The 2027 World Anti-Doping Code: Navigating the new legal landscape

Introduction

Following a two-year consultation process with stakeholders, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has finalised the 2027 World Anti-Doping Code (2027 Code) and International Standards, which are set to replace the current framework and take effect on 1 January 2027. This comprehensive revision represents an evolution rather than a revolution in the anti-doping framework, balancing deterrence with proportionate sanctions, athlete welfare, and procedural fairness.

This article provides an overview of the substantive reforms in the 2027 Code, covering four key areas: 

1. sanctioning frameworks in general;
2. new mitigations available to athletes;
3. governance improvements; and
4. human rights protections.

Beyond these core areas of reform, the 2027 Code introduces important clarifications regarding governance structures, data protection, the management of whereabouts failures, and the scope of provisional suspensions. Collectively, these changes will require significant adaptation by all stakeholders and present both opportunities and implementation challenges that demand careful navigation.

Unless otherwise defined in this article, capitalised terms have the meanings given to them in the 2027 Code.

1. Refined Sanctioning Frameworks

   1.1 Tiered sanctions for non-Specified Substances

One of the most significant reforms in this revision seeks to further address the longstanding issue of proportionality in sanctions. The 2027 Code introduces a new tiered sanctioning structure to Article 10.2.1 for Presence and Use violations involving non-Specified Substances (substances that are less likely to be used inadvertently and are more typically associated with intentional doping) based on an Athlete's intent: 

• Intentional doping stricto sensu continues to result in a four-year period of Ineligibility, and the 2027 Code continues to provide for a reduced two-year period of Ineligibility if an Athlete can establish how the Prohibited Substance entered their system and that the violation was not intentional (subject to possible further reduction below two years).
• If the Athlete cannot establish that their use of a Prohibited Substance was unintentional, but can establish (i) how the Prohibited Substance entered their system and (ii) that the context of ingestion or use was unrelated to sports performance, a three-year period of Ineligibility applies.
• If an Athlete cannot establish how the Prohibited Substance entered their system, the period of Ineligibility may still be reduced - to two years - if they can establish, based on reliable scientific evidence, that the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) was not compatible with the intentional Use of a Prohibited Substance. However, this exception will only apply in exceptional cases, and is described in the comment to Article 10.2.1.3 (and CAS jurisprudence) as the "narrowest of corridors". The Code comment provides examples of facts that might, if demonstrated by reliable scientific evidence, meet this requirement: (i) the detection of a non-therapeutic amount of the Prohibited Substance in the Athlete's sample, coupled with a metabolic profile indicating very recent administration, or (ii) the existence of prior or subsequent samples that confirm that the Prohibited Substance was not the tail end excretion of a therapeutic dose. The 2027 Code explicitly clarifies that the results of lie-detector tests are considered to be unreliable evidence in the anti-doping context.

These developments provide a clearer distinction between sanctioning thresholds and a more flexible framework than the current system in relation to Prohibited Substances that are not Specified Substances.

1.2 Substances of Abuse: Rehabilitation over punishment 

Adopting a welfare-focused approach, the 2027 Code aligns with contemporary addiction management strategies, recognising that substance abuse is a health issue requiring treatment rather than primarily punitive measures. 

Under Article 10.2.3, first-time violations for Substances of Abuse (such as cocaine and ecstasy) detected Out-of-Competition that are unrelated to sport performance now carry a fixed period of Ineligibility of two months (down from three months), with a second violation resulting in a four-month period of Ineligibility, which can be reduced to two months if the Athlete enters an approved Substance of Abuse treatment programme. The Anti-Doping Organisation (ADO) may also impose the reduced two-month period of Ineligibility if it determines that a treatment programme is not necessary, for example (as explicitly stated in the 2027 Code) in cases of coca tea ingestion.

If ingestion of the Substance of Abuse incurred In-Competition and has been established to be unrelated to sport performance, the period of Ineligibility will be fixed between six months and two years, depending on the circumstances of the case. The comment to Article 10.2.3.2 provides examples of circumstances that may be considered, including: (i) the specific nature of the Use or Possession, (ii) the type and quantity of the Prohibited Substance detected, (iii) the proximity in time between the Athlete’s ingestion and the competition, (iv) the potential benefit (actual or perceived) to the Athlete of the ingestion in relation to the Athlete’s performance in the competition, (v) the Athlete’s level of anti-doping experience and education, and (vi) other fault-related considerations that might not otherwise satisfy the requirements for application of Article 10.5 (No Fault or Negligence).

