Olympic Disqualifications: Doping, Politics, Ethics, and Rules

The following is a guest post by Sara Tolić , a foreign law intern working with Foreign Law Specialist Jenny Gesley in the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress. **

Like many of you, I watched with fascination the recent 2026 Winter Olympic Games. For many athletes, the Olympic Games represent the pinnacle of their careers. The prospect of winning an Olympic medal is a lifelong aspiration for most competitors. This dream though can quickly be shattered by a disqualification from the Olympics. Throughout the 55 Olympic Games held to date, numerous athletes have been disqualified for a variety of reasons. This overview examines the principal grounds for disqualifications, drawing on cases that have occurred over the years. The competent body for making disqualification decisions is either the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the relevant international sports federation, or the athlete’s national federation.

1. Legal Frameworks The legal landscape governing Olympic disqualifications is diverse. According to its introduction, the Olympic Charter (OC) is an instrument of a constitutional nature that establishes and recalls the fundamental principles and essential values of Olympism. Disqualifications may arise under several regulatory frameworks, including the World Anti-Doping Code from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the IOC Code of Ethics, and the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competition. In addition, each international sports federation maintains its own technical regulations governing the rules of its specific discipline.

Measures and sanctions for violations of these frameworks are set out in article 59 of the OC and are generally enforced by the Executive Board of the IOC.

Broadly speaking, the grounds for disqualification may be categorized as follows: political statements, unauthorized advertising, doping violations, discipline-specific technical infractions, equipment and eligibility issues, ethical violations, and institutional sanctions.

1. Political statements Although the Olympic Movement aims to promote peace (OC, art. 2, para. 4), it is also founded upon the principle of political neutrality. (Id. art. 2, para. 5.) The principle of political neutrality constitutes a cornerstone of the Olympic Movement and is reiterated in paragraph 5 of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the OC. Accordingly, athletes may face sanctions for political demonstrations during the Games. This rule is enshrined in article 50, paragraph 2 of the Olympic Charter, which provides that:

No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.
A well-known example occurred during the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, when the two African-American runners, Tommie Smith and John Carlos each raised a black-gloved fist during the medal ceremony while the U.S. national anthem was played. The gesture was interpreted by the IOC as a political statement, thus breaching article 50, paragraph 2 of the OC. The athletes were subsequently suspended by the U.S. Olympic Committee and sent home. However, they retained the medals they had won in the race.

More recently, Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified during the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina after wearing a helmet depicting more than 20 Ukrainian athletes and coaches, who had been killed in the recent conflict with Russia. The IOC considered the display to constitute a political statement in violation of article 50, paragraph 2 of the OC and subsequently disqualified the athlete.

1. Unauthorized Advertisements Participants may also face sanctions for displaying advertisements that have not been authorized by the IOC. (OC, art. 50, para. 1.)

Likewise, rule 40 of the OC restricts the use of participants’ names, images, or sporting performances for advertising purposes, unless such use complies with the principles determined by the IOC Executive Board. (Bye-law to Rule 40 OC, para. 3) The purpose of this rule is to prevent so-called ambush marketing, whereby non-Olympic sponsors attempt to benefit from the association with the Olympic brand without official authorization.

During the 2012 Olympics in London, U.S. swimmer Michael Phelps was at risk of violating rule 40 of the OC, after photographs from a Louis Vuitton advertising campaign were leaked a few days before the Olympics concluded, thus falling within the restricted Olympic marketing period. Ultimately, the IOC took no action against the athlete, determining that he was not responsible for the premature release of the images.

Olympic torch, Vancouver, Cauldron image. Photo by sundiver72. June 14, 2017. Used under Pixabay Content License.

1. Anti-Doping Keeping sports clean is a central component of safeguarding fair competition within sports. Anti-Doping rules operate under a zero-tolerance and strict liability approach. As of March 2016, anti-doping matters are handled by the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) during the Olympics. (World Anti-Doping Code, art. 13.2.1.) Barely any Olympic Games pass without an anti-doping violation. Since 2003, anti-doping controls at the Olympics have been conducted in cooperation with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Many other bodies and organizations are involved in the process, most notably the International Testing Agency, which is an independent NGO responsible for the organization and management of doping controls during the Olympic Games. The number of doping tests conducted at each the Olympic Games has increased substantially over the past two decades, with athletes often being tested months ahead of the Olympics, as out-of-competition **** testing.

Doping controls were first introduced in the 1960s. The first athlete to be disqualified for doping at the Olympics was Swedish pentathlete Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. He had consumed two beers before the shooting event of the modern pentathlon, resulting in the disqualification of the Swedish team, which had originally finished third. Alcohol (ethanol) has since been removed from the Prohibited List.

As testing methods improved and the number of tests increased massively throughout the years, numerous Olympic medals have been stripped retroactively, following reanalysis of samples. Most medals were stripped for results from the 2008 Summer Olympics in Bejing, reaching 50 withdrawn medals by April 2017 for doping violations, most of which were Russian medals (a total of 14).

