text
stringlengths 1
17.8k
|
|---|
It is recognized that the resources available to fight doping are limited and that increasing the Sample analysis menu may, in some sports and countries, reduce the number of Samples which can be analyzed.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 26 of 69 6.8 WADA ’s Right to Take Possession of Samples and Data WADA may, in its sole discretion at any time, with or without prior notice, take physical possession of any Sample and related analytical data or information in the possession of a laboratory or Anti-Doping Organization . |
Upon request by WADA , the laboratory or Anti-Doping Organization in possession of the Sample or data shall immediately grant access to and enable WADA to take physical possession of the Sample or data . |
If WADA has not provided prior notice to the laboratory or Anti-Doping Organization before taking possession of a Sample or data , it shall provide such notice to the laboratory and each Anti-Doping Organization whose Samples or data have been taken by WADA within a reasonable time after taking possession. |
After analysis and any investigation of a seized Sample or data , WADA may direct another Anti-Doping Organization with authority to test the Athlete to assume Results Management responsibility for the Sample or data if a potential anti -doping rule violation is discovered.32 ARTICLE 7 RESULTS MANAGEMENT : RESPONSIBILITY, INITIAL REVIEW, NOTICE AND PROVISIONAL SUSPENSIONS Results Management under these Anti -Doping Rules establishes a process designed to resolve anti -doping rule violation matters in a fair, expeditious and efficient manner. |
7.1 Responsibility for Conducting Results Management 7.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in Articles 6.6, 6.8 and Code Article 7.1, Results Management shall be the responsibility of, and shall be governed by, the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed Sample collection (or, if no Sample collection is involved, the Anti-Doping Organization which first provides notice to an Athlete or other Person of a potential anti -doping rule violation and then diligently pursues that anti -doping rule violation). |
7.1.2 In circumstances where the rules o f a National Anti -Doping Organization do not give the National Anti -Doping Organization authority over an Athlete or other Person who is not a national, resident, license holder, or member of a sport organization of that country, or the National Anti -Dopin g Organization declines to exercise such authority, Results Management shall be conducted by World Lacrosse or by a third party with authority over the Athlete or other Person as directed by the rules of the applicable World Lacrosse . |
7.1.3 In the event t he Major Event Organization assumes only limited Results Management responsibility relating to a Sample initiated and taken during an Event conducted by a Major Event Organization , or an anti -doping rule violation occurring during such Event , the case shal l be referred by the Major Event Organization to the applicable International Federation for completion of Results Management . |
32 [Comment to Article 6.8: Resist ance or refusal to WADA taking physical possession of Samples or data could constitute Tampering, Complicity or an act of non -compliance as provided in the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories, and could also constitute a violation of the International Standard for Laboratories. |
Where necessary, the laboratory and/or the Anti-Doping Organization shall assist WADA in ensuring that the seized Sample or data are not delayed in exiting the applicable country. |
WADA would not, of course, uni laterally take possession of Samples or analytical data without good cause related to a potential anti-doping rule violation, non -compliance by a Signatory or doping activities by another Person. |
However, the decision as to whether good cause exists is for WADA to make in its discretion and shall not be subject to challenge. |
In particular, whether there is good cause or not shall not be a defense against an anti -doping rule violation or its Consequences.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 27 of 69 7.1.4 Results Management in relation to a potential whereabouts failure (a filing failure or a missed test) shall be administere d by World Lacrosse or the National Anti -Doping Organization with whom the Athlete in question files whereabouts information, as provided in the International Standard for Results Management . |
If World Lacrosse determines a filing failure or a missed test, it shall submit that information to WADA through ADAMS , where it will be made available to other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations . |
7.1.5 Other circumstances in which World Lacrosse shall take responsibilit y for conducting Results Management in respect of anti -doping rule violations involving Athletes and other Persons under its authority shall be determined by reference to and in accordance with Article 7 of the Code . |
7.1.6 WADA may direct World Lacrosse to conduct Results Management in particular circumstances . |
If World Lacrosse refuses to conduct Results Management within a reasonable deadline set by WADA , such refusal shall be considered an act of non -compliance, and WADA may direct another Anti-Doping Organization with authority over the Athlete or other Person , that is willing to do so, to take Results Management responsibility in place of World Lacrosse or, if there is no such Anti-Doping Organization , any other Anti-Doping Organization that is willing to do so. |
In such case, World Lacrosse shall reimburse the costs and attorney's fees of conducting Results Manage ment to the other Anti-Doping Organization designated by WADA, and a failure to reimburse costs and attorney's fees shall be considered an act of non -compliance . |
