text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
WADA shall publish, inadvance of any Testing , the substances that will bemonitored. |
Laboratories will report the instances ofreported Use or detected presence of these substances toWorld Anti-Doping Code 200318World Anti-Doping Code 200321World Anti-Doping Code 2003 performances have dramaticallyimproved over a short period of time,Athletes whose coaches have hadother Athletes test positive, etc.). |
Obviously, Target Testing must not beused for any purpose other thanlegitimate Doping Control. |
The Codemakes it clear that Athletes have noright to expect that they will be testedonly on a random basis. |
Similarly, itdoes not impose any reasonablesuspicion or probable causerequirement for Target Testing.5..2 Comment: The required methodsand processes for the various types ofIn-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing will be describedin greater detail in the InternationalStandard for Testing. |
6..11 Comment: The phrase “or othermethod approved by WADA” isintended to cover, for example,mobile blood Testing procedureswhich WADA has reviewed andconsiders to be reliable.20by WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program),without the Athlete’s written consent.6.4 Standards for Sample Analysis and ReportingLaboratories shall analyze Doping Control Samples andreport results in conformity with the InternationalStandard for laboratory analysis.ARTICLE 7: RESULTS MANAGEMENTEach Anti-Doping Organization conducting results management shallestablish a process for the pre-hearing administration of potentialanti-doping rule violations that respects the following principles:7.1 Initial Review Regarding Adverse Analytical FindingsUpon receipt of an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding,the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for resultsmanagement shall conduct a review to determinewhether: (a) an applicable therapeutic use exemption hasbeen granted, or (b) there is any apparent departure fromthe International Standards for Testing or laboratoryanalysis that undermines the validity of the AdverseAnalytical Finding.7.2 Notification After Initial ReviewIf the initial review under Article 7.1 does not reveal anapplicable therapeutic use exemption or departure thatundermines the validity of the Adverse Analytical Finding,7 Comment: Various of the Signatorieshave created their own approaches toresults management for AdverseAnalytical Findings. |
While the variousapproaches have not been entirelyuniform, many have proven to be fairand effective systems for resultsmanagement. |
The Code does notsupplant each of the Signatories’ resultsmanagement systems. |
This Articledoes, however, specify basic principlesin order to ensure the fundamentalfairness of the results managementprocess which must be observed byeach Signatory. |
The specific anti-dopingrules of each Signatory shall beconsistent with these basic principles. |
7..2 Comment: The Athlete has a right torequest a prompt B Sample analysisregardless of whether follow-upinvestigation may be required underArticles 7.3 or 7.4.5.2 Standards for TestingAnti-Doping Organizations conducting Testing shallconduct such Testing in conformity with the InternationalStandard for Testing .ARTICLE 6: ANALYSIS OF SAMPLESDoping Control Samples shall be analyzed in accordance with thefollowing principles:6.1Use of Approved LaboratoriesDoping Control Samples shall be analyzed only in WADA -accredited laboratories or as otherwise approved byWADA . |
The choice of the WADA -accredited laboratory (orother method approved by WADA ) used for the Sampleanalysis shall be determined exclusively by the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for results management.6.2 Substances Subject to DetectionDoping Control Samples shall be analyzed to detectProhibited Substances and Prohibited Methods identified onthe Prohibited List and other substances as may be directedby WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program).6.3 Research on Samples No Sample may be used for any purpose other than thedetection of substances (or classes of substances) ormethods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise identifiedWorld Anti-Doping Code 200323World Anti-Doping Code 200322in the manner set out in its rules, of the anti-doping rule whichappears to have been violated, and the basis of the violation. |
7.5 Principles Applicable to Provisional SuspensionsA Signatory may adopt rules, applicable to any Event forwhich the Signatory is the ruling body or for any teamselection process for which the Signatory is responsible,permitting Provisional Suspensions to be imposed afterthe review and notification described in Articles 7.1 and 7.2but prior to a final hearing as described in Article 8 (Rightto a Fair Hearing). |
Provided, however, that a ProvisionalSuspension may not be imposed unless the Athlete isgiven either: (a) an opportunity for a Provisional Hearingeither before imposition of the Provisional Suspension oron a timely basis after imposition of the ProvisionalSuspension ; or (b) an opportunity for an expedited hearingin accordance with Article 8 (Right to a Fair Hearing) on atimely basis after imposition of a Provisional Suspension .If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an ASample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent BSample analysis does not confirm the A Sample analysis,then the Athlete shall not be subject to any furtherdisciplinary action and any sanction previously imposedshall be rescinded. |
