Datasets:
timotheeplanes
/
doping

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
17.8k
Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2, or 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information to WADA .9 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 which 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 a lleged anti -doping rule violation or alleged non -compliance with the Code to WADA , an Anti-Doping Organization , law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Org anization .
2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who, in good faith, has provided evidence or information that relates to an alleged anti -doping rule violation or alleged non -compliance with the Code to WADA , an Anti-Doping Organization , law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organization .
For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken aga inst such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response.10 9 [Comment to Article 2.10: Athletes and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Athlete Suppor t Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an a nti-doping rule violation or who have been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined in relation to doping.
This also prohibits association with any other Athlete who is acting as a coach or Athlete Support Person while serving a period of Ineligi bility.
Some examples of the types of association which are prohibited include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodi ly products for analysis; or allowing the Athlete Support Person to serve as an agent or representative.
Prohibited association need not involve any form of compensation.
While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti -Doping Organization 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 P erson knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Support Person.]
10 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Arti cle is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.]
[Comment to Article 2.11.2: 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.
Retaliation would not include an Anti -Doping Organization WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 11 of 69 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof World Lacrosse shall have the burden of establishing that an anti -doping rule violation has occurred.
The standard of proof shall be whether World Lacrosse has established an anti -doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is 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 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 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.11 3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti -doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.12 The following rules of proof shall be applicable in doping cases: 3.2.1 Analytical methods or Decision Limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community or which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid.
Any Athlete or other Person seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presumption have been met or to rebut th is presumption of scientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge.
The initial hearing body, appe llate body or CAS, on its own initiative, may also inform WADA of any such challenge.
Within ten (10) days of WADA’s receipt of such notice and the case file related to such challenge, WADA shall 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 shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge.13 3.2.2 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 presumptio n by establishing that a departure from the 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.]
11 [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by World Lacrosse is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.]
12 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, World Lacrosse may establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Athlete’s adm issions, 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 u rine Samples, such as data from the Athlete Biological Passport.]
13 [Comment to Article 3.2.1: For certain Prohibited Substances, WADA may instruct WADA -accredited laboratories not to report Samples as an Adverse Analytical Finding if the estimated conce ntration of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers is below a Minimum Reporting Level.
WADA’s decision in determining that Minimum Reporting Level or in determining which Prohibited Substances should be subject to Minimum Reporting Levels s hall not be subject to challenge.
Further, the laboratory’s estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate.
In no event shall the possibility t hat the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample m ay be below the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defense to an anti -doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.]
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 12 of 69 International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding .
If the Athlete or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure fr om the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding , then World Lacrosse shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding .14 3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti -doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or these Anti -Doping Rules shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti -doping rule violation, and shall not constitut e a defense to an anti -doping rule violation;15 provided, however, if the Athlete or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the specific International Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violatio n based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure, then World Lacrosse shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the whereabouts failure: (i) a departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to Sample collection or Sample handling which could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding , in which case World Lacrosse shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ; (ii) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Passport Finding which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case World Lacrosse shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the anti -doping rule violation; (iii) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to the requirement to provide notice to the Athlete of the B Sample opening which could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical F inding , in which case 14 [Comment to Article 3.2.2: Error!
Main Document Only.
The burden is on the Athlete or other Person to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.
Thus, once the Athlete or other Person es tablishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Athlete 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 World Lacrosse to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.]
15 [Comment to Article 3.2.3: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample collec tion 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 Inter national Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions – may result in compliance proceedings by WADA but are not a defense in an anti -doping rule violation proceeding and are not relevant on the issue of whether the Athlete committed an anti -doping rule violatio n. Similarly, World Lacrosse ’s violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 of the Code shall not constitute a defense to an anti -doping rule violation.]
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 13 of 69 World Lacrosse shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ;16 (iv) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to Athlete notification which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on a whereabouts failure, in which case World Lacrosse shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the whereabouts failure.
3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable 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.
3.2.5 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 telephonically as directed by the hearing panel ) and to answer questions from the hearing panel or World Lacrosse .
ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST 4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List These Anti -Doping Rules incorporate the Prohibited List , which is published and revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the Code .
Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions shall go into effect under these Anti -Doping Rules three (3) months after publication by WADA , without requiring any further action by World Lacrosse or its National Governing Bodies .
All Athletes and other Persons shall be bound by the Prohibited List , and any revisions thereto, from the date they go into effect, without furthe r formality.
It is the responsibility of all Athletes and other Persons to familiarize themselves with the most up -to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto.
