PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
Athlete Due Process Protection Act of 2012 - Amends the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 to direct the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to provide a document to each athlete that it investigates that includes the specific doping allegations against such athlete.
Requires the Agency's annual report to include: (1) information on each athlete the Agency investigated, including a copy of such document, the athlete's status as an amateur athlete, and the athlete's nationality; (2) the location and cost of each investigation and adjudication the Agency conducted; and (3) any investigations or adjudications conducted by the Agency that another U.S. or foreign agency or organization concurrently investigated or adjudicated.
Requires the Agency, before a new or revised procedural or evidentiary rule that relates to the Agency's investigation or adjudication process can take effect, to submit to specified congressional committees a report containing a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to it, and a list of actions that the Agency plans to take to implement it. Makes such rule effective 180 days after the Agency submits such report if Congress has not voted to override its implementation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits any athlete who participates in an event sponsored or licensed by the sport's national governing body, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the World Anti-Doping Agency, or the International Association of Athletics Federation, from being fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise penalized unless such athlete has been: (1) served with written specific charges providing dates and times of alleged conduct in question, (2) given a reasonable time to prepare his or her defense, and (3) afforded a full and fair hearing.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6546 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6546 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6546 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6546 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.