text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
To assess whether a hearing panel member is impartial, the Results Management Authority may take into account the principles set out in the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration as updated from time to time available at https://www.ibanet.org.] |
8.5 The parties shall be notified of the identity of the hearing pa nel members appointed to hear and determine the matter and be provided with their declaration at the outset of the Hearing Process. |
The parties shall be informed of their right to challe nge the appointment of any hearing panel member if there are grounds for potential conflicts of in terest within seven (7) days from the ground for the challenge having become known. |
Any challenge shall be decided upon by an independent person from the wider pool of hearing panel memb ers or by an independent institution. |
[Comment to Article 8.5: For example, the independent person may be a designated chairperson of the pool. |
The relevant rules should also provide for a mechanism for the event that the independent person is the person subject to the challenge or is one of the other members of that particular hearing panel (e.g. |
the designated independent person may be replaced in these circumstances by a vice-chairperson or other designated senior hearing panel member).] |
8.6 The rules governing the activities of the Results Management Authority shall guarantee the Operational Independence of hearing panel members. |
[Comment to Article 8.6: As per the Code definition, Operational Independence means that (1) board members, staff members, commission members, consultants and officials of the Results Management Authority or its affiliates (e.g. |
member federation or confederation), as well as any person involved in the investigation and pre-adjudication of the matter, cannot be appointed as members and/or clerks (to the extent that such clerk is involved in the deliberation process and/or drafting of any decision) of hearing panels of that Results Management Authority and (2) that hearing panels shall be in a position to conduct the hearing and decision-making process without interference from the Re sults Management Authority or any third party. |
The objective is to ensure that members of the hearing panel or individuals otherwise involved in the decision of the hearing panel, are not involved in the investigation of, or decisions to proceed with, the case.] |
ISRM – January 2023 Page 34 of 54 8.7 Anti-Doping Organizations shall provide adequate resources to ensure that hearing panels are able to fulfil their tasks efficiently and independently and ot herwise in accordance with this Article 8. |
[Comment to Article 8.7: All agreed fees and reasonable expenses of the hearing panels shall be timely paid by the Results Management Authority.] |
8.8 The Hearing Process shall respect, at a minimum, all of the fol lowing principles: a) The hearing panel must remain fair, impartial and Operationally Independent at all times; b) The Hearing Process shall be accessible and affordable; [Comment to Article 8.8 b): Procedural fees, if any, shall be set at a level that does not prevent the accused Person from accessing the hearing. |
When necessary, the Results Management Authority and/or the relevant hearing panel should consider establishing a legal aid mechanism in order to ensure such access.] |
c) The Hearing Process shall be conducted within a reasonable t ime; [Comment to Article 8.8 c): All decisions shall be issued and notified promptly after the hearing in person or, if no hearing in person is requested, after the parties have filed their written submissions. |
Save in complex matters, this timeframe should not exceed two (2) months.] |
d) The right to be informed in a fair and timely manner of the asserted anti-doping rule violation(s), the right to be represented by counsel at the Athlete or other Person’s own expense, the right of access to and to present relevant evidenc e, the right to submit written and oral submissions, the right to call and examine witnesses, and the right to an interpreter at the hearing at the Athlete or other Person’s own expense; and [Comment to Article 8.8 d): In principle, where the hearing is in person, it should be composed of an opening phase, where the parties are given an opportunity to briefly present their case, an evidentiary phase, w here the evidence is assessed and witnesses and experts (if any) are heard, and a closing phase, where all parties are given an opportunity to present their final arguments in light of the evidence.] |
e) The right for the Athlete or the other Person to request a public hearing. |
The Results Management Authority may also request a public hearing provided that the Athlete or the other Person has provided his/her written consent to the same. |
[Comment to Article 8.8 e): However, the request may be denied by the hearing panel in the interest of morals, public order, national security, where the interests of Minors or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice or where the proceedings are exclusively related to questions of law.] |
8.9 Hearing Processes held in connection with Events may be conducted by an expedited process as permitted by the rules of the relevant Anti-Doping Organization and the hearing panel. |
