A comment points us to The Washington University, St. Louis, Journal of Law and Policy. It has published an article entitled, "Playing Fair: Why the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s Performance-Enhanced Adjudications Should Be Treated as State Action", available in PDF form here.
It covers some of the same issues as the Straubel law review article we've discussed before. This is another must-read for due-process believers. It observes USADA used a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard before the WADA code was introduced. It then explores challenges that might be made to the use of the WADA standard in the United States. From the outline,
Part I of this Note describes the creation of the USADA, its current adjudication process, and the similarities between this process and the American criminal justice system.
Part II poses a hypothetical due process challenge to the new standard of proof, and briefly explains some of the significant constitutional hurdles an athlete must overcome in order to succeed.
Part III explores the Supreme Court’s state action jurisprudence and the various tests it has developed to distinguish private conduct from state action.
Finally, Part IV argues that the USADA’s imposition of sanctions upon suspected dopers, following a proceeding using the comfortable satisfaction standard, is state action to which constitutional protections should apply.
Must reading for our legally inclined readers. As often the case with law review articles, there's some good stuff in the footnotes.