text
stringlengths 1
17.8k
|
|---|
Pro-hibited association need not involve any form of compensation. |
While Article 2.10 does not require the BIU or other Anti-Doping Organisation to notify the Athlete or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if provided, would be important evidence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Support Person. |
If the Athlete or other Person discharges the burden on them under Article 2.10.2, that will be a complete defence to the charge that the Athlete or other Person has committed an Article 2.10 anti-doping rule violation.] |
2.11 Acts by an Athlete or other Person to discourage or retaliate against reporting to authorities.Where such conduct does not otherwise constitute a violation of Article 2.5: 2.11.1 Any act that threatens or seeks to intimidate another Person with the intent of discouraging the Person from the good-faith reporting of information that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with these IBU Anti-Doping Rules or the World Anti-Doping Code to WADA, the BIU, another Anti-Doping Organisation, a law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, a hearing body, or a Person conducting an investigation for WADA or the BIU or another Anti-Doping Organisation.2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who has provided evidence or information in good faith that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with these IBU Anti-Doping Rules or the World Anti-Doping Code to WADA, the BIU, another Anti-Doping Organisation, a law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, a hearing body, or a Person conducting an investigation for WADA or the BIU or another Anti-Doping Organisation. |
[Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.] |
2.11.3 For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening, and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response. |
INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 26VERSION 2021 [Comment to Article 2.11.3: Retaliation would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or mental well-being or economic interests of the reporting Persons, their families or associates. |
Retali-ation would not include an Anti-Doping Organisation asserting in good faith an anti-doping rule violation against the reporting Person. |
For purposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false.]3. |
Proof of doping3.1 Burdens and standards of proofThe BIU will have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof will be whether the BIU has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satis-faction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that has been made. |
This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Where these IBU Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, except as provided in Articles 3.2.4 and 3.2.5, the standard of proof will be by a balance of probability. |
[Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by the BIU is comparable to the stand-ard that is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. |
]3.2 Methods of establishing facts and presumptions:The following rules of proof will be applicable in doping cases:3.2.1 Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. |
[Comment to Article 3.2.1: For example, the BIU may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 (Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the comments to Article 2.2, or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Athlete’s blood or urine Samples, such as data from the Athlete’s Biological Passport. |
]3.2.2 Analytical methods or Decision Limits that have been approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community or that have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scien-tifically valid. |
Any Athlete or other Person seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presump-tion have been met or to rebut this presumption of scientific validity will, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. |
The initial hearing body, appellate body or CAS may also (on its own initiative) inform WADA of any such challenge. |
Within ten days of WADA’s receipt of such notice and the case file related to such challenge, WADA will also have the right to intervene as a party, appear as amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding. |
In cases before CAS, at WADA’s request, the CAS panel will appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge. |
[Comment to Article 3.2.2: For certain Prohibited Substances, WADA may instruct WADA-accredited lab-oratories not to report Samples as an Adverse Analytical Finding if the estimated concentration of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers is below a Minimum Reporting Level. |
WADA’s deci-sion in determining that Minimum Reporting Level or in determining which Prohibited Substances should be subject to Minimum Reporting Levels is not subject to challenge. |
Further, the laboratory’s estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate. |
In no event will the possibility that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may be below the Min-imum Reporting Level constitute a defence to an anti-doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample. |
]INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 27VERSION 2021 3.2.3 Compliance with an International Standard (as opposed to an alternative standard, practice or pro-cedure) will be sufficient to conclude that the procedures addressed by the International Standard were performed properly.3.2.4 WADA-accredited laboratories and other laboratories approved by WADA are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories. |
The Athlete or other Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
If the Athlete or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then the BIU will have the burden of establishing that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
[Comment to Article 3.2.4: The burden is on the Athlete or other Person to establish, by a balance of prob-ability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
Thus, once the Athlete or other Person establishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Athlete’s or other Person’s burden on causation is the somewhat lower standard of proof – ‘could reasonably have caused’. |
If the Athlete or other Person satisfies these standards, the burden shifts to the BIU to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
