Hemmant’s List members Reimen Hii and Caitlin Pincott successfully appeared for an Athlete in a recent National Sports Tribunal Anti-Doping Arbitration on a novel legal issue that had not previously been considered under Australian law or any other jurisdiction implementing the World Anti-Doping Code: Athlete v Australian Weightlifting Federation and Sport Integrity Australia (NST-E25-294506)
At the heart of the matter was whether the Athlete, who had competed in several national competitions, was a ‘recreational athlete’. The classification was critical. Recreational athletes may access a more flexible sanction regime and are not subject to mandatory public disclosure.
Sports Integrity Australia argued that the definition should be interpreted strictly. However, the Tribunal accepted the Athlete’s submissions that the meaning of ‘recreational athlete’ ought to be interpreted having regard to the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code provisions and held:
- The definition does not exclude athletes merely because they compete.
- The proper focus is whether the athlete participates for recreational purposes.
- Participation motivated primarily by enjoyment, personal achievement, health and community — even if competitive — can still be recreational.
On the facts, the Athlete was found to be competing for recreational purposes and therefore qualified as a recreational athlete and a reduced sanction.
This decision provides important guidance for sub-elite competitors and sporting bodies alike: competition alone does not disqualify an athlete from being “recreational”.
Read the judgment here: https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/decisions/nst-e25-294506
As Sports Law disputes continue to increase in the lead up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Hemmant’s List is pleased that its members have the expertise and experience to help athletes, sporting organisations and legal practitioners alike with issues they may face.