Roundtable Summary: Anti-doping and Safeguarding
Safeguarding and Anti-Doping: Towards a Healthy Sport Journey
14th April 2026 | Online | Kyniska Advocacy
“These athletes need support and deserve support, and no one is informing them where
it is safe to go and who is safe to go to”
Roundtable Participant
Context:
On 14 April 2026, Kyniska Advocacy convened a small multi-stakeholder roundtable bringing together approximately 20 participants across research, policy, anti-doping practice, safeguarding, and athlete advocacy. Held in proximity to WADA’s ‘Play True Day’, the session deliberately broadened the conversation beyond anti-doping’s traditional integrity and compliance framing to explore the intersections between anti-doping and safeguarding, and to centre the athlete experience.
The roundtable formed part of Kyniska Advocacy’s ‘Area of Exploration’ on Maltreatment and Doping in Sport, and the insights gathered will directly inform a forthcoming public report and recommendations.
The session opened with athlete testimony from an elite athlete who described his experience of anti-doping processes and the isolation, financial pressure, media exposure, impact on performance and lack of institutional support they encountered throughout. This was followed by reflections from a former Anti-doping Athlete Support Personnel on patterns seen across athletes navigating the anti-doping process from around the world. Together, these accounts grounded what followed in lived experience and anchored the discussion in the very real consequences of a system that does not work to protect athletes.
The discussion was held under Chatham House Rules. All contributions have been anonymised in this summary.
Emerging Themes
1.The anti-doping process causes harm, and the system is not designed to recognise it.
A central thread across all parts of the discussion was that harm does not only occur through doping itself, but through the anti-doping process. Participants described a consistent pattern: the moment a provisional suspension is issued, athletes are effectively cut off from everything that supports them. Coaches, teammates, training facilities, sponsors, and national federations all disengage due to rules of engagement set out in WADA code, often immediately, even before any violation has been established.
A recurring argument emerged around Article 10.14.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code, which governs the status of athletes during a period of ineligibility. Several participants argued that this article, and its application from the moment of an adverse analytical finding, before any violation has been established, forces organisations to distance themselves from the athlete. Anti-doping organisations, national federations, coaches, and athlete support personnel all risk being found non-compliant if they are perceived as providing active support to an athlete under investigation.
This isolation was described as compounding the original harm. Athletes lose their support system when they need it most, face legal processes without legal aid, mental health consequences without support, and public scrutiny without any ability to respond.
Participants were clear that the current system was not designed to protect athletes. It was designed in the aftermath of a cycling scandal to protect sport. That founding logic continues to shape everything from how sanctions are communicated to how investigation processes are run, and it does not include a duty of care to the individual at its centre.
2. Most athletes in the process are not intentional cheats, but are treated as though they are.
Participants noted that the majority of cases they encounter involve inadvertent doping: contaminated supplements, changed prescriptions, lack of knowledge of the rules, or minute traces of a substance that falls below meaningful thresholds. Yet, the system treats all adverse analytical findings with the same initial presumption and the same stigmatising communication.
Where doping is intentional, the discussion also surfaced a more complex picture: athletes who dope often do so under conditions such as coercive coaching environments, national doping programmes, or situations in which the power imbalance between athlete and support personnel removes agency. Participants emphasised that the question “what did they take?” is insufficient without also asking “who put them in that position, and why?”
3. Language, rhetoric, and media cause lasting and largely unaddressed harm.
Participants drew on research into media representations of doping cases to articulate a clear pattern: anti-doping cases are consistently framed around cheating, scandal, and moral failure, regardless of whether the underlying facts support that framing.
Media harm was identified as operating at two levels: in individual cases, where premature or inaccurate reporting causes immediate and lasting reputational damage; and at the systemic level, where persistent “clean versus dirty” framing shapes public understanding in ways that make nuance, due process, and complexity very difficult to communicate.
There was broad agreement that attempting to educate or regulate journalists directly is unlikely to be effective. The more actionable lever is information and data security: limiting who has access to case information at what stage, and giving athletes and their representatives agency over when and how information enters the public domain.
4. Athlete voice is structurally excluded, and evidence is not translating into change.
Researchers on the call described the difficulty reaching athletes willing to share their experiences of anti-doping sanctions, not because of distrust in researchers, but because of distrust in whether anything will change as a result. Athletes have shared their stories before, but very little has changed as a result which is shaping athletes' engagement with researchers at all.
Participants also noted that the voices included in anti-doping governance are not representative: athletes from the Global South, athletes who are not fluent in English or French, athletes who are not affiliated with well-resourced unions or commissions, are all structurally removed from athlete engagement efforts. CAS hearings, one participant noted, have involved harassment and micro-aggression directed at athletes from these contexts. The question of which athlete voices are being heard, and which are not, was identified as one that the field has not adequately addressed.
An emerging approach discussed was co-creation, rather than conducting research and then presenting findings to policymakers. Bringing policymakers, federations, and decision-making bodies into the research process itself could result in recommendations carrying institutional ownership.