7.2 Review and Notification Regarding Potential Anti -Doping Rule Violations World Lacrosse shall carry out the review and notification with respect to any potential anti -doping rule violation in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management . |
7.3 Identification of Prior Anti -Doping Rule Violations Before giving a n Athlete or other Person notice of a potential anti -doping rule violation as provided above, World Lacrosse shall refer to ADAMS and contact WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations to determine whether any prior anti -doping rule violation exists. |
7.4 Provisional Suspensions 33 7.4.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension after an Adverse Analytical Finding or Adverse Passport Finding If World Lacrosse receives an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Adverse Passport Finding (upon completion of the Adverse Passport Finding review process) for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method that is not a Specified Substance or a Specified Method , the World Lacrosse Secreta ry Genera l, or the CAS Anti -Doping Division upon application of the World Lacrosse Secretary General (or his/her appointee), shall impose a Provisional Suspension on the Athlete or other Person against whom the anti -doping rule violation is 33 [Comment to Article 7.4: Before a Provisional Suspension can be unilaterally imposed by the CAS Anti -Doping Division , the internal review specified in these Anti -Doping Rules and the International Standard for Results Management must first be completed.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 28 of 69 asserted, promptly upon or after the review and notification required by Article 7.2. |
A mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Athlete demonstrates to the CAS Anti -Doping Division that the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product , or (ii) the violation involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under Article 10.2.4.1. |
The decision of the CAS Anti -Doping Division not to eliminate a mandatory Provisional Suspension on account of the Athlete’s assertion regarding a Contaminated Product shall not be appealable. |
7.4.2 Optional Provisional Suspension Based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances , Specified Methods, Contaminated Products , or Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations The World Lacrosse Secretary General (or his/her appointee) may make an application to the CAS Anti -Doping Division for a Provisional Suspension to be imposed for anti-doping rule violations not covered by Article 7.4.1 prior to the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample or final hearing as described in Article 8 . |
An optional Provisional Suspension may be lifted at the discretion of the CAS Anti-Doping Division’s decision under Article 8, unless provided otherwise in the International Standard for Results Management . |
7.4.3 Opportunity for Hearing or Appeal Notwithstanding Articles 7.4.1 and 7.4.2, a Provisional Suspension may not be imposed unless the Athlete or other Person is given: (a) an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing , either before or on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension ; or (b) an opportunity for an expedited h earing in accordance with Article 8 on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension. |
The imposition of a Provisional Suspension , or the decision not to impose a Provisional Suspension , may be appealed in an expedited process in accordance with Article 13.2. |
7.4.4 Voluntary Acceptance of Provisional Suspension Athletes on their own initiative may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension if done so prior to the later of: (i) the expiration of ten (10) days from the report of the B Sample (or waiver of the B Sample ) or ten (10) days from the notice of any other anti -doping rule violation, or (ii) the date on which the Athlete first competes after such report or notice. |
Other Persons on their own initi ative may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension if done so within ten (10) days from the notice of the anti -doping rule violation. |
Upon such voluntary acceptance, the Provisional Suspension shall have the full effect and be treated in the same mann er as if the Provisional Suspension had been imposed under Article 7.4.1 or 7.4.2; provided, however, at any time after WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 29 of 69 voluntarily accepting a Provisional Suspension , the Athlete or other Person may withdraw such acceptance, in which event the Athlete or other Person shall not receive any credit for time previously served during the Provisional Suspension . |
7.4.5 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent B Sample analysis (if re quested by the Athlete or World Lacrosse ) does not confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Athlete shall not be subject to any further Provisional Suspension on account of a violation of Article 2.1. |
In circumstances where the Athlete or the Athlete's team has been removed from an Event based on a violation of Article 2.1 and the subsequent B Sample analysis does not confirm the A Sample finding, then, if it is still possible for the Athlete or team to be reinserted , without otherwise affecting the Event , the Athlete or team may continue to take part in the Event . |
7.5 Results Management Decisions Results Management decisions or adjudications by World Lacrosse must not purport to be limited to a particular geographic area or the World Lacrosse ’s sport and shall address and determine without limitation the following issues: (i) whether an anti -doping rule violation wa s committed or a Provisional Suspension should be imposed, the factual basis for such determination, and the specific Articles that have been violated, and (ii) all Consequences flowing from the anti -doping rule violation(s), including applicable Disqualif ications under Articles 9 and 10.10, any forfeiture of medals or prizes, any period of Ineligibility (and the date it begins to run) and any Financial Consequences .34 7.6 Notification of Results Management Decisions World Lacrosse shall notify Athletes , other Persons , Signatories and WADA of Results Management decisions as provided in Article 14.2 and in the International Standard for Results Management . |