In circumstances where the Athlete orthe Athlete’s team has been removed from a Competitionand the subsequent B Sample analysis does not confirmthe A Sample finding, if, without otherwise affecting theCompetition , it is still possible for the Athlete or team to bereinserted, the Athlete or team may continue to take partin the Competition .7..5 Comment: This Article continuesto permit the possibility of aProvisional Suspension before a finaldecision at a hearing under Article 8(Right to a Fair Hearing). |
ProvisionalSuspensions have been authorized inthe OMADC and by the rules of manyInternational Federations. |
However,before a Provisional Suspension canbe unilaterally imposed by an Anti-Doping Organization, the internalreview specified in the Code must firstbe completed. |
In addition, a Signatoryimposing a Provisional Suspension isrequired to give the Athlete anopportunity for a Provisional Hearingthe Anti-Doping Organization shall promptly notify theAthlete, in the manner set out in its rules, of: (a) theAdverse Analytical Finding; (b) the anti-doping ruleviolated, or, in a case under Article 7.3, a description of theadditional investigation that will be conducted as towhether there is an anti-doping rule violation; (c) the Athlete’s right to promptly request the analysis of the BSample or, failing such request, that the B Sampleanalysis may be deemed waived; (d) the right of theAthlete and/or the Athlete’s representative to attend theBSample opening and analysis if such analysis isrequested; and (e) the Athlete’s right to request copies ofthe A and B Sample laboratory documentation packagewhich includes information as required by theInternational Standard for laboratory analysis.7.3 Further Review of Adverse Analytical Finding WhereRequired by Prohibited ListThe Anti-Doping Organization or other reviewing bodyestablished by such organization shall also conduct anyfollow-up investigation as may be required by the Prohibited List . |
Upon completion of such follow-upinvestigation, the Anti-Doping Organization shall promptlynotify the Athlete regarding the results of the follow-upinvestigation and whether or not the Anti-DopingOrganization asserts that an anti-doping rule was violated.7.4 Review of Other Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsThe Anti-Doping Organization or other reviewing bodyestablished by such organization shall conduct any follow-up investigation as may be required under applicable anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code orwhich the Anti-Doping Organization otherwise considersappropriate. |
The Anti-Doping Organization shall promptlygive the Athlete or other Person subject to sanction notice,7..4 Comment: As an example, anInternational Federation typicallywould notify the Athlete through theAthlete’s national sports federation.World Anti-Doping Code 200325World Anti-Doping Code 200324• the right of each party to present evidence, including the rightto call and question witnesses (subject to the hearing body’sdiscretion to accept testimony by telephone or writtensubmission);• the Person’s right to an interpreter at the hearing, with thehearing body to determine the identity, and responsibility forthe cost, of the interpreter; and• a timely, written, reasoned decision;Hearings held in connection with Events may be conducted by anexpedited process as permitted by the rules of the relevant Anti-Doping Organization and the hearing body.ARTICLE 9: AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSAn anti-doping rule violation in connection with an In-Competitiontest automatically leads to Disqualification of the individual resultobtained in that Competition with all resulting consequences,including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes. |
The reference to CAS as an appellatebody in Article 13 does not prevent aSignatory from also specifying CAS asthe initial hearing body. |
For example a hearing could beexpedited on the eve of a major Eventwhere the resolution of the anti-doping rule violation is necessary todetermine the Athlete’s eligibility toparticipate in the Event or during anEvent where the resolution of the casewill affect the validity of the Athlete’sresults or continued participation inthe Event.9 Comment: This principle is found inthe OMADC. |
When an Athlete wins agold medal with a ProhibitedSubstance in his or her system, that isunfair to the other Athletes in thatCompetition regardless of whetherthe gold medallist was at fault in anyway. |
Only a “clean” Athlete should beallowed to benefit from his or hercompetitive results. |
For Team Sports, see Article 11(Consequences to Teams).ARTICLE 8: RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARINGEach Anti-Doping Organization with responsibility for resultsmanagement shall provide a hearing process for any Personwho is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.Such hearing process shall address whether an anti-dopingviolation was committed and, if so, the appropriate Consequences . |
