text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
In the same manner,Athletes and Athlete SupportPersonnel should be bound by anti-doping rules based on Article 2 of theCode by virtue of their agreements formembership, accreditation, orparticipation in sports organizationsor sports events subject to the Code.Each Signatory, however, shall takethe necessary steps to ensure that allAthletes and Athlete SupportPersonnel within its authority arebound by the relevant Anti-DopingOrganization’s anti-doping rules.7INTRODUCTIONPart One of the Code sets forth specific anti-doping rules andprinciples that are to be followed by organizations responsiblefor adopting, implementing or enforcing anti-doping rules withintheir authority - - e.g., the International Olympic Committee,International Paralympic Committee, International Federations,Major Event Organizations , and National Anti-DopingOrganizations . |
All of these organizations are collectively referredto as Anti-Doping Organizations.Part One of the Code does not replace, or eliminate the need for,comprehensive anti-doping rules adopted by each of these Anti-Doping Organizations . |
While some provisions of Part One of theCode must be incorporated essentially verbatim by each Anti-Doping Organization in its own anti-doping rules, otherprovisions of Part One establish mandatory guiding principlesthat allow flexibility in the formulation of rules by each Anti-Doping Organization or establish requirements that must befollowed by each Anti-Doping Organization but need not berepeated in its own anti-doping rules. |
The following Articles, asapplicable to the scope of anti-doping activity which the Anti-Doping Organization performs, must be incorporated into therules of each Anti-Doping Organization without any substantivechanges (allowing for necessary non-substantive editingWorld Anti-Doping Code 2003 Introduction Comment: For exampleit is critical to harmonization that allSignatories base their decisions onthe same list of anti-doping ruleviolations, the same burdens of proofand impose the same Consequencesfor the same anti-doping ruleviolations. |
These substantive rulesmust be the same whether a hearingtakes place before an InternationalFederation, at the national level orbefore CAS. |
On the other hand, it isnot necessary for effectiveharmonization to force all Signatoriesto use one single resultsmanagement and hearing process.At present, there are many different,yet equally effective processes forresults management and hearingswithin different InternationalFederations and different nationalbodies. |
The Code does not requireabsolute uniformity in resultsmanagement and hearingprocedures; it does, however, requirethat the diverse approaches of theSignatories satisfy principles stated inthe Code. |
With respect to Article 13, subpart13.2.2 is not included in the provisionsrequired to be adopted essentially62.1.2Excepting those substances for which a quantitativereporting threshold is specifically identified in theProhibited List , the detected presence of anyquantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolitesor Markers in an Athlete’s Sample shall constitutean anti-doping rule violation.2.1.3As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, theProhibited List may establish special criteria for theevaluation of Prohibited Substances that can alsobe produced endogenously.World Anti-Doping Code 2003enforcement for the benefit of all “clean”Athletes and fairness in the exceptionalcircumstance where a ProhibitedSubstance entered an Athlete’s systemthrough no fault or negligence on theAthlete’s part. |
It is important toemphasize that while the determinationof whether the anti-doping rule has beenviolated is based on strict liability, theimposition of a fixed period of Ineligibilityis not automatic. |
The rationale for the strict liability rulewas well stated by the Court of Arbitrationfor Sport in the case of Quigley v. UIT. |
“It is true that a strict liability test is likelyin some sense to be unfair in anindividual case, such as that of Q., wherethe Athlete may have taken medication asthe result of mislabeling or faulty advicefor which he or she is not responsible -particularly in the circumstances ofsudden illness in a foreign country. |
But itis also in some sense “unfair” for anAthlete to get food poisoning on the eve ofan important competition. |
Yet in neithercase will the rules of the competition bealtered to undo the unfairness. |
Just asthe competition will not be postponed toawait the Athlete’s recovery, so theprohibition of banned substances will notbe lifted in recognition of its accidentalabsorption. |
The vicissitudes ofcompetition, like those of life generally,may create many types of unfairness,whether by accident or the negligence ofunaccountable Persons, which the lawcannot repair. |
Furthermore, it appears to be a laudablepolicy objective not to repair an accidentalunfairness to an individual by creating anintentional unfairness to the whole bodyof other competitors. |
This is what wouldhappen if banned performance-enhancing substances were toleratedwhen absorbed inadvertently. |
Moreover,it is likely that even intentional abusewould in many cases escape sanction forlack of proof of guilty intent. |
And it iscertain that a requirement of intent wouldinvite costly litigation that may well cripplefederations - particularly those run onmodest budgets - in their fight againstdoping.” 2..11..3 Comment: For example, theProhibited List might provide that a T/Eratio greater than 6:1 is doping unless alongitudinal analysis of prior orsubsequent test results by the Anti-Doping Organization demonstrates anaturally elevated ratio or the Athleteotherwise establishes that the elevatedratio is the result of a physiological orpathological condition.9ARTICLE 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 2.8 ofthe Code .ARTICLE 2: ANTI-DDOPING RULE VIOLATIONSThe following constitute anti-doping rule violations:2.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolitesor Markers in an Athlete’s bodily Specimen.2.1.1It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that noProhibited Substance enters his or her body. |
Athletesare responsible for any Prohibited Substance or itsMetabolites or Markers found to be present in theirbodily Specimens . |
Accordingly, it is not necessary thatintent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on theAthlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish ananti-doping violation under Article 2.1.World Anti-Doping Code 2003 2 Comment: The purpose of Article 2 is tospecify the circumstances and conductwhich constitute violations of anti-dopingrules. |
Hearings in doping cases willproceed based on the assertion that oneor more of these specific rules have beenviolated. |
Most of the circumstances andconduct on this list of violations can befound in some form in the OMADC orother existing anti-doping rules. |
2..11..11 Comment:For purposes of anti-doping violations involving the presenceof a Prohibited Substance (or itsMetabolites or Markers), the Code adoptsthe rule of strict liability which is found inthe OMADC and the vast majority ofexisting anti-doping rules. |
Under thestrict liability principle, an anti-doping ruleviolation occurs whenever a ProhibitedSubstance is found in an Athlete’s bodilySpecimen. |
The violation occurs whetheror not the Athlete intentionally orunintentionally used a ProhibitedSubstance or was negligent or otherwiseat fault. |
If the positive Sample came froman In-Competition test, then the results ofthat Competition are automaticallyinvalidated (Article 9 (AutomaticDisqualification of Individual Results)).However, the Athlete then has thepossibility to avoid or reduce sanctions ifthe Athlete can demonstrate that he orshe was not at fault or significant fault. |
(Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction ofPeriod of Ineligibility Based onExceptional Circumstances). |
The strict liability rule for the finding of aProhibited Substance in an Athlete’sSpecimen, with a possibility thatsanctions may be modified based onspecified criteria, provides a reasonablebalance between effective anti-doping82.4 Violation of applicable requirements regarding Athleteavailability for Out-of-Competition Testing including failureto provide required whereabouts information and missedtests which are declared based on reasonable rules.2.5Tampering, or Attempting to tamper, with any part ofDoping Control.2.6Possession of Prohibited Substances and Methods: 2.6.1Possession by an Athlete at any time or place of asubstance that is prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testingor a Prohibited Method unless the Athlete establishes thatthe Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemptiongranted in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) orother acceptable justification. |
2.6.2Possession of a substance that is prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing or a Prohibited Method by AthleteSupport Personnel in connection with an Athlete,Competition or training, unless the Athlete SupportPersonnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to atherapeutic use exemption granted to an Athlete inaccordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or otheracceptable justification.World Anti-Doping Code 20032..4 Comment: Unannounced Out-of-Competition Testing is at the core ofeffective Doping Control. |
Withoutaccurate Athlete location informationsuch Testing is inefficient andsometimes impossible. |
This Article,which is not typically found in mostexisting anti-doping rules, requiresAthletes that have been identified forOut-of-Competition Testing to beresponsible for providing andupdating information on theirwhereabouts so that they can belocated for No Advance Notice Out-of-Competition Testing. |
The “applicablerequirements” are set by the Athlete’sInternational Federation and NationalAnti-Doping Organization in order toallow some flexibility based uponvarying circumstances encountered indifferent sports and countries. |
Aviolation of this Article may be basedon either intentional or negligentconduct by the Athlete. |
2..5 Comment: This Article prohibitsconduct which subverts the DopingControl process but which would notbe included in the typical definition ofProhibited Methods. |
For example,altering identification numbers on aDoping Control form during Testing orbreaking the B Bottle at the time of BSample analysis.112.2Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or aProhibited Method.2.2.1The success or failure of the Use of a ProhibitedSubstance orProhibited Method is not material. |
It issufficient that theProhibited Substance or ProhibitedMethod was Used or Attempted to be Used for ananti-doping rule violation to be committed.2.3 Refusing, or failing without compelling justification, tosubmit to Sample collection after notification asauthorized in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwiseevading Sample collection.World Anti-Doping Code 2003 2..2..11 Comment: The prohibitionagainst “Use” has been expandedfrom the text in the OMADC to includeProhibited Substances as well asProhibited Methods. |
With thisinclusion there is no need tospecifically delineate “admission ofUse” as a separate anti-doping ruleviolation. |