ISRM – January 2023 Page 35 of 54 9.0 Decisions 9.1 Content 9.1.1 Results Management decisions or adjudications by Anti-Doping Organizations must not purport to be limited to a particular geographic area or sport and shall address and determine the following issues: a) Jurisdictional basis and applicable rules; b) Detailed factual background; [Comment to Article 9.1.1 b): For instance, where the violation is based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, the decision shall set out inter alia the date and place of the Sample Collection Session, the type of Sample collection (blood or urine), whether the control was Out-of-Competition or In-Competition, the Prohibited Substance detected, the WADA-accredited Laboratory that performed the analysis, if the “B” Sample analysis was requested and/or performed as well as the results of the analysis. |
For any other violation, a full and detailed description of the facts shall be made.] |
c) Anti-doping rule violation(s) committed; [Comment to Article 9.1.1 c): Where the violation is based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, the decision shall inter alia set out that there was no departure from the International Standards, or that the alleged departure(s) did or did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding and demonstrate that the violation of Code Article 2 is made out (see Code Article 2.1.2). |
For any other violation, the hearing panel shall assess the evidence presented and explain why it considers that the evidence presented by the Results Management Authority meets or does not meet the required standard of proof. |
In case the hearing panel considers that the anti-doping rule violation(s) is/are established, it shall expressly indicate the anti-doping rule(s) violated.] |
d) Applicable Consequences ; and [Comment to Article 9.1.1 d): The decision shall identify the specific provisions on which the sanction, including any reduction or suspension, is based and provide reasons justifying the imposition of the relevant Consequences. |
In particular, where the applicable rules grant discretion to the hearing panel (e.g. |
for Specified Substances or Specified Methods or Contaminated Products under Code Article 10.6.1.1 and 10.6.1.2), the decision shall explain why the period of Ineligibility imposed is appropriate. |
The decision shall also indicate the start date of the period of Ineligibility (if any) and provide justifications in the event that this date is earlier than the date of the decision (see Code Article 10.13.1). |
The decision shall also indicate the period of Disqualification, with justification in the event that certain results are not Disqualified for reasons of fairness (Code Article 10.10 of the Code), and any forfeiture of medals or prizes. |
The decision shall also set if (and to what extent) any period of Provisional Suspension is credited against any period of ISRM – January 2023 Page 36 of 54 Ineligibility ultimately imposed, and set out any other relevant Consequences based on the applicable rules, including Financial Consequences. |
As per Code Article 7.5.1, Major Event Organizations shall, however, not be required to determine Ineligibility or Financial Consequences beyond the scope of their Event.] |
e) Appeal routes and deadline to appeal for the Athlete or other Person . |
[Comment to Article 9.1.1 e): The decision shall indicate whether the Athlete is an International-Level Athlete for the purposes of the appeal route under Code Article 13. |
If this information is not available to the hearing panel, the hearing panel shall request the Results Management Authority to liaise with the relevant Anti-Doping Organization (e.g. |
the International Federation of the Athlete). |
The decision shall then set out the appropriate appeal route (including the address to which any appeal should be sent to) and the deadline to appeal.] |
[Comment to Article 9.1.1: Results Management decisions include Provisional Suspension, save that a Results Management decision on Provisional Suspension shall not be required to determine whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed.] |
9.1.2 A Results Management decision or adjudication by a Major Event Organization i n connection with one of its Events may be limited in its scope but shall address and determine, at a minimum, the follow ing issues: (i) whether an a nti-doping rule violation was committed, the factual basis for such determination, and th e specific Code Articles violated, and (ii) applicable Disqualifications under Code Articles 9 and 10.1, with any resulting forfeiture of medals, points and prizes. |
[Comment to Article 9.1.2: With the exception of Results Management decisions by Major Event Organizations, each decision by an Anti-Doping Organization should address whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed and all Consequences flowing from the violation, including any Disqualifications other than Disqualification under Code Article 10.1 (which is left to the ruling body for an Event). |
Pursuant to Code 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 Code 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 Ineligibility are also Disqualified under Code 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 individual results in the Event prior to Sample collection are also Disqualified under Code Article 10.1.] |
9.2 Notification Decisions shall be promptly notified by the Results Management Authority to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right of appeal under Code Article 13.2.3 and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS . |
Where the decision is not in English or ISRM – January 2023 Page 37 of 54 French, the Results Management Authority shall provide an English or French summary of the decision and of the supporting reasons as well as a searchable version of the decision. |
9.2.1 An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall be made aware by the Results Management Authority of their status during Ineligibility , including the Consequences of a violation of the prohibition of participation during Ineligibility , pursuant to Code Article 10.14. |
The Results Management Authority shall ensure that the period of Ineligibility is duly respected within its sphere of competence. |
The Athlete or other Person should also be made aware that they may still provide Substantial Assistance . |
9.2.2 An Athlete subject to a period of Ineligibility should also be made aware by the Results Management Authority that they remain subject to Testing during the period of Ineligibility . |
9.2.3 Where, further to notification of the decision, an Anti-Doping Organization with a right of appeal requests a copy of the full case file pertaining to t he decision, it shall be provided promptly by the Results Management Authority. |
[Comment to Article 9.2.5: The case file shall contain all documents relating to the case. |
For an analytical case, it shall include at a minimum the Doping Control form, Laboratory results and/or Laboratory Documentation Package(s) (if issued), any submissions and exhibits and/or correspondence of the parties and all other documents relied upon by the hearing body. |
The case file should be sent by email in an organized manner with a table of contents.] |
9.2.4 If the decision concerns an Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding , and after any deadline to appeal has elapsed and no appeal has been filed against the decision, the Results Management Authority shall promptly notify the relevant Laboratory that th e matter has been finally disposed of. |
10.0 Appeals 10.1 The rules governing appeal rights and avenues are set out at Code Article 13 . |
10.2 With respect to national appellate instances within the meaning of Code Article 13.2.2: a) The appointment of hearing panel members and the Hearing Pro cess on appeal are governed by Article 8 mutatis mutandis. |
In addition to being fa ir, impartial and Operationally Independent , a hearing panel on appeal shall also be Institutionally Independent ; [Comment to Article 10.2 a): For the purposes of this provision, hearing panels on appeal shall be fully Institutionally Independent from the Results Management Authority. |
They must therefore not in any way be administered by, connected or subject to the Results Management Authority.] |
b) The appeal decision rendered by an appeal body shall comply with the requirements of Article 9.1; ISRM – January 2023 Page 38 of 54 c) The appeal decision shall promptly be notified by the Results Management Authority to the Athlete or other Person and to the other Anti-Doping Organizations that would have been entitled to appeal the prior instance decision under Code Article 13.2.3; d) The further notification requirements at Article 9.2 shall a pply mutatis mutandis . |
10.3 With respect to appeals before CAS: a) The appeal procedure shall be governed by the Code of Sports -related Arbitration; b) All parties to any CAS appeal must ensure that WADA and any other party, which would have had a right of appeal and is not a party to the CAS appeal, has been given timely notice of the appeal; c) No settlement embodied in an arbitral award rendered by cons ent of the parties as per R56 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration shall be entered into by an Anti-Doping Organization without WADA ’s written approval. |
Where the parties to the CAS proceedings are envisaging settling the matter by way of a settlement embod ied in an arbitral award rendered by consent of the parties, the Anti-Doping Organization that is a party to the proceedings shall immediately notify WADA and provide it with all necessary information in this respect; d) Any Anti-Doping Organization that is a party to an appeal before CAS shall promptly provide the CAS award to the other Anti-Doping Organizations that would have been entitled to appeal under Code Article 13.2.3; and e) The requirements of Articles 9.2.2 to 9.2.4 shall apply muta tis mutandis. |
11.0 Violation of the Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility 11.1 In the event that an Athlete or other Person is suspected to have violated the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility pursuant to Code Article 10.14, the Results Management relating to this potential violation shall comply with the pri nciples of this International Standard mutatis mutandis. |
[Comment to Article 11.1: In particular, the Athlete or other Person shall receive a notification letter in accordance with Article 5.3.2 mutatis mutandis, a letter of charge in accordance with Article 7 mutatis mutandis and be afforded the right to a hearing as per Article 8.] |
ISRM – January 2023 Page 39 of 54 ANNEX A – REVIEW OF A PO SSIBLE FAILURE TO COMPLY A.1 Responsibility A.1.1 The Results Management Authority or Testing Authority (as applicable) is responsible for ensuring that: a) When the possible Failure to Comply comes to its attention, it notifies WADA , and instigates review of the possible Failure to Comply based on al l relevant information and documentation; b) The Athlete or other Person is informed of the possible Failure to Comply in writing and has the opportunity to respond in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the International Standard for Results Management ; c) The review is conducted without unnecessary delay and the ev aluation process is documented; and d) If it decides not to move forward with the matter, its decis ion is notified in accordance with Article 5.4 of the International Standard for Results Management. |
A.1.2 The DCO is responsible for providing a detailed written report of any possible Failure to Comply. |
A.2 Requirements A.2.1 Any potential Failure to Comply shall be reported by the DCO to the Results Management Authority (or Testing Authority as applicable) and/or followed up by the Testing Authority and reported to the Results Management Authority as soon as practicable. |