5. Duty of care must be extended, and actioned through independent delivery.
Participants challenged the distinction between a “duty of care” and a “culture of care,” arguing that the former without the latter produces policy that exists on paper but fails in practice. The mindset of anti-doping, shaped by decades of a strict-liability mindset, does not easily accommodate the idea that the organisation investigating a violation might also have an obligation to the wellbeing of the person being investigated.
This tension between upholding integrity of sport and care for the athlete goes to the heart of how anti-doping organisations are staffed, what expertise they hold, and who they see as their primary constituency. Participants noted that many anti-doping departments are dominated by legal and scientific expertise, with few staff holding the skills needed to recognise harm when it is present, and respond to it appropriately. (psychology, social work, child protection, or trauma-informed practice). The independence of support was raised repeatedly as non-negotiable. Athletes do not trust the body investigating them to also provide their support.
Recommendations
The following recommendations reflect the key proposals that emerged from participant contributions across the session.
A. Reform the WADA Code to enable support, not prevent it
Revise Article 10.14.4 of the WADA Code to remove the provisions that discourage or prohibit organisations and individuals from providing support to athletes during a period of ineligibility or provisional suspension. The current text effectively compels abandonment of the athlete. Reform should create space for legitimate support without triggering non-compliance.
Delay the point at which the restrictive provisions of ineligibility take effect, so that athletes retain access to support networks, facilities, and professional contracts during the results management and investigation phase, rather than from the moment of an adverse analytical finding.
Clarify and strengthen the rehabilitation provisions, providing practical guidance that enables organisations to provide support without ambiguity about whether doing so constitutes non-compliance.
B. Establish mandatory, independent welfare support from the moment of notification
Require that any athlete notified of an adverse analytical finding receives a mandatory welfare contact within 48 hours from an independent body. This call should provide emotional support, signposting, and clarity on what happens next.
Ensure that independent support includes access to psychological support, legal advice (including pro bono options), and financial guidance, regardless of the athlete’s resources or country of origin.
Require that support providers are staffed by professionals with expertise in psychology, social work, child protection, or human rights.
Extend support to athletes who receive an adverse analytical finding but are not ultimately sanctioned, and to athlete support personnel and teammates who may be significantly affected by a case.
C. Embed safeguarding expertise and a culture of care within anti-doping institutions
Require WADA, International Federations, and National Anti-Doping Organisations to include staff with safeguarding and welfare expertise within their integrity and results management functions.
Require that testing personnel, hearing panels, results management officers, and anyone involved in anti-doping investigations receive training in trauma-informed approaches, coercion, and athlete welfare to support recognising instances of abuse and harm.
Embed child and adult safeguarding requirements within the WADA framework, with particular attention to younger and young adult athletes. Vulnerability does not end at 18, and the dependencies that characterise elite sport environments mean that athletes at pre-peak performance level require specific protections.
D. Investigate context, not only substance
Reform investigation processes to require enquiry into the context and circumstances of a possible violation, including whether coercion, abuse of power, or institutional pressure may have been a factor. The system as currently designed asks what was taken; it should also ask who was involved, and under what conditions.
Introduce meaningful differentiation in how cases are handled based on substance category, degree of intent, and contextual vulnerability, rather than applying the same initial presumptions and communication protocols across all adverse analytical findings.
Shift the emphasis of global anti-doping work toward intelligence-led, non-analytical investigations, which are more likely to identify systematic and institutional doping, rather than over-reliance on testing of individual athletes, which disproportionately catches inadvertent cases.
E. Strengthen information governance and athlete privacy
Review and restrict the circumstances in which provisional suspension or adverse analytical finding notifications are published. In most cases, public notification before a violation has been established does irreversible damage to athletes who are subsequently exonerated.
Require auditable records of who has access to case information at each stage of the process, and introduce accountability mechanisms when confidential information is leaked.
Develop clear guidance on communications protocols across anti-doping organisations, national federations, and national governing bodies when a case is live, so that athletes are not blindsided by media coverage and organisations are not reacting in ways that compound harm.
F. Ensure athlete voices shape the system and research translates into action
Move beyond consultation to co-creation: bring athletes, athlete support personnel, and people with lived experience of anti-doping sanctions into the design of policy recommendations, not only as respondents to research, but as partners in developing the outputs.
Address the geographical and linguistic gaps in athlete engagement: support, hearing processes, research participation, and governance structures should be accessible to athletes from all regions.
Create accountability mechanisms that track whether research findings and athlete testimony are acted upon. Athletes who share their experiences must be able to see that doing so results in change; without that, engagement with research and reform processes will continue to decline.
G. Develop specific protections for groups facing particular vulnerability
Develop specific provisions within anti-doping protocols for pregnant athletes, athletes undergoing IVF or egg freezing, and others whose physiological conditions may produce misleading test result readings or for whom standard testing procedures present particular challenges.
Design age-differentiated safeguarding provisions that recognise the distinct vulnerabilities of under-18 athletes and young adults, with appropriate involvement of parents or guardians, and safeguards against the coercive dynamics that can operate within elite coaching environments
Next steps
The insights and recommendations captured in this summary will inform Kyniska Advocacy’s forthcoming public report on safeguarding and anti-doping.
Kyniska Advocacy would like to thank all participants for their time and expertise. The breadth and quality of the contributions made this a genuinely generative session.
