text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
in addition to providing models of anti-doping documentation, Wada will also make some training assistance available to the Signatories. |
World Anti-Doping Code • 201514FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE FOR THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODEAnti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. |
This intrinsic value is often referred to as “the spirit of sport.” it is the essence of Olympism, the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents. |
it is how we play true. |
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:• Ethics, fair play and honesty• Health• Excellence in performance• Character and education• Fun and joy• Teamwork• Dedication and commitment• Respect for rules and laws• Respect for self and other Participants• Courage• Community and solidarityDoping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport.To fight doping by promoting the spirit of sport, the Code requires each anti-doping organization to develop and implement education and prevention programs for athletes, including youth, and athlete Support Personnel.PART ONEDOPING CONTROLWorld Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control16INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONPart One of the Code sets forth specific anti-doping rules and principles that are to be followed by organizations responsible for adopting, implementing or enforcing anti-doping rules within their authority, e.g., the international Olympic Committee, international Paralympic Committee, international Federations, national olympic Committees and Paralympic Committees, Major event organizations, and national anti-doping organizations. |
All such organizations are collectively referred to as anti-doping organizations.All provisions of the Code are mandatory in substance and must be followed as applicable by each anti-doping organization and athlete or other Person. |
The Code does not, however, replace or eliminate the need for comprehensive anti-doping rules to be adopted by each anti-doping organization. |
While some provisions of the Code must be incorporated without substantive change by each anti-doping organization in its own anti-doping rules, other provisions of the Code establish mandatory guiding principles that allow flexibility in the formulation of rules by each anti-doping organization or establish requirements that must be followed by each anti-doping organization but need not be repeated in its own anti-doping rules.Anti-doping rules, like competition rules, are sport rules governing the conditions under which sport is played. |
athletes or other Persons accept these rules as a condition of participation and shall be bound by these rules. |
Each Signatory shall establish rules and procedures to ensure that all athletes or other Persons under the authority of the Signatory and its member organizations are informed of and agree to be bound by anti-doping rules in force of the relevant anti-doping organizations.Each Signatory shall establish rules and procedures to ensure that all athletes or other Persons under the authority of the Signatory and its member organizations consent to the dissemination of their private data as required or authorized by the Code, and are bound by and compliant with Code anti-doping rules, and that the appropriate Consequences are imposed on those athletes or other Persons who are not World Anti-Doping Code • 201517[Comment: Those Articles of the Code which must be incorporated into each Anti-Doping Organization’s rules without substantive change are set forth in Article 23.2.2. |
For example, it is critical for purposes of harmonization that all Signatories base their decisions on the same list of anti-doping rule violations, the same burdens of proof and impose the same Consequences for the same anti-doping rule violations. |
These rules must be the same whether a hearing takes place before an International Federation, at the national level or before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. |
Code provisions not listed in Article 23.2.2 are still mandatory in substance even though an Anti-Doping Organization is not required to incorporate them verbatim. |
Those provisions generally fall into two categories. |
First, some provisions direct Anti-Doping Organizations to take certain actions but there is no need to restate the provision in the Anti-Doping Organization’s own anti-doping rules. |
For example, each Anti-Doping Organization must plan and conduct Testing as required by Article 5, but these directives to the Anti-Doping Organization need not be repeated in the Anti-Doping Organization’s own rules. |
Second, some provisions are mandatory in substance but give each Anti-Doping Organization some flexibility in the implementation of the principles stated in the provision. |
As an example, it is not necessary for effective harmonization to force all Signatories to use one single results management and hearing process. |
At present, there are many different, yet equally effective processes for results management and hearings within different International Federations and different national bodies. |
The Code does not require absolute uniformity in results management and hearing procedures; it does, however, require that the diverse approaches of the Signatories satisfy principles stated in the Code. |
]in conformity with those rules. |
These sport-specific rules and procedures, aimed at enforcing anti-doping rules in a global and harmonized way, are distinct in nature from criminal and civil proceedings. |
They are not intended to be subject to or limited by any national requirements and legal standards applicable to such proceedings, although they are intended to be applied in a manner which respects the principles of proportionality and human rights. |
When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral hearing panels and other adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport.World Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control18ARTICLE 1 Definition of DopingARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPINGDoping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.10 of the Code.ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONSThe purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct 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.athletes 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:2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample 2.1.1 it is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. |
athletes 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 athlete’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 an Athlete’s Fault. |
This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. |
An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. |
This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.] |
World Anti-Doping Code • 201519 2.1.2 Sufficient pr oof 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 athlete’s A Sample where the athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the athlete’s A Sample; or, where the athlete’s B Sample is split into two bottles and the analysis of the second bottle confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first bottle. |
2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a quantitative threshold is specifically identified in the Prohibited list, the presence of any quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. |
2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited list or International Standards may establish special criteria for the evaluation of Prohibited Substances that can also be produced endogenously. |
[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 Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control20ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations[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 Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from 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. |
]2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 2.2.1 it is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body and that no Prohibited Method is used. |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method. |
2.2.2 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 2.2.2: 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. |
)]World Anti-Doping Code • 2015212.3 Ev ading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection Evading Sample collection, or without compelling justification, refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules.2.4 Whereabouts Failures Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the international Standard for Testing and investigations, within a twelve -month period by an athlete in a registered testing Pool.2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control Conduct which subverts the doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. |
tampering shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting to interfere with a doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an anti-doping organization or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness. |
[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. |
][Comment to Article 2.5: For example, this Article would prohibit altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B bottle at the time of B Sample analysis, or altering a Sample by the addition of a foreign substance.Offensive conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control which does not otherwise constitute Tampering shall be addressed in the disciplinary rules of sport organizations. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control22ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 2.6.1 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.2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method[Comment to Article 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would include, for example, a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances for dealing with acute and emergency situations. |
][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. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 2015232.8 Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is prohibited Out-of-Competition2.9 Complicity Assisting , encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.12.1 by another Person.2.10 Prohibited Association 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 If subject to the authority of an anti-doping organization , is serving a period of Ineligibility ; or 2.10.2 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 rules had been applicable to such Person . |
The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or 2.10.3 is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2.World Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control24ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsARTICLE 3 Proof of Doping i n order for this provision to apply, it is necessary that the athlete or other Person has previously been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the athlete or other Person , or by Wada, of the athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status and the potential Consequence of prohibited association and that the athlete or other Person can reasonably avoid the association. |
The anti-doping organization shall also use reasonable efforts to advise the athlete Support Person who is the subject of the notice to the athlete or other Person that the athlete Support Person may, within 15 days, come forward to the anti-doping organization to explain that the criteria described in Articles 2.10.1 and 2.10.2 do not apply to him or her. |
(Notwithstanding Article 17, this Article applies even when the athlete Support Person’s disqualifying conduct occurred prior to the effective date provided in Article 25.) |
The burden shall be on the athlete or other Person to establish that any association with athlete Support Personnel described in Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity. |
anti-doping organizations that are aware of athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1, 2.10.2, or 2.10.3 shall submit that information to Wada. |
[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. |
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. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 201525ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING3.1 Bur dens and Standards of Proof The anti-doping organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether the anti-doping organization 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 the Code places 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, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. |
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 and which have been [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. |
][Comment to Article 3.2: For example, an Anti-Doping Organization 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. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control26ARTICLE 3 Proof of Dopingthe subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. |
Any athlete or other Person seeking 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. |
CaS, on its own initiative, may also inform Wada of any such challenge. |
At W ada’s request, the CaS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge. |
Within 10 days of Wada’s receipt of such notice, and W ada’s receipt of the CaS file, Wada shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding. |
3.2.2 Wada-ac credited 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 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. |
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 the anti-doping organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding. |
[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. |
If the Athlete or other Person does so, the burden shifts to the Anti-Doping Organization to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 201527 3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or anti-doping organization rules which did not cause an adverse analytical finding or other anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such evidence or results. |
if the athlete or other Person establishes a departure from another International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an adverse analytical finding or other anti-doping rule violation, then the anti-doping organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation. |
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 the anti-doping organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation.World Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control28ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited ListARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST4.1 Public ation and Revision of the Prohibited List Wada shall, as often as necessary and no less often than annually, publish the Prohibited list as an International Standard. |
The proposed content of the Prohibited list and all revisions shall be provided in writing promptly to all Signatories and governments for comment and consultation. |
Each annual version of the Prohibited list and all revisions shall be distributed promptly by Wada to each Signatory, Wada-accredited or approved laboratory, and government, and shall be published on Wada’s website, and each Signatory shall take appropriate steps to distribute the Prohibited list to its members and constituents. |
The rules of each anti-doping organization shall specify that, unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited list or a revision, the Prohibited list and revisions shall go into effect under the anti-doping organization’s rules three months after publication of the Prohibited list by Wada without requiring any further action by the anti-doping organization.4.2 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 In-Competition and out-of-Competition) because of their potential to enhance performance in future Competitions or their masking potential, [Comment to Article 4.1: 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. |
WADA will always have the most current Prohibited List published on its website. |
The Prohibited List is an integral part of the International Convention against Doping in Sport. |
WADA will inform the Director-General of UNESCO of any change to the Prohibited List. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 201529and 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. |
4.2.2 Specified Substances For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except substances in the classes of anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited list. |
The category of Specified Substances shall not include Prohibited Methods. |
4.2.3 New Classes of Prohibited Substances in the event Wada expands the Prohibited list by adding a new class of Prohibited Substances in accordance with Article 4.1, Wada’s Executive Committee shall determine whether any or all Prohibited Substances within the new class of Prohibited Substances shall be considered Specified Substances under Article 4.2.2. |
[Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition is not an anti-doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample collected In-Competition. |
][Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances identified in Article 4.2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping substances. |
Rather, they are simply substances which are more likely to have been consumed by an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance. |
]World Anti-Doping Code • 20151 PARTDoping Control30ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited List4.3 Crit eria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List Wada shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited list: 4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited list if Wada, in its sole discretion, determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria: 4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance; 4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete ; 4.3.1.3 Wada’s determination that the use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code . |
4.3.2 A substance or method shall also be included on the Prohibited list if Wada determines there is medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that [Comment to Article 4.3.1.1: This Article anticipates that there may be substances that, when used alone, are not prohibited but which will be prohibited if used in combination with certain other substances. |
A substance which is added to the Prohibited List because it has the potential to enhance performance only in combination with another substance shall be so noted and shall be prohibited only if there is evidence relating to both substances in combination. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.