A.2.2 If the Results Management Authority determines that there has been a potential Failure t o Comply, the Athlete or other Person shall be promptly notified in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the International Standard for Results Management and further Results Management shall be conducted as per Article 5 et seq . |
of the International Standard for Results Management. |
A.2.3 Any additional necessary information about the potential Failur e to Comply shall be obtained from all relevant sources (including the Athlete or other Person ) as soon as possible and recorded. |
A.2.4 The Results Management Authority (and Testing Authority as applicable) shall establish a system for ensuring that the outcomes of its reviews into poten tial Failures to Comply are considered for Results Management action and, if applicable, for further planning and Target Testing . |
ISRM – January 2023 Page 40 of 54 ANNEX B – RESULTS MANAGEMENT FOR WHEREABOUTS FAILURES B.1 Determining a Potential Whereabouts Failure B.1.1 Three (3) Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete within any 12-month period amount to an anti-doping rule violation under Code Article 2.4. |
The Whereabouts Failures may be any combination of Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests declared in accordance with Article B.3 and adding up to three (3) in total. |
[Comment to Article B.1.1: While a single Whereabouts Failure will not amount to an anti-doping rule violation under Code Article 2.4, depending on the facts, it could amount to an anti-doping rule violation under Code Article 2.3 (Evading Sample Collection) and/or Code Article 2.5 (Tampering or Attempted Tampering with Doping Control).] |
B.1.2 The 12-month period referred to in Code Article 2.4 starts to run on the date that an Athlete commits the first Whereabouts Failure being relied upon in supp ort of the allegation of a violation of Code Article 2.4. |
If two (2) mo re Whereabouts Failures occur during the ensuing 12-month period, then Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation is committed, irrespecti ve of any Samples successfully collected from the Athlete during that 12-month period. |
However, if an Athlete who has committed one (1) Whereabouts Failure does not go on to commit a further two (2) Whereabouts Failures within the 12-mon ths, at the end of that 12-month period, the first Whereabouts Failure “expires” for purpo ses of Code Article 2.4, and a new 12-month period begins to run from the date of their next W hereabouts Failure. |
B.1.3 For purposes of determining whether a Whereabouts Failure has o ccurred within the 12-month period referred to in Code Article 2.4: a) A Filing Failure will be deemed to have occurred (i) where t he Athlete fails to provide complete information in due time in advance of an upcoming quar ter, on the first day of that quarter, and (ii) where any information provided by the Athlete (whether in advance of the quarter or by way of update) transpires to be inaccurate , on the (first) date on which such information can be shown to be inaccurate; and b) A Missed Test will be deemed to have occurred on the date th at the Sample collection was unsuccessfully attempted. |
B.1.4 Whereabouts Failures committed by the Athlete prior to retirement as defined in Article 4.8.7.3 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations may be combined, for purposes of Code Article 2.4, with Whereabouts Failures committed by the Athlete after the Athlete again becomes available for Out-of-Competition Testing . |
[Comment to Article B.1.4: For example, if an Athlete committed two (2) Whereabouts Failures in the six (6) months prior to their retirement, then if they commit another Whereabouts Failure in the first six (6) months in which they are again available for Out-of-Competition Testing, that amounts to a Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation.] |
B.2 Requirements for a Potential Filing Failure or Missed Test ISRM – January 2023 Page 41 of 54 B.2.1 An Athlete may only be declared to have committed a Filing Failure where t he Results Management Authority establishes each of the following: a) That the Athlete was duly notified: (i) that they had been designated for inclus ion in a Registered Testing Pool ; (ii) of the consequent requirement to make Whereabouts Filing ; and (iii) of the Consequences of any Failure to Comply with that requirement; b) That the Athlete failed to comply with that requirement by the applicable deadli ne; [Comment to Article B.2.1(b): An Athlete fails to comply with the requirement to make Whereabouts Filing (i) where they do not make any such filing, or where they fail to update the filing as required by Article 4.8.8.6 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations; or (ii) where they make the filing or update but do not include all of the required information in that filing or update (e.g. |
they do not include the place where they will be staying overnight for each day in the following quarter, or for each day covered by the update, or omit to declare a regular activity that they will be pursuing during the quarter, or during the period covered by the update); or (iii) where they include information in the original filing or the update that is inaccurate (e.g., an address that does not exist) or insufficient to enable the Anti-Doping Organization to locate them for Testing (e.g., “running in the Black Forest”).] |
