Datasets:
timotheeplanes
/
doping

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
17.8k
]*C21* [Comment to Article 4.4.4: The submission of falsified documents to a TUEC or World Archery offering or accepting a bribeto a Person to perform or fail to perform an act, procuring false testimony from any witness, or committing any other fraudulent actor any other similar intentional interference or Attempted interference with any aspect of the TUE process shall result in a charge ofTampering or Attempted Tampering under Article 2.5.
An Athlete should not assume that their application for the grant or recognitionof a TUE (or for renewal of a TUE) will be granted.
Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited Substance or ProhibitedMethod before an application has been granted is entirely at the Athlete’s own risk.
]*C22* [Comment to Article 4.4.7.1: WADA shall be entitled to charge a fee to cover the costs of: (a) any review it is required toconduct in accordance with Article 4.4.7; and (b) any review it chooses to conduct, where the decision being reviewed is reversed.
]*C23* [Comment to Article 4.4.7.2: In such cases, the decision being appealed is the World Archery’s TUE decision, not WADA’sdecision not to review the TUE decision or (having reviewed it) not to reverse the TUE decision.
However, the time to appeal the TUEdecision does not begin to run until the date that WADA communicates its decision.
In any event, whether the decision has beenreviewed by WADA or not, WADA shall be given notice of the appeal so that it may participate if it sees fit.
]*C24* [Comment to Article 5.1: Where Testing is conducted for anti-doping purposes, the analytical results and data may be used forother legitimate purposes under the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules.
See, e.g., Comment to Article 23.2.2 of the Code.
]*C25* [Comment to Article 5.2.2: World Archery may obtain additional authority to conduct Testing by means of bilateral ormultilateral agreements with other Signatories.
Unless the Athlete has identified a sixty (60) minute Testing window between thehours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or has otherwise consented to Testing during that period, World Archery will not test an Athleteduring that period unless it has a serious and specific suspicion that the Athlete may be engaged in doping.
A challenge to whetherWorld Archery had sufficient suspicion for Testing during this time period shall not be a defense to an anti-doping rule violationbased on such test or attempted test.
]*C26* [Comment to Article 5.3.2: Before giving approval to a National Anti-Doping Organization to initiate and conduct Testing atan International Event, WADA shall consult with the international organization which is the ruling body for the Event.
Before givingapproval to an International Federation to initiate and conduct Testing at a National Event, WADA shall consult with the NationalAnti-Doping Organization of the country where the Event takes place.
The Anti-Doping Organization “initiating and directingTesting” may, if it chooses, enter into agreements with a Delegated Third Party to which it delegates responsibility for Samplecollection or other aspects of the Doping Control process.
]*C27* [Comment to Article 6.1: Violations of Article 2.1 may be established only by Sample analysis performed by a WADA-accredited laboratory or another laboratory approved by WADA.
Violations of other Articles may be established using analyticalresults from other laboratories so long as the results are reliable.
]*C28* [Comment to Article 6.2.1: For example, relevant Doping Control-related information could be used to direct Target Testingor to support an anti-doping rule violation proceeding under Article 2.2, or both.
]*C29* [Comment to Article 6.3: As is the case in most medical or scientific contexts, use of Samples and related information forquality assurance, quality improvement, method improvement and development or to establish reference populations is not consideredresearch.
Samples and related information used for such permitted non-research purposes must also first be processed in such amanner as to prevent them from being traced back to the particular Athlete, having due regard to the principles set out in Article 19 ofthe Code, as well as the requirements of the International Standard for Laboratories and International Standard for the Protection ofPrivacy and Personal Information.
]*C30* [Comment to Article 6.4: The objective of this Article is to extend the principle of “Intelligent Testing” to the Sample analysismenu so as to most effectively and efficiently detect doping.
It is recognized that the resources available to fight doping are limitedand that increasing the Sample analysis menu may, in some sports and countries, reduce the number of Samples which can beanalyzed.
]*C31* [Comment to Article 6.8: Resistance or refusal to WADA taking physical possession of Samples or data could constituteTampering, Complicity or an act of non-compliance as provided in the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories,Version 2021-01-05 17:15:34 Page 35 / 39and could also constitute a violation of the International Standard for Laboratories.
Where necessary, the laboratory and/or the Anti-Doping Organization shall assist WADA in ensuring that the seized Sample or data are not delayed in exiting the applicable country.WADA would not, of course, unilaterally take possession of Samples or analytical data without good cause related to a potential anti-doping rule violation, non-compliance by a Signatory or doping activities by another Person.
However, the decision as to whethergood cause exists is for WADA to make in its discretion and shall not be subject to challenge.
In particular, whether there is goodcause or not shall not be a defense against an anti-doping rule violation or its Consequences.
]*C32* [Comment to Article 7.4: Before a Provisional Suspension can be unilaterally imposed by World Archery, the internal reviewspecified in these Anti-Doping Rules and the International Standard for Results Management must first be completed.
]*C33* [Comment to Article 7.5: Results Management decisions include Provisional Suspensions.
Each decision by World Archeryshould address whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed and all Consequences flowing from the violation, including anyDisqualifications other than Disqualification under Article 10.1 (which is left to the ruling body for an Event).
Pursuant to Article 15,such decision and its imposition of Consequences shall have automatic effect in every sport in every country.
