text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
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. |
]5 [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.)] |
6 [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. |
]8 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES2.6 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. |
2.6.2 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.72.7 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-Compe -tition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is Prohibited Out-of-Competition2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other Person Assisting, 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 .82.10 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 ; or 2.10.1.2 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 7 [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.] |
[Comment to Article 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. |
]8 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 9rules 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 or 2.10.2. |
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. |
Anti-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 .92.11 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 body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organization.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.109 [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. |
]10 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not pro -tect Persons who knowingly make false reports.] |
[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 purpos -es of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false. |
]10 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULESARTICLE 3PROOF OF DOPING3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof IWF shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether IWF 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. |
Where these Anti-Doping Rules place 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 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.113.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.12 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 in 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.133.2.2 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 11 [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by IWF is comparable to the standard which is ap -plied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. |
]12 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, IWF 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. |
]13 [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 sub -ject 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. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 11other 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 IWF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding .143.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or these Anti-Doping 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;15 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 IWF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the whereabouts failure:(i) a departure from the I nternational 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 IWF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ;(ii) a departure from the International Standard for R esults Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Passport Finding which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case IWF 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 IWF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ;1614 [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 – “could reasonably have caused.” If the Athlete or other Person satisfies these standards, the burden shifts to IWF to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
]15 [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 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, IWF’s violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 of the Code shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation. |
]16 [Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): IWF 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. |
]12 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES(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 IWF 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 have 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 IWF.ARTICLE 4THE PROHIBITED LIST4.1 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 . |
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 publication by WADA , without requiring any further action by IWF or its Member Federations . |
All Athletes and other Persons shall be bound by the Prohibited List , and any revisions thereto, from the date they go into effect, without further formality. |
It is the responsibility of all Athletes and other Persons to familiarize themselves with the most up-to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto. |
IWF shall provide its Member Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List . |
Each Member 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 .174.2 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 17 [Comment to Article 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at https://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 predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 13In-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.184.2.2 Specified Substance s or Specified Methods For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substance s 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 .194.2.3 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. |
4.3 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 classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only, the classification of a substance or method as 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 (“ TUE s”) 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 TUE Applications4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International-Level Athletes shall apply to their National Anti-Doping Organization for a TUE. |
If the National Anti-Doping 18 [Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition is not an an -ti-doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample collected In-Competition. |
]19 [Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances 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 sub -stances 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. |
]14 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULESOrganization denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively 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 IWF.4.4.3 TUE Recognition204.4.3.1 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organization pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Code for the substance or method in question and provided that such TUE has been reported in accordance with Article 5.5 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , IWF will automatically recognize it for purposes of international-level Competition without the need to review the relevant clinical information.4.4.3.2 If IWF chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete , IWF must recognize a TUE granted to that Athlete by their National Anti-Doping Organization unless the Athlete is required to apply for recognition of the TUE pursuant to Articles 5.8 and 7.0 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions .4.4.4 TUE Application Process214.4.4.1 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 IWF.4.4.4.2 An application to IWF for grant or recognition of a TUE must be made as soon as possible, save where Articles 4.1 or 4.3 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions apply. |
The application shall be made in accordance with Article 6 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions as posted on IWF’s website.4.4.4.3 IWF has established a Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (“TUEC”) to consider applications for the grant or recognition of TUEs in accordance with Article 4.4.4.3(a)-(d) below: (a) The TUEC shall consist of a minimum of five (5) members with experience in the care and treatment of Athletes and sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine. |
20 [Comment to Article 4.4.3: If IWF refuses to recognize a TUE granted by a National Anti-Doping Organization only be -cause 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 IWF.] |
[Comment to Article 4.4.3: IWF may agree with a National Anti-Doping Organization that the National Anti-Doping Organization will consider TUE applications on behalf of IWF. |
]21 [Comment to Article 4.4.4: The submission of falsified documents to a TUEC or IWF, offering or accepting a bribe to a Person to perform or fail to perform an act, procuring false testimony from any witness, or committing any other fraud -ulent act or any other similar intentional interference or Attempted interference with any aspect of the TUE process shall result in a charge of Tampering or Attempted Tampering under Article 2.5. |
An Athlete should not assume that their application for the grant or recognition of a TUE (or for renewal of a TUE) will be granted. |
Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method before an applica -tion has been granted is entirely at the Athlete’s own risk.] |
IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 15(b) Before serving as a member of the TUEC, each member must sign a conflict of interest and confidentiality declaration. |
The appointed members shall not be employees of IWF. |
(c) When an application to IWF for the grant or recognition of a TUE is made, three (3) members (which may include the Chair) shall be appointed to consider the application. |
(d) Before considering a TUE application, each member shall disclose any circumstances likely to affect their impartiality with respect to the Athlete making the application. |
If a member is unwilling or unable to assess the Athlete’s TUE application, for any reason, a replacement shall be reappointed from the pool of members appointed under point (a) above. |
The Chair cannot serve as a member of the TUEC if there are any circumstances which are likely to affect the impartiality of the TUE decision.4.4.4.4 The TUEC shall promptly evaluate and decide upon the application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions and usually (i.e., unless exceptional circumstances apply) within no more than twenty-one (21) days of receipt of a complete application. |
Where the application is made in a reasonable time prior to an Event, the TUEC must use its best endeavors to issue its decision before the start of the Event .4.4.4.5 The TUEC decision shall be the final decision of IWF and may be appealed in accordance with Article 4.4.7. |
The TUEC decision shall be notified in writing to the Athlete, and to WADA and other Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions . |
It shall also promptly be reported into ADAMS .4.4.4.6 If IWF (or the National Anti-Doping Organization , where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of IWF) denies the Athlete ’s application, it must notify the Athlete promptly, with reasons. |
If IWF grants the Athlete’ s application, it must notify not only the Athlete but also their National Anti-Doping Organization . |
If the National Anti-Doping Organization considers that the TUE granted by IWF 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 in accordance with Article 4.4.7. |
If the National Anti-Doping Organization refers the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by IWF 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 IWF becomes valid for national-level Competition as well when the twenty-one (21) day review deadline expires.16 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES4.4.5 Retroactive TUE Applications If IWF chooses to collect a Sample from an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete or a National-Level Athlete , and that Athlete is Using a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons, IWF must permit that Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE.4.4.6 Expiration, Withdrawal or Reversal of a TUE4.4.6.1 A TUE granted pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules: (a) shall expire automatically at the end of any term for which it was granted, without the need for any further notice or other formality; (b) will be withdrawn if the Athlete does not promptly comply with any requirements or conditions imposed by the TUEC upon grant of the TUE; (c) may be withdrawn by the TUEC if it is subsequently determined that the criteria for grant of a TUE are not in fact met; or (d) may be reversed on review by WADA or on appeal. |
4.4.6.2 In such event, the Athlete shall not be subject to any Consequences based on their Use or Possession or Administration of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question in accordance with the TUE prior to the effective date of expiry, withdrawal, or reversal of the TUE. |
The review pursuant to Article 5.1.1.1 of the International Standard for Results Management of an Adverse Analytical Finding , reported shortly after the TUE expiry, withdrawal or reversal, shall include consideration of whether such finding is consistent with Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method prior to that date, in which event no anti-doping rule violation shall be asserted.4.4.7 Reviews and Appeals of TUE Decisions 4.4.7.1 WADA must review IWF’s decision not to recognize a TUE granted by the National Anti-Doping Organization that is referred to WADA by the Athlete or the A thlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization . |
In addition, WADA must review IWF’s decision to grant a TUE that is referred to WADA 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.22 4.4.7.2 Any TUE decision by IWF (or by a N ational Anti-Doping Organization where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of IWF) 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.2322 [Comment to Article 4.4.7.1: 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 4.4.7; and (b) any review it chooses to conduct, where the decision being reviewed is reversed. |
]23 [Comment to Article 4.4.7.2: In such cases, the decision being appealed is the IWF’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. |
In any event, whether the deci -sion has been reviewed by WADA or not, WADA shall be given notice of the appeal so that it may participate if it sees fit. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 174.4.7.3 A decision by WADA to reverse a TUE decision may be appealed by the Athlete , the National Anti-Doping Organization and/or IWF, exclusively to CAS.4.4.7.4 A failure to render a decision within a reasonable time on a properly submitted application for grant/recognition of a TUE or for review of a TUE decision shall be considered a denial of the application thus triggering the applicable rights of review/appeal.ARTICLE 5TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS5.1 Purpose of Testing and Investigations24 5.1.1 Testing and investigations may be undertaken for any anti-doping purpose. |
They shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and the eventual specific protocols of IWF supplementing that International Standard.5.1.2 Testing shall be undertaken to obtain analytical evidence as to whether the Athlete has violated Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’ s Sample ) or Article 2.2 ( Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method ). |
5.2 Authority to Test5.2.1 Subject to the limitations for Event Testing set out in Article 5.3, IWF shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes specified in the Introduction to these Anti-Doping Rules (Section “Scope of these Anti-Doping Rules”).5.2.2 IWF may require any Athlete over whom it has Testing authority (including any Athlete serving a period of Ineligibility ) to provide a Sample at any time and at any place.25 5.2.3 WADA shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority as set out in Article 20.7.10 of the Code . |
5.2.4 If IWF delegates or contracts any part of Testing to a National Anti-Doping Organization directly or through a Member Federation , that National Anti-Doping Organization may collect additional Samples or direct the laboratory to 24 [Comment to Article 5.1: Where Testing is conducted for anti-doping purposes, the analytical results and data may be used for other legitimate purposes under the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules. |
See, e.g., Comment to Article 23.2.2 of the Code. |
]25 [Comment to Article 5.2.2: IWF may obtain additional authority to conduct Testing by means of bilateral or multilateral agreements with other Signatories. |
Unless the Athlete has identified a sixty (60) minute Testing window between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or has otherwise consented to Testing during that period, IWF will not test an Athlete during that period unless it has a serious and specific suspicion that the Athlete may be engaged in doping. |
A challenge to whether IWF had sufficient suspicion for Testing during this time period shall not be a defense to an anti-doping rule violation based on such test or attempted test. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.