EU court backs naming doped athletes, rejects automatic online shaming

(CN) — Getting caught doping can cost athletes more than a suspension, Europe’s highest court ruled Tuesday, saying athletes can be named online after a doping offense, but not through a one-size-fits-all rule.

Four athletes identified as AR, YT, DI and RN challenged Austrian rules requiring anti-doping authorities to publish their names, sports, violations and bans online. They argue the mandatory disclosure breaches the General Data Protection Regulation, the European Union’s privacy law. Three had already been named, while publication of YT’s four-year ban was imminent. After Austria’s data-protection authority rejected their complaints, the country’s Federal Administrative Court referred the case to the EU court for guidance.

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union found making sanctions public can help deter doping, protect fair competition and alert sponsors, employers and event organizers that an athlete is serving a ban. It said anonymous notices or disclosure limited to sports bodies would not achieve those goals as effectively for professional athletes.

“The publication of data relating to infringements of the anti-doping rules is appropriate for contributing to the attainment of the objective of general interest pursued, by contributing to deterrence and prevention and to the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed,” the judges wrote.

The court, however, rejected any automatic rule requiring every sanctioned athlete to be identified online. Because search results can outlive a ban by years, authorities must first decide whether publication is necessary in each case, weighing factors such as the athlete’s profile, the seriousness of the violation and how long the information will remain online. Even a lifetime ban, the judges said, does not automatically justify leaving someone’s name online after their realistic sporting career has ended.

The court also rejected arguments that anti-doping falls outside EU data-protection law because sports regulation is largely national or sometimes noncommercial, saying the GDPR exemption for activities outside EU law is intended for areas such as national security, not sporting discipline. It further confirmed that athletes may seek relief from a data protection authority before publication if disclosure is imminent.

Jan Exner, an assistant professor of EU and sports law at Charles University, a sports law attorney at Fairzone and an arbitrator in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, described the judgment as “carefully balanced but ultimately rather anti-doping-friendly.” Professional and high-profile athletes are still likely to be publicly named, he said, but the ruling gives athletes a much stronger basis for challenging automatic publication in exceptional or low-fault cases.

The practical message, Exner said, is that transparency survives, but “this is not a blank check for WADA or national anti-doping organizations.” He used the acronym for the World Anti-Doping Agency.

The ability to challenge publication before it happens is an important safeguard, he added, because reputational damage may be impossible to undo once a name begins circulating online. Anti-doping bodies will also need stricter proportionality checks, tighter time limits and greater care before publishing information that could reveal an athlete’s health.

“The future of anti-doping in Europe should not be less transparent, but it should be more legally precise, more accountable and more respectful of athletes’ rights,” Exner said.

Both sides claimed a measure of victory.

Johannes Öhlböck, the athletes’ attorney, called the judgment “a landmark” for athletes’ privacy protections.

“Athletes do not lose their fundamental rights simply because they are subject to anti-doping rules,” he said.

“The significance of this judgment extends far beyond Austria,” Öhlböck added, saying it provides important guidance for lawmakers, anti-doping organizations and courts across the European Union as they reconcile anti-doping rules with European data protection standards.

Austria’s National Anti-Doping Agency also welcomed the ruling. Michael Cepic, the agency’s managing director, called it “an important signal for transparency and legal certainty,” saying it confirms that final doping sanctions can continue to be published under European privacy rules. The agency said it will review the judgment but plans to continue publishing sanctions under Austrian law and the World Anti-Doping Code.

Jack Anderson, a sports law professor at Melbourne Law School, said sports bodies and anti-doping agencies “will breathe a sigh of relief” because the court upheld public naming in principle and rejected arguments that such notices are generally health data, criminal-record data or prohibited under European privacy law.

The decision, however, leaves anti-doping organizations with more work to do, he said. They will need clearer procedures for deciding when publication is justified, and the World Anti-Doping Agency, which sets the global anti-doping rules, may have to issue guidance to help national agencies apply the new standard.

“In football terms, what looks on balance like a comfortable 3-0 win for anti-doping agencies may be better seen as a narrow 3-2 victory.”

Marcus Mazzucco, an adjunct lecturer in global and Canadian sports law at the University of Toronto, also said the judgment could ultimately force changes to the World Anti-Doping Code. Because the code generally requires sanctions to be published and public notices to identify the prohibited substance or method, WADA may have to rewrite its rules to accommodate the individualized assessments required by the court.

“The judgment is a good reminder that the global sport system, including WADA, is not exempt from regional laws, such as the GDPR,” he said, adding that officials should consider omitting information about the prohibited substance or method where it could disclose sensitive health information.

The EU court has spoken. The final chapter will now be written in Austria, where the Federal Administrative Court must decide whether each athlete’s name can remain online under the standards laid down by the EU court.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.