Datasets:
timotheeplanes
/
doping

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
17.8k
[Comment to Article B.3.1: If an Anti-Doping Organization that receives an Athlete's Whereabouts Filing (and so is their Results Management Authority for whereabouts purposes) removes the Athlete from its Registered Testing Pool after recording one or two Whereabouts Failures against them, then if the Athlete is put in another Anti-Doping Organization's Registered Testing Pool, and that other Anti-Doping Organization starts receiving their Whereabouts Filing, then, that other Anti-Doping Organization becomes the Results Management Authority in respect of all Whereabouts Failures by that Athlete, including those recorded by the first Anti-Doping Organization.
In that case, the first Anti-Doping Organization shall provide the second Anti-Doping Organization with full information about the Whereabouts Failure(s) recorded by the first Anti-Doping Organization in the relevant period, so that if the second Anti-Doping Organization records any further Whereabouts Failure(s) against that Athlete, it has all the information it needs to bring proceedings against them, in accordance with Article B.3.4, for violation of Code Article 2.4.]
B.3.2 When a Whereabouts Failure appears to have occurred, Results Management shall proceed as follows: a) If the apparent Whereabouts Failure has been uncovered by an attempt to test the Athlete , the Testing Authority shall timely obtain an Unsuccessful Attempt Report f rom the DCO.
If the Testing Authority is different from the Results Management Authority, it shall provide the Unsuccessful Attempt Report to the Results Management Authority without delay, and thereafter it shall assist the Results Management Authority as necessary in obtaining information from the DCO in relation to the apparent Whereabouts Failure.
b) The Results Management Authority shall timely review the file (including any Unsuccessful Attempt Report filed by the DCO) to determine whet her all of the Article B.2.1 requirements (in the case of a Filing Failure) or all of the Article B.2.4 requirements (in the case of a Missed Test) are met.
It shall gather informa tion as necessary from third parties (e.g., the DCO whose test attempt uncovered the Filing Failure or triggered the Missed Test) to assis t it in this task.
c) If the Results Management Authority concludes that any of the relevant requirements have not been met (so that no Whereabouts Failure should be dec lared), it shall so advise WADA , the International Federation or National Anti-Doping Organization (as applicable), and the Anti-Doping Organization that uncovered the Whereabouts Failure, giving reasons for its decision.
Each of them shall have a righ t of appeal against that decision in accordance with Code Article 13. d) If the Results Management Authority concludes that all of the relevant requirements as ISRM – January 2023 Page 44 of 54 set out in B.2.1 (Filing Failure) and B.2.4 (Missed Test) have been met, it should notify the Athlete within fourteen (14) days of the date of the apparent Whereabou ts Failure.
The notice shall include sufficient details of the apparent Whe reabouts Failure to enable the Athlete to respond meaningfully, and shall give the Athlete a reasonable deadline to respond, advising whether they admit the Whereabouts Failure an d, if they do not admit to the Whereabouts Failure, then an explanation as to why not.
The notice should also advise the Athlete that three (3) Whereabouts Failures in any 12-month period is a Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation, and should note whether they ha d any other Whereabouts Failures recorded against them in the previous twelve (12) mont hs.
In the case of a Filing Failure, the notice must also advise the Athlete that in order to avoid a further Filing Failure they must file the missing whereabouts information by the deadline s pecified in the notice, which must be within 48 hours after receipt of the notice.
e) If the Athlete does not respond within the specified deadline, the Results Management Authority shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them.
If the Athlete does respond within the deadline, the Results Management Authority shall consider whether their response changes its original decision t hat all of the requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure have been met.
i.
If so, it shall so advise the Athlete , WADA , the International Federation or National Anti-Doping Organization (as applicable), and the Anti-Doping Organization that uncovered the Whereabouts Failure, giving reasons for its decis ion.
Each of them shall have a right of appeal against that decision in accordanc e with Code Article 13. ii.
If not, it shall so advise the Athlete (with reasons) and specify a reasonable deadline by which they may request an administrative review of its decision.
The Unsuccessful Attempt Report shall be provided to the Athlete at this point if it has not been provided to them earlier in the process.
f) If the Athlete does not request an administrative review by the specified dead line, the Results Management Authority shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them.
If the Athlete does request an administrative review before the deadline, it s hall be carried out, based on the papers only, by one or more person no t previously involved in the assessment of the apparent Whereabouts Failure.
The purpose of the administrative review shall be to determine anew whether or not all of the rel evant requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure are met.
g) If the conclusion following administrative review is that al l of the requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure are not met, the Results Management Authority shall so advise the Athlete , WADA , the International Federation or National Anti-Doping Organization (as applicable), and the Anti-Doping Organization that uncovered the Whereabouts Failure, giving reasons for its decision.
