text
stringlengths 1
17.8k
|
|---|
10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, then (subject to Article 10.2.4.1) the period of Ineligibility will be two years.10.2.3 As used in Article 10.2, the term ‘intentional’ is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct that they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. |
An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance that is only prohibited In-Competition will be rebuttably presumed to be not ‘intentional’ if the substance is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition. |
An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance that is only prohibited In-Competition will not be considered ‘intentional’ if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Com-petition in a context unrelated to sport performance. |
[Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of ‘intentional’ that is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2. |
Outside Article 10.2, the term ‘intentional’ as used in these Rules means that the person intended to commit the act(s) based on which the Anti-Doping Rule Violation is asserted, regardless of whether the person knew that such act(s) constituted an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. |
]10.2.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in Article 10.2, where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Substance of Abuse:10.2.4.1 If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period of Ineligibility will be three months; provided that it may be further reduced to one month if the Athlete satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by the BIU or other Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management responsibil-ity. |
The period of Ineligibility established in this Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Article 10.6. |
[Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the treatment program is approved and whether the Athlete or other Person has satisfactorily completed the program will be made in the sole dis-cretion of the BIU. |
This Article is intended to give the BIU the leeway to apply its own judgement to identify and approve legitimate and reputable, as opposed to ‘sham’, treatment programs. |
The characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widely and change over time. |
]10.2.4.2 If the ingestion, Use or Possession occurred In-Competition, and the Athlete can establish that the context of the ingestion, Use or Possession was unrelated to sport performance, then the ingestion, Use or Possession will not be considered intentional for purposes of Article 10.2.1 and will not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances under Article 10.4.10.3 Ineligibility for other anti-doping rule violationsThe period of Ineligibility for anti-doping rule violations other than as provided in Article 10.2 will be as follows, unless Articles 10.6 or 10.7 are applicable:INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 44VERSION 2021 10.3.1 For violations of Article 2.3 or Article 2.5, the period of Ineligibility will be four years except: (i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can establish that the commission of the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional, the period of Ineligibility will be two years; (ii) in all other cases, if the Athlete or other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the period of Ineligibility, the period of Ineligibility will be in a range from two years to four years depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Rec-reational Athlete, the period of Ineligibility will be in a range between a maximum of two years and, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault.10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility will be two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault. |
The flexibility between two years and one year of Ineligibility in this Article is not available to Athletes where a pattern of last-minute where-abouts changes or other conduct raises a serious suspicion that the Athlete was trying to avoid being available for Testing.10.3.3 For violations of Article 2.7 or Article 2.8, the period of Ineligibility will be a minimum of four years up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation. |
An Article 2.7 or Article 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person will be considered a particularly serious violation and, if commit-ted by Athlete Support Person for violations other than those involving Specified Substances, will result in lifetime Ineligibility for the Athlete Support Person. |
In addition, significant violations of Article 2.7 or Article 2.8 that may also violate non-sporting laws and regulations will be reported to the competent administrative, professional and/or judicial authorities. |
[Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions that are more severe than the Athletes who test positive. |
Since the authority of sport organisations is generally limited to Ineligibility for credentials, membership, and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping. |
]10.3.4 For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed will be a minimum of two years, up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation.10.3.5 For violations of Article 2.10, the period of Ineligibility will be two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year, depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case. |
[Comment to Article 10.3.5: Where the ‘other Person’ referenced in Article 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that entity may be disciplined as provided in Article 12. |
]10.3.6 For violations of Article 2.11, the period of Ineligibility will be a minimum of two years, up to life-time Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation by the Athlete or other Person. |
[Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) will be sanctioned based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction. |
]10.4 Aggravating Circumstances that may increase the period of Ineligibility If the BIU establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations un -der Article 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) or 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or other Person to discourage or retaliate against reporting) that Aggravating Circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable will be INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 45VERSION 2021 increased by an additional period of Ineligibility of up to two years depending on the seriousness of the violation and the nature of the Aggravating Circumstances, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that they did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation. |
[Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.11 are not included in the applica-tion of Article 10.4 because the sanctions for these violations already build in sufficient discretion up to a lifetime ban to allow consideration of any Aggravating Circumstance. |
]10.5 Elimination of the period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against them, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be eliminated. |
[Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. |
They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, they were sabotaged by a competitor. |
Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the follow-ing circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabelled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Ath-lete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and (c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink). |
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence. |
]10.6 Reduction of the period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence10.6.1 Reduction of sanctions in particular circumstances for violations of Article 2.1, 2.2, or 2.6All reductions under Article 10.6.1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative. |
10.6.1.1 Specified Substances or Specified MethodsWhere the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse) or Specified Method, and the Athlete or other Person can establish that they bear No Significant Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against them, then the period of Ineligibility will be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.10.6.1.2 Contaminated ProductsIn cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against them and that the Prohibited Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse) came from a Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility will be, at a mini-mum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault. |
[Comment to Article 10.6.1.2: In order to receive the benefit of this Article, the Athlete or other Person must establish that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, and must also separately establish No Significant Fault or Negligence. |
It should be further noted that Athletes are on notice that they take nutritional supplements at their own risk. |
The sanction reduction based on No Signif-icant Fault or Negligence has rarely been applied in Contaminated Product cases unless the Athlete has INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 46VERSION 2021 exercised a high level of caution before taking the Contaminated Product. |
In assessing whether the Athlete can establish the source of the Prohibited Substance, it would, for example, be significant for purposes of establishing whether the Athlete actually Used the Contaminated Product, whether the Athlete had declared the product that was subsequently determined to be contaminated on the Doping Control form. |
This Article should not be extended beyond products that have gone through some process of manufac-turing. |
Where an Adverse Analytical Finding results from environment contamination of a ‘non-product’ such as tap water or lake water in circumstances where no reasonable person would expect any risk of an anti-doping rule violation, typically there would be No Fault or Negligence under Article 10.5. |
]10.6.1.3 Protected Persons or Recreational AthletesWhere the anti-doping rule violation not involving a Substance of Abuse is committed by a Protected Per -son or Recreational Athlete, and the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against him or her, then the period of Ineligibility will be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years’ Ineligibility, depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault.10.6.2 Application of No Significant Fault or Negligence beyond the application of Article 10.6.1If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Article 10.6.1 is not applicable that they bear No Significant Fault or Negligence, then (subject to further reduction or elimination as provided in Article 10.7) the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. |
If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight years. |
[Comment to Article 10.6.2: Article 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation except those Articles where intent is an element of the anti-doping rule violation (e.g., Article 2.5, 2.7, 2.8 or 2.9, or 2.11) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Article 10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provid-ed for in an Article based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault. |
]10.7 Elimination, reduction, or suspension of period of Ineligibility or other Consequences for Reasons other than Fault10.7.1 Substantial Assistance in discovering or establishing Code violations10.7.1.1 Prior to an appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, the BIU may suspend a part of the Consequences (other than Disqualification and mandatory Public Disclosure) imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organisation, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body that results in: (i) the An -ti-Doping Organisation discovering or bringing forward an anti-doping rule violation by another Person; or (ii) a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules committed by another Person and the information provided by the Person providing Substantial Assistance is made available to the BIU or other Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Man -agement responsibility; or (iii) WADA initiating a proceeding against a Signatory, WADA-accredited labo -ratory, or Athlete passport management unit (as defined in the International Standard for Laboratories) for non-compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code, International Standards or Technical Documents; or (iv) a criminal or disciplinary body bringing forward a criminal offence or the breach of professional or sport rules arising out of a sport integrity violation other than doping (provided that, for this point iv to apply, the BIU must have first obtained WADA’s approval). |
After an appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, the BIU may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable Consequences with the approval of WADA. |
INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 47VERSION 2021 The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended will be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the sig-nificance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport, non-compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code, and/or sport integrity violations. |
No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. |
If the oth-erwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this Article must be no less than eight years. |