The hearing process shall respect the followingprinciples:• a timely hearing;• fair and impartial hearing body;• the right to be represented by counsel at the Person’s ownexpense;• the right to be fairly and timely informed of the asserted anti-doping rule violation; • the right to respond to the asserted anti-doping rule violationand resulting Consequences;either before or promptly after theimposition of the ProvisionalSuspension, or an expedited finalhearing under Article 8 promptly afterimposition of the ProvisionalSuspension. |
The Athlete has a rightto appeal under Article 13.2. |
As analternative to the process forimposing a Provisional Suspensionunder this Article, the Anti-DopingOrganization may always elect toforego a Provisional Suspension andproceed directly to the final hearingutilizing an expedited process underArticle 8. |
In the rare circumstance where the BSample analysis does not confirm theA Sample finding, the Athlete that hadbeen provisionally suspended will beallowed, where circumstancespermit, to participate in subsequentCompetitions during the Event.Similarly, depending upon therelevant rules of the InternationalFederation in a Team Sport, if theteam is still in Competition, theAthlete may be able to take part infuture Competitions. |
8 Comment : This Article containsbasic principles relative to ensuring afair hearing for Persons asserted tohave violated anti-doping rules. |
ThisArticle is not intended to supplanteach Signatory’s own rules forhearings but rather to ensure thateach Signatory provides a hearingprocess consistent with theseprinciples.World Anti-Doping Code 200327World Anti-Doping Code 200326Markers ), 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of ProhibitedSubstance or Prohibited Method ) and 2.6 (Possession ofProhibited Substances and Methods ) shall be: • First violation: Two (2) years’ Ineligibility .• Second violation: Lifetime Ineligibility .However, the Athlete or other Person shall have theopportunity in each case, before a period of Ineligibility isimposed, to establish the basis for eliminating or reducingthis sanction as provided in Article 10.510.3Specified SubstancesThe Prohibited List may identify specified substanceswhich are particularly susceptible to unintentional anti-doping rules violations because of their generalavailability in medicinal products or which are less likelyto be successfully abused as doping agents. |
Where anAthlete can establish that the Use of such a specifiedmuch longer (e.g. |
equestrian andshooting); in individual sports, theAthlete is better able to maintaincompetitive skills through solitarypractice during Disqualification thanin other sports where practice as partof a team is more important. |
Aprimary argument in favor ofharmonization is that it is simply notright that two Athletes from the samecountry who test positive for the sameProhibited Substance under similarcircumstances should receivedifferent sanctions only because theyparticipate in different sports. |
Inaddition, flexibility in sanctioning hasoften been viewed as an unacceptableopportunity for some sporting bodiesto be more lenient with dopers. |
Thelack of harmonization of sanctionshas also frequently been the source ofjurisdictional conflicts betweenInternational Federations andNational Anti-Doping Organizations. |
The consensus of the WorldConference on Doping in Sport held inLausanne in February 1999 supporteda two year period of Ineligibility for afirst serious anti-doping rule violationfollowed with a lifetime ban for asecond violation. |
This consensus wasreflected in the OMADC. |
110..3 Comment:This principle iscarried over from the OMADC andallows, for example, some flexibilityin disciplining Athletes who testpositive as a result of the inadvertentuse of a cold medicine containing aprohibited stimulant. |
“ Reduction” of asanction under Article 10.5.2 appliesonly to a second or third violationbecause the sanction for a firstARTICLE 10: SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS10.1Disqualification of Results in Event During which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation OccursAn anti-doping rule violation occurring during or inconnection with an Event may, upon the decision of theruling body of the Event , lead to Disqualification of all of theAthlete’s individual results obtained in that Event with allconsequences, including forfeiture of all medals, pointsand prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.1. |
10.1.1If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Faultor Negligence for the violation, the Athlete’s individualresults in the other Competitions shall not beDisqualified unless the Athlete’s results inCompetitions other than the Competition in which theanti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to havebeen affected by the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation.10.2Imposition of Ineligibility for Prohibited Substances andProhibited MethodsExcept for the specified substances identified in Article 10.3,the period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Articles2.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance or itsMetabolites or110..11 Comment: Whereas Article 9(Automatic Disqualification ofIndividual Results) Disqualifies theresult in a single Competition in whichthe Athlete tested positive (e.g., the100 meter backstroke), this Articlemay lead to Disqualification of allresults in all races during the Event(e.g., the FINA World Championships). |