Each of t hem shall have a right of appeal against that decision in accordance with Code Article 13.
On the other hand, if the conclusion is that all of the requirements for recording a Wher eabouts Failure are met, it shall notify the Athlete and shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them.
ISRM – January 2023 Page 45 of 54 B.3.3 The Results Management Authority shall promptly report a decision to record a Whereab outs Failure against an Athlete to WADA and all other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations , on a confidential basis, via ADAMS.
[Comment to Article B.3.3: For the avoidance of doubt, the Results Management Authority is entitled to notify other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations (on a strictly confidential basis) of the apparent Whereabouts Failure at an earlier stage of the Results Management process, where it considers it appropriate (for test planning purposes or otherwise).
In addition, an Anti-Doping Organization may publish a general statistical report of its activities that discloses in general terms the number of Whereabouts Failures that have been recorded in respect of Athletes under its jurisdiction during a particular period, provided that it does not publish any information that might reveal the identity of the Athletes involved.
Prior to any proceedings under Code Article 2.4, an Anti-Doping Organization should not Publicly Disclose that a particular Athlete does (or does not) have any Whereabouts Failures recorded against them (or that a particular sport does, or does not, have Athletes with Whereabouts Failures recorded against them).]
B.3.4 Where three (3) Whereabouts Failures are recorded against an Athlete within any 12-month period, the Results Management Authority shall notify the Athlete and other Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the International Standard for Results Management alleging violation of Code Article 2.4 and proceed with Results Management in accordance with Article 5 et seq.
of the International Standard for Results Management .
If the Results Management Authority fails to bring such proceedings against an Athlete within 30-days of WADA receiving notice of the recording of that Athlete’s third Whereabouts Failure in any 12-month period, then the Results Management Authority shall be deemed to have decided that no anti-doping rule violation was committed, for p urposes of triggering the appeal rights set out at Code Article 13.2.
B.3.5 An Athlete asserted to have committed a Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation shall have the right to have such assertion determined at a full evidentia ry hearing in accordance with Code Article 8 and Articles 8 and 10 of the International Standard for Results Management .
The hearing panel shall not be bound by any determination made during the Results Management process, whether as to the adequacy of any explanation offered f o r a Whereabouts Failure or otherwise.
Instead, the burden shall be on the Anti-Doping Organization bringing the proceedings to establish all of the requisite elem ents of each alleged Whereabouts Failure to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel.
If the hearing panel decides that one (or two) Whereabouts Failure(s) have been established to the required standard, but that the other alleged Whereabouts F ailure(s) has/have not, then no Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation shall be found to have o ccurred.
However, if the Athlete then commits one (or two, as applicable) further Whereabouts Fa ilure(s) within the relevant 12-month period, new proceedings may be brought based on a combination of the Whereabouts Failure(s) established to the satisfaction of the h earing panel in the previous proceedings (in accordance with Code Article 3.2.3) and the Whereabouts Failure(s) subsequently committed by the Athlete .
[Comment to Article B.3.5: Nothing in Arti cle B.3.5 is intended to prevent the Anti-Doping Organization challenging an argument raised on the Athlete’s behalf at the hearing on the basis that it could have been but was not rais ed at an earlier stage of the Results Management process.]
ISRM – January 2023 Page 46 of 54 B.3.6 A finding that an Athlete has committed a Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation has the following Consequences : (a) imposition of a period of Ineligibility in accordance with Code Article 10.3.2 (first violation) or Code Article 10.9 (subsequent violation(s)); and (b) in accordance with Code Article 10.10 ( Disqualification , unless fairness requires otherwise) of all individual results obtained by the Athlete from the date of the Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation through to the date of commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, with all of the resulting Consequences , including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
For these purposes, the anti-doping rule vio lation shall be deemed to have occurred on the date of the third Whereabouts Failure found by the hearing panel to have occurred.
The impact of any Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation by an individual Athlete on the results of any team for which that Athlete has played during the relevant period shall be determined in accordance with Code Article 11.
ISRM – January 2023 Page 47 of 54 ANNEX C – RESULTS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT C.1 Administrative Management C.1.1 The requirements and procedures described in this Annex apply to al l modules of the Athlete Biological Passport except where expressly stated or implied by the context.
C.1.2 These processes shall be administered and managed by an Athlete Passport Management Unit on behalf of the Passport Custodian.
The Athlete Passport Management Unit will initially review profiles to facilitate targeting recommendations for the Passport Custodian when appropriate or refer to the Experts as required.
Management and communication of the biological data, Athlete Passport Management Unit reporting and Expert reviews shall be recorded in ADAMS and be shared by the Passport Custodian with other Anti-Doping Organizations with Testing Authority over the Athlete to coordinate further Passport Testing as appropriate.