For purposes of this paragraph, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will not include any period of Ineligibility that could be added under Article 10.9.3.2. |
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person seeking to provide Substantial Assistance, the BIU will allow the Athlete or other Person to provide the information to it subject to a Without Prejudice Agreement. |
If the Athlete or other Person fails to continue to cooperate and to provide the complete and credible Substantial Assistance upon which a suspension of Consequences was based, the BIU will reinstate the original Consequences. |
If the BIU decides to reinstate suspended Consequences, or decides not to rein-state suspended Consequences, that decision may be appealed by any Person entitled to appeal under Article 13.10.7.1.2 To further encourage Athletes and other Persons to provide Substantial Assistance, at the re-quest of the BIU or at the request of the Athlete or other Person who has or has been asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, or other violation of the World Anti-Doping Code, WADA may agree at any stage of the Results Management process, including after an appellate decision under Article 13, to what it considers to be an appropriate suspension of the otherwise-applicable period of Ineligibility and other Consequences. |
In exceptional circumstances, WADA may agree to suspensions of the period of Ineligibility and other Consequences for Substantial Assistance greater than those otherwise provided in this Article, or even no period of Ineligibility, no mandatory Public Disclosure, and/or no return of prize money or payment of fines or costs. |
WADA’s approval will be subject to reinstatement of Consequences, as otherwise provided in this Article. |
Notwithstanding Article 13, WADA’s decisions in the context of this Article 10.7.1.2 may not be appealed. |
10.7.1.3 If the BIU suspends any part of otherwise applicable Consequences because of Substantial Assistance, notice providing justification for the decision will be provided to the other Anti-Doping Or -ganisations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3, as provided in Article 14. |
In unique circumstances where WADA determines that it would be in the best interest of anti-doping, WADA may authorise the IBU/BIU to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements limiting or delaying the disclosure of the Substantial Assistance agreement or the nature of Substantial Assistance being provided. |
[Comment to Article 10.7.1: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti-doping rule violations to light is impor -tant to clean sport. |
Where the BIU declines to exercise the discretion conferred on it by Article 10.7.1, and the matter comes before a hearing panel under Article 8 or an appeal panel under Article 13, the hearing panel/appeal panel (as applicable) may exercise such discretion if the conditions of Article 10.7.1.1 are satisfied and the panel sees fit. |
Alternatively, the hearing panel/appeal panel may consider a submission that the BIU, in exercising its discretion under Article 10.7.1, should have suspended a greater part of the Consequences].10.7.2 Admission of an anti-doping rule violation in the absence of other evidenceWhere an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation be-fore having received notice of a Sample collection that could establish an anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 48VERSION 2021 of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. |
[Comment to Article 10.7.2: This Article is intended to apply when an Athlete or other Person comes for -ward and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where no Anti-Doping Organisation is aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been committed. |
It is not intended to apply to circum-stances where the admission occurs after the Athlete or other Person believes they are about to be caught. |
The amount by which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is reduced should be based on the likelihood that the Athlete or other Person would have been caught had they not come forward voluntarily. |
]10.7.3 Application of multiple grounds for reduction of a sanctionWhere an Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to reduction in sanction under more than one provision of Article 10.6 or 10.7, before applying any reduction or suspension under Article 10.7 the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be determined in accordance with Articles 10.2, 10.3, and 10.6. |
If the Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.7, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-fourth of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.10.8 Results Management agreements 10.8.1 One year reduction for certain anti-doping rule violations based on early admission and accept-ance of sanctionWhere the BIU notifies an Athlete or other Person of an anti-doping rule violation charge that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of four or more years (including any period of Ineligibility asserted under Article 10.4), if the Athlete or other Person admits the violation and accepts the asserted period of Ineli-gibility no later than 20 days after receiving the notice of charge, the Athlete or other Person may receive a one year reduction in the period of Ineligibility asserted by the BIU. |
Where the Athlete or other Person receives the one year reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility under this Article 10.8.1, no further reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility will be allowed under any other Article. |
[Comment to Article 10.8.1: For example, if the BIU alleges that an Athlete has violated Article 2.1 for Use of an anabolic steroid and asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four years, then the Athlete may unilaterally reduce the period of Ineligibility to three years by admitting the violation and accepting the three year period of Ineligibility within the time specified in this Article, with no further reduction allowed. |
This resolves the case without any need for a hearing. |
]10.8.2 Case resolution agreements10.8.2.1 Where the Athlete or other Person admits an anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with it by the BIU and agrees to Consequences acceptable to the BIU and WADA, at their sole discretion: (a) the Athlete or other Person may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on an assess-ment by the BIU and WADA of the application of Articles 10.1 through 10.7 to the asserted anti-doping rule violation, the seriousness of the violation, the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault, and how promptly the Athlete or other Person admitted the violation; and (b) the period of Ineligibility may start as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. |
10.8.2.2 In each case, however, where this Article is applied, the Athlete or other Person must serve at least one-half of the agreed-upon period of Ineligibility going forward from the earlier of (i) the date the Athlete or other Person accepted the imposition of a period of Ineligibility; and (ii) the date the Athlete or other Person accepted a Provisional Suspension that was subsequently respected by the Athlete or other Person. |
The decision by WADA and the BIU to enter or not enter into a case resolution agreement, INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 49VERSION 2021 and the amount of the reduction to, and the starting date of the period of Ineligibility, are not matters for determination or review by a hearing body and are not subject to appeal under Article 13.10.8.2.3 If so requested by an Athlete or other Person seeking to enter into a case resolution agreement under this Article, the BIU will allow the Athlete or other Person to discuss an admission of the anti-doping rule violation with it subject to a Without Prejudice Agreement. |
[Comment to Article 10.8.2: Any mitigating or aggravating factors set forth in this Article 10 must be con-sidered in arriving at the Consequences set forth in the case resolution agreement, and will not be appli-cable beyond the terms of that agreement. |
]10.9 Multiple Violations 10.9.1 Second or third anti-doping rule violation:10.9.1.1 For an Athlete or other Person’s second anti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility will be the greater of:(a) a six month period of Ineligibility; or(b) a period of Ineligibility in the range between: (i) the sum of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the first anti-doping rule violation plus the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to the second anti-doping rule violation treated as if it were a first violation; and (ii) twice the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to the second anti-doping rule violation treated as if it were a first violation.The period of Ineligibility within this range will be determined based on the entirety of the circumstances and the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault with respect to the second violation. |
10.9.1.2 A third anti-doping rule violation will always result in a lifetime period of Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfils the condition for reduction of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.6, or involves a violation of Article 2.4. |
In these particular cases, the period of Ineligibility will range from eight years to lifetime Ineligibility.10.9.1.3 The period of Ineligibility established in Articles 10.9.1.1 and 10.9.1.2 may then be further re-duced by the application of Article 10.7. |
10.9.2 An anti-doping rule violation for which an Athlete or other Person has established No Fault or Neg-ligence will not be considered a violation for purposes of this Article 10.9. |
In addition, an anti-doping rule violation sanctioned under Article 10.2.4.1 will not be considered a violation for purposes of Article 10.9.10.9.3 Additional rules for certain potential multiple violations10.9.3.1 For purposes of imposing sanctions under Article 10.9, except as provided in Articles 10.9.3.2 and 10.9.3.3, an anti-doping rule violation will only be considered a second (or third, as applicable) vio-lation if the BIU can establish that the Athlete or other Person committed the additional anti-doping rule violation after the Athlete or other Person received notice pursuant to Article 7, or after the BIU made reasonable efforts to give notice, of the first anti-doping rule violation. |
If the BIU cannot establish this, the violations will be considered together as one single first violation, and the sanction imposed will be based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction, including the application of Aggravating Circumstances. |
Results in all Competitions dating back to the earlier anti-doping rule violation will be Disqualified as provided in Article 10.10. |
[Comment to Article 10.9.3.1: The same rule applies where, after the imposition of a sanction, the BIU dis-covers facts involving an anti-doping rule violation that occurred prior to notification for a first anti-doping rule violation – e.g., the BIU will impose a sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 50VERSION 2021 if the two violations had been adjudicated at the same time, including the application of Aggravating Circumstances. |
]10.9.3.2 If the BIU establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed an additional anti-doping rule violation prior to notification, and that the additional violation occurred 12 months or more before or after the first-noticed violation, then the period of Ineligibility for the additional violation will be calculated as if the additional violation were a stand-alone first violation and this period of Ineligibility must be served consecutively (rather than concurrently) with the period of Ineligibility imposed for the first-noticed viola-tion. |
Where this Article 10.9.3.2 applies, the violations taken together will constitute a single violation for purposes of Article 10.9.1.10.9.3.3 If the BIU establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed a violation of Article 2.5 in connection with the Doping Control process for an underlying asserted anti-doping rule violation, the violation of Article 2.5 will be treated as a stand-alone first violation and the period of Ineligibility for such violation must be served consecutively (rather than concurrently) with the period of Ineligibility, if any, imposed for the underlying anti-doping rule violation. |
Where this Article 10.9.3.3 is applied, the violations taken together will constitute a single violation for purposes of Article 10.9.1.10.9.3.4 If the BIU establishes that an Athlete or other Person has committed a second or third anti-dop-ing rule violation during a period of Ineligibility, the periods of Ineligibility for the multiple violations will run consecutively (rather than concurrently). |
10.9.4 Multiple anti-doping rule violations during ten-year periodFor purposes of Article 10.9, each anti-doping rule violation must take place within the same ten year period in order to be considered multiple violations.10.10 Disqualification of results in Competitions subsequent to Sample collection or commission of an anti-doping rule violation In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition that produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results obtained by the Athlete from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition) or other anti-doping rule violation occurred through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, will, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money, and prizes. |
[Comment to Article 10.10.: Nothing in these IBU Anti-Doping Rules precludes clean Athletes or other Per -sons who have been damaged by the actions of a Person who has committed an anti-doping rule violation from pursuing any right that they would otherwise have to seek damages from such Person. |
]10.11 Forfeited prize money10.11.1 Where an Athlete’s results are Disqualified, the Athlete forfeits any prize money that was awarded at the relevant Event based on those results. |
In addition, where those results have been combined with others to give the Athlete an overall ranking at the end of the season, and the Athlete has received prize money based on that ranking, the Athlete forfeits the portion of the prize money that they only received because of the Disqualified results.10.11.2 Where the results of an Athlete in any Competition are Disqualified under these IBU Anti-Doping Rules, the BIU may require that Athlete’s NF Member to repay part or all of any contribution payment it received as a result of that Athlete’s (Disqualified) results (if such contribution payment is owed, but not yet paid, the BIU may withhold part or all of such payment). |
10.11.3 If the BIU recovers prize money (or NF Member contribution payments) forfeited as a result of an anti-doping rule violation, it will take reasonable measures to allocate and distribute such prize money to INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 51VERSION 2021 the Athletes (or NF Members) that would have been entitled to it had the forfeiting Athlete not competed. |
[Comment to Article 10.11: This Article is not intended to impose an affirmative duty on the BIU to take any action to collect forfeited prize money or contribution payments. |
If the BIU elects not to take any action to collect forfeited prize money or contribution payments, it may assign its right to recover such money to the Athlete(s) or NF Member(s) who should have otherwise received the money. |
‘Reasonable measures to allocate and distribute this prize money’ could include using collected forfeited prize money as agreed upon by the BIU and Athletes concerned, or using collected contribution payments as agreed upon by the BIU and NF Member(s) concerned. |
]10.12 Financial Consequences 10.12.1 Where an Athlete or other Person is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, the hearing panel (or, in cases where Article 8.3 applies, the BIU), taking into account the proportionality principle, will require the Athlete or other Person to reimburse the BIU for the costs that it has incurred in bringing the case, irrespective of any other Consequences that may or may not be imposed.10.12.2 Where an Athlete or other Person is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation and the maximum period of Ineligibility applicable for that violation under these IBU Anti-Doping Rules has been imposed, the hearing panel (or, in cases where Article 8.3 applies, the BIU) may also fine the Athlete or other Person up to €200,000, where it considers the violation to be serious and to jeopardise or dam-age the interests or the reputation of the IBU, provided that the principle of proportionality is satisfied. |
The BIU will apply the fine to fund anti-doping education activities. |
10.12.3 Any costs order or imposition of a fine pursuant to this Article will not be considered a basis for reducing the Ineligibility or other Consequences that would otherwise be applicable under these IBU Anti-Doping Rules.10.12.4 Where fairness requires, the hearing panel (or, in cases where Article 8.3 applies, the BIU) may establish an instalment plan for repayment of any prize money forfeited pursuant to Article 9 or 10 and/or for the payment of any costs awarded pursuant to Article 10.12.1 and/or for the payment of any fine im-posed pursuant to Article 10.12.2. |
The schedule of payments pursuant to such plan may extend beyond any period of Ineligibility imposed on the Athlete or other Person. |
10.13 Commencement of Ineligibility periodWhere an Athlete is already serving a period of Ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation, any new pe-riod of Ineligibility will commence on the first day after the current period of Ineligibility has been served. |
Otherwise, except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility will start on the date of the decision of the hearing panel providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived or there is no hearing, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. |
10.13.1 Delays not attributable to the Athlete or other PersonWhere there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control, and the Athlete or other Person can establish that such delays are not attributable to him/her, the period of Ineligibility may be deemed to have started at an earlier date, commencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. |
All competitive results achieved during the period of Ineligibility, including retroactive Ineligibility, will be Disqualified. |
[Comment to Article 10.13.1: In cases of anti-doping rule violations other than under Article 2.1, the time required for an Anti-Doping Organisation to discover and develop facts sufficient to establish an anti-dop-ing rule violation may be lengthy, particularly where the Athlete or other Person has taken affirmative action to avoid detection. |
In these circumstances, the flexibility provided in this Article to start the sanction at an earlier date should not be used. |
]INTERNATIONAL BIATHLON UNION 02I INTEGRITY CODE02I 52VERSION 2021 10.13.2 Credit for Provisional Suspension or period of Ineligibility served: 10.13.2.1 If a Provisional Suspension is respected by the Athlete or other Person, then the Athlete or oth-er Person will receive a credit for such period of Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility that may ultimately be imposed. |
If the Athlete or other Person does not respect a Provisional Suspension, they will receive no credit for any period of Provisional Suspension served. |
If a period of Ineligibility is served pursuant to a decision that is subsequently appealed, the Athlete or other Person will receive a credit for such period of Ineligibility served against any period of Ineligibility that may ultimately be im-posed on appeal.10.13.2.2 If an Athlete or other Person voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from the BIU and thereafter respects the Provisional Suspension, the Athlete or other Person will receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility that may ultimately be imposed. |
A copy of the Athlete or other Person’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension will be provided promptly to each party entitled to receive notice of an asserted anti-doping rule violation under Article 14.1. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.