20 Years of the UNESCO Anti-Doping Convention – Integrity in Sport

Last week saw the 10th Session of the Conference of Parties to the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport (“the Convention”), which marked 20 years since its inception and provided an opportunity to reflect on the first and only international legal instrument that binds governments to take action against doping in sport.

The fight against doping in sport is, at the coal-face, led by sports organisations such as the Olympic Committee, WADA and sports organisations (such as World Athletics or the International Tennis Integrity Association). However, with 192 State signatories, the Convention is one of the most widely adopted UNESCO conventions and creates a binding legal framework for governmental commitment to formally recognise and implement the principles of the World Anti-Doping Code. This governmental commitment is necessary to ensure sports regulations and national laws work together to prevent and punish doping, including through international cooperation in testing, research and information sharing, and in the prevention of trafficking banned substances across borders.

 At this 20 year mark, the Conference of Parties recognised that sport is not “immune to societal problems” and that “Sport as a whole is… increasingly determined to robustly protect itself from crime, fraud and other misbehaviour.” As a result, the Conference voted to adopt a new set of Sport Integrity Guidelines.

References to integrity in issues related to sport are relatively recent. The concept of integrity has mostly been associated with the risk of manipulation of sports competitions (match-fixing and betting-related corruption) and, to a lesser extent, to the fight against doping. The new Sport Integrity Guidelines continue a trend to widen the scope of sport integrity to include the good governance of sports organisations. Research has shown that a significant factor in the prevalence of match-fixing is the mismanagement of sport organisations, and the lack of prevention policies to educate and protect athletes.

The Guidelines attempt to provide “a comprehensive definition of sport integrity”. In doing so, they sacrifice concision for breadth and introduce a ‘three-pillar’ concept of integrity:

1. The integrity of people, including safeguards from violence and abuse and the safety and security of people
2. The integrity of competitions, which refers to the manipulation of competition and to the fight against doping, and
3. The integrity of organisations, which includes good governance.

This culminates in what is described as a “holistic definition”:

“The integrity of sport is a precondition to protect and maximise the contribution of sport to sustainable human and social development… sport integrity encompasses the components of personal, organisational and competition integrity, and thus shall reject competition manipulation, discrimination, cheating, violence, abuse, corruption and any other crime or fraud related to sport; promote transparency and accountability in the governance of sport; and foster respect for internationally recognised human rights.”

On first read, the Guidelines contain very little guidance on what must, can, or should be done to protect integrity in sport. But the Guidelines are not addressed at lawyers, practitioners or even sports organisations but at governments and policy makers.

The Guidelines note that, whilst sports organisations play an important, and often the biggest role in addressing sports integrity issues, those issues often involve criminal offences, which require effective investigation and prosecution. Therefore, the definition of, and responsibility for, integrity in sport must also rest on the shoulders of Governments. The Guidelines remind governments that they cannot overlook sport integrity issues based on a misguided concept of ‘autonomy of sport’ or an over-reliance on sports organisations. For that reason, the Guidelines’ key purpose is to provide governments and policy makers with references, background and methodologies, as well as the impetus, to develop government-level policies designed to protect integrity in sport.

In accordance with the Guidelines, Stephanie Peacock MP (appointed Minister for Sport, Tourism, Civil Society and Youth at the end of September) should now be asking herself what are the risks to sport integrity in the UK, and what measures exist that do or can address them. The Guidelines identify five key policy areas that, taken together, represent the foundations for the development of a coherent policy on the protection of sport integrity:

1. Preserving the rights, safety and security of athletes, spectators, workers and other groups involved
2. Preventing and addressing harassment and abuse in sport
3. Fostering good governance of sport organisations
4. Strengthening measures against the manipulation of sports competitions
5. Ensuring an adequate anti-doping policy framework, its implementation and effective compliance measures

Back at the coal-face, the fight for integrity in sport will continue in December 2025 when the World Conference on Doping in Sport will ratify an updated version of the World Anti-Doping Code 2027. Sports and anti-doping organisations will have until 1 January 2027 to understand and digest the new code, and to update their own anti-doping regulations, and educate players and stakeholders about the changes.