Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Looking at the Anti-Doping Regime Through the EU Data Protection Lens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Athletes’ Human Rights and the Fight Against Doping: A Study of the European Legal Framework

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

  • 597 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter offers a European Union perspective on data protection in the context of the anti-doping regime. It presents the Union’s essential data protection framework, which includes Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Using the relevant legal texts, the main data protection principles, rules and rights included in the GDPR are described, analysed and applied to WADA’s testing procedures, whereabouts requirements, gathering and sharing information policies. The chapter finds the current anti-doping framework and practice conforming only in part with data protection principles, rules and rights upheld in the EU. There are legal hiccups within WADA’s structure in relation to data retention periods, the quality of data, the integrity and confidentiality of data, the purpose of gathering data, the legal basis for processing data or the transfer of personal data from the EU to third countries which are not covered by an adequacy decision. As a result, the chapter makes brief recommendations to WADA by which it can align itself with the current EU data protection framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b04.html (accessed 27 July 2018).

  2. 2.

    Both first instance and appeal: Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission [2004] ECR II-3291; C-519/04 P Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2006:492.

  3. 3.

    C309/99, J. C. J. Wouters, J. W. Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, [2002] ECR, I-1577.

  4. 4.

    Weatherill 2014, Chapter 11; where is the privacy in WADA’s whereabouts rule?

  5. 5.

    Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission appeal, para 27.

  6. 6.

    European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012, 2012/C 326/02. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b70.html (accessed 27 July 2018).

  7. 7.

    Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ 2016 L 119.

  8. 8.

    Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Data Protection Directive), OJ 1995 L 281.

  9. 9.

    Recitals 6 to 10 GDPR.

  10. 10.

    European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe, Handbook on European data protection law 2018, pp 29–30.

  11. 11.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data, 01248/07/EN, WP 136, 20 June 2007.

  12. 12.

    WP 136, 20 June 2007, p 13.

  13. 13.

    Recital 26 GDPR.

  14. 14.

    WP 136, 20 June 2007, p 15.

  15. 15.

    Skillicorn 2008; Larose 2006; Hildebrandt and Gutwirth 2008; Westphal 2009; Guzik 2009; Kuhn 1987; LaCour-Little 1999; Squires 2003.

  16. 16.

    See among others: Koot 2012.

  17. 17.

    Purtova 2018, p 47.

  18. 18.

    Ohm 2010.

  19. 19.

    Article 4(13) GDPR: ‘genetic data’ means personal data relating to the inherited or acquired genetic characteristics of a natural person which give unique information about the physiology or the health of that natural person and which result, in particular, from an analysis of a biological sample from the natural person in question.

  20. 20.

    Article 4(14) GDPR: ‘biometric data’ means personal data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person, such as facial images or dactyloscopic data.

  21. 21.

    Article 4(15) GDPR: ‘data concerning health’ means personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person, including the provision of health care services, which reveal information about his or her health status.

  22. 22.

    Hallinan and De Hert 2016.

  23. 23.

    Bygrave 2010; Jasserand 2016.

  24. 24.

    Article 4(2) GDPR.

  25. 25.

    Article 26 GDPR.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    See also on this point: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Opinion 1/2010 on the concepts of “controller” and “processor”’, 00264/10/EN WP 169, 16 February 2010.

  28. 28.

    Article 28 GDPR.

  29. 29.

    Article 29 Working Party, ‘Second opinion 4/2009 on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information, on related provisions of the WADA Code and on other privacy issues in the context of the fight against doping in sport by WADA and (national) anti-doping organizations’, WP162, (9 April 2009), p 3. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2009/wp162_en.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  30. 30.

    Article 3 GDPR.

  31. 31.

    OECD 2013, pp 13–14.

  32. 32.

    Article 5 GDPR.

  33. 33.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation’, WP203, 2 April 2013, p 16.

  34. 34.

    van der Sloot et al. 2017.

  35. 35.

    WP 29, Second Opinion 4/2009, p 8.

  36. 36.

    WP 29, Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation, p 4.

  37. 37.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Opinion 3/2008 on the World Anti-Doping Code Draft International Standard for the Protection of Privacy’, WP156, 1 August 2008, p 7.

  38. 38.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation’, WP203, 2 April 2013.

  39. 39.

    WP29, Second opinion 4/2009, p 12.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., p 15.

  41. 41.

    WADA, Protection of Privacy and Personal Information – amendments, June 2018. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/ispppi-final-en_final_redline.pdf (accessed 2 July 2018).

  42. 42.

    Article 25 GDPR.

  43. 43.

    Article 32 GDPR.

  44. 44.

    Article 33 GDPR.

  45. 45.

    Article 34 GDPR.

  46. 46.

