Isaac Lockett , Jan Exner , Elizabeth Pummell , Andrea Petróczi
{"title":"Mapping doping-related criminal legislation together: An informed stakeholder consultation","authors":"Isaac Lockett , Jan Exner , Elizabeth Pummell , Andrea Petróczi","doi":"10.1016/j.peh.2026.100413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Access to reliable, jurisdiction-specific information on the existence and scope of doping-related criminal legislation is essential for understanding how anti-doping policies are interpreted and enforced globally. While the globally adopted World Anti-Doping Code provides a private regulatory framework for sporting sanctions, governments have introduced doping-related criminal laws that vary in scope, legal form, and underlying rationale. In the absence of a centralised legal resource, navigating this policy space becomes complex and challenging. This study addresses this gap by combining desk research with a multilingual, semi-structured informed stakeholder consultation to map the presence and scope of doping-related criminal legislation, identifying at least thirty-seven jurisdictions that have criminalised doping-related behaviours and enabling the development of five legislative typologies: comprehensive, trafficking-focused, child protection, context-specific, and fraud-based models. These typologies reveal variations in the behaviours targeted, definitions employed, and penalties applied. Such divergences raise important questions about the coherence of global anti-doping efforts, particularly regarding the definition of doping and the interaction between public and private sanctioning. This study also demonstrates the potential viability of a distributed, multi-actor approach to legal data gathering and supports the development of a dynamic, centralised legal database to advance transparency, equity, and evidence-informed anti-doping governance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19886,"journal":{"name":"Performance enhancement and health","volume":"14 2","pages":"Article 100413"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Performance enhancement and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211266926000010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Access to reliable, jurisdiction-specific information on the existence and scope of doping-related criminal legislation is essential for understanding how anti-doping policies are interpreted and enforced globally. While the globally adopted World Anti-Doping Code provides a private regulatory framework for sporting sanctions, governments have introduced doping-related criminal laws that vary in scope, legal form, and underlying rationale. In the absence of a centralised legal resource, navigating this policy space becomes complex and challenging. This study addresses this gap by combining desk research with a multilingual, semi-structured informed stakeholder consultation to map the presence and scope of doping-related criminal legislation, identifying at least thirty-seven jurisdictions that have criminalised doping-related behaviours and enabling the development of five legislative typologies: comprehensive, trafficking-focused, child protection, context-specific, and fraud-based models. These typologies reveal variations in the behaviours targeted, definitions employed, and penalties applied. Such divergences raise important questions about the coherence of global anti-doping efforts, particularly regarding the definition of doping and the interaction between public and private sanctioning. This study also demonstrates the potential viability of a distributed, multi-actor approach to legal data gathering and supports the development of a dynamic, centralised legal database to advance transparency, equity, and evidence-informed anti-doping governance.