]3.2.5 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the World Anti-Doping Code or in these IBU Anti-Doping Rules will not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation and will not constitute a defence to an anti-doping rule violation; provided, however, if the Athlete or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the specific In-ternational Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure, then the BIU will have the burden of es-tablishing that such a departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the whereabouts failure:3.2.5.1 a departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations relating to Sample collection or Sample handling that could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding , in which case the BIU will have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding;3.2.5.2 a departure from the International Standard for Results Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations relating to an Adverse Passport Finding that could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case the BIU will have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the anti-doping rule violation;3.2.5.3 a departure from the International Standard for Results Management relating to the requirement to provide notice to the Athlete of the B Sample opening that could reasonably have caused an anti-dop-ing rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, in which case the BIU will have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding; or[Comment to Article 3.2.5.3: The BIU would meet its burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding by showing that, for example, the B Sample opening and analysis were observed by an independent witness and no irregularities were observed.] |
3.2.5.4 a departure from the International Standard for Results Management relating to Athlete notifica-tion that could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on a whereabouts failure, in which case the BIU will have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the whereabouts failure.INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 28VERSION 2021 [Comment to Article 3.2.5: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample collection or handling, Adverse Passport Finding, or Athlete notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information or International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions – may result in compliance proceedings by WADA but are not a defence in an anti-doping rule violation proceeding and are not relevant on the issue of whether the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. |
Similarly, a violation of the Athlete’s Anti-Doping Rights Act by the BIU (or other relevant body) will not constitute a defence to an anti-doping rule violation.] |
3.2.6 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction that is not the subject of a pending appeal will be irrefutable evidence against the Athlete or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts, unless the Athlete or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice. |
3.2.7 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the Athlete’s or other Person’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or by telephone as directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions either from the hearing panel or from the BIU or other Anti-Doping Organisation asserting the anti-doping rule violation.4. |
The Prohibited List4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List4.1.1 These IBU Anti-Doping Rules incorporate the Prohibited List, which is published and revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code.4.1.2 Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List and/or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions will come into effect under these IBU Anti-Doping Rules three months after publication of the Prohibited List or revision by WADA automatically, i.e., without requiring any further action by the IBU. |
All Athletes and other Persons will be bound by the Prohibited List and any revisions thereto from the date they come into effect, without further formality. |
It is the responsibility of all Athletes and other Persons to familiarise themselves with the most up-to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto. |
4.1.3 The BIU will take appropriate steps to distribute the Prohibited List to NF Members. |
Each NF Mem-ber must in turn take appropriate steps to distribute the Prohibited List to its members and constituents. |
[Comment to Article 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA’s website at https://www.wa-da-ama.org. |
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises. |
However, for the sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made.] |
4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods identified on the Prohibited List4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods4.2.1.1 The Prohibited List identifies those substances and methods that are prohibited as doping at all times (i.e., both In-Competition and Out-of-Competition) and those substances and methods that are prohibited only In-Competition. |
Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a particular sub-stance or method.4.2.1.2 As described in Article 4.2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, WADA may expand the Prohibited List for the sport of Biathlon. |
INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 29VERSION 2021 4.2.1.3 WADA may also include additional substances or methods that have the potential for abuse in the sport of Biathlon, in the monitoring program described in Article 4.5 of the World Anti-Doping Code. |
[Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance that is only prohibited In-Competition is not an anti-doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample collected In-Competition. |
]4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified MethodsFor purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances will be deemed to be ‘Specified Substances’ except as identified on the Prohibited List. |
A Prohibited Method will not be considered to be a ‘Specified Method’ unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List. |
[Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances and Specified Methods identified in Article 4.2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping substances. |
Rather, they are simply substances that are more likely to have been consumed by an Athlete for a pur -pose other than the enhancement of sport performance. |
]4.2.3 Substances of AbuseFor purposes of the application of Article 10, certain Prohibited Substances are specifically classified on the Prohibited List as ‘Substances of Abuse’ because they are frequently abused in society outside of the context of sport.4.3 WADA’s determination of the Prohibited List WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that are (or will be) included on the Prohibited List, the classification of substances into categories on the Prohibited List, the classifica-tion of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only, and the classification of a substance or method as a Specified Substance, Specified Method or Substance of Abuse, is final and not be subject to any challenge by an Athlete or other Person, including (without limitation) any challenge based on an argument that the substance or method is not a masking agent or does not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk, or violate the spirit of sport.4.4 TUEs:4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (Article 2.1), and/or Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method (Article 2.2), Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method (Article 2.6), or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Pro-hibited Substance or Prohibited Method (Article 2.8), will not be considered an anti-doping rule violation if it is consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.4.4.2 TUE applications4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International-Level Athletes must apply to their National Anti-Doping Organ-isation for a TUE. |