    See Kornbeck 2016.

  47. 47.

    WADA (2016) Cyber Hack Update: Data leak concerning 26 athletes from 10 countries and 12 sports. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-09/cyber-hack-update-data-leak-concerning-26-athletes-from-10-countries-and-12 (accessed 23 August 2018).

  48. 48.

    WADA (2016) Cyber Hack Update: Data leak concerning 41 athletes from 13 countries and 17 sports. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-09/cyber-hack-update-data-leak-concerning-41-athletes-from-13-countries-and-17 (accessed 23 August 2018).

  49. 49.

    Ingle S (2016) WADA cyber attack: Williams sisters and Simone Biles targeted by Russian group.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/13/wada-russian-cyber-attack-espionage-group (accessed 23 August 2018).

  50. 50.

    Luhn A (2016) Fancy Bears origins unclear but Russia seizes chance to put boot into WADA. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/15/fancy-bears-hackers--russia-wada-tues-leaks (accessed 23 August 2018).

  51. 51.

    European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe 2018, pp 168–9.

  52. 52.

    Schedule 1 4.7 Principle 7 – Safeguards PIPEDA 2015.

  53. 53.

    PIPEDA, A guide for Businesses and Organizations: Privacy Toolkit, 2015, p 21.

  54. 54.

    WADA (2016) Cyber Security Update: WADA’s Incident Response. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-10/cyber-security-update-wadas-incident-response (accessed 9 November 2016).

  55. 55.

    Gallagher S (2016) Researchers find fake data in Olympic anti-doping, Guccifer 2.0 Clinton dumps. http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/10/researchers-find-fake-data-in-olympic-anti-doping-guccifer-2-0-clinton-dumps/ (accessed 9 November 2016).

  56. 56.

    Gallagher I (2012) Questions over Olympic anti-doping as athletes’ blood and urine samples are stored in the same fridge as couriers’ sandwiches and Coke. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187147/London-2012-Questions-Olympic-anti-doping-blood-urine-samples-stored-fridge-food.html (accessed 23 August 2018).

  57. 57.

    Article 6 GDPR.

  58. 58.

    Recital 32 GDPR.

  59. 59.

    Recital 43 GDPR.

  60. 60.

    WP29, Second opinion 4/2009, p 11.

  61. 61.

    Giesen 2009.

  62. 62.

    Comments to the Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation, AGENDA ITEM # 5.1 ATTACHMENT 1, at the meeting of the Monitoring Group (T-DO) of the CoE Anti-Doping Convention at the 28th T-PD plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 19–22 June 2012) Item_5_1_Attach_1_WADA_Comments_to_DP_Regulation-EU_Presidency_FINAL. This position was upheld at the WADA Executive Committee and Foundation Board (Montreal, 17–18 November 2012).

  63. 63.

    See van der Sloot et al. 2017, p 83.

  64. 64.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 15/2011 on the definition of consent, 01197/11/EN WP187, 13 July 2011.

  65. 65.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Opinion 06/2014 on the notion of legitimate interests of the data controller under Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC’ (WP217, 9 April 2014), p 16.

  66. 66.

    https://www.trans-lex.org/400200/_/pecl/#head_0; https://www.trans-lex.org/918000/_/freedom-of-contract/; https://www.trans-lex.org/920000/_/contractual-consent/. (accessed 23 August 2018).

  67. 67.

    WADA, ‘Legitimacy of Anti-Doping’ (17 June 2009), p 1. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Legitimacy_of_AntiDoping_20090617.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  68. 68.

    WP 29, Opinion 3/2008, WP156, p 5.

  69. 69.

    Vermeersch 2006, para 3; regarding the UNESCO Convention, it appears that although there is no immediate direct effect, some have argued that through legislative action at a national level, it could become a tool for the vulnerable athletes to defend their rights and against abuse in anti-doping circumstances. See Straubel 2008, and Birren and Robyn 2017.

  70. 70.

    WADA (2016) ‘WADA and its Partners Keep the Spotlight on Clean Sport at 2016 Sport Accord Convention’. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-04/wada-and-its-partners-keep-the-spotlight-on-clean-sport-at-2016-sportaccord. (accessed 23 August 2018).

  71. 71.

    See Kelly et al. 2017.

  72. 72.

    Court of Justice, David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission of the European Communities, Case C-519/04, 18 July 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492.

  73. 73.

    WP 29, Second Opinion 4/2009, p 11.

  74. 74.

    Article 6 GDPR.

  75. 75.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Opinion 06/2014 on the notion of legitimate interests of the data controller under Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC’ (WP217, 9 April 2014), p 15.

  76. 76.

    WP 29, Second Opinion 4/2009.

  77. 77.

    Article 9(2) GDPR.

