Sport has developed a global anti-doping regulatory regime of great sophistication. It is polycentric — operating at both the national and international level — and hybrid — combining contractual, criminal and administrative tools with public and private enforcement mechanisms. The regime is not without its challenges and tensions, however. Functional, democratic and normative challenges abound. There also are tensions that arise from nesting private transnational regulatory regimes in public domestic legal structures. This article critically examines these challenges and tensions using the Essendon Football Club v Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority as its case study. That case considered the legality and propriety of the Australian Football League collaborating with the state’s anti-doping regulatory authority to investigate alleged anti-doping rule violations in breach of the World Anti-Doping Code. This case illustrates the challenges that arise when the interests of players, clubs, competition administrators, national regulators, and sports’ global guardians, do not align. The article establishes that while sports’ global anti-doping regime has proven itself to be functionally stable, opportunities exist to broaden the regime’s democratic credentials to give other stakeholders a more meaningful voice. Doing so would not only improve the regime’s sense of fairness and justice, it also might improve its effectiveness.