Several issues which are related to the use of prohibited substances and doping methods in sport pose great challenges to the anti-doping governance. In order to fight against doping, some countries have implemented legal frameworks which are based exclusively on criminal law while other countries have relied on specialized mechanisms and bodies, either based exclusively on private law or on a hybrid regime of public and private law. These different regulatory approaches make the fight against doping in sport severely complicated as its success requires a degree of international cooperation as well as the concerted involvement of public authorities. However, such cooperation is often difficult to realize. At present, it can be observed, for example, that nation states are unable to effectively prevent transnational organized crime syndicates and organizations from involving in the doping market nor from restricting and eliminating prohibited doping substances and methods through their regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, the anti-doping governance framework which is based on the rules and standards of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) distinguishes athletes from nonathletes, placing the former in a disadvantageous position. For example, the standard of strict liability of no fault or negligence imposed on athletes requires less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt and allows the use of circumstantial evidence to establish an anti-doping rule violation. This standard of proof undermines the presumption of innocence principle and the principle of no penalty without a law. Moreover, the new World Anti-Doping Code of 2015 will empower the National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) with investigative and intelligence-gathering powers and will add new categories of non-analytical based doping categories, while reducing the rights of athletes even further. In this thesis, we discuss specifically the private law-based regulatory framework of WADA because it fails to meet the current needs of global anti-doping governance. We therefore advocate for the adoption of a new approach where the penal and public global nature of doping is clearly recognized. Such recognition, combined with a suitable governance model based on a pluralistic approach of global administrative law, will produce a better accepted and more effective anti-doping governance among athletes and will also be of benefit for non-athletes. However, the new governance model that we propose will require all state and non-state parties to adjust their governance frameworks to meet the current challenges and problems, related to the global governance of doping in sport.