Normative Analysis: Regulatory Critique of Match Fixing Crimes in the 2018-2019 Liga 2 Football Competition.

Abstract

The global anti-doping regime, as codified in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s World Anti Doping Code (WADC),is fundamentally structured around the principle of strict liability, under which athletes are held responsible for prohibited substances detected in their bodies irrespective of intent or fault. While this approach enhances harmonization, deterrence, and regulatory efficiency, it has generated sustained legal debate concerning proportionality, due process, and the protection of athletes fundamental rights.This study employs a doctrinal legal methodology combined with an analysis of selected decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to examine the normativ justification and practical implications of strict liability within the 2021 WADC framework. Particular attention is given to the allocation of burden of proof, evidentiary standards, and sanction mitigation mechanisms.The analysis demonstrates that although strict liability remains essential to maintaining uniformity and enforceability in global anti-doping governance, its legitimacy depends on the consistent application of proportionality principles and fault based sanction reductions. Inconsistent interpretative approaches within CAS jurisprudence revealongoing tension between regulatory harmonization and individualized justice.This article argues that a recalibrated proportionality framework-supported by clearer mitigation criteria and strengthened procedural safeguards is necessary top reserve both competitive integrity and legal legitimacy within the anti doping system. By situating strict liability within the broader architecture of global sports law, this study contributes to the development of a more balanced and rights sensitive anti doping regime.