Datasets:
timotheeplanes
/
doping

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
17.8k
However, where the National Anti -Doping Organization only directs the laboratory to perform additional types of analysis at the National Anti-Doping Organization ’s expense, then the UCI shall be considered the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed Sample collection.
Resolution of Conflict of Responsibilities If a dispute arises between the UCI and another Anti-Doping Organization over which Anti-Doping Organization has Results Mana gement and/or investigation responsibility, WADA shall decide which organization has such responsibility.
WADA ’s decision may be appealed to CAS within seven (7) days of notification of the WADA decision by any of the Anti-Doping Organizations involved in the dispute.
The appeal shall be dealt with by CAS in an expedited manner and shall be heard before a single arbitrator.
Any Anti-Doping Organization seeking to conduct Results Management outside of the authority provided in this Article 7.1 may seek approval to do so from WADA .
Review and Notification Regarding Potential Anti -Doping Rule Violations The UCI shall carry out the review and notification of Adverse Analytical Findings , Atypical Findings , Athlete Biological Passpor t Findings, potential failure s to comply, potential whereabouts failures and any other potential anti-doping rule violation under its Results Management responsibility in accordance with the UCI Results Management Regulations .
Provisional Suspensions The imposition of a mandatory Provisional Suspension , the possibility to voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension and the related consequences and proceedings are provided in the UCI Results Man agement Regulations .
Results Management Decisions Results Management decisions or adjudications by the UCI or other Anti-Doping Organisations must not purport to be limited to a particular geographic area or sport and shall address and determine without limitation the following issues: (i) whether an anti -doping rule violation was committed , or a Provisional Suspension should be imposed, the fact ual basis for such determination, and the specific Articles that have been violated, and (ii) all Consequences flowing from the anti -doping rule violation(s), including applicable Disqualifications under Articles 9 and 10.10, any forfeiture of medals UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 28 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 or prizes, any period of Ineligibility (and the date it begins to run) and any Financial Consequences .
[Comment to Article 7.
4: Results Management decisions include Provisional Suspensions.
With the exc eption of Results Management decision s 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 Disqualific ations other than Disqualification under Article 10.1 (which is left to the ruling body for an Event).
Pursuant to 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 a Rider committed an anti -doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Sample taken In -Competition, the Rider ’s results obtained in the Competition would be Disqualified under Article 9 and all other competitive res ults obtained by the Rider from the date the Sample was collected through the duration of the period of Ineligibility are also Disqualified under Article 10.10; if the Adverse Analytical Finding resulted from Testing at an Event, it would be the Major Even t Organization’s responsibility to decide whether the Rider ’s other individual results in the Event prior to Sample collection are also Disqualified under Article 10.1.]
Notification of Results Management Decisions The UCI shall notify Rider s, other Persons , relevant Signatories and WADA of Results Management decisions as provided in Article 14 and in the UCI Results Management Regulations .
The UCI may also inform the Rider ’s or other Person ’s National Federation and/or Team .
Retirement from Sport If a Rider or other Person retires while the UCI’s Results Management process is underway, the UCI retains authority to complete its Results Management process.
If a Rider or other Person retires before any Results Management process has begun, and the UCI would have had Results Management authority over the Rider or other Person at the time the Rider or other Person committed an anti -doping rule violation, the UCI retains authority to conduct Results Management .
[Comment to Article 7.
6: Conduct by a Rider or other Person before the Rider or other Person was subject to the authority of any Anti -Doping Organization would not constitute an anti -doping rule violation but could be a legitimate basis for denying the Rider or other Person memb ership in a sports organization.]
RESULTS MANAGEMENT : NOTICE OF CHARGE , AGREEMENT, FAILURE TO CHALLENGE AND HEARING PROCESS When, following the Results Management process described in Article 7, the UCI makes an assertion that an anti -doping rule violatio n was committed, it shall so notify the Rider or other Person concerned and the case shall be referred to the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal , unless i) the Rider or other Person agrees with the UCI on the Consequences of the anti -doping rule violation or ii) the Rider or other Person fails to challenge the UCI’s assertion that an anti -doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the UCI Results Management Regulations or iii) all parties agree that the matter to be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS in accordance with Article 8.4 .
Notice of Charge If, after receipt of the Rider or other Person ’s explanation or expiry of the deadline to provide such explanation, the UCI is (still) satisfied that the Rider or other Person has committed (an) anti -doping rule violation(s), the UCI shall promptly charge the Rider or other Person with the anti -doping rule violation(s) he or she is asserted to have breached in accordance with the UCI Results Management Regulations.
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 29 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 Acceptance of Consequences and Failure to Challenge the Anti-Doping Rule Violation In the event that the Rider or other Person either (i) admits the anti -doping rule violation and accepts the proposed Consequences or (ii) is deemed to have admitted the violation and accepted the Consequences in accordance with Article 8 , the UCI shall promptly notify the relevant parties with a right of appeal.
Such agreement shall be considered as a decision by the UCI which replace s a decision of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal and put an end to the proceedings.
The agr eement may be appealed to CAS by the Anti-Doping Organizations having a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3.
The Rider or other Person and the UCI shall have no right to appeal.
The UCI may reopen the case if new facts, or facts that were not known to the UCI at the time of the agreement, are subsequently brought t o its knowledge, the nature of which would have led the UCI not to conclude the agreement or to conclude the agreement with different terms.
If an appeal is pending before CAS at this point, the UCI shall be entitled to raise these new facts or circumstanc es in the CAS proceedings.
Public Disclosure of the agreement shall be conducted in accordance with Article 14.4.
Subject to Article 8.4, in the event that the Rider or other Person requests a hearing, the matter shall be referred to the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal and be dealt with pursuant to Article 8.
3.
Hearing Process UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal The UCI shall establish an UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal to hear anti -doping rule violation s asserted under these Anti -Doping Rules.
The UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal shall be Operationally Independen t. The UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal , its composition and its procedures shall be determined in specific procedural rules established by the UCI and made available on its website .
The UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal is financed by the UCI and the National Federations .
The financial contribution of the National Federations shall be through payment of a fee due whenever a procedure is initiated before the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal .
Such fee is paid by the National Federation of the Licence -Holder against whom the procedure is initiated.
Comment to Art icle 8.
3.1: The relevant National Federation is the National Federation of the Licence -Holder at the time of the Anti -Doping Rule Violation.
Jurisdiction of the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal The UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all matters in which • An anti -doping rule violation is asserted by the UCI based on a Results Management or investigation process under Article 7; • An anti -doping rule violation is asserted by another Anti-Doping Organization under its rules, and all parties (in particular the Anti-Doping Organization and the Rider or other Person concerned) agree to submit the matter to the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal , with the agreement of the UCI; or • The UCI decides to assert an anti -doping rule violation against a Rider or other Person subject to these Anti -Doping Rules, based on a failure by another organization to initiate or diligently pursue a hearing process or where the UCI otherwise finds it appropriate for a fair hearing process to be granted.
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 30 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 Decision by the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal Upon hearing the matter as provided for in its procedural rules, the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal shall issue a written, reasoned decision in a timely manner , in accordance with the UCI Results Management Regulations.
The decision may be appealed to CAS as provided in Article 13.
The decision shall be notified to the Rider or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3.
If no appeal is brought against the decision, then a) if the decision is that an anti -doping rule violation was committed, the decision shall be Publicly Disclosed as provided in Article 14.4.2; b) if the decision is that no anti -doping rule violation was committed, then the decision shall only be Publicly Disclosed with the consent of the Rider or other Person who is the subject of the decision.
The principles contained at Article 14.4.
7 shall be ap plied in cases involving a Minor , Protected Person or Recreational Athlete .
Single Hearing Before CAS Anti-doping rule violations asserted under these Anti-Doping Rules may, with the consent of the Rider or other Person , the UCI and WADA , be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS.
[Comment to Article 8.
4: In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international or national level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial.
Where all of the parties identified in this Article are satisfied that their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need for the Rider or Anti -Doping Organizations to incur the extra expense of two hearings.
An Anti -Doping Organization may participate in the CAS hearing as an observer.]
Event Hearings Hearings held in connection with Events may be conducted by an expedited process as permitted by the procedural rules of the UCI Anti -Doping Tribunal.
Waiver of Hearing The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Rider ’s or other Person ’s failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti -doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the UCI Results Management Regulations .
Notice of Decision The reasoned hearing decision, or in cases where the hearing has been waived, the Acceptance of Consequence s, shall be provided by the UCI to the Rider and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3 as provided in Article 14 and published in accordance with Article 14.
4.
AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS An anti -doping rule violation in Individual Sports in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition with all resulting Consequences , including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
[Comment to Article 9: Consequences for Teams are as provided in Ar ticle 11] UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 31 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an Anti -Doping Rule Violation Occurs An anti -doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event, lead to Disqualification of all of the Rider 's individual results obtained in that Event with all Consequences , including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.
1.
Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might include, for example, the seriousness of the Rider ’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Rider tested negative in the other Competitions .
[Comment to Article 10.1.1: Whereas Article 9 Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Rider tested positive (e.g., individual pursuit ), this Article may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g., th e UCI Track World Cham pionships).]
If the Rider establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Rider 's individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified , unless the Rider 's results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti -doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Rider 's anti-doping rule violation.
Notwithstanding the application of Article 10.1, the Rider shall be removed from the final general ranking of the Event in case of Disqualification under Article 9 of a Competition within that Event .
Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7: The period of Ineligibility , subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where: The anti -doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method , unless the Rider or other Person can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional.
[Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for a Rider or other Person to establish that the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional without showing how the Prohibited Substance entered one’s system, it is highly unlikely that in a doping case under Article 2.1 a Rider will be successful in proving that the Rider acted unintentionally without establishing the source of the Prohibited Substance.]
The anti -doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance , or a Specified Method and the UCI can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was intentional.
If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, subject to Article 10.2.4.1, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years.
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 32 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify tho se Rider s or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti -doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded tha t risk.
An anti -doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably presumed to be not “intentional” if the substance is a Specified Substance and the Rider can esta blish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition .
An anti -doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is no t a Specified Substance and the Rider can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.
[Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.]
Notwithstanding any other provision in Article 10.2, where the anti -doping rule violation involves a Substance of Abuse : If the Rider can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period of Ineligibility shall be three (3) months Ineligibility .
In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the Rider or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by the UCI.
The period of Ineligibility established in this Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Article 10.6.
[Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the treatment program is approved and whether the Rider or other Person has satisfactorily completed the program shall be made in the sole discretion of the U CI.
This Article is intended to give the UCI the leeway to apply its own judgment to identify and approve legitimate and reputable, as opposed to “sham”, treatment programs.
It is anticipated, however, that the characteristics of legitimate treatment progr ams may vary widely and change over time such that it would not be practical for the UCI to develop mandatory criteria for acceptable treatment programs.]
If the ingestion, Use or Possession occurred In-Competition , and the Rider can establish that the co ntext of the ingestion, Use or Possession was unrelated to sport performance, then the ingestion, Use or Possession shall not be considered intentional for purposes of Article 10.2.1 and shall not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances under Article 10.4.
Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations The period of Ineligibility for anti -doping rule violations other than as provided in Article 10.2 shall be as follows, unless Article 10.6 or 10.7 are applicable: For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four (4) years except: (i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Rider can establish that the commission of the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years; (ii) in all oth er cases, if the Rider or other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the period of Ineligibility , the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range from two (2) years to four (4) years depending on the Rider or other Person’s degree of Fault ; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Rider , the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range between a maximum of two (2) years and, at a UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 33 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Rider ’s degree of Fault .
For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Rider ’s degree of Fault .
The flexibility between two (2) years and one (1) year of Ineligibility in this Article is not available to Rider s where a pattern of last-minute whereabouts changes or other conduct raises a serious suspicion that the Rider was trying to avoid being available for Testing .
For violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifeti me Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation.
An Article 2.7 or Article 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person shall be considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Rider Support Personnel for violations other than for Specified Substances , shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Rider Support Personnel .
In addition, significant violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non -sporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.
[Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Rider s or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions which are more severe than the Rider s who test positive.
Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited to Ineligibility for accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Rider Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.]
For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation.
For violations of Article 2.10, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Rider or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.
[Comment to Article 10 .3.5: Where the “other Person” referenced in Article 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that entity may be disciplined as provided in Article 12.]
For violations of Article 2.11, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation by the Rider or other Person .
[Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by a Rider or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) shall be sanctioned based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction.]
Aggravating Circumstances which may Increase the Period of Ineligibility If the UCI establishe s in an individual case involving an anti -doping rule violation other than violations under Article 2.7 ( Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking ), 2.8 ( Administration or Attempted Administration ), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity ) or 2.11 (Acts by a Rider or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting) that Aggravating Circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be increased by an additional period of Ineligibility of up to two (2) years depending on the seriousness of the violation and the nature of the Aggravating Circumstances , unless the Rider or other Person can establish that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti -doping rule violation.
[Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Atte mpted Complicity) and 2.11 (Acts by a Rider or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities ) are not included in the application of Article 10.4 because the sanctions for these violations already build in sufficient discretion u p to a lifetime ban to allow consideration of any Aggravating Circumstance .]
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS Page 34 of 70 UCI ADR 2021 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence If a Rider or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence , then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.
[Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti -doping rule violation has occurred.
They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where a Rider could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.
Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement ( Rider s are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contaminat ion); (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Rider ’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Rider (Rider s are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given a ny Prohibited Substance); and (c) sabotage of the Rider ’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Rider ’s circle of associates ( Rider s are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.]
Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence Reduction of Sanctions in Particular Circumstances for Violations of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6.
All reductions under Article 10.6.1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative.
Specified Substances or Specified Methods Where the anti -doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse ) or Specified Method , and the Rider or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility , depending on the Rider ’s or other Person’s degree of Fault .
Contaminated Products In cases where the Rider or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse ) came from a Contaminated Product , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility , depending on the Rider or other Person’s degree of Fault .
[Comment to Article 10.6.1.2: In order to receive the benefit of this Article, the Rider or other Person must establish not only that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product but must also separately establish No Significant Fault or Negligence.