7.7 Retirement from Sport35 If an Athlete or other Person retires while the World Lacrosse ’s Results Management process is underway , World Lacrosse retains authority to complete its Results Management process. |
If an Athlete or other Person retires before any Result s Management process has begun, and World Lacrosse would have had Results Management authority over the Athlete or other Person at the time the Athlete or other Person committed an anti -doping rule violation, World Lacrosse has authority to conduct Results Management . |
34 [Comment to Article 7.5 : Results Management decisions include Provisional Suspensions. |
Each decision by World Lacrosse should address whether an anti -doping rule violation was committed and all Consequences flowing from the violation, including any Disqualifications other than Disqualification under Article 10.1 (which is left to the ruling body for an Event). |
Pursuant to Article 15, such decision and its imposition of Consequences shall have automatic effect in every sport in every country. |
For example, for a determination that an Athlete committed an anti -doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Sample taken In -Competition, the Athlete’s results obtained in the Competition would be Disqualified under Article 9 and all other competitive results obtained by the Athlete from the date the Sample was collected through the duration of the period of Ine ligibility are also Disqualified under Article 10.10; if the Adverse Analytical Finding resulted from Testing at an Event, it would be the Major Event Organization’s responsibility to decide whether the Athlete’s other ind ividual results in the Event prior to Sample collection are also Disqualified under Article 10.1. ] |
35 [Comment to Article 7.7: Conduct by an Athlete or other Person before the Athlete or other Person was subject to the authorit y of any Anti -Doping Organization would not constitute an anti -doping rule violation but could be a legitimate basis for denying the Athlete or other Person membership in a sports organization.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 30 of 69 ARTICLE 8 RESULTS MANAGEMENT : RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING DECISION For any Person who is asserted to have committed an anti -doping rule violation, World Lacrosse shall provide a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally Independent hearing panel in compliance with the Code and the International Standard for Results Management . |
8.1 Fair Hearings 8.1.1 Fair, Impartial and Operationally Independent Hearing Panel World Lac rosse has delegated its Article 8 responsibilities (first instance hearings, waiver of hearings and decisions) to the CAS Anti -Doping Division. |
The procedural rules of the CAS Anti -Dopin g Division pertaining to the hearing of first instance shall apply. |
The CAS Anti-Doping Division will always ensure that the Athlete or other Person is provided with a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally Independent hearing panel in compliance with the Code and the International Standard for Results Management . |
8.1.2 Hearing Process 8.1.2.1 When World Lacrosse sends a notice to an Athlete or other Person notifying them of a potential anti -doping rule violation, and the Athlete or other Person does not waive a hearing in accordance with Article 8.3.1 or Article 8.3.2, then the case shall be referred to the CAS Anti -Doping Division for hearing and adjudicati on, which shall be conducted in accordance with its procedural rules and the principles described in Articles 8 and 9 of the International Standard for Results Management . |
8.1.2.2 Hearings held in connection with Event s in respect to Athletes and other Persons who are subject to these Anti -Doping Rules may be conducted by an expedited process where permitted by the CAS Anti -Doping Division.36 8.1.2.3 WADA, the National Governing Body and the National Anti -Doping Organization of the Athlete or other Person may attend the hearing as observers. |
In any event, World Lacrosse shall keep them fully apprised as to the status of pending cases and the result of all hearings. |
8.2 Notice of Decisions 8.2.1 At the end of the hearing, or promptly thereafter, the CAS Anti -Doping Division shall issue a written decision that conforms with Article 9 of the International Standard for Results Management and which includes the full reasons for the decision, the perio d of Ineligibility imposed, the Disqualification of results under Article 10.10 and, if applicable, a justification for why the greatest potential Consequences were not imposed. |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 31 of 69 8.2.2 World Lacrosse shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Perso n and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3, and shall promptly report it into ADAMS . |
The decision may be appealed as provided in Article 13. |
8.3 Waiver of Hearing 8.3.1 An Athlete or other Person against whom an anti -doping violation is asserted may waive a hearing expressly and agree with the Consequences proposed by World Lacrosse. |
8.3.2 However, if the Athlete or other Person against whom an anti -doping rule violation is asserted fails to dispute that assertion within twenty (20) days or the deadline otherwise specified in the notice sent by World Lacrosse asserting the violation, then they shall be deemed to have waived a hear ing, to have admitted the violation, and to have accepted the proposed Consequences . |
8.3.3 In cases where Article 8.3.1 or 8.3.2 applies, a hearing before the CAS Anti -Doping Division shall not be required. |
