Retired tennis star Andre Agassi’s revelations, in his autobiography Open, that he used two recreational drugs, crystal meth and amphetamine speed has once again brought to the fore the issue of doping in the sporting world. What is worse is that Agassi has admitted to lying about his drug use by sending the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) a signed letter claiming he had “unwittingly” taken the drug in a “spiked soda”. By doing so, Agassi has cast a long shadow on the credibility, not just on his achievements in the tennis world, but also on the credibility of tennis as a sport.

The latest disclosures of Agassi calls for a serious shake up of the legal framework governing sport.

In his autobiography, Agassi asserts that he used the two drugs in the year 1997, at which point in time the World Anti-Doping Agency Code (“WADA Anti-Doping Code”) was not even in existence. Even assuming for a moment that the WADA Anti-Doping Code did actually exist at that point in time, there is a clear provision in the WADA Anti-Doping Code i.e. Article 17, which stipulates that no action may be commenced against an athlete or any other person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. In this case, any such action against Agassi, or his father Mike Agassi, should therefore have commenced in the year 2005. Considering the fact that these disclosures have been made by Agassi himself, should the governing bodies be taking such disclosures at face value? If Agassi could lie to the ATP by stating that the drug was taken “unwittingly”, is there a possibility that he may not have revealed the full extent and time-frame of his drug use? Surely, the limitation period in Article 17 cannot be used to defeat the underlying purpose of the WADA Anti-Doping Code i.e. a dope-free sport. There does not appear to be any guidance on the scope and intent of Article 17, but the WADA would do well to carve out certain exceptions, which would grant it the authority to initiate action against an athlete even if drug-use has been detected (either by a disclosure by the player or by any other credible source) after the expiry of the limitation period.

... contd.