“Use” can be proved, forexample, through admissions, thirdparty testimony or other evidence. |
Demonstrating the “Attempted Use” ofa Prohibited Substance requires proofof intent on the Athlete’s part. |
Thefact that intent may be required toprove this particular anti-doping ruleviolation does not undermine thestrict liability principle established forviolations of Article 2.1 and Use of aProhibited Substance or ProhibitedMethod. |
An Athlete’s Out-of-Competition Useof a Prohibited Substance that is notprohibited Out-of-Competition wouldnot constitute an anti-doping ruleviolation.2..3 Comment: Failure or refusal tosubmit to Sample collection afternotification is prohibited in almost allexisting anti-doping rules. |
ThisArticle expands the typical rule toinclude “otherwise evading Samplecollection” as prohibited conduct.Thus, for example, it would be ananti-doping rule violation if it wereestablished that an Athlete was hidingfrom a Doping Control official whowas attempting to conduct a test. |
Aviolation of “refusing or failing tosubmit to Sample collection” may bebased on either intentional ornegligent conduct of the Athlete, while“evading” Sample collectioncontemplates intentional conduct bythe Athlete.1013World Anti-Doping Code 20033.2.1WADA -accredited laboratories are presumed to haveconducted Sample analysis and custodial proceduresin accordance with the International Standard forlaboratory analysis. |
The Athlete may rebut thispresumption by establishing that a departure fromthe International Standard occurred. |
If the Athlete rebuts the preceding presumption byshowing that a departure from the InternationalStandard occurred, then the Anti-Doping Organizationshall have the burden to establish that such departuredid not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding .3.2.2Departures from the International Standard forTesting which did not cause an Adverse AnalyticalFinding or other anti-doping rule violation shall notinvalidate such results. |
If the Athlete establishesthat departures from the International Standardoccurred during Testing then the Anti-DopingOrganization shall have the burden to establish thatsuch departures did not cause the AdverseAnalytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation.2.7Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance orProhibitedMethod .2.8 Administration orAttempted administration of aProhibited Substance or Prohibited Method to any Athlete ,or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up orany other type of complicity involving an anti-doping ruleviolation or any Attempted violation.ARTICLE 3: PROOF OF DOPING3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof.The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden ofestablishing that an anti-doping rule violation hasoccurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping ruleviolation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearingbody bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegationwhich is made. |
This standard of proof in all cases isgreater than a mere balance of probability but less thanproof beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Where the Code placesthe burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Personalleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation torebut a presumption or establish specified facts orcircumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balanceof probability.3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions. |
Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may beestablished by any reliable means, including admissions.The following rules of proof shall be applicable in dopingcases:World Anti-Doping Code 20033..11 Comment: This standard of proofrequired to be met by the Anti-DopingOrganization is comparable to thestandard which is applied in mostcountries to cases involving professional3..2..11 Comment: The burden is on theAthlete to establish, by apreponderance of the evidence, adeparture from the InternationalStandard. |
If the Athlete does so, the12misconduct. |
It has also been widelyapplied by courts and tribunals indoping cases. |
See, for example, theCAS decision in N., J., Y., W. v. FINA,CAS 98/208, 22 December 1998.burden shifts to the Anti-DopingOrganization to prove to thecomfortable satisfaction of thehearing body that the departure didnot change the test result.Competition ) because of their potential to enhanceperformance in future Competitions or their maskingpotential and those substances and methods which areprohibited In-Competition only. |
Upon the recommendationof an International Federation, the Prohibited List may beexpanded by WADA for that particular sport. |
ProhibitedSubstances and Prohibited Methods may be included in theProhibited List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) orby specific reference to a particular substance or method. |
4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on theProhibited List . |
WADA shall consider the following criteria in decidingwhether to include a substance or method on theProhibited List .4.3.1A substance or method shall be considered forinclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA determinesthat the substance or method meets any two of thefollowing three criteria:4.3.1.1Medical or other scientific evidence,pharmacological effect or experience thatthe substance or method has the potentialto enhance or enhances sport performance;World Anti-Doping Code 2003would include masking agents andthose substances which, when used intraining, may have long termperformance enhancing effects such asanabolics. |
All substances and methodson the Prohibited List are prohibited In-Competition. |
This distinction betweenwhat is tested for In-Competition andwhat is tested for Out-of-Competition iscarried over from the OMADC.There will be only one document calledthe “Prohibited List.” WADA may addadditional substances or methods to theProhibited List for particular sports (e.g.the inclusion of beta-blockers forshooting) but this will also be reflectedon the single Prohibited List. |
Having allProhibited Substances on a single listwill avoid some of the current confusionrelated to identifying which substancesare prohibited in which sports.Individual sports are not permitted toseek exemption from the basic list ofProhibited Substances (e.g. |
eliminatinganabolics from the Prohibited List for‘’mind sports”). |
The premise of thisdecision is that there are certain basicdoping agents which anyone whochooses to call himself or herself anAthlete should not take.15ARTICLE 4: THE PROHIBITED LIST4.1 Publication and Revision of the Prohibited List. |
WADA shall, as often as necessary and no less often thanannually, publish the Prohibited List as an InternationalStandard . |
The proposed content of the Prohibited List andall revisions shall be provided in writing promptly to allSignatories and governments for comment andconsultation. |
Each annual version of the Prohibited Listand all revisions shall be distributed promptly by WADA toeach Signatory and government and shall be published onWADA ’s website, and each Signatory shall takeappropriate steps to distribute the Prohibited List to itsmembers and constituents. |
The rules of each Anti-DopingOrganization shall specify that, unless provided otherwisein the Prohibited List or a revision, the Prohibited List andrevisions shall go into effect under the Anti-DopingOrganization’s rules three months after publication of theProhibited List by WADA without requiring any furtheraction by the Anti-Doping Organization .4.2Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identifiedon the Prohibited List. |
The Prohibited List shall identify those ProhibitedSubstances and Prohibited Methods which are prohibitedas doping at all times (both In-Competition and Out-of-World Anti-Doping Code 2003 4..11 Comment: The Prohibited List willbe revised and published on anexpedited basis whenever the needarises. |
However, for the sake ofpredictability, a new list will bepublished every year whether or notchanges have been made. |
The virtueof the IOC practice of publishing a newlist every January is that it avoidsconfusion over which list is the mostcurrent. |
To address this issue, WADAwill always have the most currentProhibited List published on itswebsite.It is anticipated that revised anti-doping rules adopted by Anti-DopingOrganizations pursuant to the Codewill not go into effect until January 1,2004 with the publication of the firstProhibited List adopted by WADA.The OMADC will continue to beapplicable until the Code is acceptedby the International OlympicCommittee. |
4..2 Comment: There will be oneProhibited List. |
The substanceswhich are prohibited at all times144.3.3WADA’s determination of the ProhibitedSubstances and Prohibited Methods that will beincluded on the Prohibited List shall be final andshall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete orother Person based on an argument that thesubstance or method was not a masking agent ordid not have the potential to enhance performance,represent a health risk, or violate the spirit of sport.4.4 Therapeutic UseWADA shall adopt an International Standard for theprocess of granting therapeutic use exemptions. |
Each International Federation shall ensure, forInternational-Level Athletes or any other Athlete who isWorld Anti-Doping Code 20034..3..3 Comment: The question of whether asubstance meets the criteria in Article 4.3(Criteria for Including Substances andMethods on the Prohibited List) in aparticular case cannot be raised as adefense to an anti-doping rule violation.For example, it cannot be argued that theProhibited Substance detected would nothave been performance enhancing in thatparticular sport. |
Rather, doping occurswhen a substance on the Prohibited List isfound in an Athlete’s bodily Specimen. |
Thesame principle is found in the OMADC. |
4..4 Comment: It is important that theprocesses for granting therapeutic useexemptions become more harmonized.Athletes who use medically prescribedProhibited Substances may be subject tosanctioning unless they have previouslyobtained a therapeutic use exemption.However, currently many sporting bodieshave no rules permitting therapeutic useexemptions; others follow unwrittenpolicies; and only a few have writtenpolicies incorporated into their anti-dopingrules. |
This Article seeks to harmonize thebasis upon which therapeutic useexemptions will be granted and gives responsibility forgranting or denying exemptions to theInternational Federations for International-Level Athletes and to the National Anti-Doping Organizations for national-levelAthletes (that are not also International-Level Athletes) and other Athletes subjectto Doping Control under the Code. |
Examples of commonly prescribedProhibited Substances which might bespecifically addressed in the InternationalStandard for therapeutic use exemptionsare medications prescribed for acutesevere asthma and inflammatory boweldisease. |
When a therapeutic useexemption has been denied or granted incontravention of the InternationalStandard, that decision may be submittedto WADA for review as provided in theInternational Standard and thereafterappealed as provided in Article 13.3(Appeals). |
If the granting of a therapeuticuse exemption is reversed, the reversalshall not apply retroactively and shall notdisqualify the Athlete’s results during thetime that the therapeutic use exemptionwas in effect.174.3.1.2Medical or other scientific evidence,pharmacological effect, or experience thatthe Use of the substance or methodrepresents an actual or potential healthrisk to the Athlete ; 4.3.1.3WADA ’s determination that the Use of thesubstance or method violates the spirit ofsport described in the Introduction to the Code .4.3.2A substance or method shall also be included on theProhibited List if WADA determines there ismedical or other scientific evidence,pharmacological effect or experience that thesubstance or method has the potential to mask the Use of other Prohibited Substances and ProhibitedMethods.World Anti-Doping Code 2003 4..3..2 Comment: A substance shall beconsidered for inclusion on theProhibited List if the substance is amasking agent or meets two of thefollowing three criteria: (1) it has thepotential to enhance or enhancessport performance; (2) it represents apotential or actual health risk; or (3) itis contrary to the spirit of sport. |
Noneof the three criteria aloneis asufficient basis for adding asubstance to the Prohibited List.Using the potential to enhanceperformance as the sole criteriawould include, for example, physicaland mental training, red meat,carbohydrate loading and training ataltitude. |
Risk of harm would includesmoking. |
Requiring all three criteriawould also be unsatisfactory. |
Forexample the use of genetic transfertechnology to dramatically enhancesport performance should beprohibited as contrary to the spirit ofsport even if it is not harmful.Similarly, the potentially unhealthyabuse of certain substances withouttherapeutic justification based on themistaken belief they enhanceperformance is certainly contrary tothe spirit of sport regardless ofwhether the expectation ofperformance enhancement isrealistic.16WADA periodically on an aggregate basis by sport andwhether the Samples were collected In-Competition orOut–of-Competition . |
Such reports shall not containadditional information regarding specific Samples . |
WADAshall make available to International Federations andNational Anti-Doping Organizations , on at least an annualbasis, aggregate statistical information by sport regardingthe additional substances. |
WADA shall implementmeasures to ensure that strict anonymity of individualAthletes is maintained with respect to such reports. |
Thereported use or detected presence of the monitoredsubstances shall not constitute a doping violation.ARTICLE 5: TESTING5.1 Test Distribution Planning. |
Anti-Doping Organizationsconducting Testing shall in coordination with other Anti-DopingOrganizations conducting Testing on the same Athlete pool:5.1.1Plan and implement an effective number of In-Competition and Out-of-Competition tests. |
EachInternational Federation shall establish a RegisteredTesting Pool for International-Level Athletes in its sport,and each National Anti-Doping Organization shallestablish a national Registered Testing Pool for Athletesin its country. |
The national-level pool shall includeInternational-Level Athletes from that country as well asother national-level Athletes. |
Each InternationalFederation and National Anti-Doping Organization shallplan and conduct In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing on its Registered Testing Pool.5.1.2 Make No Advance NoticeTesting a priority. |
5.1.3 Conduct Target Testing.World Anti-Doping Code 20035..11..3 Comment: Target Testing isspecified because random Testing, oreven weighted random Testing, doesnot ensure that all of the appropriateAthletes will be tested. |
(For example:world class Athletes, Athletes whose19entered in an International Event , that a process is in placewhereby Athletes with documented medical conditionsrequiring the Use of a Prohibited Substance or aProhibited Method may request a therapeutic useexemption. |
Each National Anti-Doping Organization shallensure, for all Athletes within its jurisdiction that are notInternational-Level Athletes , that a process is in placewhereby Athletes with documented medical conditionsrequiring the Use of a Prohibited Substance or aProhibited Method may request a therapeutic useexemption. |
Such requests shall be evaluated inaccordance with the International Standard on therapeuticuse. |
International Federations and National Anti-DopingOrganizations shall promptly report to WADA the grantingof therapeutic use exemptions to any International-LevelAthlete or national-levelAthlete that is included in his orher National Anti-Doping Organization’s RegisteredTesting Pool .WADA , on its own initiative, may review the granting of atherapeutic use exemption to any International-LevelAthlete or national-levelAthlete that is included in his orher National Anti-Doping Organization’s RegisteredTesting Pool . |
Further, upon the request of any suchAthlete that has been denied a therapeutic use exemption,WADA may review such denial. |
If WADA determines thatsuch granting or denial of a therapeutic use exemption didnot comply with the International Standard for therapeuticuse exemptions, WADA may reverse the decision.4.5 Monitoring ProgramWADA , in consultation with other Signatories andgovernments, shall establish a monitoring programregarding substances which are not on the Prohibited List ,but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detectpatterns of misuse in sport. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.