World Lacrosse shall provide its National Governing Bodies with the most recent version of the Prohibited List .
Each National Governing Body shall in turn ensure that its members , and the constituents of its members , are also provided with the most recent version of the Prohibited List .17 4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on the Prohibited List 4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods 16 [Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): World Lacrosse 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.]
17 [Comment t o Article 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at https://www.wada -ama.org .
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises.
However, for t he sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made.]
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 14 of 69 The Prohibited List shall identify those Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods which are prohibited as doping at all times (both In-Competition and Out-of-Competition ) because of their potential to enhance performance in future Competitions or their masking potential, and those substances and methods which are prohibited In-Competiti on only.
The Prohibited List may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport.
Prohibited Substance s and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a particular substance or method.18 4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified Methods For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except as identified on the Prohibited List .
No Prohibited Method shall be a Specified Method unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List.19 4.2.3 Substances of Abuse For purposes of applying Article 10, Substances of Abuse shall include those Prohibited Substances which are specifically identified as Substances of Abuse on the Prohibited List 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 will be included on the Prohibited List , the classification of substances into categories on the Prohibited List , the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Com petition only, the classification of a substance or method as a Specified Substance , Specified Method or Substance of Abuse is final and shall not be subject to any challenge by an Athlete or other Person including, but not limited to, any challenge based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
4.4 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“TUEs ”) 4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers , and/or the Use or Attempted Use , Possession or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method , shall not be considered an anti -doping rule viol ation 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 Applications 4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International -Level Athletes shall apply to their National Anti -Doping Organization for a TUE.
If the National Anti - 18 [Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out -of-Competition Use of a Substance which 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.]
19 [Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances and Methods identified in Article 4.
2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping Substances or Methods.
Rather, they are simply Substances and Methods which are more likely to have been consumed or used by an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance. ]
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 15 of 69 Doping Organization denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively to the appellate body described in Article 13.2.2.
4.4.2.2 Athletes who are International -Level Athletes shall apply to World Lacrosse .
4.4.3 TUE Recognition20 4.4.3.1 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by their National Anti -Doping Organization for the substance or method in question, and if that TUE meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , then World Lacrosse must recognize it for purposes of international -level Competition .
If World Lacrosse considers that the TUE does not meet those criteria and so refuses to recognize it, World Lacrosse must notify the Athlete and the Athlete ’s National Anti -Doping Organization promptly, with reasons.
The Athlete or the National Anti -Doping Organization shall have twenty -one ( 21) days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for review in accordance with Article 4.4.
7.
If the matter is referred to WADA for review, the TUE granted by the National Anti -Doping Organization remains valid for national -level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for international -level Competition ) pending WADA’s decision.
If the matter is not referred to WADA for review within the twenty -one ( 21) day deadline, the Athlete ’s National Anti -Doping Organization must determine whether the original TUE granted by that National Anti -Doping Organization should nevertheless remain valid for national -level Compet ition 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 Organization’s decision, the TUE remains valid for national -level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for international -level Competition ).21 4.4.3.
2 If World Lacrosse chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International -Level Athlete , World Lacrosse must recognize a TUE granted to that Athlete by their National Anti -Doping Organization unless the Athlete is required to apply for recognition of the TUE pursuant to Articles 5.8 and 7.0 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions .
20 [Comment to Article 4.4.3: If World Lacrosse refuses to recognize a TUE granted by a National Anti -Doping Organization only because medical records or other information are missing that are needed to demonstrate satisfaction with the criteria in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exempti ons, the matter should not be referred to WADA.
Instead, the file should be completed and re -submitted to World Lacrosse .]
[Comment to Article 4.4.3: World Lacrosse may agree with a National Anti -Doping Organization that the National Anti -Doping Organizat ion will consider TUE applications on behalf of World Lacrosse .]
21 [Comment to Article 4.4.3.1: Further to Articles 5.7 and 7.1 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, World Lacrosse must publish and keep updated a notice on its webs ite that sets out clearly (1) which Athletes under its authority are required to apply to it for a TUE, (2) which TUE decisions of other Anti -Doping Organizations it will automatically recognize in lieu of such application and (3) which TUE decisions of ot her Anti -Doping Organizations will have to be submitted to it for recognition.
If an Athlete's TUE falls into a category of automatically recognized TUEs, then the Athlete does not need to apply to World Lacrosse for recognition of that TUE.]
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 16 of 69 4.4.4 TUE Application Process 22 4.4.4.1 If the Athlete does not already have a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organization for the substance or method in question, the Athlete must apply directly to World Lacrosse .
4.4.4.2 An application to World Lacrosse 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 apply .
The application shall be made in accordance with Article 6 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions as posted on World Lacrosse ’s website.
4.4.4.3 World Lacrosse shall establish a Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (“TUEC” ) to consider applications for the grant or recognition of TUEs in accordance with Article 4.4.4.3(a)-(d) below : (a) The TUEC shall consist of a Chair and four (4) other members with experience in the care and treatment of Athletes and sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.
Each appointed member shall serve a term of four (4) years and will be eligible to serve a maximum of twelve 12 years .
(b) Before serving as a member of the TUEC, each member must sign a conflic t of interest and confidentiality declaration.
The appointed members shall not be employees of World Lacrosse .
(c) When an application to World Lacrosse for the grant or recognition of a TUE is made, the Chair of the TUEC shall appoint three (3) members (whi ch may include the Chair) to consider the application.
(d) Before considering a TUE application, each member shall disclose to the Chair any circumstances likely to affect their impartiality with respect to the Athlete making the application.
If a member appointed by the Chair to consider an application is unwilling or unable to assess the Athlete ’s TUE application, for any reason, the Chair may appoint a replacement or appoint a new TUEC (e.g., from the pre -established pool of candidates).
The Chair cannot serve as a member of the TUEC if there are any circumstances which are likely to affect the impartiality of the TUE decision.
4.4.4.4 The TUEC shall promptly evaluate and decide upon the application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions and usually (i.e., unless exceptional circumstances apply) within no more than twenty -one ( 21) days of 22 [Comment to Article 4.4.6: The submission of falsified documents to a TUEC or World Lacrosse , offering or accepting a bribe to a Person to perform or fail to perform an act, procuring false testimony from any witness, or committing any other fraudulent a ct or any o ther similar intentional interference or Attempted interference with any aspect of the TUE process shall result in a charge o f Tampering or Attempted Tampering under Article 2.5.
An Athlete should not assume that their application for the grant or recogni tion 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.]
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 17 of 69 receipt of a complete application.
Where the application is made in a reasonable time prior to an Event , the TUE C must use its best endeavors to issue its decision before the start of the Event .
4.4.4.5 The TUEC decision shall be the final decision of World Lacrosse and may be appealed in accordance with Article 4.4.
7.
World Lacrosse TUEC decision shall be notified in writing to the Athlete , and to WADA and other Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions .
It shall also promptly be reported into ADAMS .
4.4.4.6 If World Lacrosse (or the National Anti -Doping Organization , where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of World Lacrosse ) denies the Athlete’s application, it must notify the Athlete prompt ly, with reasons.
If World Lacrosse grants the Athlete’s application, it must notify not only the Athlete but also their National Anti -Doping Organization .
If the National Anti -Doping Organization considers that the TUE granted by World Lacrosse does not m eet the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , it has twenty -one (21) days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for review in accordance with Article 4.4.
7.
If the National Anti -Doping Organization refers the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by World Lacrosse remains valid for international -level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for national -level Competition ) pending WADA’s decision.
If the National Anti-Doping Organization does not refer the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by World Lacrosse becomes valid for national -level Competitio n as well when the twenty -one (21) day review deadline expires.
4.4.5 Retroactive TUE Applications If World Lacrosse chooses to collect a Sample from an Athlete who is not an International -Level Athlete or a National -Level Athlete , and that Athlete is Using a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons, World Lacrosse must permit that Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE.
4.4.6 Expiration, Withdrawal or Reversal of a TUE 4.4.6.1 A TUE granted pursuant to these Anti -Doping Rules: (a) shall expire automatically at the end of any term for which it was granted, without the need for any further notice or other formality; (b) will be withdrawn if the Athlete does not promptly comply with any requirements or conditions imposed by the TUE C upon grant of the TUE; (c) may be withdrawn by the TUE C 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 In such event, the Athlete shall not be subject to any Consequences based on their Use or Possession or Administration of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question in accordance with the TUE prior to t he effective date of expiry, withdrawal , or reversal of the TUE.
The review pursuant to Article 5.1.1.1 of the International WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 18 of 69 Standard for Results Management of an Adverse Analytical Finding , reported shortly after the TUE expiry, withdrawal or reversal, shall 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 shall be asserted.
4.4.7 Reviews and Appeals of TUE Decisions 4.4.7.1 WADA must review World Lacrosse ’s decision not to recognize a TUE granted by the National Anti -Doping Organization that is referred to WADA by the Athlete or the Athlete’s National Anti -Doping Organization .