Should Doping Be a Crime? Our 2017 Opinion to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports

In June 2017, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports sought an opinion on a specific question: is it viable to enact legislation that makes doping a criminal offence in India? AM Sports Law provided that opinion. Eight years on, with India still ranking among the top nations for anti-doping rule violations, the question remains live.

Our conclusion in 2017 was nuanced. Criminalisation has a role to play — but only as part of a comprehensive anti-doping ecosystem, not as a substitute for one. Let me explain why.

The Stakeholder Landscape

Effective anti-doping requires not one institution but a network of them, each with clearly defined responsibilities. MYAS must maintain India's reputation through clean participation. NADA must implement the WADA Code and ensure athlete, coach and support staff awareness. The National Anti-Doping Laboratory must test samples to international standards. Medical doctors must not prescribe prohibited substances and must educate athletes about Therapeutic Use Exemptions. Physical education teachers in schools must embed clean sport values early. NSFs must ensure their sports are governed fairly. Coaches and support staff must not possess or provide prohibited substances.

India's problem in 2017 — and to a significant extent today — was not the absence of law, but the absence of education, implementation, and coordination across this network. Young athletes at national camps were routinely unaware of the anti-doping rules. Coaches lacked training on what they could and could not prescribe. AYUSH supplements were not systematically tested for prohibited substances.

International Models for Criminalisation

Several countries have criminalised aspects of doping — typically the trafficking or administration of prohibited substances to athletes, rather than the use of such substances by athletes themselves. France, Italy, Spain and Denmark each have criminal provisions relating to doping. The UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport encourages states to adopt legislative measures, but does not prescribe criminalisation.

The key distinction is between athlete use and athlete supply. Criminalising an athlete who unknowingly consumed a contaminated supplement is disproportionate and likely counterproductive — it would deter athletes from self-reporting and drive doping underground. Criminalising coaches, doctors, and support staff who knowingly administer prohibited substances to athletes is a different matter entirely. That conduct is both morally egregious and already analogous to existing criminal offences involving assault or endangerment.

Our Recommended Approach

Our 2017 opinion recommended a graduated approach. The first priority must be building the non-criminal infrastructure: comprehensive anti-doping education at national camps and schools, systematic testing of AYUSH products for prohibited substances, multilingual educational materials for athletes and coaches, and coordination between NADA, SAI, NSFs, and the Ministry of AYUSH. These are not exciting headlines. But they are the interventions that would reduce the doping caseload in India most materially.

Criminalisation should be targeted and proportionate: criminal liability for coaches, doctors, and support staff who knowingly supply or administer prohibited substances to athletes. Not for athletes who are the victims of such conduct. And not as a substitute for the education and institutional investment that India's anti-doping framework still lacks.

Where We Are Now

Eight years after our opinion, India has made progress — NADA has improved its testing infrastructure, NDTL has achieved WADA accreditation, and awareness has increased at elite levels. But at the grassroots level, the awareness deficit remains real. The Narsingh Yadav case, the continuing high volume of Indian violations in WADA reports, and the gap in AYUSH supplement regulation all point to unfinished work. The question of criminalisation remains worth debating — but the debate must not distract from the more urgent task of building the institutional foundations on which any anti-doping regime, criminal or otherwise, depends.