Avvägningen mellan antidopingkontroll och idrottares integritet - Whereabouts i ljuset av artikel 8 i EKMR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WADA is responsible for the anti-doping work within the world of sports. The work mainly consists of creating harmonized anti-doping policies that span multiple sports and countries. More specifically the organization of WADA maintains a list of prohibited substances that the athletes must not be caught using. Additionally, they developed a doping testing system and invented a surveillance system whereby athletes need to provide information on where they live, perform trainings and other daily activities, as well as where they will be sleeping every night for the next quarter of the year. Furthermore, athletes must report a time slot of 60 minutes daily where they must be fully available at a pre-defined location to be tested. This is called the whereabouts system. A part of being a top athlete means being fully prepared for a visit from a doping control officer during the time slot or during practice and competition. However, based on the information provided on the athlete, WADA also conducts unannounced testing, so called out of competition testing, and can therefore show up at any time of the day without notifying the athlete beforehand. If an athlete fails to report its whereabouts or if the athlete cannot be found at the specified location, he or she may be suspended from the sport. This invasion of the athlete’s privacy has sparked significant concerns about its alignment with human rights. This paper aims to examine whether the whereabouts system is compatible with the right to privacy in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a case from the European Court of Human Rights on the matter where the court, with only a brief statement of reasons, assisted WADA and accepted whereabouts. This case will be reviewed and analyzed. The findings of the essay are that whereabouts infringes on athletes right to privacy, but that there are legitimate purposes that justify the measure. Despite this, it seems difficult to fully say that whereabouts is compatible with the exception in article 8.2 of the ECHR. Moreover, developments at WADA seem to indicate that whereabouts, and where the system is heading, should not be seen as compatible with article 8 ECHR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.072 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".