Instead, World Lacrosse shall promptly issue a written decision that conforms with Article 9 of the International Standard for Results Management and which includes the full reasons for the decision, the period of Ineligibility imposed, the Disqualification of results under Article 10.10 and, if applic able, a justification for why the greatest potential Consequences were not imposed. |
8.3.4 World Lacrosse shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3, and shal l promptly report it into ADAMS . |
World Lacrosse shall Publicly Disclose that decision in accordance with Article 14.3.2. |
8.4 Single Hearing Before CAS Anti-doping rule violations asserted against International -Level Athletes , National -Level Athletes or other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person , World Lacrosse (where it has Results Management responsibility in accordance with Article 7) and WADA , be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS.37 ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS 37 [Comment to Article 8.4: In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international or national level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial. |
Where all of the parties identified in this Articl e are satisfied that their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need f or the Athlete or Anti -Doping Organizations to incur the extra expense of two (2) hearings. |
An Anti -Doping Organization may participate in the CAS hearing as an observer. |
Nothing set out in Article 8.4 precludes the Athlete or other Person and World Lacros se (where it has Results Management responsibility) to waive their right to appeal by agreement. |
Such waiver, however, only binds the parties to such agreement and not any other entity with a right of appeal under the Code.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 32 of 69 An anti -doping rule violation in Individual Sports in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition with all resulting Consequences , including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.38 ARTICLE 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS 10.1 Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an Anti -Doping Rule Violation Occurs 10.1.1 An anti -doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event , lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete's individual results obtained in that Event with all Consequences , includin g forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1. |
2. |
Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might include, for example, the seriousness of the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Athlete tested negative in the other Competitions .39 10.1.2 If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Athlete's individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified , unless the Athlete's results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti -doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation. |
10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use , or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7: 10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility , subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where: 10.2.1.1 The anti -doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance , or a Specified Method unles s the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional.40 10.2.1.2 The anti -doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance or a Specified Method and World Lacrosse can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was intentional. |
38 [Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual Athlete s will be Disqualified. |
However, Disqualification of the team will be as provided in Article 11. |
In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams, Disqualification or other disci plinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti -doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the International Federation.] |
39 [Comment to Article 10.1.1: Whereas Article 9 Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Athlete tested pos itive (e.g., the 100 meter backstroke), this Article may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g ., the swimming World Championships).] |
40 [Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional without showing how the Prohibited Substance ent ered one’s system, it is highly unlikely that in a doping case under Article 2.1 an Athlete will be successful in proving that the Athlete acted unintentionally without establi shing the source of the Prohibited Substance.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 33 of 69 10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, subject to Article 10.2.4.1, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) 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 which 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 which is only prohibited In-Competition shall 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 which is only prohibited In-Competition shall 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-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.41 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 shall be three (3) months Ineligibility . |
In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the Athlete or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by World Lacrosse . |
The period of Ineligibility established in this Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Article 10.6.42 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 shall not be considered intentional fo r purposes of Article 10.2.1 and shall not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances under Article 10.4. |
10.3 Ineligibility for Other Anti -Doping Rule Violations The period of Ineligibility for anti -doping rule violations other than as provided in Article 10.2 shall be as follows, unless Article 10.6 or 10.7 are applicable: 10.3.1 For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four (4) 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, 41 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.] |
