The 2027 World Anti-Doping Code is changing Australia's anti-doping system. The significance goes well beyond catching drug cheats.
Australian sport is preparing for another significant change in its anti-doping arrangements.
On 1 January 2027, the revised World Anti-Doping Code and associated International Standards will come into effect. The changes address a range of issues, including athlete rights, proportionality, the treatment of minors, privacy, results management and the independence of anti-doping decision-making.
In Australia, the Commonwealth Government introduced the Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026 on 17 September 2026. The Bill passed both Houses of Parliament on 15 October 2026, ahead of the new Code's commencement.
The Bill amends the Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) Act to implement the following Code revisions:
allow athletes to seek review by the National Sports Tribunal (NST), as Australia’s national-level appeal body, of decisions by the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee (ASDMAC) to deny a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) (instead of the ASDMAC review panel);
alter the process by which mandatory and voluntary provisional sanctions (provisional suspensions) and consequences of assertions (sanctions) are implemented to meet the new National Anti-Doping Organisation (NADO) operational independence requirements imposed on SIA by the Code. As a result of those operational independence requirements, these now need to be imposed by SIA as the NADO; and
provide an additional exception to mandatory publication on SIA’s Violations List, where the SIA Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is satisfied that the individual had No Fault or Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV).
The Bill also amends the definition of ‘athlete’ in the SIA Act to align with the revised WADA Code by removing the requirement for a person to be considered an athlete under the SIA Act for the six-month period following when they last competed in sport.
The Bill also makes amendments to the NST Act to ensure compliance with the 2027 Code and Standards. These complement changes in the SIA Act and SIA Regulations by allowing athletes to seek review by the NST, as Australia’s national-level appeal body, of ASDMAC decisions to deny a TUE. The amendments to the NST Act also specify that, for anti-doping disputes that do not concern a TUE, the parties to those disputes must at least include the SIA CEO and the person who is the subject of the dispute. This amends the previous requirement for the parties to anti-doping disputes to include the SIA CEO, the relevant sporting body, and the person who is the subject of the dispute. This change is a consequence of the fact that the SIA CEO will now issue sanctions in accordance with the new NADO operational independence requirements imposed by the Code.
Of particular interest to me is the proposed transfer of responsibility for imposing anti-doping consequences from individual sporting organisations to Sport Integrity Australia (SIA). This is more than an administrative change.
It reflects a fundamental governance question that extends beyond anti-doping:
Should the sporting organisation responsible for protecting its competition also be responsible for deciding what happens to an athlete accused of breaking the rules?
1. The problem with sports policing themselves
Historically, sporting organisations have played an important role in the administration and enforcement of anti-doping rules. However, there is an inherent tension when an organisation is responsible both for promoting and protecting its sport and for managing disciplinary consequences involving its participants.
Consider an athlete accused of committing an anti-doping rule violation. The athlete's sporting organisation may have a legitimate interest in maintaining public confidence, protecting commercial partners, preserving relationships with international federations, and demonstrating its commitment to clean sport. Those interests are not improper.
They may, however, create actual, potential or perceived conflicts when the organisation is also involved in determining the consequences of the alleged violation.
Conversely, a sporting organisation may face pressure to protect an important athlete, team or competitive outcome.
The question is not whether sporting organisations are inherently incapable of acting fairly. It is whether the institutional arrangements provide sufficient independence, transparency and accountability to maintain confidence in the decisions being made.
2. Moving towards greater independence
The 2027 reforms are intended to strengthen the operational independence of anti-doping systems.
Australia's legislative changes provide for SIA to assume greater responsibility for imposing consequences, alongside changes to provisional suspension arrangements and other aspects of the national anti-doping regime. This is a significant development.
Removing relevant decision-making responsibilities from individual sports can reduce the potential for institutional conflicts and improve consistency across the sporting sector. However, independence alone is not enough.
An effective disciplinary system must also provide:
clear authority to make decisions;
appropriate separation of regulatory and adjudicative functions;
procedural fairness for affected athletes;
consistent application of the relevant rules;
reasoned and reviewable decisions; and
proportionate sanctions within the applicable legal framework.
Centralising powers within a national regulator may address some conflicts, but it does not automatically resolve every question about fairness, accountability or due process.
Those questions remain essential.
3. Athlete rights are integrity rights
Another important aspect of the 2027 changes is the greater recognition of athlete rights.
The revised Code seeks to strengthen fairness and proportionality, including through reforms concerning minors, vulnerable participants, case resolution and sanctions. Australia's legislative amendments also expand access to review of certain TUE decisions. The reforms provide a pathway for athletes to seek review by the NSTof decisions by the ASDMAC to deny a TUE.
This matters because an athlete's use of a prohibited substance may, in some circumstances, be medically necessary. A robust anti-doping system must protect clean competition without unnecessarily compromising legitimate medical treatment or the procedural rights of athletes.
Likewise, the consequences of publicly identifying an athlete in connection with an anti-doping violation can extend well beyond sporting participation. Privacy, reputation, welfare and the particular vulnerabilities of children and young people need to be properly considered. The proposed changes to publication requirements recognise this tension.
Protecting the integrity of sport should never be understood as requiring the abandonment of the rights of those who participate in it. Indeed, a system that disregards those rights risks undermining the very integrity it is intended to protect.
4. The wider lesson for sports integrity
What interests me most about the anti-doping reforms is their relevance to the broader sports integrity system.
Australian sport has increasingly adopted centralised integrity policy frameworks, independent investigations, external tribunals and specialist integrity personnel. But responsibility for administering those systems can remain fragmented.
In some cases, sporting organisations retain considerable control over the appointment of investigators, the assessment of evidence, the determination of breaches, and the imposition of disciplinary outcomes. Some of these arrangements may be appropriate, depending on the policy and the circumstances.
However, where the organisation has a direct interest in the subject matter or outcome of a disciplinary proceeding, the independence of the decision-making process becomes particularly important.
The question of who investigates is important.
The questions of who determines whether misconduct has occurred, who decides the appropriate sanction, and who hears any appeal are equally important.
And the answers should be established before a serious allegation arises — not designed retrospectively in response to a crisis.
5. What should sporting boards be doing now?
The revised Code commences on 1 January 2027. SIA has identified October to December 2026 as the period during which relevant sporting organisations need to approve and adopt the revised Australian National Anti-Doping Policy (ANADP), make necessary governance changes and prepare participants for the new arrangements.
Boards should be ensuring that their organisation:
understands the changes to responsibilities and decision-making powers;
properly adopts the revised policy in accordance with its constitutional and governance requirements;
updates relevant instruments, procedures and participant communications;
provides appropriate education to athletes and support personnel; and
understands the applicable processes for provisional suspensions, sanctions, reviews and appeals.
These are not tasks that should be delegated to an administrator simply to achieve compliance before the deadline. They concern the proper allocation of legal responsibility within the sport.
Conclusion: Independence is part of integrity
The 2027 anti-doping reforms are an important evolution of Australia's sports integrity framework.
Greater independence, more consistent decision-making, stronger procedural protections and improved recognition of athlete rights should be welcomed. But the broader principle should not be lost. Sporting organisations have legitimate interests in protecting their competitions, participants and reputations.
Those interests do not necessarily make them the most appropriate bodies to determine every disciplinary outcome.
The integrity of a sporting competition depends not only on participants following the rules, but also on the independence and fairness of those who enforce them. That principle applies to doping.
It also applies to virtually every other integrity matter Australian sport is required to manage.
Key references