A key element for Athlete Biological Passport management and communication is the Athlete Passport Management Unit Report in ADAMS , which provides an overview of the current status of the Athlete’s Passport including the latest targeting recommendations and a summary of the Expert reviews.
C.1.3 This Annex describes a step-by-step approach to the review of a n Athlete’s Passport: a) The review begins with the application of the Adaptive Model .
b) In case of an Atypical Passport Finding or when the Athlete Passport Management Unit considers that a review is otherwise justified, an Expert condu cts an initial review and returns an evaluation based on the information available at tha t time.
c) In case of a “Likely doping” initial review, the Passport is then subjected to a review by three (3) Experts including the Expert who conducted the initia l review.
d) In case of a “Likely doping” consensus of the three (3) Expe rts, the process continues with the creation of an Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package.
e) An Adverse Passport Finding is reported by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to the Passport Custodian if the Experts’ opinion is maintained after review of all information available at that stage, including the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package.
f) The Athlete is notified of the Adverse Passport Finding and offered the opportunity to provide explanations.
g) If after review of the explanations provided by the Athlete , the Experts maintain their unanimous conclusion that it is highly likely that the Athlete Used a Prohibited Substanc e or a Prohibited Method , an anti-doping rule violation is asserted against the Athlete by the Passport Custodian.
ISRM – January 2023 Page 48 of 54 C.2 Initial Review Phase C.2.1 Review by the Adaptive Model C.2.1.1.
In ADAMS , the Adaptive Model automatically processes data on the biolog ical Markers of the Athlete Biological Passport .
These Markers include primary Markers that are defined as the most specific to doping and secondary Markers that provide supporting evidence of doping in isolation or in c ombination with other Markers .
The Adaptive Model predicts for an individual an expected ran ge within which a series of Marker values falls assuming a normal physiological condition.
Outliers correspond to those values outside of the 99%-range, f rom a lower limit corresponding to the 0.5th percentile to an upper limit corresponding to the 99.5th percentile (1:100 chance or less that this result is due to nor mal physiological variation).
A specificity of 99% is used to identify Atypical Passport Findings .
In the case of sequence deviations (sequence Atypical Passport Findings ), the applied specificity is 99.9% (1:1000 chance or less that this is due to normal physiological variation).
C.2.1.2.
An Atypical Passport Finding is a result generated by the Adaptive Model in ADAMS which identifies either: a) a primary Marker(s) value(s) as being outside the Athlete’s intra-individual range, or, b) a longitudinal profile consisting of (up to) the last five (5) valid primary Marker values as deviating from expected ranges (sequence Atypical Passport Findings ), assuming a normal physiological condition.
An Atypical Passport Finding requires further attention and review.
C.2.1.3.
Primary and Secondary Markers C.2.1.3.1 For the Haematological Module, the Adaptive Model automaticall y processes in ADAMS two primary Markers , haemoglobin concentration (HGB) and stimulation index OFF-score (OFFS), and two secondary Markers, the reticulocyte percentage (RET%) and the Abnormal Blood Profile Score (ABPS).
HGB and RET% are Markers measured in blood ABP Samples while OFFS and ABPS are calculated using values of Markers measured in blood ABP Samples .
C.2.1.3.2 The Steroidal Module comprises steroid Markers measured in urine and/or blood (serum) Samples .
For urine Samples , the Adaptive Model automatically processes in ADAMS one primary Marker , the Testosterone to Epitestosterone ratio (T/E), and four (4) secon dary Markers : the Androsterone to Testosterone ratio (A/T), the Androsterone to Etiocholanolone ratio (A/Etio), the 5 -Androstane-3,17β-diol to 5β-Androstane-3 ,17β-diol ratio (5 Adiol/5βAdiol) and the 5-Androstane-3 ,17β-diol to Epitestosterone ratio (5 Adiol/E).
For blood Samples , the Adaptive Model automatically processes in ISRM – January 2023 Page 49 of 54 ADAMS one primary Marker, the Testosterone to Androstenedione ratio (T/A4).
C.2.1.3.3 For the Endocrine Module, the Adaptive Model automatically pro cesses in ADAMS one primary Marker , the GH-2000 score calculated using a formula including two (2) secondary Markers , insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and N-terminal pro-peptide of type III collagen (P-II I-NP) measured in blood (serum) Samples .
C.2.1.4.
Departure from WADA Athlete Biological Passport requirements C.2.1.4.1 If there is a departure from WADA Athlete Biological Passport requirements for Sample collection, transport and analysis, the biological Marker result obtained from this Sample affected by the non-conformity shall not be considered in the Adaptive Model calcul ations (for example, RET% can be affected but not HGB under certain transportation conditions).
C.2.1.4.2 A Marker result which is not affected by the non-conformity can still be considered in the Adaptive Model calculations.
In such case, th e Athlete Passport Management Unit shall provide the specific explanations supporting the inclusion of the result(s).
In all cases, the Sample shall remain recorded in the Athlete’s Passport.
The Experts may include all results in their review provided that their con clusions may be validly supported when taking into account the effects o f the non-conformity.
C.2.2 The Initial Expert Review C.2.2.1 A Passport generating an Atypical Passport Finding, or for which a review is otherwise justified, shall be sent by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to an Expert for review in ADAMS .
This should take place within seven (7) days following the generation of the Atypical Passport Finding in ADAMS .
The review of the Passport shall be conducted based on the Passport and other bas ic information (e.g.
Competition schedules), which may be available, such that the Expert is blinded to the identity of the Athlete .
The Expert shall provide the individual report in ADAMS and this should take place within seven (7) days after receipt of the request.
C.2.2.2 If a Passport has been recently reviewed by an Expert and the Passport Custodian is in the process of executing a specific multi- Sample Testing strategy on the Athlete , the Athlete Passport Management Unit may delay the review of a Passport generating an Atypical Passport Finding triggered by one of the Samples collected in this context until completion of the planned series of tests .
In such situations, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall clearly indicate the reason for delaying the review of the Passport in the Athlete Passport Management Unit Report.
ISRM – January 2023 Page 50 of 54 C.2.2.3 If the first and unique result in a Passport is flagged as an Atypical Passport Finding by the Adaptive Model, the Athlete Passport Management Unit may recommend the collection of an additional Sample before initiating the initial Expert review.
C.2.2.4 Review in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding C.2.2.4.1 A Passport may also be sent for Expert review in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding where the Passport includes other elements otherwise justifying a review.
These elements may include, without limitation: a) Data not considered in the Adaptive Model; b) Any abnormal levels and/or variations of Marker(s) ; c) Signs of hemodilution in the haematological Passport; d) Marker levels below the corresponding Limit of Quantification of the assay; or e) Intelligence in relation to the Athlete concerned.
C.2.2.4.2 An Expert review initiated in the above-mentioned situations may result in the same Consequences as an Expert rev iew triggered by an Atypical Passport Finding .
C.2.2.5 Expert Evaluation C.2.2.5.1 When evaluating a Passport, an Expert weighs the likelihood t hat the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method against the likelihood that the Passport is the result of a nor mal physiological or pathological condition in order to provide one of the following opinions: “Normal”, “Suspicious”, “Likely doping” or “Likely medical condition”.
For a “Likely doping” opinion, the Expert s hall come to the conclusion that the likelihood that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method outweighs the likelihood that the Passport is the result of a normal physiolo gical or pathological condition.
[Comment to Article C.2.2.5.1: When evaluating competing propositions, the likelihood of each proposition is evaluated by the Expert based on the evidence available for that proposition.
It is acknowledged that it is the relative likelihoods (i.e., likelihood ratio) of the competing propositions that ultimately determine the Expert’s opinion.
For example, where the Expert is of the view that a Passport is highly likely the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, it is necessary for a “Likely doping” evaluation that the Expert consider that it is unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition.
Similarly, ISRM – January 2023 Page 51 of 54 where the Expert is of the view that a Passport is likely the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, it is necessary for a “Likely doping” evaluation that the Expert consider that it is highly unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition.]
C.2.2.5.2 To reach a conclusion of “Likely doping” in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding , the Expert shall come to the opinion that it is highly likely that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and that it is highly unlikely that the Passport is the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition.
C.2.3 Consequences of the Initial Review Depending on the outcome of the initial review, the Athlete Passport Management Unit will take the following action: Expert Evaluation Athlete Passport Management Unit Action “Normal” Continue normal Testing plan.
“Suspicious” Provide recommendations to the Passport Custodian for Target Testing , Sample analysis and/or requesting further information as required.
“Likely doping” Send to a panel of three (3) Experts, including the initial Expert, as per section C.2 of this Annex C. “Likely medical condition” If recommended by the Expert, inform the Athlete as soon as possible via the Passport Custodian (or send to other Experts).
[Comment to Article C.2.3: The Athlete Biological Passport is a tool to detect the possible Use of Prohibited Substance(s) or Prohibited Method(s) and it is not intended as a health check or for medical monitoring.
It is important that the Passport Custodian educate the Athletes to ensure that they undergo regular health monitoring and not rely on the Athlete Biological Passport for this purpose.
Nevertheless, the Passport Custodian should inform the Athlete in case the Passport indicates a likely pathology as determined by the Experts.]
C.3 Review by Three (3) Experts C.3.1 In the event that the opinion of the appointed Expert in the in itial review, pending other explanation to be provided at a lat er stage, is that of “Likely doping”, the Passport shall then be sent by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to two (2) additional Experts for rev iew.