Datasets:
timotheeplanes
/
doping

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
17.8k
As an example, it is not necessary for effective harmonization to force all Signatories to use one single Results Management process as long as the process utilized satisfies the requirements stated in the Code and the International Standard for Results Management.
]6 [Comment: Where the Code requires a Person other than an Athlete or Athlete Support Person to be bound by the Code, such Person would of course not be subject to Sample collection or Testing, and would not be charged with an anti-doping rule violation under the Code for Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
Rather, such Person would only be subject to discipline for a violation of Code Articles 2.5 (Tampering), 2.7 (Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration), 2.9 (Complicity), 2.10 (Prohibited Association) and 2.11 (Retaliation).
Furthermore, such Person would be subject to the additional roles and responsibilities according to Article 21.3.
Also, the obligation to require an employee to be bound by the Code is subject to applicable law.]
World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control18human rights.
When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral hearing panels and other adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport.As provided in the Code, each Anti-Doping Organization shall be responsible for conducting all aspects of Doping Control.
Any aspect of Doping Control or anti-doping Education may be delegated by an Anti-Doping Organization to a Delegated Third Party, however, the delegating Anti-Doping Organization shall require the Delegated Third Party to perform such aspects in compliance with the Code and International Standards, and the Anti-Doping Organization shall remain fully responsible for ensuring that any delegated aspects are performed in compliance with the Code.INTRODUCTIONARTICLE 1 Definition of DopingARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsWorld Anti-Doping Code 202119ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPINGDoping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONSThe purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti-doping rule violations.
Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules have been violated.Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List.The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample2.1.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples.
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.77 [Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to an Athlete’s Fault.
This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”.
An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10.
This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.
]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control202.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample; or where the Athlete’s A or B Sample is split into two parts and the analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first part of the split Sample or the Athlete waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample.82.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the Prohibited List or a Technical Document, the presence of any reported quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List, International Standards, or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances.
8 [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.
]ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsWorld Anti-Doping Code 2021212.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method92.2.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used.
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material.
It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed.109 [Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means.
As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of the Athlete Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.
]10 [Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the “Attempted Use” of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Athlete’s part.
The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular anti-doping rule violation does not undermine the Strict Liability principle established for violations of Article 2.1 and violations of Article 2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.An Athlete’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such Substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Athlete’s Use takes place Out-of-Competition.
(However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected In-Competition is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that Substance might have been administered.
)]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control222.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an AthleteEvading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorized Person.112.4 Whereabouts Failures by an AthleteAny combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Results Management, within a twelve-month period by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool.2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any Part of Doping Control by an Athlete or Other Person2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Athlete establishes that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.1211 [Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that an Athlete was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing.
A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Athlete, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Athlete.
]12 [Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child.
]ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsWorld Anti-Doping Code 2021232.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.132.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Other Person2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration by an Athlete or Other Person to any Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is Prohibited Out-of-Competition2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other PersonAssisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity or Attempted complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.14.1 by another Person.1413 [Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) an Athlete or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine auto-injector), or (b) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE.]
14 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.
]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control242.10 Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person2.10.1 Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support Person who:2.10.1.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or2.10.1.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization, and where Ineligibility has not been addressed in a Results Management process pursuant to the Code, has been convicted or found in a criminal, disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which would have constituted a violation of anti-doping rules if Code-compliant rules had been applicable to such Person.
The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six (6) years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2.2.10.2 To establish a violation of Article 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Athlete or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status.The burden shall be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association with an Athlete Support Person described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity and/or that such association could not have been reasonably avoided.ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsWorld Anti-Doping Code 202125Anti-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 .152.11 Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to AuthoritiesWhere 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 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.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 15 [Comment to Article 2.10: Athletes and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Athlete Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an anti-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 Ineligibility.
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 bodily 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 Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Support Person.
]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control26body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organization.16 For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response.17 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING3.1 Burdens and Standards of ProofThe Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.
The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization 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.18 Where the Code places 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 16 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.
]17 [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 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.
]18 [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.
]ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsARTICLE 3 Proof of DopingWorld Anti-Doping Code 202127facts 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.3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and PresumptionsFacts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.19 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 this 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, appellate 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 19 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, an Anti-Doping Organization may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the Comments to Article 2.2, or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Athlete’s blood or urine Samples, such as data from the Athlete Biological Passport.