In addition, a mandatory provisional suspension is no longer required for Substances of Abuse that are not categorised as Specified Substances.

2. OPTIONS FOR MITIGATION OF SANCTION AVAILABLE TO ATHLETES

   2.1 Expanded framework for sources of contamination

The 2027 Code acknowledges the various ways in which Athletes can be inadvertently exposed to Prohibited Substances, and expands the definition of "Contaminated Products" to "Contaminated Source". Previously, the "Contaminated Products" provision in Article 10.6.1.2 permitted a reduction in the period of Ineligibility for supplement or product contamination (down to, at minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility and, at maximum, 24 months). However, ADRVs involving other types of contamination, such as food (e.g. meat), drinks (e.g. herbal teas), environmental contamination (e.g. shared facilities or trace contact in gyms), and contact exposure, could only receive a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility under the No Fault or Negligence provisions and, if they did not meet the high bar for No Fault or Negligence, they would receive a period of Ineligibility of between 12 and 24 months, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault (under the residual No Significant Fault or Negligence provisions in Article 10.6.2). 

Accordingly, the broader definition of "Contaminated Source" under the 2027 Code provides more flexibility to ADOs and hearing panels when sanctioning cases of inadvertent contamination.

2.2 Retroactive Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs)

Article 10.2.4 of the 2027 Code introduces a fixed two-month period of Ineligibility if an Athlete can establish that their use of a Prohibited Substance or Method would have met the TUE criteria set forth in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. In doing so, this provision permits more leniency in cases where an Athlete had legitimate medical grounds for their Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method but failed to obtain the required authorisation before competition and sample collection. Instead of applying the typical analysis that may lead to a longer ban (i.e., analysis of intent and degree of fault), an Athlete will now receive a fixed two-month period of Ineligibility in qualifying cases.

2.3 Expanded Substantial Assistance provisions

Article 10.7 of the 2027 Code introduces more flexible criteria for cooperation-based eliminations, reductions, or suspensions of a period of Ineligibility. Under the 2021 Code, the Substantial Assistance article allows an Athlete (or Athlete Support Personnel) to obtain a reduced sanction if they assist the ADO to uncover or bring forward ADRVs that result in criminal or disciplinary action, or action involving the breach of professional rules. The 2027 Code removes the requirement that Substantial Assistance result in a prosecution, sanction, or formal outcome, and instead requires only that the ADO "discovers facts constituting" an ADRV. In plain terms, if the Athlete can meaningfully assist the ADO, a reduction for Substantial Assistance may be considered. 

In addition, Article 10.7.4 introduces a new, smaller reduction of 15% for individuals who provide valuable information that does not qualify as Substantial Assistance. Rather than receiving a reduction of up to 75% (through the Substantial Assistance route), Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel can have up to 15% of their otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility suspended if they provide "other valuable information" that assists ADOs but does not meet the higher threshold. 

In its Summary of Major Changes for the final draft of the 2027 Code, WADA provides the following example of a scenario in which the 15% reduction may apply: "an Athlete provides information on how he has doped and avoided detection, but without identifying any third-party with culpability".

2.4 Early admission and acceptance of sanction

Under the 2021 Code, an Athlete who admits their violation early and accepts the proposed consequences may receive a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility – but only if the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is four years or more (with the exception of a lifetime period of Ineligibility, for which the reduction is not available). This meant Athletes facing bans of less than four years had less incentive to settle early. 

The 2027 Code retains the one-year reduction for bans of four years or more, but expands the options available to Athletes by providing a 25% reduction for early admission and acceptance of sanction where the period of Ineligibility is less than four years (Article 10.7.2). The reduction is calculated from the period of Ineligibility stated in the charge letter, and to qualify the Athlete must admit the violation and accept all asserted consequences within 20 days of the charge letter. This should encourage early resolution and reduce the administrative burden on the system.

3. GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT IMPROVEMENTS 

   3.1 Independent review mechanism

Responding to governance concerns and recommendations for stronger checks and balances in the anti-doping system, the 2027 Code formally introduces the role of an Independent Review Expert (IRE) for neutral oversight in certain anti-doping cases (Article 7.8). A written opinion of the IRE is required in the rare cases where an ADO considers a departure from the normal results management processes (including by not proceeding with a case) after it has received notice of an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) and has completed its initial review of the matter. This opinion must be obtained before the ADO decides not to move forward with the normal results management process or with the AAF. If an ADO fails to bring a case forward without first seeking and obtaining the opinion and recommendation of the IRE, and it is ultimately determined on appeal that an ADRV occurred, the ADO may be subject to non-compliance proceedings. 

3.2 Harmonised appeals framework

The 2027 Code eliminates appeal deadline inconsistencies by introducing in Article 13.2.3.4 a default 21-day time limit for appeals. The 21-day period starts from the later of: (i) the date of receipt of the decision (or in WADA’s case, the last day on which any other party having a right to appeal could have appealed) or (ii) where the appellant (or WADA) makes a timely request for the complete case file, the date of receipt of the complete case file from the deciding body (rather than notification of the decision). This change standardises appeal deadlines while ensuring that WADA can properly exercise its global oversight role without being disadvantaged by timing logistics.

The 2027 Code also: (i) broadens the list of decisions that may be appealed; and (ii) explicitly gives appeal rights to additional parties, including Athletes, NADOs, and any other party to the case. Decisions that will expressly fall within the scope of appeal include decisions not to bring Adverse/Atypical Passport Findings, decisions not to impose or to lift a Provisional Suspension, decisions relating to whereabouts failures, decisions relating to retroactive TUE applications, and certain decisions or approvals made by WADA (for which the standard of review will be whether WADA’s decision was arbitrary). 

3.3 NADO Operational Independence

NADOs are required to be independent from sport and government in their operational decisions and activities. The 2027 Code adds a new definition of "NADO Operational Independence" which further clarifies that requirement, including by referring to activities which may not have previously been prohibited or which were overlooked including, for example, prohibiting the delegation of any Doping Control responsibility to a sport organisation or government.

4. ATHLETE PROTECTION AND PRIVACY 

   4.1 Enhanced human rights protections

The 2027 Code places greater emphasis on human rights, incorporating recommendations from (among others) WADA's education and ethics team, including explicit language about Athletes’ right to education. 

4.2 Enhanced protections for Minors

The 2027 Code strengthens protections for young athletes, reflecting the growing recognition of the unique vulnerabilities faced by young athletes and the need for enhanced safeguards in their treatment within the anti-doping system. Protections are expanded for Minors (elite 16- to 17-year-olds) not formally classified as Protected Persons, offering them certain procedural and sanction-related modifications. For example, pursuant to Article 14.3.6, mandatory Public Disclosure under Article 14.3.2 of certain details relating to an ADRV no longer applies to minors (or Recreational Athletes or Protected Persons). 

The 2027 Code also holds Athlete Support Personnel (including coaches, trainers and medical staff) more accountable for educating and protecting young athletes (see, for example, Article 21.2.2) and enforces tighter procedures by automatically requiring investigations into Athlete Support Personnel in cases of ADRVs committed by Protected Persons or Minors (see Article 20.1.10).

4.3 Data Protection

In response to recommendations from the European Data Protection Board, the 2027 Code contains clearer guidelines and obligations regarding Athlete privacy and data protection, addressing growing privacy concerns in the digital age. 

As one example, the general requirement under Article 14.3 is that, after a final decision in an ADRV case, the ADO must publicly disclose the result of that decision unless the Athlete has been found not to have committed an ADRV, in which case Athlete consent is required. The 2027 Code expands on this notion and provides that, where it has been determined after a hearing and an appeal that an Athlete (a) did not commit an ADRV or (b) has established that they bear No Fault or Negligence for a violation, the Athlete’s consent to publication is required unless (i) the identity of the Athlete is already public, (ii) consequences have been or are being imposed, or (iii) there are other compelling circumstances supporting public disclosure. 

However, in the interest of transparency, Article 14.4 requires an ADO to annually publish a statistical report (maintaining the anonymity of Athletes and other Persons involved) listing decisions that involved a No Fault or Negligence finding, and including the year of the decision, the sport involved, the Code Article violated, the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method involved, and whether the decision was appealed.

5. TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLARIFICATIONS 

   5.1 Sample analysis and research

The 2027 Code and the updated International Standards clarify how samples and data can be used for scientific research, especially once their original testing purpose (anti-doping control) is finished. Laboratories and ADOs may analyse samples and data for a defined list of "anti-doping purposes" but only if that data is fully anonymised. In certain circumstances, for example where additional analysis is conducted between charging and case completion (i.e., prior to or during results management), Athlete consent (or hearing panel approval) is required. 

5.2 Whereabouts management

The 2027 Code now clarifies how Fault is assessed for whereabouts failure violations (when an Athlete misses tests or fails to timely update their whereabouts), by making it clear that Fault will be assessed equally across all three failures and emphasises that the first failure is no less serious than subsequent ones.

The 2027 Code also establishes clearer jurisdictional guidelines for administrative responsibility in respect of whereabouts failures, ensuring consistent enforcement by different ADOs, which may have overlapping rights to test athletes. 

Generally, Results Management for a whereabouts failure is conducted by the ADO with which the Athlete files their whereabouts information. An exception to that general rule has been added in Article 7.1.6, which provides that where an attempt to test leads to the discovery of a potential whereabouts failure, the Results Management for the potential whereabouts failure shall be administered by the ADO that ordered the test unless the two ADOs agree otherwise.

5.3 The scope of the prohibition against participation

The 2027 Code tightens and clarifies what Athletes can and cannot do while Provisionally Suspended or subject to a period of Ineligibility. As a general rule under Article 10.14.1, during any period of Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension, a sanctioned individual is prohibited from participating in any capacity in Competitions or activities authorised or organised by Signatories to the Code, their member organisations, or clubs. Commentary to the Code has been added to define "activity" in this context as including "all competitive training and administrative functions, as well as social functions where the Person has a formal or official role or receives recognition, authorised or organised by the referenced organisations". 

The comment to Article 10.14.1 goes on to list five examples of activities which are not prohibited during a period of Ineligibility: 

1. an Ineligible basketball player could participate in a pick-up basketball game with former teammates;
2. an Ineligible distance runner could go for a run with friends or other elite Athletes;
3. an Ineligible swimmer could swim in a separate lane in the same pool where a national team trains as long as the swimmer has no involvement with the team training;
4. an Ineligible figure skater could receive coaching or athletic training services from Athlete Support Personnel who also works for a referenced organization as long as the services provided to the figure skater are not performed as part of the Athlete Support Personnel’s job duties for the referenced organization; and 

5. an Ineligible gymnast could receive payments from an individual sponsor as long as the payments are not connected to or arranged by a referenced organization.

   5.4 Challenging Provisional Suspensions

With respect to challenging Provisional Suspensions, the 2027 Code: (i) ensures that Athletes have the opportunity to have their challenge to a Provisional Suspension heard in the ADO process (in their own language and in a less formal setting) before they take the case to the CAS; and (ii) formalises and limits what ADOs may include with respect to the imposition or lifting of provisional suspensions. 

For example, Article 7.4.1 now provides that a mandatory Provisional Suspension shall be imposed by the ADO when the person is first notified of the potential ADRV. It may be lifted by the same ADO based on the person’s well-founded assertion that the violation involved a Contaminated Source or in certain other situations, for example, when the time already served under the Provisional Suspension would exceed the period of Ineligibility likely to be imposed for the ADRV. After a hearing body has decided not to lift a Provisional Suspension, only that hearing body (subject to very limited exceptions) may subsequently decide, based on new information, to lift it. 

5.5 Multiple violations

A new article has been added to explicitly address the situation where a subsequent AAF results solely from residual presence of the same substance from the Athlete's first AAF and violation. In such cases, competitive results in relation to the subsequent AAF(s) are disqualified, but there is no increased period of Ineligibility and the multiple violation rules do not apply. This provision is designed to prevent harsher sanctions for multiple violations arising from a single act of consumption, recognising that certain substances may remain detectable for extended periods.

Conclusion

The 2027 Code represents an iterative development of the anti-doping framework that seeks to reconcile the necessary requirements to maintain clean sport with proportionate sanctions, athlete welfare, and procedural fairness. The reforms demonstrate WADA's responsiveness to areas for improvement identified in the current framework and reflect the nuances and complexities inherent in the enforcement of anti-doping rules.

The new rules take effect on 1 January 2027, and all stakeholders are strongly encouraged to familiarise themselves with the new regime and seek early advice on navigating the new rules.