The Athlete's Right to Respect for His Private Life and His Home
Introduction Competition cyclist Andrej Kashechkin was caught on a charge of blood doping during an unannounced check on 1 August 2007 while holidaying in Turkey. On 31 August he was fired by his team Astana, after a countercheck also proved positive. The cyclist also faced a two-year suspension and an additional two-year Pro Tour suspension. He then laid a charge with the court in Liege (Belgium) against the International Cycling Union UCI. He maintained that carrying out a doping check during a personal holiday is a violation of human rights. Judicial testing against fundamental human rights rules, of the regulations which give sporting and anti-doping organisations the right to carry out doping checks outside the competition context, is vitally important. Should the court have found that the checks are a violation of a sportsperson's right to privacy, then one of the most important elements in the existing doping control system would have fallen away. Unfortunately the procedure met a premature end, because the Liege court declared itself to be unqualified to consider the issue for 'territorial reasons': the cyclist no longer lived in Belgium and the UCI's base is in Switzerland. It is anticipated that Kashechkin will launch a case against the UCI in Switzerland in the near future. Indeed, on the eve of the case in Belgium Kashechkin's lawyers indicated their willingness to proceed through to the European Court of Human Rights. The possibility of disturbing a sportsperson in his private life and home to take a doping sample, gives rise to a number of interesting questions. What follows will attempt to provide answers to the questions. The first issue which arises is the legal basis of such checks performed outside a competition context, and the status of the legal basis. If the basis resides in 'purely sportive rules', does the court then have the possibility to test the rules? Can it be taken as a point of departure that no single objective of the sporting sector can justify that the more fundamental social interests and rights of the sportsperson are violated? In other words: are the interests of the sporting world only related to the autonomous private rights, or are these interests subordinate to rules of the human rights treaties? If the answer to this is that the sporting world must step aside for fundamental human rights, the follow-up question must be whether the right the sporting world accords itself to carry out doping checks at the home of a sportsperson or during his or her holiday, is in conflict with basic rights. Finally there is the question as to whether in choosing to exercise a sport, the sportsperson has voluntarily renounced the protection human rights offers. The WADA and the World Anti-Doping Code The first World Conference on Doping in Sport was held in February 1999 in Lausanne on the initiative of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The objective of the conference was to reach a common approach to the use of doping in sport. It was attended by representatives of governments, intergovernmental organisations and international sporting organisations. Setting up the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was a direct result of this conference. The reason for calling this body into being was the assumption that the battle against doping could then be continued more effectively if the Olympic Movement (including the athletes) and the governments worked together. The collaboration established in the 'Lausanne Declaration' could be regarded as the first 'joint venture' between sporting organisations and governments. The WADA statutes established that it would be governed on equal terms by authorities and sporting organisations. (1) The IOC committed itself to funding the WADA until the end of 2001. From January 2002 sport and governments together would fund the WADA. (2) The WADA Draft Mission Statement declared: "The mission of the Agency shall be to promote and coordinate at international level the fight against doping in sport in all its forms; to this end, the Agency will cooperate with intergovernmental organisations, governments, public authorities and other public and private bodies fighting against doping in sport, inter alia, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), International Sports Federations (IF), National Olympic Committees (NOC) and the athletes". …
The Strict Liability Principle and the Human Rights of Athletes in Doping Cases
textabstractAthletes who achieve extraordinary feats on the pitch stir up the imagination and enjoy a 
unique position within society. However, laurels received one day, may be just as quickly 
snatched back the next if it becomes known that the athlete achieved his or her exceptional 
performance with the aid of doping. Manipulating the body by the use of substances and 
methods that unnaturally enhance athletic performance is considered a violation of several 
fundamental principles related to sport. The arguments by which sports organisations have 
sought to justify their fight against doping have been discussed in Chapter 1. Doping is 
considered a health risk, but also a threat to both athletes@ integrity and that of sport as a 
whole, and consequently, given the position in society occupied by sport, of that of society 
itself. None of these arguments, however, is entirely convincing. Perhaps this is why many 
sports organisations have declined to state reasons for their anti-doping policies in their 
anti-doping regulations. The fight against doping in sport is considered self-evident and the 
arguments which are advanced in its favour merely serve to illustrate this fact. 
It was only a relatively short time ago that the systematic fight against doping in sport 
through legal rules began. As a separate body of disciplinary law besides their regular 
disciplinary rules the sports organisations established special anti-doping regulations for the 
prosecution and punishment of doping offences. As opposed to under general disciplinary 
law where unwritten minimum standards usually apply, the disciplinary law of doping uses 
detailed material rules which define the act of doping and the way in which it is to be 
punished. As such, the disciplinary law concerning doping resembles the statutory 
disciplinary rules that exist for certain professions, but is also comparable to public punitive 
law. What sets disciplinary doping law apart however is that the material rules do not aim to 
regulate the actual exercise of a profession, but are based on the ideological aspects which 
prevail in the environment where an athlete's activities take place. In disciplinary doping 
law, for example, there are hardly any examples of professional error, but rather of acts 
which undermine the image and ethics of the sport. This is an aspect which it has in 
common with criminal law. Disciplinary doping law which mainly aims to regulate the 
relevant offences and their prosecution and punishment should therefore be organised 
along the same lines as criminal law and entitle athletes to certain rights to counter the 
demands of the collective. This is necessary, as in sport the interests of the collective are 
often valued above those of the individual.
Nonprofit Communication and Fundraising in China: Exploring the Theory of Situational Support in an International Context
Using a survey of 586 college students from Beijing, China, this study tested the theory of situational support by exploring Chinese students’ motivations to participate in nonprofit fundraising events. This study also compared theory variables between Chinese and U.S. college students by looking at similar data from a survey previously conducted with 514 U.S. students. There were differences between the two groups regarding constraint recognition, subjective norms, attitudes toward fundraising, and other variables, perhaps because of Confucianism, collectivism, and other differences between China and the United States. The findings generate a range of theoretical and practical implications including how nonprofit practitioners in China might develop better communication and messaging strategies to segment publics, motivate potential donors, and advance future fundraising efforts.