42 [Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the treatment program is approved and whether the Athlete o r other Person has satisfactorily completed the program shall be made in the sole discretion of World Lacrosse . |
This Article is intended to give World Lacrosse the leeway to apply their own judgment to identify and approve legitimate and reputable, as oppo sed to “sham”, treatment programs. |
It is anticipated, however, that the characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widely and change over time such that it would not be practical for WADA to develop mandatory criteria for acceptable treatmen t programs.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 34 of 69 the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) 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 shall be in a range from two (2) years to four (4) years depending on the Athlete or other Person ’s degree of Fault ; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete , the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range between a maximum of two (2) years and, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , dep ending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete ’s degree of Fault . |
10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault . |
The flexibility between two (2) years and one (1) year of Ineligibility in this Article is not available to Athletes where a patter n of last -minute whereabouts 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 2.8, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of four (4) 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 shall be considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Athlete Support Personnel for vio lations other than for Specified Substances , shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Athlete Support Personnel . |
In addition, significant violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non -sporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.43 10.3.4 For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violatio n. 10.3.5 For violations of Article 2.10, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.44 10.3.6 For violations of Article 2.11, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation by the Athlete or other Person .45 10.4 Aggravating Circumstances which may Increase the Period of Ineligibility If World Lacrosse establishes in an individual case involving an anti -doping rule violation other than violations under Article 2.7 ( Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking ), 2.8 ( Administration or Attempted 43 [Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions wh ich are more severe than the Athletes who test positive. |
Since the authority of sport organizations is generally li mited to Ineligibility for accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.] |
44 [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.] |
45 [Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by an Athlet e or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) shall be sanctioned based on the violation that car ries the more severe sanction.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 35 of 69 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 shall be increased by an additional period of Ineligibility of up to two (2) years depending on the seriousness of the violation and the nature of the Aggravating Circumstances , unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti -doping rule violation.46 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 he or she bears No Fault or Negligence , then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.47 10.6 Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence 10.6.1 Reduction of Sanctions in Particular Circumstances for Violations of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6. |
All reductions under Article 10.6 .1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative. |
10.6.1.1 Specified Substances or Specified Methods Where 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 No Significant Fault or Negligence , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility , depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault . |
10.6.1.2 Contaminated Products In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse ) came from a Contaminated Product , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a 46 [Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) and 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retal iate Against Reporting to Authorities) are not included in the application 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.] |
47 [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, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. |
Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vi tamin or nutritional supp lement (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 Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosur e 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 ot her Person with in 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 referenc ed illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.] |
WADA 2021 IF Model Rules ( December 2019) Page 36 of 69 maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility , depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault .48 10.6.1.3 Protected Persons or Recreational Athletes Where the anti -doping rule violation not involving a Substance of Abuse is committed by a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete , and the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility , depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete ’s degree of Fault . |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.