]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control28in 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.203.2.2 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 presumption by establishing that a departure from the 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 from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then the Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.2120 [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 concentration 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 shall 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 that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may 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.
]21 [Comment to Article 3.2.2: 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 establishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Athlete or other Person’s burden on causation is the somewhat lower standard of proof – ARTICLE 3 Proof of DopingWorld Anti-Doping Code 2021293.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or in an Anti-Doping Organization’s rules shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, and shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation;22 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 violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure, then the Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or 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 the Anti-Doping Organization 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 “could reasonably have caused.” If the Athlete or other Person satisfies this standard, the burden shifts to the Anti-Doping Organization to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.
]22 [Comment to Article 3.2.3: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample collection or handling, Adverse Passport Finding, or Athlete notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information or International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions – may result in compliance proceedings by WADA but are not a defense in an anti-doping rule violation proceeding and are not relevant on the issue of whether the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
Similarly, an Anti-Doping Organization’s violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation.
]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control30Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Passport Finding which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case the Anti-Doping Organization 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 Finding, in which case the Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding;23(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 the Anti-Doping Organization 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 23 [Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): An Anti-Doping Organization 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.
]ARTICLE 3 Proof of Doping ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited ListWorld Anti-Doping Code 202131have 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 the Anti-Doping Organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation.ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST4.1 Publication and Revision of the Prohibited ListWADA shall, as often as necessary and no less often than annually, publish the Prohibited List as an International Standard.
The proposed content of the Prohibited List and all revisions shall be provided in writing promptly to all Signatories and governments for comment and consultation.
Each annual version of the Prohibited List and all revisions shall be distributed promptly by WADA to each Signatory, WADA -accredited or approved laboratory, and government, and shall be published on WADA ’s website, and each Signatory shall take appropriate steps to distribute the Prohibited List to its members and constituents.
The rules of each Anti-Doping Organization shall specify that, unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions shall go into effect under the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules three (3) months after publication of the Prohibited List by WADA without requiring any further action by the Anti-Doping Organization.2424 [Comment to Article 4.1: The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises.
However, for the sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made.
WADA will always have the most current Prohibited List published on its website.
The Prohibited List is an integral part of the International Convention against Doping in Sport.
WADA will inform the Director-General of UNESCO of any change to the Prohibited List.
]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control324.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on the Prohibited List4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited MethodsThe 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-Competition only.
The Prohibited List may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport.
Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a particular Substance or Method.25 4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified MethodsFor 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.2625 [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.
]26 [Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances and Specified Methods identified in Article 4.2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping Substances 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.
]ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited ListWorld Anti-Doping Code 2021334.2.3 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.
4.2.4 New Classes of Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods In the event WADA expands the Prohibited List by adding a new class of Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods in accordance with Article 4.1, WADA ’s Executive Committee shall determine whether any or all Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods within the new class shall be considered Specified Substances or Specified Methods under Article 4.2.2 or Substances of Abuse under Article 4.2.3.
4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited ListWADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List:4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA , in its sole discretion, determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control344.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;274.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;4.3.1.3 WADA ’s determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.4.3.2 A substance or method shall also be included on the Prohibited List if WADA determines there is medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method has the potential to mask the Use of other Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods.284.3.3 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-Competition only, the classification of a substance or method 27 [Comment to Article 4.3.1.1: This Article anticipates that there may be substances that, when used alone, are not prohibited but which will be prohibited if used in combination with certain other substances.
A substance which is added to the Prohibited List because it has the potential to enhance performance only in combination with another substance shall be so noted and shall be prohibited only if there is evidence relating to both substances in combination.
]28 [Comment to Article 4.3.2: As part of the process each year, all Signatories, governments and other interested Persons are invited to provide comments to WADA on the content of the Prohibited List.
]ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited ListWorld Anti-Doping Code 202135as 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 violation if it is consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.4.4.2 Athletes who are not International-Level Athletes shall apply to their National Anti-Doping Organization for a TUE.