If the National Anti-Doping Organisation denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively to the national-level appeal body described in Article 13.2.4.4.2.2 Athletes who are International-Level Athletes must apply to the BIU for a TUE. |
4.4.3 TUE recognition4.4.3.1 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organisation pursu-ant to Article 4.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code for the substance or method in question, and if that TUE meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, the BIU will recog-nise it for purposes of International Events. |
If the BIU considers that the TUE does not meet those criteria and so refuses to recognise it, the BIU will notify the Athlete and the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Or -INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 30VERSION 2021 ganisation promptly with reasons. |
The Athlete or the National Anti-Doping Organisation will have 21 days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for review in accordance with Article 4.4.8. |
If the matter is referred to WADA for review, the TUE granted by the National Anti-Doping Organisation is not valid for International Events but remains valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing pending WADA’s decision. |
If the matter is not referred to WADA for review, within the 21-day deadline, the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation must determine whether the original TUE granted by that National Anti-Doping Organisation should nevertheless remain valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (provided that the Athlete ceases to be an International-Level Athlete and does not participate in international-level Competition). |
Pending the National Anti-Doping Organisa-tion’s decision, the TUE remains valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for international-level Competition Testing). |
[Comment to Article 4.4.3.1: Further to Articles 5.7 and 7.1 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, the BIU will publish and keep updated a notice on its website and/or the IBU website (www.biathlonintegrity.com / www.biathlonworld.com) that sets out clearly (1) which Athletes under its authority are required to apply to it for a TUE, (2) which TUE decisions it will automatically recognise in lieu of such application (if any), and (3) which TUE decisions of other Anti-Doping Organisations will have to be submitted to it for recognition. |
]4.4.3.2 If the BIU chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete, the BIU will recog-nise a TUE granted to that Athlete by their National Anti-Doping Organisation. |
[Comment to Article 4.4.3: If the BIU refuses to recognise a TUE granted by a National Anti-Doping Organ-isation only because medical records or other information are missing that are needed to demonstrate sat-isfaction with the criteria in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, the matter should not be referred to WADA. |
Instead, the file should be completed and re-submitted to the BIU. |
The BIU may agree with a National Anti-Doping Organisation that the National Anti-Doping Organisation will consider TUE applications on behalf of the BIU. |
]4.4.4 TUE application process4.4.4.1 If the Athlete does not already have a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organisation for the substance or method in question, the Athlete must apply directly to the BIU for a TUE in accordance with the process set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions using the form posted on the BIU website and/or the IBU’s website (www.biathlonintegrity.com / www.biathlonworld.com). |
4.4.4.2 An application to the BIU for grant or recognition of a TUE must be made as soon as possible (save where Articles 4.1 or 4.3 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions applies) and in any event at least 30 days before the Athlete’s next Competition. |
4.4.4.3 The BIU will appoint a panel to consider applications for the grant or recognition of TUEs (the TUE Committee). |
4.4.4.4 The TUE Committee will promptly evaluate and decide upon the application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions and any specific BIU protocols posted on the BIU and/or IBU website, and usually (i.e., unless exceptional circumstances apply) within no more than 21 days of receipt of a complete application. |
Where the application is made in a reasonable time prior to a Competition, the TUE Committee will use its best endeavours to issue its decision before the start of the Competition.4.4.4.5 The decision of the TUE Committee will be the final decision of the BIU and may be appealed in accordance with Article 4.4.7. |
The TUE Committee decision will be notified in writing to the Athlete, and INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 31VERSION 2021 to WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping Organisations, including the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. |
It will also promptly be reported into ADAMS.4.4.4.6 If the BIU (or the National Anti-Doping Organisation, where it has agreed to consider the appli-cation on behalf of the BIU) denies the Athlete’s application, it must notify the Athlete promptly, with rea-sons. |
If the BIU grants the Athlete’s application, it must notify not only the Athlete but also their National Anti-Doping Organisation. |
If the National Anti-Doping Organisation considers that the TUE granted by the BIU does not meet the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, it has 21 days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for review in accordance with Article 4.4.7.1. |
4.4.4.7 If the National Anti-Doping Organisation refers the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by the BIU remains valid for international-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing but is not valid for national-level Competition testing pending WADA’s decision. |
If the National Anti-Doping Or -ganisation does not refer the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by the BIU becomes valid for national-level Competition testing as well when the 21-day review deadline expires. |
