Caroline Nogueira Costa,
PhD candidate in Philosophy of Sport at Mississippi State University

An athlete wakes up to news that will change his life forever: an algorithmic system has determined that his blood values are incompatible with his biology and history. He does not understand it, yet he accepts it. He sees no way to challenge something he does not comprehend.

This scenario, which seems straight out of a science fiction script, is becoming increasingly routine in high-performance sports, revealing how the decision-making process in athletics has undergone radical changes. Automated systems have assumed the role previously reserved for human evaluation. Once viewed merely as an auxiliary tool, technology now occupies a central position in sports disciplinary proceedings, shifting the focus from human professionals’ analysis of facts to data analysis by algorithmic systems. It is no coincidence that, in many cases, athletes have begun receiving algorithm-based sanctions without challenging them. Technological solutions are becoming an unquestionable authority, given that data interpretation requires expertise that transcends common, readily available knowledge.

Furthermore, the lack of effective access to the decision-making process itself constitutes an almost insurmountable barrier to the right of defense. The athlete receives the expert panel’s conclusion, but that is not the same as having access to the model used to verify the infraction.

The Black Box Problem

The use of technology to combat sports doping has been hailed as a means of maintaining, with greater precision, equality among competitors while simultaneously preserving fair play. In this regard, the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), a longitudinal monitoring system that employs statistical modeling to detect abnormal variations in an athlete’s biological parameters over time, has been utilized to combat the use of prohibited substances in competitions. The model tracks an athlete’s biological data over time, identifying “anomalies” that are incompatible with their normal physiological state. This system builds a probabilistic case and does not require the actual detection of a prohibited substance in the athlete’s body. Such a mechanism, which aims to enhance the fight against doping, raises another question: how can one ensure a fair process and the right to defend oneself if the technology employed proves obscure, complex, and difficult to challenge?

A decade ago, Frank Pasquale warned that algorithmic systems were becoming black boxes: opaque, difficult to audit and contest; resistant to external scrutiny; and mostly immune to traditional mechanisms of accountability. It is worth noting that the boundary between complex statistical models, machine learning, and applied artificial intelligence (AI) has become progressively blurred, leading to common issues of opacity and governance throughout these domains.

In the realm of sports, a lack of information about procedures poses serious risks to athletes’ careers, starkly exposing the fact that procedural frameworks have failed to keep pace with the technology they now rely on, and revealing situations in which increased efficiency comes at a cost. The problem lies not in the use of technology itself, but rather in the decision to adopt it without first establishing essential procedural foundations. The issue of access to evidence remains unresolved.

What the Rules Say — and What They Don’t

The right to a fair and accessible process is a foundational principle in sports disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, in many cases, this right is hindered by financial constraints, technological barriers, and legal challenges that most athletes are unable to navigate.

The ABP process involves expert data analysis and the preparation of technical opinions. Such documents are not always disclosed to the involved parties in a manner that allows them to express disagreement. An athlete who is informed that their values are “highly unlikely to be the result of normal physiological or pathological conditions” receives a conclusion rather than an explanation. This lack of explanation constitutes a structural problem, and although the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) has previously adjudicated disputes involving the ABP, the issue of access to algorithmic evidence remains unresolved.

Rational Silence

Some might presume that when an athlete decides not to appeal a decision that has caused them irreparable harm, it signals an admission of guilt. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Appealing a CAS sanction involves far more than mere willpower. The process can take years and requires independent scientific experts capable of deconstructing a probabilistic model, specialized lawyers, and significant financial and emotional support. All of this is simply unthinkable for most athletes. In such cases, silence follows a mathematical logic that is difficult to ignore. The cost of the fight is high, and, unfortunately, largely unaffordable.

Cathy O’Neil coined the phrase “weapons of math destruction” to describe algorithmic systems that, precisely because they are opaque and difficult to challenge, systematically disadvantage those with less power to resist them. In the realm of sports, this phrase applies indisputably. The use of algorithmic models enhances efficiency, yet it raises questions about a procedural system that has failed to keep pace with technological innovation.

The Governance Gap Nobody Wants to Talk About

The central issue is one of governance. All key actors in the sports landscape, international federations, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and the CAS, work consistently to ensure clean sport. However, any system that permits the use of algorithmic tools must be underpinned by a robust framework focused on genuine accessibility, ensuring access to data to facilitate the right of rebuttal, and an accountability mechanism to address cases of inaccuracy. None of these elements currently exists, in a consistent manner, within the realm of international sports governance.

What Needs to Change

The use of technology, including AI, and the adoption of algorithmic models in sports do not pose a problem when their application is accompanied by mechanisms that allow the involved parties to challenge them. The deployment of algorithmic systems for doping analysis, without a procedural framework to keep pace with technological advancements, entails significant risks for athletes, given the severe penalties imposed in such cases.

An athlete who finds themselves unable to effectively challenge a decision that has ended their career, for example, is not guaranteed the protection of a fair hearing, regardless of what the regulations may state. In such instances, the use of algorithmic models reveals a stark reality: sports governance has prioritized detection efficiency over due process.

Efficiency and procedural safeguards are not mutually exclusive. Measures ensuring that athletes and their representatives have access to raw data, model parameters, and expert reports are imperative. Furthermore, independent review mechanisms (without the use of algorithms), as well as the provision of financial compensation in the event of an error, must be considered, for ultimately, the algorithm does not care about your career. Someone should.

Short biography

Caroline Nogueira Costa is a PhD candidate in Philosophy of Sport at Mississippi State University, with dual academic backgrounds in Philosophy and Law. Her research explores the ethical implications of technology and artificial intelligence in sport, with a particular focus on doping, algorithmic decision-making, and the moral challenges that emerging technologies pose to the integrity of high-performance sport. A former Prosecutor at the Superior Court of Sport Justice (STJD) in Brazil and Founding Member of the Brazilian Scholars for Sport Management (BRASSM), she teaches Ethics, Sports Law, and Philosophy of Sport at Mississippi State University.

This Expert Voices contribution reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views, position, or editorial opinion of IPSEI.

 

Cite this Expert Voice

Please use the suggested citation below when referencing this article in institutional websites, reports, academic materials, newsletters or professional profiles:

Nogueira Costa, C. (2026). When Algorithms Decide Careers: Technology, Doping, and the Right to Defense in Sports. IPSEI Expert Voices.
https://ipsei.org/when-algorithms-decide-careers-technology-doping-and-the-right-to-defense-in-sports/