If the National Anti-Doping Organization denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively to the appellate body described in Article 13.2.2.4.4.3 Athletes who are International-Level Athletes shall apply to their International Federation.2929 [Comment to Article 4.4.3: If the International Federation 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 Exemptions, the matter should not be referred to WADA.
Instead, the file should be completed and re-submitted to the International Federation.If an International Federation chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete, it must recognize a TUE granted by that Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization.
]World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control364.4.3.1 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organization for the substance or method in question, if that TUE meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, then the International Federation must recognize it.
If the International Federation considers that the TUE does not meet those criteria and so refuses to recognize it, it 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.
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-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 Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (provided that the Athlete ceases to be an International-Level Athlete and does not participate in international-level Competition).
Pending the National Anti-Doping Organization’s decision, the TUE remains valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for international-level Competition).ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited ListWorld Anti-Doping Code 2021374.4.3.2 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 the Athlete’s International Federation for a TUE as soon as the need arises.
If the International Federation (or the National Anti-Doping Organization, where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of the International Federation) denies the Athlete’s application, it must notify the Athlete promptly, with reasons.
If the International Federation grants the Athlete’s application, it must notify not only the Athlete but also the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization, and if the National Anti-Doping Organization considers that the TUE does not meet 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.
If the National Anti-Doping Organization refers the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by the International Federation 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 the International Federation becomes valid for national-level Competition as well when the twenty-one (21) day review deadline expires.4.4.4 A Major Event Organization may require Athletes to apply to it for a TUE if they wish to Use a World Anti-Doping Code 20211 PARTDoping Control38Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method in connection with the Event.
In that case:4.4.4.1 The Major Event Organization must ensure a process is available for an Athlete to apply for a TUE if he or she does not already have one.
If the TUE is granted, it is effective for its Event only.4.4.4.2 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization or International Federation, if that TUE meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, the Major Event Organization must recognize it.
If the Major Event Organization decides the TUE does not meet those criteria and so refuses to recognize it, it must notify the Athlete promptly, explaining its reasons.4.4.4.3 A decision by a Major Event Organization not to recognize or not to grant a TUE may be appealed by the Athlete exclusively to an independent body established or appointed by the Major Event Organization for that purpose.
If the Athlete does not appeal (or the appeal is unsuccessful), the Athlete may not Use the substance or method in question in connection with the Event, but any TUE granted by the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization or International Federation for that substance or method remains valid outside of that Event.3030 [Comment to Article 4.4.4.3: For example, the CAS Ad Hoc Division or a similar body may act as the independent appeal body for particular Events, or WADA may agree to perform that function.
If neither CAS nor WADA are performing that function, WADA retains the right (but not the obligation) to review the TUE decisions made in connection with the Event at any time, in accordance with Article 4.4.6.
]ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited ListWorld Anti-Doping Code 2021394.4.5 If an Anti-Doping Organization chooses to collect a Sample from an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete or National-Level Athlete, and that Athlete is Using a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons, the Anti-Doping Organization must permit the Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE.4.4.6 WADA must review an International Federation’s decision not to recognize a TUE granted by the National Anti-Doping Organization that is referred to it by the Athlete or the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization.
In addition, WADA must review an International Federation’s decision to grant a TUE that is referred to it by the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization.
WADA may review any other TUE decisions at any time, whether upon request by those affected or on its own initiative.
If the TUE decision being reviewed meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, WADA will not interfere with it.
If the TUE decision does not meet those criteria, WADA will reverse it.314.4.7 Any TUE decision by an International Federation (or by a National Anti-Doping Organization where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of an International Federation) that is not reviewed by WADA , or that is reviewed by WADA but is not reversed upon review, may be appealed by the Athlete and/or the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization, exclusively to CAS.3231 [Comment to Article 4.4.6: WADA shall be entitled to charge a fee to cover the costs of: (a) any review it is required to conduct in accordance with Article 4.4.6; and (b) any review it chooses to conduct, where the decision being reviewed is reversed.
]32 [Comment to Article 4.4.7: In such cases, the decision being appealed is the International Federation’s TUE decision, not WADA’s decision not to review the TUE decision or (having reviewed it) not to reverse the TUE decision.
However, the time to appeal the TUE decision does not begin to run until the date that WADA communicates its decision.