[Comment to Article 4.4.4: Submitting to the TUE Committee or BIU falsified documents or false or mis-leadingly incomplete information in support of a TUE application (including but not limited to the failure to advise of the unsuccessful outcome of a prior application to another Anti-Doping Organisation for such a TUE), offering or accepting a bribe to/from a Person to perform or fail to perform an act, procuring false testimony from any witness, or committing any other fraudulent act or any other similar intentional interfer -ence or Attempted interference with any aspect of the TUE process will result in a charge of Tampering or Attempted Tampering under Article 2.5.An Athlete should not assume that their application for grant or recognition of a TUE (or for renewal of a TUE) will be granted. |
Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method before an application has been granted is entirely at the Athlete’s own risk.] |
4.4.5 Retroactive TUE applications4.4.5.1 Subject to Article 4.4.5.2, an Athlete may apply for a retroactive TUE on the grounds set out in Articles 4.1 and 4.3 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.4.4.5.2 If the BIU chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete or a National-Level Athlete, the BIU will permit that Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE for any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method that the Athlete is Using for therapeutic reasons.4.4.6 Expiration, cancellation, withdrawal or reversal of a TUE4.4.6.1 A TUE granted pursuant to these IBU Anti-Doping Rules: (a) will expire automatically at the end of any period for which it was granted, without the need for any further notice or other formality; (b) will be cancelled if the Athlete does not promptly comply with any requirements or conditions im-posed by the TUE Committee upon grant of the TUE; (c) may be withdrawn by the TUE Committee if it is subsequently determined that the criteria for grant of a TUE are not in fact met; or(d) may be reversed on review by WADA or on appeal. |
4.4.6.2 The Athlete will not be subject to any Consequences based on their Use or Possession or Ad-ministration of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question in accordance with the TUE prior to the effective date of expiry, cancellation, withdrawal or reversal of the TUE. |
The review pursuant INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 32VERSION 2021 to Article 5.1.1.1 of the International Standard for Results Management of an Adverse Analytical Finding, reported shortly after the TUE expiry, cancellation, withdrawal or reversal, will include consideration of whether such finding is consistent with Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method prior to that date, in which event no anti-doping rule violation will be asserted. |
4.4.7 Reviews and appeals of TUE decisions4.4.7.1 WADA must review any decision by the BIU not to recognise a TUE granted by the National Anti-Doping Organisation that is referred to WADA by the Athlete or the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation. |
In addition, WADA must review any decision by the BIU to grant a TUE that is referred to WADA by the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation. |
WADA may review any other TUE decisions at any time, whether upon request by those affected or on its own initiative. |
If the TUE decision being reviewed meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, WADA will not interfere with it. |
If the TUE decision does not meet those criteria, WADA will reverse it. |
[Comment to Article 4.4.7.1: WADA may charge a fee to cover the costs of: (a) any review it is required to conduct in accordance with Article 4.4.7; and (b) any review it chooses to conduct, where the decision being reviewed is reversed. |
]4.4.7.2 Any TUE decision by the BIU (or by a National Anti-Doping Organisation where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of the IBU/BIU) that is not reviewed by WADA, or that is reviewed by WADA but is not reversed upon review, may be appealed by the Athlete and/or the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation, exclusively to CAS. |
[Comment to Article 4.4.7.2: In such cases, the decision being appealed is the decision of the TUE Com-mittee, not WADA’s decision not to review the TUE Committee decision or (having reviewed it) not to reverse the TUE Committee decision. |
However, the deadline to appeal the TUE Committee decision does not begin to run until the date that WADA communicates its decision. |
In any event, whether the decision has been reviewed by WADA or not, WADA must be given notice of the appeal so that it may participate if it sees fit. |
]4.4.7.3 A decision by WADA to reverse a TUE decision may be appealed by the Athlete, the National Anti-Doping Organisation and/or the BIU on behalf of the IBU exclusively to CAS.4.4.7.4 A failure to render a decision within a reasonable time on a properly submitted application for grant or recognition of a TUE or for review of a TUE decision will be considered a denial of the application thus triggering the applicable rights of review/appeal.4.4.7.5 Until such time as a TUE decision pursuant to these IBU Anti-Doping Rules has been reversed upon review by WADA or upon appeal, that TUE decision will remain in full force and effect.5. |
Testing and investigations5.1 Purpose of Testing and investigations5.1.1 Testing and investigations may be undertaken under these IBU Anti-Doping Rules for any anti-dop-ing purpose. |
They will be conducted in conformity with the provisions of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and any specific protocols of the BIU supplementing that International Stand-ard. |
5.1.2 Testing will be undertaken to obtain analytical evidence as to whether the Athlete has violated Arti-cle 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample) or Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method). |
5.2 Authority to testINTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 33VERSION 2021 5.2.1 Subject to the limitations for Event Testing set out in Article 5.3, the BIU on behalf of the IBU will have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all of the Athletes specified in Article 1.2 of these IBU Anti-Doping Rules. |
5.2.2 The BIU may require any Athlete over whom it has Testing authority (including any Athlete serving a period of Ineligibility) to provide a Sample at any time and at any place. |
[Comment to Article 5.2.2: The BIU may obtain additional authority to conduct Testing by means of bilater -al or multilateral agreements with Code Signatories. |
Unless the Athlete has identified a 60-minute Testing window between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or has otherwise consented to Testing during that period, the BIU will not test an Athlete during that period unless it has a serious and specific suspicion that the Athlete may be engaged in doping. |
A challenge to whether the BIU had sufficient suspicion for Testing during this time period shall not be a defence to an anti-doping rule violation based on such test or attempted test. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.