  78. 78.

    Recital 56 GDPR.

  79. 79.

    Article 9(2)(b) GDPR.

  80. 80.

    Giesen 2009, p 2.

  81. 81.

    Article 9(2)(h)–(i) GDPR.

  82. 82.

    See also: Article 9(3) GDPR.

  83. 83.

    Recitals 52–54 GDPR.

  84. 84.

    WP29, Opinion 3/2008, WP156, 6.

  85. 85.

    Court of Justice, Bodil Lindqvist, case C-101/01, 6 November 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:596.

  86. 86.

    EDPS, ‘Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the data protection reform package, p 18.’ https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/12-03-07_edps_reform_package_en.pdf (accessed 29 July 2018).

  87. 87.

    EDPS, ‘The transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations by EU institutions and bodies’, Position Paper, 2014, p 7. https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/12-03-07_edps_reform_package_en.pdf (accessed 29 July 2018).

  88. 88.

    WADA, List of organizations that use ADAMS. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/list-of-organizations-using-adams (accessed 29 July 2018).

  89. 89.

    Article 45(1) GDPR.

  90. 90.

    Article 45(2) GDPR.

  91. 91.

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/international-transfers/adequacy/index_en.htm. (accessed 23 August 2018).

  92. 92.

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/international-transfers/adequacy/third-countries-faq/index_en.htm. (accessed 23 August 2018).

  93. 93.

    Division 13 of Part 3 amends PIPEDA to establish that the Act applies to WADA's international and interprovincial collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Specifically, section 4 of PIPEDA (which sets out the application of the Act) is being amended to provide that the Act applies to organizations listed in Schedule 4, in respect of the personal information that is referred to in the Schedule. The amendment creates Schedule 4 and includes WADA in respect of personal information that the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of its inter-provincial or international activities. The amendment also gives the Governor in Council the authority to amend the Schedule by Order. Department of Finance Canada, ‘Bill C-59 - Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1 - Part 3: Various Measures’ http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/c59/03-eng.asp See also: Letter from Privacy Commissioner of Canada to Joseph A. Day, Senator and James Rajotte, M.P. (1 June 2015) http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/412/FINA/WebDoc/WD7992837/412_FINA_C-59_Briefs%5COfficeOfThePrivacyCommissionerOfCanada-e.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  94. 94.

    Consolidation: Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.C. 2000, c. 5) Schedule 4.

    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/page-14.html#h-29 (accessed 23 August 2018)

  95. 95.

    Article 46(2), (3) GDPR.

  96. 96.

    Article 45 GDPR; Article 29 Working Party, ‘Working Document on a common interpretation of Article 26(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995’ (WP114, 25 November 2005).

  97. 97.

    Agreement for the Sharing of Information (13 July 2016). https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_adams_user_agreement_ado_version_2015.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  98. 98.

    Article 40 GDPR.

  99. 99.

    Article 42 GDPR.

  100. 100.

    WADA Comments on Article 29 Working Party Second Opinion [3.4]. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Comments_WP29_FullVersion.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  101. 101.

    WADA, ‘WADA Statement About the Opinion of European Working Party on Data Protection’. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Statement_WP29_EN.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  102. 102.

    Article 49(1) GDPR.

  103. 103.

    Article 49(2) GDPR.

  104. 104.

    WADA, ‘Anti-Doping and International Transfers’ (17 June 2009). https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_AntiDopingInternationalTransfers_20090617.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  105. 105.

    WP 29, Second Opinion 4/2009, p 14.

  106. 106.

    Article 49(1)(f) GDPR.

  107. 107.

    Article 49(4) GDPR.

  108. 108.

    WP 29, Second Opinion 4/2009, p 14.

  109. 109.

    See recitals 111, 112 and 113 GDPR.

  110. 110.

    Article 30(1) GDPR.

  111. 111.

    Article 30(2) GDPR.

  112. 112.

    See van der Sloot et al. 2017, p 102.

  113. 113.

    Article 35 GDPR.

  114. 114.

    Recitals 92–93 GDPR.

  115. 115.

    Article 36 GDPR.

  116. 116.

    WP248, 4 April 2017.

  117. 117.

    Article 35(3) GDPR.

  118. 118.

    Article 37 GDPR.

  119. 119.

    Article 29 Working Party ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (DPOs)’ (WP243, adopted 13 December 2016, revised 5 April 2017).

  120. 120.

    Ibid.

  121. 121.

    Article 38 GDPR.

  122. 122.

    Article 39(1) GDPR.

  123. 123.

    Teetzel 2007, p 165.

  124. 124.

    Article 13(1) and 13(2) GDPR.

  125. 125.

    See van der Sloot et al. 2017, p 102.

  126. 126.

