lars mortsiefer
TRANSCRIPT
Update on Data Protection in Anti-Doping
Dr. Lars Mortsiefer Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA)
„I absolutely support the fight against doping. But I would like to have a system which respects the Athlete`s
privacy more“
(International basketball player, Heiko Schaffartzik, Oktober 2011)
Overview
• Development of data protection rules within the WADA-Code and ISPPI
• Problems and conflict of interests - four examples
• Outlook on data protection within the WADA-Code 2015
• Conclusion
3
Historical Development
4
14.6 Data Privacy When performing obligations under the Code, Anti-Doping Organizations may collect, store, process or disclose personal information relating to Athletes and third parties.
Each Anti-Doping Organization shall ensure that it complies with applicable data protection and privacy laws with respect to their handling of such information, as well as the International Standard for the protection of privacy that WADA shall adopt to ensure Athletes and non-athletes are fully informed of and, where necessary, agree to the handling of their personal information in connection with anti-doping activities arising under the Code.
Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party
– Legal form
– Roles and responsibilities
– First and second opinion on WADA-Code and ISPPI
– Conclusion
6
Problems
– Legal basis
– Transfer of data to third countries (via ADAMS)
– Public disclosure of sanctions
– Proportionality
7
Legal Basis
- Law or (informed) consent
- Athlete‘s given consent or legal provision
- Europe!?
- Rest of the (sports) world?
8
Data Transfer via ADAMS
- Anti-Doping Administration & Management System
- Data transfer to third parties
- Adequate level of data protection
- Alternatives
- Contractual solution - Sufficient guarantees
9
Public Disclosure of Sanctions
- Internet
- Art. 14.2.4
For purposes of Article 14.2, publication shall be accomplished at a minimum by placing the required information on the Anti-Doping Organization’s Web site and leaving the information up for at least one (1) year.
- For one year - or forever?!
- Pillory effect and stigmatisation?!
10
Proportionality
First example:
– High level athlete (RTP)– An average of 6 – 8 out-of-competition-controls per
year – (blood and urine)– Whereabouts three month in advance – 1h-Time slot – 365 Days per year
Proportional?!
11
Proportionality
Second example:
Doping control under visual check (minors)
12
WADA-Code Revision 2015
- Art. 14 WADA-Code
- Public disclosure as a sanction
(Art. 10.12 WADA-Code)
- Art. 22 WADA-Code
- ISPPI
13
Conclusion
- Data protection is a very important issue
- Protection of athletes‘ privacy and personal information is a major concern
- But the doping control system must not be restricted
- Athletes and DCOs do have a special relationsship of trust
14
Thank you!
Dr. Lars Mortsiefer
Head of Legal Department / Member of the Executive Board
phone: +49 228 / 812 92 -122fax: +49 228 / 812 92 – 229
15