Not sure I can. Look at it this way. The "mission statement" is a set of goals the
organization (IOC) hopes to accomplish. It is not a set of rules and regulations that an athlete must follow. It is more of what the organization hopes to accomplish. Now in order to meet those goals they likely have a set of rules that address the conduct of athletes -one of which assuredly pertains to the subject of anti-doping.
Another way to look at this: One of the goals of the
organization (IOC) is to lead the fight against commercial abuse of sport (see your list). That is the responsibility of the
organization (IOC) not the athlete-otherwise the IOC could discipline an athlete for not "leading the fight..."
A principal in the law is that before a person is subject to conduct affects his life, liberty or property is that he must have "notice" of what it is that is the reason something is being taken away from him or her. And that notice-in the form of a rule or regulation-must be specific enough to guide his or her conduct accordingly.
Hence the rule against use of pot before a race. Regardless of whether the rule has merit (i.e. enhancing performance) it is specific enough to place the athlete on notice of what cannot be done. Shari admits this. Contrast that with "leading the fight against commercial abuse of sport"-whatever the heck that means.
The mission statement addresses the responsibilities (goals) of the organization (IOC). The rules against doping address the responsibilities of the athlete.