c) In the case of a second or third Filing Failure, that they w ere given notice, in accordance with Article B.3.2(d), of the previous Filing Failure, and (if that Filing Failure revealed deficiencies in the Whereabouts Filing that would lead to furth er Filing Failures if not rectified) was advised in the notice that in order to avoid a f urther Filing Failure they must file the required Whereabouts Filing (or update) by the deadlin e specified in the notice (which must be within 48 hours after receipt of the notice) and yet failed to rectify that Filing Failure by the deadline specified in the notice; and [Comment to Article B.2.1(c): All that is required is to give the Athlete notice of the first Filing Failure and an opportunity to avoid a subsequent one, before a subsequent Filing Failure may be pursued against them. |
In particular, it is not necessary to complete the Results Management process with respect to the first Filing Failure before pursuing a second Filing Failure against the Athlete.] |
d) That the Athlete’s failure to file was at least negligent. |
For these purposes, th e Athlete will be presumed to have committed the failure negligently upon proo f that they were notified of the requirements yet did not comply with them. |
That presumpt ion may only be rebutted by the Athlete establishing that no negligent behavior on their part caused or contributed to the failure. |
B.2.2 While Code Article 5.2 specifies that every Athlete must submit to Testing at any time and place upon request by an Anti-Doping Organization with Testing Authority over them, in addition, an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool must specifically be present and available for Testing on any given day during the 60-minute time slot specified for t hat day in their Whereabouts Filing, at the location that the Athlete has specified for that time slot in such filing. |
Where this requirement is not met by the Athlete , it shall be pursued as an apparent Missed Test. |
If the Athlete is tested during such a time slot, the Athlete must remain with the DCO until the Sample collection has been completed, even if this takes longer than t he 60- ISRM – January 2023 Page 42 of 54 minute time slot. |
A failure to do so shall be pur sued as an app arent violation of Code Article 2.3 (refusal or failure to submit to Sample collection). |
B.2.3 To ensure fairness to the Athlete , where an unsuccessful attempt has been made to test an Athlete during one of the 60-minute time slots specified in their Where abouts Filing, any subsequent unsuccessful attempt to test that Athlete (by the same or any other Anti-Doping Organization ) during one of the 60-minute time slots specified in their Whe reabouts Filing may only be counted as a Missed Test (or, if the unsuccessful a ttempt was because the information filed was insufficient to find the Athlete during the time slot, as a Filing Failure) against that Athlete if that subsequent attempt takes place after the Athlete has received notice, in accordance with Article B.3.2(d), of the original un successful attempt. |
[Comment to Article B.2.3: All that is requir ed is to give the Athlete notice of one Missed Test or Filing Failure before a subsequent Missed Test or Filing Failure may be pursued against them. |
In particular, it is not necessary to complete the Results Management process with respect to the first Missed Test or Filing Failure before pursuing a second Missed Test or Filing Failure against the Athlete.] |
B.2.4 An Athlete may only be declared to have committed a Missed Test where the Results Management Authority can establish each of the following: a) That when the Athlete was given notice that they had been designated for inclusion in a Registered Testing Pool , they were advised that they would be liable for a Missed Test if they were unavailable for Testing during the 60-minute time slot specified in their Whereabouts Filing at the location specified for that time slot ; b) That a DCO attempted to test the Athlete on a given day in the quarter, during the 60-minute time slot specified in the Athlete’s Whereabouts Filing for that day, by visiting the location specified for that time slot; c) That during that specified 60- minute time slot, the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances (i.e. |
given the nature of the specified location) to try to locate the Athlete , short of giving the Athlete any advance notice of the test; [Comment to Article B.2.4(c): Due to the fact that the making of a telephone call is discretionary rather than mandatory, and is left entirely to the absolute discretion of the Sample Collection Authority, proof that a telephone call was made is not a requisite element of a Missed Test, and the lack of a telephone call does not give the Athlete a defense to the assertion of a Missed Test.] |
d) That Article B.2.3 does not apply or (if it applies) was com plied with; and e) That the Athlete’s non-availability for Testing at the specified location during the specified 60-minute time slot was at least negligent. |
For these purposes, the Athlete will be presumed to have been negligent upon proof of the matters se t out at sub-Articles B.2.4 (a) to (d). |
That presumption may only be rebutted by the Athlete establishing that no negligent behavior on their part caused or contributed to th eir failure (i) to be available for Testing at such location during such time slot, and (ii) to update thei r most ISRM – January 2023 Page 43 of 54 recent Whereabouts Filing to give notice of a different locatio n where they would instead be available for Testing during a specified 60-minute time slot on the relevant day. |
B.3 Results Management for a Potential Whereabouts Failure B.3.1 In accordance with Code Articles 7.1.6, the Results Management Authority in relation to potential Whereabouts Failures shall be the International Feder ation or the National Anti-Doping Organization with whom the Athlete in question files their whereabouts information. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.