Icon: enlarge
Urine samples in an anti-doping laboratory: "Sanction decisions must be communicated"
Photo: FRANCK FIFE / AFP
Transparency is of fundamental importance in the fight against doping - this is what everyone involved emphasizes again and again.
But what if the drive for transparency meets German data protection?
Then there is a conflict: The German National Anti-Doping Agency (Nada) recently had to take its doping offender database offline after an athlete lodged a complaint with the State Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information.
At Nada they are disappointed: »In our opinion, the interests of an individual athlete will be affected
placed above the protection of all uninvolved, clean athletes from unjustified doping allegations.
Sanction decisions have to be communicated in order to be comprehensible, «Nada informs SPIEGEL upon request.
Since 2016, Nada had listed all completed disciplinary proceedings in the event of a violation of anti-doping regulations in the database.
The type and date of the violation, the prohibited substance or method and the sanctions were published there.
The first name and the first letter of the surname of the doping offenders could also be read there.
After the statute of limitations, the entries were deleted.
Judgments against minors were not reported.
"The database setting is unsatisfactory"
The data protection officers of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, who confirmed a complaint against the publications to SPIEGEL, said: According to our current assessment, there is no legal basis according to which sanction decisions can be published on the Internet without restriction that make the person sanctioned identifiable, for example by naming the Name and / or other personal information. "
From the athlete's point of view, both points of view are justified: "We fundamentally welcome the fact that Nada attaches great importance to data protection and the personal rights of the athletes," the Association of Athletes Germany told SPIEGEL.
However: »At the same time, the database settings are unsatisfactory for many athletes.
They want transparent reporting on doping proceedings, not least because the naming of individual doping sinners prevents the clean athletes from being placed under general suspicion. "
The preliminary assessment by the data protection officers now occupies the Nada lawyers.
According to their own statements, they had submitted a number of legal bases that were intended to justify the publication.
The anti-doping law or the international convention against doping in sport were cited.
Publication is expressly provided for in the Nada Code.
There it says: "20 days after the decision that an anti-doping rule violation has become final, the anti-doping organization responsible for results management should publish the decision [...]".
Nada reserves the right to appeal
However, none of this let the data protectionists, who insisted on the data protection regulation and, in addition to a case-by-case examination, also demand that personal data be made illegible, deviate from their assessment.
However, the authority's review process has not yet been completed.
The Anti-Doping Agency announced that it would continue to inform competent bodies such as tournament organizers and associations about completed procedures, regardless of the database.
And she wants to discuss the topic with other European anti-doping organizations (NADOs) as well as the anti-doping bodies of the Council of Europe and the world anti-doping agency Wada.
"The aim is to establish a uniform and generally binding publication practice in Europe, taking into account the requirements of data protection," reports Nada.
It also reserves "all legal remedies against a negative review decision of the supervisory authorities for the anti-doping work of Nada in Germany."
Apparently there is support from the World Anti-Doping Agency: Wada and Nada are therefore of the same opinion that this is an "important component of a unified anti-doping work".
In addition, Nada referred to other European countries, where much more extensive information would be made available.
The data protection officers continue to rely on dialogue: In principle, the state officer regards his control tasks as advisory rather than repressive.
The authority endeavors to reach agreement on how to proceed, primarily through consultation.
And: "As a further possibility, the topic is planned to be discussed more broadly at the conference of the independent data protection authorities of the federal and state governments (data protection conference) at European level."
Icon: The mirror