldwide were uh maintaining their sanctions towards the Sports organization in Russia because they were not
Conformed so we could ask okay who’s right then I’m not here to uh to take a decision between both but the Conformity framework of the UN UNESCO is questionable because it’s a score a rate that is given by an a self declaration without any inquiry it’s just someone who enters a questionnaire
And a sport is out coming out at the end while the other way in the case of aliance dopage we have an exam of Conformity of the different elements which is way deep we visit interrogations with a deeper exam also so there’s a first question or first failure that framework of strengthened
Uh consequences is from 2014 there’s a group of work of jurisdiction uh in UNESCO that started I talked with some of them and they were looking for ideas so if you have ideas in the room uh uh talk with them I think they will be really happy because they really need
It on the other hand there’s some discussions in the discussion also that I had there was in June and may there were discussions I think today in moral that may be started I don’t know Thomas if they arrived if you have any information yet there’s discussions that
Are happening right now about creating a working group collectively of State Sports movement Independence it’s not quite clear to strengthen the mechanism of uh working for the government it’s quite actual maybe the mountain is going to give birth to a mouse but when we look at the sport movement sports are
Constrainted and especially the high level sportsmen are have obligations that are harder sorry for the comparison that we give to people that are suspected of Terror rism we have sports Federation that are held close by the Olympic uh and the anti-doping agency we have anti-doping agency who
Have a very strict um standards and we have the labs who are strict also and suddenly they can lose their accreditation and their food and some we have government who can do whatever they want that’s what it is basically we could have a president uh sport Ministry who gives an order to a
Federal system to its anti op um doping agency to put in place a doping a doping system and turn around the system we could say Okay Russia is the same thing when we can condemn the Olympic Russian system for me it’s not the same thing a
State is a state a cat is a cat the governments can do whatever they want on one end because of course we understand State doping I don’t know if there are a lot of people maybe uh a lot of some people are going to plead it but
Uh State doping is wrong in the term of jural now everything you can plead everything I just want to be convinced what are the different elements now there’s some elements in um the agency anti doing were quite limited actually we know we talked about it the nature of the obligations included in
Conventions can be discussed I’m not going to go back over the debates that we had but it’s not that easy actually but there are some obligations still there’s not jural Clause inserted into the convention which is surely uh why the convention is so successful because 191 States I think it’s the best uh
Ratified convention administered by UNESCO so it can be something interesting we could uh think about revising the convention but good luck why because the mechanism is quite heavy and quite peculiar why it’s quite heavy because it’s I think by the article 30 it’s planned Maybe I’m Wrong correct me 33 33
Every state can uh offer an amendment by writing to the general director of UNESCO once that is um offered the states ratify have to sustain the proposition within the six months for it to be presented to the next party conference and after that there needs to be a vote organized at that party
Conference and that votes has to be accepted with a majority of two-thirds when it’s adopted for it to be opposable to the states the states have to ratify the amendment or recognize being linked to that Amendment so the risk of it is that if we open the convention of UNESCO again
We have a convention with many speeds some State except to be accepted to be light tied and some State like Russia who say oh I’m never going to be tied to that Amendment so only the good players could be uh linked to that Amendment other possibility is the possibility of
Asking an advice to the international court of justice now question many questions are in suspense I’m not going to answer to them today there’s political elements it seems difficult today without within the UNESCO it’s not in the priorities uh of having a consultative uh elements politic so we could ask about the
Opportunity even about the contentious element there’s no traditional uh element at it we maybe we could think okay there’s maybe an element that Russia could be there could have someone could have uh tried to talk with Russia about it but having that Judicial Court was never done ever since 2014 many states cried
And saying nothing’s happening but not many did something either when uh it’s talking about acting internationally but about the UNESCO many hopes are happening in terms of many ways many openings maybe there’s other opportunities the path is difficult I said there’s some Pathways but going
From a highway if you don’t go very fast and there’s traffics well the small Road might go faster actually even though you have stops and uh giveaways Etc and red lights the pathways however could imagine we could imagine it by going through uh an additional element through the convention of Europe there’s
Protocols that have been adopted there’s more will from the European States Russia is not there so maybe it would be easier but once again again is it really going to face countries that we try to face through these amendments not sure about it another element we’re going to open
Them quickly in June the uh word antidoping code can we modify it to Bringing um obligations on governments it was a disc something that was heavily discussed in literature also in practice in the last modification of the code the 22 article towards the government I don’t know if you saw it it
Went from imperative to conditional the government should to the government governments have to to the governments should maybe it’s not that hard we could talk about it but we could think that within the code there’s a disposition there’s already a disposition position in the Olympic movement we could imagine that the code
Is towards the Nationals that violates the the terms to take them off away from that doping agency could be a first step why not would it be enough maybe not but it could give maybe uh another element uh of course you must know that in the anti-doping agency there’s not many
Russians so it would just be to confirm a state situation that we have and then there’s a third proposition that was uh raised by the new secretary of the football uh convention to draft a new treaty to create a dispute settlement body why not why
Not but once again we are back to our problems how many state are going to go back into it what are the obligations at the basis of all that and is it really worth it because actually in the end if we do have a reglementation element we could say okay the state is
Responsible it would just be uh it would just be a reparation element but would it really would the sportsmen be okay with that would they say it’s enough to dis to have discussed with some of them I don’t think so so I think that the expectation of of the
Sports movement is higher but can we do it because of international right I don’t know and as M mat MV was saying is it necessary today actually differently from Matthew uh Matthew said we can do it in the city host contract you said you can do it but um
I’m going to say that they’re not all respected and they were not the they were not uh really talked about or or if there was a not respected nobody said anything so maybe we maybe we missed what we we should have done in 2014 today when we talk
About it in Canada we going to talk about it in two days but globally we talk more about the Integrity questions of corruption um bullying uh sexual harassment but doping start that started uh uh as the main point is something that it seems like the public opinion is not interested in it as
Much whether it’s in Europe with the football scandals or hockey it’s more mainly sexual harassment questions doping yeah Kenya some sometimes but is it the top priority in of public opinion it’s not it’s not is it the F top priority of some question of some governments in Canada they’re
More into the Integrity element than doping because to change that uh doping act it takes a lot of Will and right now I’m not sure that they have it so it’s something that we can still discuss to to work to do Lobby about that because it’s important to have Norms that are
Effective and we realize that the violations we got in 2014 from Russia and maybe from other states tomorrow are not acceptable when actually those states do not play with the rules of the game so that’s what I wanted to work on with you if questions are if you’re interested by
Question I wrote an article uh that is accessible freely online if you’re interested there’s not much to learn from it but if you’re interested or if you want to talk about it um I would be glad to talk about it I want to thank you and thank you all
The people who made possible this uh convention I think about uh uh the volunteers the students our technicians who helped us all day long thank you thank you to the speakers thank you to my co- organizator je Christine thank you to the University thank you to RFD for allowing us and
Trust I invite you now uh to the opening cocktail of the Nations we’re going to stop talking about rights now we’re going to talk about something that is a bit happy and soft the nation cocktail all the people even those who are not in the conour are invited it’s
In lag third level right now we’re the second level so it’s one level up where you’re in Gora and we’re going to wait for you to the cocktail thank you for your attention I know it’s late we’ve had a very heavy day we have a heavy week and other thing
Too we’re asking me to indicat already indicated some of you there’s um there’s a Tas next to where we had the cocktail but the campus is smoke free but because there’s a work being done it’s 9 meters away from the door so it’s a floor level if you want to smoke have
A good evening and see you [Applause] soon