Factors to be included in consideringwhether to Disqualify other results inan Event might include, for example,the severity of the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and whether theAthlete tested negative in the otherCompetitions.110..2 Comment:Harmonization ofsanctions has been one of the mostdiscussed and debated areas of anti-doping. |
Arguments against requiringharmonization of sanctions are basedon differences between sportsincluding for example the following: insome sports the Athletes areprofessionals making a sizableincome from the sport and in othersthe Athletes are true amateurs; inthose sports where an Athlete’scareer is short (e.g. |
artisticgymnastics) a two yearDisqualification has a much moresignificant effect on the Athlete than insports where careers are traditionallyWorld Anti-Doping Code 200329World Anti-Doping Code 200328lifetime Ineligibility . |
An anti-doping rule violationinvolving a Minor shall be considered a particularlyserious violation, and, if committed by AthleteSupport Personnel for violations other thanspecified substances referenced in Article 10.3,shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for such AthleteSupport Personnel . |
In addition, violations of suchArticles which also violate non-sporting laws andregulations, may be reported to the competentadministrative, professional or judicial authorities.10.4.3For violations of Article 2.4 (whereabouts violationor missed test), the period of Ineligibility shall be ata minimum 3 months and at a maximum 2 years inaccordance with the rules established by the Anti-Doping Organization whose test was missed orwhereabouts requirement was violated. |
The periodof Ineligibility for subsequent violations of Article 2.4shall be as established in the rules of the Anti-Doping Organization whose test was missed orwhereabouts requirement was violated.10.5Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based onExceptional Circumstances. |
10.5.1 No Fault or Negligence If the Athlete establishes in an individual caseinvolving an anti-doping rule violation under Article110..4..3 Comment: The whereaboutsand missed test policies of differentAnti-Doping Organizations may varyconsiderably, particularly at the outsetas these policies are being put intoplace. |
Thus, considerable flexibilityhas been provided for sanctioningthese anti-doping rule violations.Those Anti-Doping Organizations withmore sophisticated policies includingbuilt in safeguards, and thoseorganizations with longer trackrecords of Athlete experience with awhereabouts policy, could provide forIneligibility periods at the longer endof the specified range 110..5..11 Comment: Article 10.5.1 appliesonly to violations under Articles 2.1 and2.2 (presence and Use of ProhibitedSubstances) because fault ornegligence is already required toestablish an anti-doping rule violationunder other anti-doping rules.substance was not intended to enhance sportperformance, the period of Ineligibility found in Article 10.2shall be replaced with the following:• First violation: At a minimum, a warning and reprimandand no period of Ineligibility from future Events , and at amaximum, one (1) year’s Ineligibility . |
• Second violation: Two (2) years’ Ineligibility .• Third violation: Lifetime Ineligibility .However, the Athlete or other Person shall have theopportunity in each case, before a period of Ineligibility isimposed, to establish the basis for eliminating or reducing(in the case of a second or third violation) this sanction asprovided in Article 10.5.10.4Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule ViolationsThe period of Ineligibility for other anti-doping ruleviolations shall be:10.4.1For violations of Article 2.3 (refusing or failing tosubmit to Sample collection) or Article 2.5(Tampering with Doping Control ), the Ineligibilityperiods set forth in Article 10.2 shall apply.10.4.2For violations of Articles 2.7 (Trafficking ) or 2.8(administration of Prohibited Substance orProhibited Method ), the period of Ineligibilityimposed shall be a minimum of four (4) years up toviolation already builds in sufficientdiscretion to allow consideration ofthe Person’s degree of fault. |
110..4..2 Comment: Those who areinvolved in doping Athletes orcovering up doping should be subjectto sanctions which are more severethan the Athletes who test positive.Since the authority of sportorganizations is generally limited toIneligibility for credentials,membership and other sport benefits,reporting Athlete Support Personnelto competent authorities is animportant step in the deterrence ofdoping.World Anti-Doping Code 200331World Anti-Doping Code 200330Prohibited Method under Article 2.2, failing tosubmit to Sample collection under Article 2.3, oradministration of a Prohibited Substance orProhibited Method under Article 2.8. |
If an Athleteestablishes in an individual case involving suchviolations that he or she bears No Significant Faultor Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility may bereduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility maynot be less than one-half of the minimum period ofIneligibility otherwise applicable. |
If the otherwiseapplicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, thereduced period under this section may be no lessthan 8 years. |
When a Prohibited Substance or itsMarkers or Metabolites is detected in an Athlete’sSpecimen in violation of Article 2.1 (presence ofProhibited Substance ), the Athlete must alsoestablish how the Prohibited Substance entered hisor her system in order to have the period ofIneligibility reduced.Article 10.5 is meant to have animpact only in cases where thecircumstances are truly exceptionaland not in the vast majority of cases. |
To illustrate the operation of Article10.5, an example where No Fault orNegligence would result in the totalelimination of a sanction is where anAthlete could prove that, despite alldue care, he or she was sabotaged bya competitor. |
Conversely, a sanctioncould not be completely eliminated onthe basis of No Fault or Negligence inthe following circumstances: (a) apositive test resulting from amislabeled or contaminated vitaminor nutritional supplement (Athletesare responsible for what they ingest(Article 2.1.1) and have been warnedagainst the possibility of supplementcontamination); (b) the administrationof a prohibited substance by theAthlete’s personal physician ortrainer without disclosure to theAthlete (Athletes are responsible fortheir choice of medical personnel andfor advising medical personnel thatthey cannot be given any prohibitedsubstance); and (c) sabotage of theAthlete’s food or drink by a spouse,coach or other person within theAthlete’s circle of associates (Athletesare responsible for what they ingestand for the conduct of those personsto whom they entrust access to theirfood and drink). |
However, dependingon the unique facts of a particularcase, any of the referencedillustrations could result in a reducedsanction based on No Significant Faultor Negligence. |
(For example,reduction may well be appropriate inillustration (a) if the Athlete clearlyestablishes that the cause of thepositive test was contamination in acommon multiple vitamin purchasedfrom a source with no connection to2.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance or itsMetabolites or Markers ) or Use of a ProhibitedSubstance or Prohibited Method under Article 2.2that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for theviolation, the otherwise applicable period ofIneligibility shall be eliminated. |
When a ProhibitedSubstance or its Markers or Metabolites is detectedin an Athlete’s Specimen in violation of Article 2.1(presence of Prohibited Substance ), the Athletemust also establish how the Prohibited Substanceentered his or her system in order to have theperiod of Ineligibility eliminated. |
In the event thisArticle is applied and the period of Ineligibilityotherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-dopingrule violation shall not be considered a violation forthe limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under Articles10.2, 10.3 and 10.6.10.5.2 No Significant Fault or NegligenceThis Article 10.5.2 applies only to anti-doping ruleviolations involving Article 2.1 (presence ofProhibited Substance or its Metabolites orMarkers ), Use of a Prohibited Substance or110..5..2 Comment: The trend in dopingcases has been to recognize thatthere must be some opportunity in thecourse of the hearing process toconsider the unique facts andcircumstances of each particular casein imposing sanctions. |
This principlewas accepted at the World Conferenceon Doping in Sport 1999 and wasincorporated into the OMADC whichprovides that sanctions can bereduced in “exceptionalcircumstances.” The Code alsoprovides for the possible reduction orelimination of the period of Ineligibilityin the unique circumstance where theAthlete can establish that he or shehad No Fault or Negligence, or NoSignificant Fault or Negligence, inconnection with the violation. |
Thisapproach is consistent with basicprinciples of human rights andprovides a balance between thoseAnti-Doping Organizations that arguefor a much narrower exception, ornone at all, and those that wouldreduce a two year suspension basedon a range of other factors even whenthe Athlete was admittedly at fault.These Articles apply only to theimposition of sanctions; they are notapplicable to the determination ofwhether an anti-doping rule violationhas occurred.World Anti-Doping Code 200333World Anti-Doping Code 200332Organization can establish that the Athlete or otherPerson committed the second anti-doping ruleviolation after the Athlete or otherPerson receivednotice, or after the Anti-Doping Organization madea reasonable Attempt to give notice, of the first anti-doping rule violation; if the Anti-DopingOrganization cannot establish this, the violationsshall be considered as one single first violation, andthe sanction imposed shall be based on the violationthat carries the more severe sanction. |