1. Discipline-specific technical regulations The vast majority of disqualifications arise from violations of technical regulations established by each international sports federation itself. These rules govern the conduct of competition regarding execution, ethical behavior, equipment and eligibility.

a. Technical Infractions

The technical regulations are generally designed to outline the on-field rules and the structure of the competition, specifically tailored to the respective sport. Disqualifications may occur for infractions such as false starts in athletics (Technical Rules (TR), rule 16.6) and swimming (TR, rule 2.5.5), or lane violations in track events. (TR, rule 17.3.) (Click on “C1.1 & C2.1 – Competition Rules & Technical Rules” to view the TR.)

b. Equipment Violations

Sports federations also regulate the equipment used in competition to ensure fairness and prevent technological advantages from undermining athletic performance. For example, World Athletics regulates shoe sole thickness for all track and field events. (TR, rule 5.)

Similarly, ski jumpers are also subject to multiple equipment regulations by the International Ski and Snowboard Federation, such as suit size. (TR, rule 4.2.) Controversy arose during the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina, as media attention turned to some athletes allegedly injecting hyaluronic acid into their genitals in order to enlarge the suit surface and artificially increase the aerodynamic surface area of their tailor-made suits. A study based on numerical simulations suggests that every extra centimeter can yield up to 2.8 meters in distance achieved with the jump. However, the FIS rejected such allegations. This matter would further be cause for investigations by WADA.

c. Eligibility Violations

Eligibility requirements vary between sports and are generally set by international federations. Although the Olympic Charter does not establish a universal age limit (OC, art. 42), sports and national federations and sports federations frequently impose their own restrictions.

For instance, article 5.2 of the Technical Regulations set out by the International Gymnastics Federation World Gymnastics requires female artistic gymnasts to be at least 16 years of age. A prominent case of age falsification occurred after the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, when the age of Chinese gymnast Dong Fangxiao was found to have been falsified. Investigations revealed that she had only been 14 at the time of competition, while her documentation showed an age of 17 years. As a result, the Chinese team was stripped of its bronze medal in 2009.

However, in some cases exceptions may be granted for age restrictions. 2.1.2 of the International Boxing Association Rules states that the minimum age for elite boxers participating in the Olympics is 19 years of age, while the maximum is 40 (+364 days). Nonetheless, the IOC granted an exception for Finland’s boxer Mira Potkonen, who was 40 during the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, considering that the event was postponed due to the pandemic.

Another unusual case arose during the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, when Puerto Rican runner Madeline de Jesus was injured and secretly arranged for her identical twin sister, Margaret, to compete in the relay qualifications under Madeline’s identity, advancing them to the finals. When the substitution was discovered by the team coach, the team withdrew from the event.

d. Ethical Violations

Ethical conduct is a fundamental principle of Olympism and is reinforced through the IOC Code of Ethics. During their admission ceremony, new members take an oath vowing to fully comply with the IOC Code of Ethics and are thus bound by the code. (OC, art. 16, paras. 1.3, 2.1.) Compliance with the provisions is overseen by the IOC Ethics Commission (OC, art. 22), while the sanctions rely on article 59 of the OC. Articles 2-10 of the Code of Ethics outline the rules of integrity, while article 2 of the Code on the Prevention of Manipulation of the Competition contains its own violations, such as betting, insider-trading, and corrupt conduct.

An example of unsportsmanlike conduct occurred at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, when Algerian athlete Fethi Nourine refused to face Israeli opponent Tohar Butbul. This behavior yielded repercussions from the International Judo Federation (IJF), which suspended the athlete immediately and he incurred a ten year ban, effectively ending his career. This was also viewed as a political statement violating article 50, paragraph 2 of the OC.

Most notably, one day before the qualifications for the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, the ex-husband of U.S. figure skater Tonya Harding arranged an attack on American rival Nancy Kerrigan one month before the Olympics, leaving her with a severe injury to her right knee. Nonetheless, Kerrigan competed in the 1994 Olympics, winning silver for Team USA. The US Figure Skating Association later banned Harding for life for breaching fair play regulations.

Another example of ethical violations is throwing a match. This occurred during the 2012 Olympics in London, when eight badminton players from South Korea, China and Indonesia were disqualified from the badminton women’s doubles for not using their best effort and intentionally losing matches to manipulate the knockout draw in their favor.

1. Institutional sanctions Athletes may also be affected by broader institutional sanctions imposed on national Olympic committees.

Following the conflict in Ukraine, athletes from Russia and Belarus were prohibited by the IOC from competing under their national flags. This decision followed the Russian Olympic Committee’s attempt to incorporate regions falling under the authority of the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine as their own members, while the Belarusians supported that.

In response, and with reference to the United Nations’ assessment of the situation, the IOC suspended the Russian Olympic Committee with immediate effect. Consequently, athletes from Russia and Belarus could only compete as Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN). This measure was adopted as a statement of solidarity with Ukraine and reflected broader international sanctions imposed on both countries following the outbreak of the conflict.

A similar precedent existed during the apartheid era, when South African athletes were equally banned from participating under their flag from 1964 until 1988, as a part of broader political sanctions due to the country’s policy of racial segregation.

I would like to finish this post with the words of the Olympic oath:

… we promise to take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules and in the spirit of fair play, inclusion and equality. Together we stand in solidarity and commit ourselves to sport without doping, without cheating, without any form of discrimination. We do this for the honour of our teams, in respect for the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and to make the world a better place through sport.
Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

See All Comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name (no commercial URLs) * Email (will not be published) * Comment: