Qui bono?

Since the late 1990s when public concerns about doping practices peaked, we have witnessed the rise of an anti-doping ‘regulatory state’ in sports. Stricter regulation, continuous surveillance, and high penalties are transforming sports in general and road cycling in particular. But who benefits?
Firstly, the power of transnational sport regulation bodies (e.g. WADA, UCI) has considerably increased at the expense of race organisers and teams. Multiple conflicts on matters such as the pro-tour, doping control, wildcards, etc. are a clear sign of established economic powers being threatened by new (regulatory) ones. Secondly, the new surveillance systems subject athletes to considerable restrictions. Even the most technical issues of regulation bear resemblance to value laden choices and imply policy bias favouring and disadvantaging specific actors. For instance, the possibility to use blood-based doping tests has fostered regulation to allow inspectors to medically intervene in athletes’ bodies. Thirdly, anti-doping procedures distribute burdens of proof quite differently (e.g. strict liability vs. individual case consideration). Fourthly, in a regulatory state final arbitration takes place in court characterized by complex files, long procedures, and ever-higher stakes in terms of both athletes’ reputations and financial claims. Fifthly, at the national level large budgets for costly anti-doping efforts are reserved for only a small fraction of the population. Sixthly, at the global level costly doping control has implications for the north-south divide. Developing countries that want to organize competitions either have to hire expensive foreign services to test samples or set up their own facilities. And, finally, it remains doubtful whether the new regime indeed succeeds in eliminating doping from sports in the end. It seems more likely that doping practices just continue but in an uncontrolled, medically unsupervised way.