10.6.2Where an Athlete , based on the same DopingControl , is found to have committed an anti-dopingrule violation involving both a specified substanceunder Article 10.3 and another ProhibitedSubstance or Prohibited Method , the Athlete shallbe considered to have committed a single anti-doping rule violation, but the sanction imposed shallbe based on the Prohibited Substance or ProhibitedMethod that carries the most severe sanction.10.6.3Where an Athlete is found to have committed twoseparate anti-doping rule violations, one involving aspecified substance governed by the sanctions setforth in Article 10.3 (Specified Substances) and the110..6..3 Comment:Article 10.6.3 dealswith the situation where an Athletecommits two separate anti-dopingrule violations, but one of theviolations involves a specifiedsubstance governed by the lessersanctions of Article 10.3. |
Without thisArticle in the Code, the second offensearguably could be governed by: thesanction applicable to a secondviolation for the Prohibited Substanceinvolved in the second violation, thesanction applicable to a secondoffense for the substance involved inthe first violation, or a combination ofthe sanctions applicable to the twooffenses. |
This Article imposes acombined sanction calculated byadding together the sanctions for afirst offense under 10.2 (two years)and a first offense under 10.3 (up toone year). |
This provides the samesanction to the Athlete that commits afirst violation under 10.2 followed by asecond violation involving a specifiedsubstance, and the Athlete thatcommits a first violation involving aspecified substance followed by asecond violation under 10.2. |
In bothcases, the sanction shall be from twoyears to three years’ Ineligibility.10.5.3Athlete’s Substantial Assistance in Discovering orEstablishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations by AthleteSupport Personnel and Others. |
An Anti-Doping Organization may also reduce theperiod of Ineligibility in an individual case where theAthlete has provided substantial assistance to theAnti-Doping Organization which results in the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or establishing ananti-doping rule violation by another Personinvolving Possession under Article 2.6.2(Possession by Athlete Support Personnel ), Article2.7 (Trafficking ), or Article 2.8 (administration to anAthlete ). |
The reduced period of Ineligibility may not,however, be less than one-half of the minimumperiod of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. |
If theotherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is alifetime, the reduced period under this section maybe no less than 8 years.10.6Rules for Certain Potential Multiple Violations10.6.1For purposes of imposing sanctions under Articles10.2, 10.3 and 10.4, a second anti-doping ruleviolation may be considered for purposes ofimposing sanctions only if the Anti-DopingProhibited Substances and the Athleteexercised care in not taking othernutritional supplements.) |
Article 10.5.2 applies only to theidentified anti-doping rule violationsbecause these violations may be basedon conduct that is not intentional orpurposeful. |
Violations under Article 2.4(whereabouts information and missedtests) are not included, even thoughintentional conduct is not required toestablish these violations, because thesanction for violations of Article 2.4(from three months to two years)already builds in sufficient discretion toallow consideration of the Athlete’sdegree of fault. |
110..6..11 Comment: Under this Article,an Athlete testing positive a secondtime before notice of the first positivetest would only be sanctioned on thebasis of a single anti-doping ruleviolation.the total period of Ineligibility to be served. |
Whererequired by fairness, such as delays in the hearingprocess or other aspects of Doping Control not attributableto the Athlete , the body imposing the sanction may startthe period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing asearly as the date of Sample collection.10.9Status During IneligibilityNo Person who has been declared Ineligible may, duringthe period of Ineligibility , participate in any capacity in aCompetition or activity (other than authorized anti-dopingeducation or rehabilitation programs) authorized ororganized by any Signatory or Signatory’s memberorganization. |
In addition, for any anti-doping rule violationnot involving specified substances described in Article10.3, some or all sport-related financial support or othersport-related benefits received by such Person will bewithheld by Signatories, Signatories’ memberorganizations and governments. |
A Person subject to aperiod of Ineligibility longer than four years may, aftercompleting four years of the period of Ineligibility ,World Anti-Doping Code 200335World Anti-Doping Code 200334positive Sample was collected. |
TheOMADC, as clarified by its ExplanatoryDocument, does not mandate eitherapproach. |
The approach provided inthe Code gives Athletes a strongdisincentive to drag out the hearingprocess while they compete in theinterim. |
It also encourages them tovoluntarily accept ProvisionalSuspensions pending a hearing. |
Onthe other hand, the body imposing thesanction can start the sanctionrunning before the date the hearingdecision is reached so that an Athleteis not penalized by delays in theDoping Control process which are nothis or her fault, for example,inordinate delay by the laboratory inreporting a positive test or delays inscheduling the hearing caused by theAnti-Doping Organization.110..9 Comment: The rules of some Anti-Doping Organizations only ban anAthlete from “competing” during aperiod of Ineligibility. |
For example, anAthlete in those sports could still coachduring the Ineligibility period. |
ThisArticle adopts the position set forth inthe OMADC that an Athlete who is madeineligible for doping should notparticipate in any capacity in anauthorized Event or activity during theIneligibility period. |
This would preclude,for example, practicing with a nationalteam, or acting as a coach or sportofficial. |
Sanctions in one sport will alsobe recognized by other sports (seeArticle 15.4). |
This article would notprohibit the Person from participating insport on a purely recreational level.other involving a Prohibited Substance orProhibited Method governed by the sanctions setforth in Article 10.2 or a violation governed by thesanctions in Article 10.4.1, the period of Ineligibilityimposed for the second offense shall be at aminimum two years’ Ineligibility and at a maximumthree years’ Ineligibility . |
Any Athlete found to havecommitted a third anti-doping rule violationinvolving any combination of specified substancesunder Article 10.3 and any other anti-doping ruleviolation under 10.2 or 10.4.1 shall receive asanction of lifetime Ineligibility .10.7Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent toSample CollectionIn addition to the automatic Disqualification of the resultsin the Competition which produced the positive Sampleunder Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of IndividualResults), all other competitive results obtained from thedate a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition ), or other dopingviolation occurred, through the commencement of anyProvisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall,unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified withall of the resulting consequences including forfeiture ofany medals, points and prizes.10.8Commencement of Ineligibility PeriodThe period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of thehearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearingis waived, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwiseimposed. |
Any period of Provisional Suspension (whetherimposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against110..8 Comment: Currently, many Anti-Doping Organizations start the two-year period of Ineligibility at the time ahearing decision is rendered. |
ThoseAnti-Doping Organizations alsofrequently invalidate resultsretroactively to the date a positiveSample was collected. |
Other Anti-Doping Organizations simply start thetwo-year suspension on the date theWorld Anti-Doping Code 200337World Anti-Doping Code 200336where awards are given to teams, Disqualification or otherdisciplinary action against the team when one or more teammembers have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall beas provided in the applicable rules of the International Federation.ARTICLE 12 SANCTIONS AGAINST SPORTING BODIESNothing in this Code precludes any Signatory or governmentaccepting the Code from enforcing its own rules for the purposeof imposing sanctions on another sporting body over which theSignatory or government has authority.ARTICLE 13 APPEALS13.1Decisions Subject to AppealDecisions made under the Code or rules adopted pursuantto the Code may be appealed as set forth below in Articles13.2 through 13.4. |
Such decisions shall remain in effectwhile under appeal unless the appellate body ordersotherwise. |
Before an appeal is commenced, any post-decision review provided in the Anti-DopingOrganization’s rules must be exhausted, provided thatsuch review respects the principles set forth in Article13.2.2 below.13.2Appeals from Decisions Regarding Anti-Doping RuleViolations, Consequences , and Provisional SuspensionsA decision that an anti-doping rule violation wascommitted, a decision imposing Consequences for ananti-doping rule violation, a decision that no anti-dopingrule violation was committed, a decision that an Anti-Doping Organization lacks jurisdiction to rule on analleged anti-doping rule violation or its Consequences ,112 Comment: This Article makes itclear that the Code does not restrictwhatever disciplinary rights betweenorganizations may otherwise exist.113..11 Comment: The comparableOMADC Article is broader in that itprovides that any dispute arising outof the application of the OMADC maybe appealed to CAS.participate in local sport events in a sport other than thesport in which the Person committed the anti-doping ruleviolation, but only so long as the local sport event is not ata level that could otherwise qualify such Person directly orindirectly to compete in (or accumulate points toward) anational championship or International Event .10.10Reinstatement TestingAs a condition to regaining eligibility at the end of aspecified period of Ineligibility , an Athlete must, duringany period of Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility ,make him or herself available for Out-of-CompetitionTesting by any Anti-Doping Organization having testingjurisdiction, and must, if requested, provide current andaccurate whereabouts information. |
If an Athlete subjectto a period of Ineligibility retires from sport and isremoved from Out-of-Competition Testing pools and laterseeks reinstatement, the Athlete shall not be eligible forreinstatement until the Athlete has notified relevant Anti-Doping Organizations and has been subject to Out-of-Competition Testing for a period of time equal to theperiod of Ineligibility remaining as of the date the Athletehad retired.ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCESTO TEAMSWhere more than one team member in a Team Sport has beennotified of a possible anti-doping rule violation under Article 7 inconnection with an Event , the Team shall be subject to TargetTesting for the Event . |
If more than one team member in a TeamSport is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violationduring the Event , the team may be subject to Disqualification orother disciplinary action. |
In sports which are not Team Sports but110..110 Comment: On a related issue, theCode does not establish a rule, butrather leaves it to the various Anti-Doping Organizations to establish theirown rules, addressing eligibilityrequirements for Athletes who are notineligible and retire from sport whileincluded in an Out-of-Competition pooland then seek to return to activeparticipation in sport.World Anti-Doping Code 200339World Anti-Doping Code 200338or other Person who is the subject of the decisionbeing appealed; (b) the other party to the case inwhich the decision was rendered; (c) the relevantInternational Federation and any other Anti-DopingOrganization under whose rules a sanction couldhave been imposed; (d) the International OlympicCommittee or International Paralympic Committee,as applicable, where the decision may have aneffect in relation to the Olympic Games orParalympic Games, including decisions affectingeligibility for the Olympic Games or ParalympicGames; and (e) WADA . |
In cases under Article13.2.2, the parties having the right to appeal to thenational-level reviewing body shall be as providedin the National Anti-Doping Organization’s rulesbut, at a minimum, shall include: (a) the Athlete orother Person who is the subject of the decisionbeing appealed; (b) the other party to the case inwhich the decision was rendered; (c) the relevantInternational Federation; and (d)WADA . |
For casesunder Article 13.2.2, WADA and the InternationalFederation shall also have the right to appeal to CASwith respect to the decision of the national-levelreviewing body. |
Notwithstanding any other provision herein, theonly Person that may appeal from a ProvisionalSuspension is the Athlete or other Person uponwhom the Provisional Suspension is imposed.13.3Appeals from Decisions Granting or Denying a TherapeuticUse ExemptionDecisions by WADA reversing the grant or denial of atherapeutic use exemption may be appealed exclusively toCAS by the Athlete or the Anti-Doping Organization whosedecision was reversed. |
Decisions by Anti-DopingOrganizations other than WADA denying therapeutic useexemptions, which are not reversed by WADA , may beappealed by International-Level Athletes to CAS and byand a decision to impose a Provisional Suspension as aresult of a Provisional Hearing or in violation of Article 7.5may be appealed exclusively as provided in this Article 13.2.13.2.1 Appeals Involving International-Level AthletesIn cases arising from competition in anInternational Event or in cases involvingInternational-Level Athletes , the decision may beappealed exclusively to the Court of Arbitration forSport (“CAS”) in accordance with the provisionsapplicable before such court. |
13.2.2 Appeals Involving National-Level AthletesIn cases involving national-level Athletes , asdefined by each National Anti-Doping Organization ,that do not have a right to appeal under Article13.2.1, the decision may be appealed to anindependent and impartial body in accordance withrules established by the National Anti-DopingOrganization . |
The rules for such appeal shallrespect the following principles:• A timely hearing;• Fair, impartial and independent hearing body;• The right to be represented by counsel at thePerson’s own expense; and• A timely, written, reasoned decision.13.2.3 Persons Entitled to AppealIn cases under Article 13.2.1, the following partiesshall have the right to appeal to CAS: (a) the Athlete113..2..11 Comment: CAS decisions arefinal and binding except for anyreview required by law applicable tothe annulment or enforcement ofarbitral awards.113..2..2 Comment: An Anti-DopingOrganization may elect to comply withthis Article by giving its national-levelAthletes the right to appeal directly toCAS.World Anti-Doping Code 200341World Anti-Doping Code 200340have violated an anti-doping rule, shall be notified by theAnti-Doping Organization with results managementresponsibility as provided in Article 7 (ResultsManagement). |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.