We in a citing index:
PROCEDURAL POSITION OF A WADA’S WHISTLEBLOWER
N.V. ZAYTSEVA,
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Legal Support
of the Market Economy, Higher School of Law, Institute of Public Administration
and Management, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
under the President of the Russian Federation
I.V. USHANKOV,
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Legal Support
of the Market Economy, Higher School of Law, Institute of Public Administration
and Management, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
under the President of the Russian Federation
https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-6-278-298
The well-known anti-doping investigations of the last decade led to the disqualification
from participation in the Olympics not only of individual athletes who were convicted of
taking illegal drugs, but entire sports federations, the national anti-doping agencies were
deprived of their accreditation. Bringing to justice a wide range of individuals not directly
related to the use of doping requires a new approach to evidence as such and to the way it is
presented. The purpose of this study is to study the status and procedural situation of WADA
whistleblowers – the persons on whose testimony most of the investigations were based. The
authors analyze the distinctive procedural features of informants and a set of requirements
for information provided by informants. The article discusses the issue of mixing the statuses
of a witness and an accomplice in the formation of approaches to determining the informant,
with the legal consequences arising from these statuses. The authors note that WADA, as
an international organization, does not have the functionality to ensure the protection
of a whistle-blower from domestic persecution, for this reason, national law enforcement
agencies play the main role in protecting whistleblowers. The extent and form of protection
also depends on the status of anti-doping investigations and the assessment of doping as an
offense punishable by criminal proceedings, civil or administrative.
Keywords: anti-doping investigations; World Anti-Doping Agency; whistleblowers;
witnesses; plea deal; witness protection.
References
Alkon C. Hard Bargaining in Plea Bargaining: When do Prosecutors Cross the Line?
Nevada Law Journal, 2017, vol. 17, iss. 2, pp. 401–428.
Alschuler A.W. Plea Bargaining and Its History. Columbia Law Review, 1979, vol. 79,
no. 1, pp. 1–43.
Amos A., Fridman S. Drugs in Sport: The Legal Issues. Sport in Society, 2009, vol. 12,
no. 3, pp. 356–374.
Chebotarev A.V. Iuridicheskaia otvetstvennost’ za narushenie antidopingovykh pravil
v Rossii: problemy i perspektivy [Legal Responsibility for Anti-Doping Rule Violations in
Russia: Problems and Prospects]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki – Law. Journal
of the Higher School of Economics, 2019, no. 3, pp. 76–97. (In Russ.)
Chebotarev A.V. Teoreticheskie aspekty antidopingovykh pravil v mezhdunarodnom
i natsional’nom regulirovanii [Theoretical Aspects of Anti-Doping Rules in International
and National Regulation]. Pravovedenie – Jurisprudence, 2018, no. 62(4), pp. 765–
777. (In Russ.)
Crespo A.M. The Hidden Law of Plea Bargaining. Columbia Law Review, 2018, vol. 118,
no. 5, pp. 1303–1424.
Girsberger D., Voser N. International Arbitration: Comparative and Swiss Perspectives.
3rd ed. Zürich: Schulthess; Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2016. 580 p.
Gustafsson P.U., Lindholm T., Jönsson F.U. Predicting Accuracy in Eyewitness Testimonies
with Memory Retrieval Effort and Confidence. URL: https://www.frontiersin.
org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00703/full.
Korniukhin V.V., Vilkov A.P. Problema dopinga v Rossii i antidopingovye sanktsii
[The Doping Problem in Russia and Anti-Doping Sanctions]. StudNet – StudNet, 2020,
no. 11, pp. 921–928. (In Russ.)
Kukharuk V.V. Substantsii i (ili) metody, zapreshchennye dlia ispol’zovaniia v sporte,
v ugolovnom zakone [Substances and/or Methods Prohibited for Use in Sport in Criminal
Law]. Pravo i politika – Law and Policy, 2018, no. 5, pp. 42–51. (In Russ.)
Piiuk A.V. Dosudebnoe soglashenie o sotrudnichestve: problemy i puti ikh resheniia
[Pre-Trial Cooperation Agreement: Problems and Solutions]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo
universiteta. Pravo – Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Law, 2016, no. 4(22),
pp. 69–75. (In Russ.)
Prince M.A. Two Crimes for the Price of One: The Problem with Kidnapping Statutes
in Tennessee and Beyond. Tennessee Law Review, 2009, vol. 76, no. 3, p. 789.
Savichev A.A. Kriminologicheskii analiz protivodeistviia dopingovoi prestupnosti
[Criminological Analysis of Countering Doping Crime]. Viktimologiia – Victimology,
2020, no. 1(23), pp. 47–57. (In Russ.)
Smith D.A. The Plea Bargaining Controversy. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
1986, vol. 77, iss. 3, pp. 949–968.
Information about the author
N.V. Zaytseva (Moscow, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor,
Department of Legal Support of the Market Economy, Higher School of Law, Institute
of Public Administration and Management, Russian Academy of National Economy
and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (84 Vernadskogo
Av., Moscow, 119571, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]).
I.V. Ushankov (Moscow, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor,
Department of Legal Support of the Market Economy, Higher School of Law, Institute
of Public Administration and Management, Russian Academy of National Economy
and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (84 Vernadskogo
Av., Moscow, 119571, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]).
Recommended citation
Zaytseva N.V., Ushankov I.V. Protsessual’noe polozhenie informatora Vsemirnogo
antidopingovogo agentstva (VADA) [Procedural Position of a WADA’s Whistleblower].
Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2021, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 278–
298. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-6-278-298
N.V. ZAYTSEVA, I.V. USHANKOV
Advertisement
Our partners