    See: Article 14(5) GDPR.

  127. 127.

    Article 16 GDPR.

  128. 128.

    https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/athlete_information_notice_20181219_en.docx; https://www.wada-ama.org/en/adams-privacy-policy-archive. (accessed 23 August 2018).

  129. 129.

    See further: Article 29 Working Party, ‘Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679’, 17/EN, WP251rev.01.

  130. 130.

    WADA, Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Operating Guidelines. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/guidelines_abp_v6_2017_jan_en.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).

  131. 131.

    See van der Sloot et al. 2017, p 103.

  132. 132.

    Article 14.3.1 WADC.

  133. 133.

    Articles 14.3.2 and 14.3.6 WADC.

  134. 134.

    Article 14.3.3 WADC.

References

Literature

  • Birren GFE, Robyn L (2017) Whatever Happened to the International Convention Against Doping in Sport: The United States Ratified It, But Then What? DePaul J. Sports L. & Contemp. Probs. 13:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave LA (2010) The Body as Data? Biobank Regulation via the ‘Back Door’ of Data Protection Law. Law, Innovation and Technology 2(1):1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giesen T (2009) Expert opinion on Opinion 3/2008 issued by the “Article 29 Data Protection Working Group” of the European Commission regarding the Draft of an International Data Protection Standard of the World Anti-Doping Code dated 1 August 2008. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_ISPP_German_Legal_Opinion_EN.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2018.

  • Guzik K (2009) Discrimination by Design: Data Mining in the United States’s “War on Terrorism”. Surveillance & Society 7(1):1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinan D, De Hert P (2016) Many Have it Wrong – Samples Contain Personal Data: The Data Protection Regulation as a Superior Framework to Protect Donor Interests in Biobanking and Genomic Research. In: Mittelstadt B, Floridi L (eds) The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 29. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt M, Gutwirth S (eds) (2008) Profiling the European Citizen Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasserand C (2016) Legal Nature of Biometric Data: From ‘Generic’ Personal Data to Sensitive Data: Which Changes Does the New Data Protection Framework Introduce? European Data Protection Law Review 2(3):297–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly VG, Leveritt MD, Brennan CT, Slater GJ, Jenkins DG (2017) Prevalence, knowledge and attitudes relating to β-alanine use among professional footballers. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 20:12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koot MR (2012) Measuring and Predicting Anonymity. Informatics Institute, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornbeck J (2016) Anti-doping governance and transparency: A European perspective. International Sports Law Journal 16:118–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn P (1987) Sex discrimination in labor markets: The role of statistical evidence. The American Economic Review 77(4):567–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaCour-Little M (1999) Discrimination in mortgage lending: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Real Estate Literature 7(1):15–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larose DT (2006) Data Mining Methods and Models. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohm P (2010) Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization. UCLA Law Review 57:1701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purtova N (2018) The Law of Everything. Broad Concept of Personal Data and Future of EU Data Protection Law. Law, Innovation and Technology 10(1):40–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skillicorn D (2008) Knowledge Discovery for Counterterrorism and Law Enforcement. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squires GD (2003) Racial profiling, insurance style: Insurance redlining and the uneven development of metropolitan areas. Journal of Urban Affairs 25(4):391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straubel M (2008) The International Convention Against Doping in Sport: Is It the Missing Link to USADA Being a State Actor and WADC Coverage of U.S. Pro Athletes? Marq. Sports L. Rev. 19:63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teetzel S (2007) Respecting privacy in detecting illegitimate enhancements in athletes. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1(2):159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sloot B, Paun M, Leenes R, McNally P, Ypma P (2017) Anti-Doping & Data Protection. European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeersch A (2006) The European Union and the fight against doping in sport: on the field or on the sidelines? The Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 4(1):4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2014) European Sports Law, 2nd edn. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westphal C (2009) Data Mining for Intelligence, Fraud & Criminal Detection. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

    Google Scholar 

WADA’s and Other Institution’s Official Documents and Websites

Case Law

  • Court of Justice (2002), J. C. J. Wouters, J. W. Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, C309/99, [2002] ECR, I-1577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice (2003), Bodil Lindqvist, case C-101/01, 6 November 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice (2004), Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, case T-313/02 [2004] ECR II-3291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice (2006), Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, C-519/04 P [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:492.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Bart van der Sloot, Mara Paun & Ronald Leenes

Authors
  1. Bart van der Sloot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mara Paun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald Leenes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart van der Sloot .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van der Sloot, B., Paun, M., Leenes, R. (2020). Looking at the Anti-Doping Regime Through the EU Data Protection Lens. In: Athletes’ Human Rights and the Fight Against Doping: A Study of the European Legal Framework. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-351-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-351-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-350-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-351-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation