text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
(ii) any Person, who, wit hout being a Licen ce-Holder , participates in any capacity in Events , Competitions and other activities organized, convened, authorized or recognized by the UCI, or any National Federation , or by any member or affiliate organization of the UCI or any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations, or leagues) , wherever held; (iii) any other Rider or Rider Support Personnel or other Person who, by virtue of an accreditation, a lice nce or other contractual arrangement, or otherwise, is subject to the authority of the UCI, or of any National Federation , or of any member or affiliate organization of the UCI or any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations, or leagu es), for purposes of anti -doping; and (iv) any Rider who is not a Licen ce-Holder but who wishes to be eligible to compete in a particular International Event . |
Each of the abovementioned Persons is deemed, as a condition of his or her participation or involvement in cycling , to have agreed to and be bound by these Anti -Doping Rules, and to have submitted to the authority of the UCI to enforce these Anti -Doping Rules, including any Consequences for the breach thereof, and to the jurisdiction of the hearing panels specified in UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 7 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 these Anti -Doping Rules to hear and determine cases and appeals brought under these Anti -Doping Rules. |
[Comme nt: Where these Anti -Doping Rules require a Person other than a Rider or Rider Support Person to be bound by these Rules, such Person would of course not be subject to Sample collection or Testing, and would not be subject to an anti -doping rule violation under these Rules for Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. |
Rather, such Person would only be subject to discipline for a violation of Articles 2.5 (Tampering), 2.7 (Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration), 2.9 (Complicity), 2.10 (Pr ohibited Association) and 2.11 (Retaliation). |
Furthermore, such Person would be subject to the additional roles and responsibilities according to Article 21.3. |
Also , the obligation to require an employee to be bound by the Code is subject to applicable law .] |
D. International Level Rider s Within the overall pool of Persons set out above who are bound by and required to comply with these Anti -Doping Rules, the Rider s included in the UCI Registered Testing Pool or the UCI Testing Pool shall be considered to be International -Level Rider s for the purposes of these Anti -Doping Rules, and, therefore, the specific provisions in these Anti -Doping Rules applicable to International -Level Rider s (e.g., Testing , TUEs , whereabouts, and Results Man agement ) shall apply to such Rider s. For purposes of Articles 7, 8 & 13, it shall be sufficient for a Rider to be regarded as International -Level Rider that he or she is or was included in the UCI Registered Testing Pool or in the UCI Testing Pool either at the time of the Sample collection, or at the time an investigation or a review under Article 7 is initiated against him or her. |
E. Documents Adopted by the UCI in Connection with these Anti -Doping Rules Under the World Anti -Doping Program, WADA may release various types of documents, including : a) International Standards , b) Technical Documents , and c) Guidelines and Models of Best Practices. |
The UCI may, consistent with its responsibilities under the Code , choose to (a) directly incorporate some of these documents by reference into these Anti -Doping Rules, and/or , (b) adopt Regulations implementing all or certain aspects of these documents for the sport of cycling. |
The UCI Testing & Investigations Regulations (UCI TIR), the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Regulations ( UCI TUER ), the UCI Results Management Regulations ( UCI RMR), are an integral part of these Anti -Doping Rules. |
They may be amended by the UCI from time to time (including upon amendment of the corresponding International Standard or Technical Document by WADA ) and are available in their current version on the UCI Website . |
Compliance with an International Standard or with the relevant UCI Regulations (as opposed to another alternative standard, practice or procedure) shall be sufficient to conclude that the procedures addressed by the International Standard or UCI Regulatio ns in question were performed properly. |
All documents binding upon Rider s and other Persons subject to these Anti -Doping Rules are made available on the UCI Website, in their version effective and as amended from time to time. |
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 8 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti -doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of these Anti -Doping Rules. |
ANTI -DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduc t which constitute anti -doping rule violations. |
Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules have been violated. |
Rider s or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti -doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List . |
The following constitute anti -doping rule violations: Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Rider ’s Sample It is the Rider s’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. |
Rider s are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples . |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent , Fault , Negligence or knowing Use on the Rider ’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1. |
[Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti -doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to a Rider ’s Fault. |
This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. |
A Rider ’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti -doping rule violation under Article 10. |
This principle has consistently been u pheld by CAS.] |
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 Rider ’s A Sample where the Rider waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Rider ’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Rider ’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Rider ’s A Sample ; or where the Rider ’s A or B Sample is split into two (2) parts and the analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first part of the split Sample or the Rider waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample . |
[Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti -Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Rider does not reque st the analysis of the B Sample.] |
Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the Prohibited List or a Technical Document , the presence of any reported quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Rider ’s Sample shall constitute an anti -doping rule violation. |
As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List , International Standards or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances . |
Use or Attempted Use by a Rider of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method It is the Rider s’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enter s their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used . |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault , Negligence or knowing Use on the Rider ’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method . |
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 9 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. |
It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti -doping rule violation to be committed. |
[Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. |
As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Rider , witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn f rom longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of the Athlete Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. |
For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.] |
[Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Rider ’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. |
A Rider ’s Use o f a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti -doping rule violation unless such Substance is not prohibited Out -of-Competition and the Rider ’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.)] |
Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by a Rider Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorized Person . |
[Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti -doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that a Rider was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. |
A violation of “failing to submit to Sample coll ection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Rider , while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Rider .] |
Whereabouts Failures by a Rider Any combination of three (3) missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the UCI Results Management Regulations , within a twelve (12) month period by a Rider in a Registered Testing Pool. |
Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control by a Rider or Other Person Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by a Rider or Rider Support Person Possession by a Rider In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method , or Possession by a Rider Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Rider establishes that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justific ation. |
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 10 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 Possession by a Rider Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method , or Possession by a Rider Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with a Rider , Competition or training, unless the Rider Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to a Rider in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable just ification. |
[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 t hat Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child. |
Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) a Rider 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) a Rider Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE. ] |
Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in an y Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by a Rider or Other Person Administration or Attempt ed Administration by a Rider or Other Person to any Rider In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method , or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Rider Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is Prohibited Out-of-Competition Complicity or Attempted Complicity by a Rider or Other Person Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, con spiring, 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 . |
[Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.] |
Prohibited Association by a Rider or Other Person Association by a Rider or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization in a professional or sport -related capacity with any Rider Support Person who: If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization , is serving a period of Ineligibility ; or 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 r ules if Code -compliant rules had been applicable to such Person. |
The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six (6) years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinar y or professional sanction imposed; or Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2. |
To establish a violation of Article 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Rider or other Person knew of the Rider Support Person’s disqualifying status. |
The burden shall be on the Rider or other Person to establish that any association with a Rider 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. |
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 11 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 Anti-Doping Organization s that are aware of Rider 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 . |
[Comment to Article 2.10: Rider s and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Rider 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 Rider who is acting as a coach or Rider 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 Rider 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 Rider or other Person about the Rider Support Person’s disq ualifying status, such notice, if provided, would be important evidence to establish that the Rider or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Rider Support Person.] |
Acts by a Rider or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Report ing to Authorities Where such conduct does not otherwise constitute a violation of Article 2.5: 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 rel ates 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 . |
Retaliation against a Person who, in good faith, has provided evidence or information that relate s 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. |
[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. |
Retalia tion would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or mental well -being or economic interests of the reporting Persons, their families or associates. |
Retaliation would not include an Anti-Doping Organization asserting in good faith an anti -doping rule violation against the reporting Person. |
For purposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false.] |
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 12 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 PROOF OF DOPING Burdens and Standards of Proof The UCI shall have the burden of establishing that an anti -doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether the UCI has established an anti -doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of th e 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 Rider 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. |
[Comment to Article 3 .1: This standard of proof required to be met by the UCI is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.] |
Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti -doping rule violatio ns may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. |
[Comment to Article 3.2: For example, the UCI may establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Rider ’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliabl e 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 Rider ’s blood or urine Samples, such as data from the Athlete Biological Pass port.] |
The following rules of proof shall be applicable in doping cases: 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 s cientifically valid. |
Any Rider 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 challeng e, 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. |
[Comment to Article 3.2.1: For certain Prohibited Substances, WADA may instruct WADA -accredited laboratories not to report Samples as an Adverse Analytical Finding if the estimated concentration of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers is below a Minimum Reporting Level. |
WADA ’s decision in determining that Minimum Reporting Level or in determining which Prohibited Substances should be subject to Minimum Reporting Levels shall not be subject to challenge. |
Further, the laboratory’s estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate. |
In no event shall the possibility that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may be below the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defense to an anti -doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.] |
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 Rider or other Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding . |
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 13 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 If the Rider or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure from t he International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding , then the UCI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding . |
[Comment to Article 3.2 .3: The burden is on the Rider 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 Rider or other Person establishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Rider or other Person’s burden on causation is the somewhat lower standard of proof – “could reasonably have caused.” If the Rider or other Person satisfies these standards, the burden shifts to the UCI to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.] |
Departures from any other rules set forth in these Anti -Doping Rules, UCI Regulations, any International Standard or other anti -doping rule or policy set forth in the Code 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; provided, howe ver, if the Rider or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the specific UCI Regulations or International Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding , an Adverse Passport Finding or whereabouts failure, then the UCI 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 UCI Testing & Investigation Regulations or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to Sample collection or Sample handling which could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Adverse Passport Finding , in which case the UCI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analyti cal Finding ; (ii) a departure from the UCI Results Management Regulations, UCI Testing & Investigations Regulations, International Standard for Results Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Passport Fin ding which could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation, in which case the UCI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the anti -doping rule violation; (iii) a departure from the UCI Results Management Regulatio ns or International Standard for Results Management related to the requirement to provide notice to the Rider 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 UCI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ; [Comment to Article 3.2.4 (iii): The UCI 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 obs erved.] |
(iv) a departure from the UCI Results Management Regulations or International Standard for Results Management related to Rider notification which could reasonably have caused an anti -doping rule violation based on a whereabouts failure, in which ca se the UCI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the whereabouts failure. |
[Comment to Article 3.2. |
4: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelat ed to Sample collection or handling, Adverse Passport Findin g, or Rider notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standards for Education, Data Privacy or TUEs – may result in UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 14 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 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 Rider committed an anti -doping rule violation. |
Similarly, the UCI’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.] |
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 Rider or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Rider or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice. |
The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti -doping rule violation may draw an infe rence adverse to the Rider or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti -doping rule violation based on the Rider ’s or other Person ’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions from the hearing panel or the UCI. |
PROHIBITED LIST AND THERAPEUTIC USE EXEMPTION S 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 effec t under these Anti -Doping Rules three (3) months after publication by WADA , without requiring any further action by the UCI or its National Federations. |
All Rider s 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 Rider s and other Persons to familiarize themselves with the most up -to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto. |
The UCI shall provide its National Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List . |
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 Prohibit ed List . |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.