text
stringlengths 1
17.8k
|
|---|
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 th is anti -doping rule violation under Article 10. |
This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.] |
2.1.2 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 analysed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analysed and the ana lysis 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 (2) parts and the analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the p resence 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 . |
[Comment to Article 2.1.2: The WSF may , at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analysed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.] |
2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the Prohibited List or a Technical Docum ent, the presence of any report ed 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, Interna tional Standards or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances. |
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method [Comment to Article 2.2: It ha s 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 Art icle 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusio ns drawn from longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of the Athlete Biolo gical 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 anal ysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the WSF provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.] |
2.2.1 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 Prohibite d 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. |
[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 th at intent may be required to prove this particular anti -doping rule violation does not undermine the strict liability principle established for violation s of Article 2.1 and violations of Article 2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibite d 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 will be a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that substance might have been administered.)] |
10 | P a g e 2.3 Evading , Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorised Person . |
[Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti -doping rule violation o f “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 neglige nt conduct of the Athlete, while “evading ” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by an Athlete.] |
2.4 Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete Any combination of three (3) missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the Internati onal Standard for Results Management , within a twelve (12) 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 Person 2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person 2.6.1 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. |
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Suppo rt 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 wit h 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. |
[Comment to Article 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., b uying Insulin for a diabetic child. |
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.] |
2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Meth od by an Athlete or Other Person 2.8 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-Competition. |
2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other Person Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other typ e 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 . |
[Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include eit her physical or psychological assistance.] |
2.10 Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person 2.10.1 Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation in a professional or sport -related capacity with a ny Athlete Support Person who: 2.10.1.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation , is serving a period of Ineligibility ; or 11 | P a g e 2.10.1.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation and where Ineligibility has not been addres sed 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 ha d 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 impo sed; or 2.10.1.3 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 Organisation 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. |
Anti-Doping Organisations 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 . |
[Comme nt 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 discip lined in rela tion 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: obtainin g training, s trategy, 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 n eed not invol ve any form of compensation.] |
While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti -Doping Organisation to notify the Athlete or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if provided, would be important evidence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete support Person.] |
2.11 Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities Where such conduct does not otherwise con stitute a vio lation 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 allege d non -compliance with the Code to WADA , an Anti-Doping Organisation , law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation. |
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 Organisation , law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, he aring body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation . |
[Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports. |
Retaliation would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or mental well -being or economic interests of the reporting Pe rsons, their families or associates. |
Retaliation would not include an Anti -Doping Organisation’s 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.] |
2.11.3 For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate respons e. 12 | P a g e ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof The WSF shall have the burden of establishing that an ant i-doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether the WSF have established an anti -doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Hearing Panel bearing in mind the s eriousness of the allegation which is made. |
This s tandard 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 rul e 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. |
[Comment to Art icle 3.1: The standard of proof required to be met by the WSF or its National Federation is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.] |
3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti -doping rule violations may be est ablished by any reliable means, including admissions. |
The following rules of proof shall be applicable in doping cases: [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, the WSF or its National Federation may establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.2 b ased 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.] |
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 revie w are presumed to be scientifically valid. |
Any Athlete or other Person seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presumption have been met o r 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 in form 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 procee ding. |
In cases before CAS, at WADA ’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific exper t to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge. |
[Comment to Article 3.2.1: For certain Prohibited Substances, WADA may instruct WADA -accredi ted 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 defence to an anti -doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.] |
3.2.2 WADA -accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved by WADA , are presumed to have conducte d 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 whi ch could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding . |
If the Athlete or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by sho wing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding , then the WSF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Find ing. |
[Comment to Article 3.2.2: The burden is on the Athlete or other Person to establish, by a bala nce of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analyti cal 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 – “could reasonably have caused.” If the Athlete or other P erson 13 | P a g e satisfies these standards, the burden shifts to the WSF or its National Federation to prove to the comfortable satis faction of the Hearing Panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.] |
3.2.3 Departures from any other Interna tional Standard or other anti -doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or in these Anti -Doping Rules shall not invalida te analytical results or other evidence of an anti -doping rule violation, and shall not constitute a defence to an anti -doping rule violation; provided, however, if the Athlete or other Person establishes th at a departure from one of the specific Internati onal Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure, then the WSF shall have the burden to establish that such a departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure: [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 Standards for Education, Data Privacy or TUEs – may result in compliance proceedings by WADA but are not a defence in an anti -doping rule violation proceeding and ar e not relevant on the issue of whether the Athlet e committed an anti -doping rule violation. |
Similarly, an Anti -Doping Organization’s violation of the Athletes’ Anti -Doping Rights Act shall not constitute a defence to an anti -doping rule violation.] |
(i) a d eparture from the International Standard for Test ing 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 WSF shall hav e 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 Adverse Passport Findin gs which could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation, in which case the WSF 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 Ma nagement related to the requirement to provide no tice 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 WSF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ; [Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): An Anti -Doping Organisation would meet its burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical F inding by showing that, for example, the B Sample opening and analysis were observed b y an independent witness and no irregularities were observed.] |
(iv) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to Athlete notification whi ch could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation based on a whereabouts f ailure , in which case the WSF 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 th e 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 ma de 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 WSF. |
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. |
14 | P a g e 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 pu blication of the Prohibited List by WADA without requiring any further action by the WSF. |
All Athletes and other Persons shall be bound by the Prohibited List , and any revisions the reto, from the date they go into effect, without further formality. |
It is t he responsibility of all Athletes and other Persons to familiarise themselves with the most up -to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto. |
The WSF shall provid e the PSA and its National Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List. |
The PSA and each National Federation 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. |
[Comment to Artic le 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at www.wada -ama.org . |
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises. |
However, for the sake of pred ictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made . |
4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on the Prohibited List 4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods 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-Competition only. |
The Prohibited List may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport. |
Prohibited Substance s and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibi ted List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a particular substance or method. |
[Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out -of-Competition Use of a substance which is on ly prohibited In -Competition is not an anti -doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample collected In -Competition.] |
4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified Methods For p urposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substanc es 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 . |
[Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Subst ances 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 b y an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance.] |
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 Abu se 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 clas sification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only, the classification of a substance or method as a Specified Substance , Specified M ethod 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 potentia l 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 Administrat ion 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. |
15 | P a g e 4.4.2 TUE Applications 4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International -Level Athletes shall apply to their National Anti -Doping Organisation for a TUE. |
If the National Anti -Doping Organisation denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusive ly to the national -level appeal body described in Article 13.2.2. |
4.4.2.2 Athletes who are International -Level Athletes shall apply to the WSF. |
[Comment to Article 4.4.3: If the WSF refuses to recognise a TUE granted by a National Anti -Doping Organisation 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. |
Instea d, the file should be completed and re-submitted to the WSF. |
The WSF may agree with National Anti -Doping Organisation that the National Anti -Doping Organisation will consider TUE applications on behalf of the WSF.] |
4.4.3 TUE Recognition 4.4.3.1 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation for the substance or method in question, if the TUE meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , then the WSF must re cognise it. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.