Give up the doping!
Gebt das Doping frei!
Are you for the Basic Law? Okay, I admit, that's a rhetorical question. Nevertheless ... Many are unaware that the current anti-doping regime is contrary to fundamental law: athletes are denied basic rights, which are an essential part of our society. This can not go on like this: anti-doping may be a legitimate goal, but a society founded on liberal principles can not tolerate everything. There are certain limits - and these are currently far exceeded. This will be explained below.
It is often said that doping should be banned because it jeopardizes health. That alone can not be a reason for a ban. Why? Because Article 2 of the Basic Law reads: "Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality [...]." This fundamental right protects every free act of the individual, as long as no one else is harmed - and thus also self-harm. This also applies to athletes: they are allowed to harm their own bodies, which nobody can ban, as long as we can assume that they act independently.
Athletes want to be the best in their sport and are ready to go very far. Of course, that can not be healthy: they have to push their bodies to the limit again and again, in training, in competition. https://www.br.de/puls/themen/sport/interview-basketball-johannes-herber-buch-100.html says Johannes Herber, a former basketball pro. Joint problems are also the rule right after the athletic career: "During this time I felt my body very well: knee, elbow, spine - and you ask yourself in the morning: What is going on, please?" , Says Oliver Kahn , the former world goalkeeper of Bayern Munich.
It may be sad. But it is as it is: Exercising is harmful to health, with or without doping agents. Decisive is therefore not the health risk, but the self-responsibility, as it establishes the fundamental rights protection. Athletes must be fully informed by trainers and physicians: What are the health-related negative effects of using a particular drug? That is the only way for them to be aware of the scope of their decision. A doping release could be beneficial here: For the first time it would be possible to conduct an open research. With the newly created knowledge, the advice could certainly be improved.
Another aspect speaks against the current Doping Regularium: A quasi-totalitarian surveillance regime has been installed. Athletes must be available for doping control 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They are required to specify their whereabouts to the inspectors - three months in advance, even on vacation. This regulation is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There, Article 8 on the right to privacy states that 'every person has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence'.
The current doping control procedure violates the right to privacy for three reasons: The Basic Law restricts the inviolability of the home only under certain conditions, a doping control is not one of them. Athletes have to leave at any time checkers in their apartment, even in the middle of the night. A refusal would result in a four-year ban. Furthermore, athletes are not free to decide on the disclosure and use of their personal data. The obligatory notification of the whereabouts to the National Anti-Doping Agency violates the informational right of self-determination. Furthermore, the removal of the doping sample in a woman resembles a gynecological examination - a very extensive intervention in the private sphere of a person. And also a man has to free himself from the nipple to the knees. Because the inspector is obliged to look at him directly while urinating on the penis.
One wonders: Are athletes not citizens? Can you do anything with them? Is every means allowed just to achieve the lofty goal of "doping-free sport"? This must be over! A society based on liberal principles can not accept such a rule. Athletes should claim their right to privacy, and each of us should show solidarity.
…
We hold that the current doping control system is incompatible with the principles of a society like ours, which is based on a liberal-democratic order. Fundamental rights are trampled underfoot. So as before, it can not go on. In the short term, the situation could be improved by refraining from training checks and reducing sanctions to an appropriate level. In the medium to long term, the meaningfulness of a doping ban is generally questionable. Because there are many more problems, such as the vague definition of doping, which does not clearly define what is illegal. I have elsewhere in detail explained .
Incidentally, a doping release would not be the downfall of the sport if we assume that the newly gained freedom spaces would be used meaningfully. There is certainly no guarantee for that, but it would be worth a try. After all, the doping clearance would allow the athletes to decide for themselves what to do with their situation. This change would definitely be an advantage for them, because they would be much less alienated than before: freed from the anti-liberal rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the athletes could now - under the guidance of coaches and doctors - on their own responsibility Body. Would not that be in the interests of our society?
Gebt das Doping frei!
Are you for the Basic Law? Okay, I admit, that's a rhetorical question. Nevertheless ... Many are unaware that the current anti-doping regime is contrary to fundamental law: athletes are denied basic rights, which are an essential part of our society. This can not go on like this: anti-doping may be a legitimate goal, but a society founded on liberal principles can not tolerate everything. There are certain limits - and these are currently far exceeded. This will be explained below.
It is often said that doping should be banned because it jeopardizes health. That alone can not be a reason for a ban. Why? Because Article 2 of the Basic Law reads: "Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality [...]." This fundamental right protects every free act of the individual, as long as no one else is harmed - and thus also self-harm. This also applies to athletes: they are allowed to harm their own bodies, which nobody can ban, as long as we can assume that they act independently.
Athletes want to be the best in their sport and are ready to go very far. Of course, that can not be healthy: they have to push their bodies to the limit again and again, in training, in competition. https://www.br.de/puls/themen/sport/interview-basketball-johannes-herber-buch-100.html says Johannes Herber, a former basketball pro. Joint problems are also the rule right after the athletic career: "During this time I felt my body very well: knee, elbow, spine - and you ask yourself in the morning: What is going on, please?" , Says Oliver Kahn , the former world goalkeeper of Bayern Munich.
It may be sad. But it is as it is: Exercising is harmful to health, with or without doping agents. Decisive is therefore not the health risk, but the self-responsibility, as it establishes the fundamental rights protection. Athletes must be fully informed by trainers and physicians: What are the health-related negative effects of using a particular drug? That is the only way for them to be aware of the scope of their decision. A doping release could be beneficial here: For the first time it would be possible to conduct an open research. With the newly created knowledge, the advice could certainly be improved.
Another aspect speaks against the current Doping Regularium: A quasi-totalitarian surveillance regime has been installed. Athletes must be available for doping control 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They are required to specify their whereabouts to the inspectors - three months in advance, even on vacation. This regulation is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There, Article 8 on the right to privacy states that 'every person has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence'.
The current doping control procedure violates the right to privacy for three reasons: The Basic Law restricts the inviolability of the home only under certain conditions, a doping control is not one of them. Athletes have to leave at any time checkers in their apartment, even in the middle of the night. A refusal would result in a four-year ban. Furthermore, athletes are not free to decide on the disclosure and use of their personal data. The obligatory notification of the whereabouts to the National Anti-Doping Agency violates the informational right of self-determination. Furthermore, the removal of the doping sample in a woman resembles a gynecological examination - a very extensive intervention in the private sphere of a person. And also a man has to free himself from the nipple to the knees. Because the inspector is obliged to look at him directly while urinating on the penis.
One wonders: Are athletes not citizens? Can you do anything with them? Is every means allowed just to achieve the lofty goal of "doping-free sport"? This must be over! A society based on liberal principles can not accept such a rule. Athletes should claim their right to privacy, and each of us should show solidarity.
…
We hold that the current doping control system is incompatible with the principles of a society like ours, which is based on a liberal-democratic order. Fundamental rights are trampled underfoot. So as before, it can not go on. In the short term, the situation could be improved by refraining from training checks and reducing sanctions to an appropriate level. In the medium to long term, the meaningfulness of a doping ban is generally questionable. Because there are many more problems, such as the vague definition of doping, which does not clearly define what is illegal. I have elsewhere in detail explained .
Incidentally, a doping release would not be the downfall of the sport if we assume that the newly gained freedom spaces would be used meaningfully. There is certainly no guarantee for that, but it would be worth a try. After all, the doping clearance would allow the athletes to decide for themselves what to do with their situation. This change would definitely be an advantage for them, because they would be much less alienated than before: freed from the anti-liberal rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the athletes could now - under the guidance of coaches and doctors - on their own responsibility Body. Would not that be in the interests of our society?
