Gasser v Stinson

Gasser v Stinson (and Another) 1988, Unreported. is a 1988 Canadian court case involving drugs in sport. It was heard by Justice Scott on the 15th of June of that year in the Chancery Division of the English High Court, a specialist wing of the Civil Courts.

The case concerned a 2 year ban which had been imposed upon a female athlete, who was at that time affiliated with the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF), when traces of a banned substance on the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) list had been found in her urine sample.

The case primarily concerned whether or not it was lawful for the governing bodies in athletics to impose rules that created an absolute offence and a mandatory sentence of two years' disqualification. In its current form, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) code, which is accepted by virtually all major sports organisations around the world, attaches a strict personal liability on the athlete - there is no presumption of innocence if an athlete tests positive for a banned substance. WADA’s code is designed to protect the “athlete's fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness, and equality for athletes worldwide." In this regard, once an athlete tests positive for a banned substance, he or she is automatically guilty and as explicitly stated in Article 2, “fault, negligence, or knowing use” need not be demonstrated in establishing a doping violation.

Scott J ruled that in cases where athletes had dope in their urine such rules as strict-liability rules which did not assume innocence were reasonable prima facie, and that to impose a two year ban did not affect the athletes restraint of trade rights, as is shown by Canadian Case law. The Court rejected the IAAF's assertion that restraint of trade did not apply because the athletets were amateurs, but did not go so far as to say remedial relief could be sought.