For example, for adetermination that an Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Sample taken In-Competition, the Athlete’s results obtained in the Competition would be Disqualified under Article 9 and all other competitive resultsobtained by the Athlete from the date the Sample was collected through the duration of the period of Ineligibility are also Disqualifiedunder Article 10.10; if the Adverse Analytical Finding resulted from Testing at an Event, it would be the Major Event Organization’sresponsibility to decide whether the Athlete’s other individual results in the Event prior to Sample collection are also Disqualifiedunder Article 10.1.
]*C34* [Comment to Article 7.7: Conduct by an Athlete or other Person before the Athlete or other Person was subject to theauthority of any Anti-Doping Organization would not constitute an anti-doping rule violation but could be a legitimate basis fordenying the Athlete or other Person membership in a sports organization.
]*C35* [Comment to Article 8.1.1: Nothing precludes the Athlete or other Person and World Archery from agreeing to a single-instance procedure before the CAS ADD in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the CAS ADD, subject to any right of appeal inaccordance with Article 13.2.3.1(e) or Article 13.2.3.1(f) .
]*C36* [Comment to Article 8.1.2.4: For example, a hearing could be expedited on the eve of a major Event where the resolution ofthe anti-doping rule violation is necessary to determine the Athlete's eligibility to participate in the Event, or during an Event wherethe resolution of the case will affect the validity of the Athlete's results or continued participation in the Event.
]*C37* [Comment to Article 8.4: In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international ornational level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial.
Where all of the parties identified in this Articleare satisfied that their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need for the Athlete or Anti-DopingOrganizations to incur the extra expense of two (2) hearings.
An Anti-Doping Organization may participate in the CAS hearing as anobserver.
Nothing set out in Article 8.4 precludes the Athlete or other Person and World Archery (where it has Results Managementresponsibility) to waive their right to appeal by agreement.
Such waiver, however, only binds the parties to such agreement and notany other entity with a right of appeal under the Code.
]*C38* [Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual players will be Disqualified.
However,Disqualification of the team will be as provided in Article 11.
In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given toteams, Disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-dopingrule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the International Federation.
]*C39* [Comment to Article 10.1.1: Whereas Article 9 Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Athlete testedpositive (e.g., the 100 meter backstroke), this Article may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g., theswimming World Championships).
]*C40* [Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti-dopingrule violation was not intentional without showing how the Prohibited Substance entered one’s system, it is highly unlikely that in adoping case under Article 2.1 an Athlete will be successful in proving that the Athlete acted unintentionally without establishing thesource of the Prohibited Substance.
]*C41* [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely forpurposes of Article 10.2.
]*C42* [Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the treatment program is approved and whether the Athlete orother Person has satisfactorily completed the program shall be made in the sole discretion of World Archery.
This Article is intendedto give World Archery the leeway to apply their own judgment to identify and approve legitimate and reputable, as opposed to“sham”, treatment programs.
It is anticipated, however, that the characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widelyand change over time such that it would not be practical for WADA to develop mandatory criteria for acceptable treatmentprograms.
]*C43* [Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctionswhich are more severe than the Athletes who test positive.
Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited toIneligibility for accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities isan important step in the deterrence of doping.
]*C44* [Comment to Article 10.3.5: Where the “other Person” referenced in Article 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that entitymay be disciplined as provided in Article 12.
]*C45* [Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by an Athleteor Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) shall be sanctioned based on the violation that carriesthe more severe sanction.
]*C46* [Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration orAttempted Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) and 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage orRetaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) are not included in the application of Article 10.4 because the sanctions for theseviolations already build in sufficient discretion up to a lifetime ban to allow consideration of any Aggravating Ccircumstance.
]*C47* [Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable tothe determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.
They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, forVersion 2021-01-05 17:15:34 Page 36 / 39example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.
Conversely, No Fault orNegligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin ornutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility ofsupplement contamination); (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer withoutdisclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that theycannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and (c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person withinthe Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom theyentrust access to their food and drink).
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referencedillustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.
]*C48* [Comment to Article 10.6.1.2: In order to receive the benefit of this Article, the Athlete or other Person must establish not onlythat the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, but must also separately establish No Significant Fault orNegligence.
It should be further noted that Athletes are on notice that they take nutritional supplements at their own risk.
The sanctionreduction based on No Significant Fault or Negligence has rarely been applied in Contaminated Product cases unless the Athlete hasexercised a high level of caution before taking the Contaminated Product.
In assessing whether the Athlete can establish the source ofthe Prohibited Substance, it would, for example, be significant for purposes of establishing whether the Athlete actually Used theContaminated Product, whether the Athlete had declared the product which was subsequently determined to be contaminated on theDoping Control form.
This Article should not be extended beyond products that have gone through some process of manufacturing.Where an Adverse Analytical Finding results from environment contamination of a “non-product” such as tap water or lake water incircumstances where no reasonable person would expect any risk of an anti-doping rule violation, typically there would be No Faultor Negligence under Article 10.5.
]*C49* [Comment to Article 10.6.2: Article 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation except those Articles where intentis an element of the anti-doping rule violation (e.g., Article 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.11) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g.,Article 10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provided in an Article based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.
]*C50* [Comment to Article 10.7.1: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge theirmistakes and are willing to bring other anti-doping rule violations to light is important to clean sport.
]*C51* [Comment to Article 10.7.2: This Article is intended to apply when an Athlete or other Person comes forward and admits to ananti-doping rule violation in circumstances where no Anti-Doping Organization is aware that an anti-doping rule violation mighthave been committed.
It is not intended to apply to circumstances where the admission occurs after the Athlete or other Personbelieves he or she is about to be caught.
The amount by which Ineligibility is reduced should be based on the likelihood that theAthlete or other Person would have been caught had he or she not come forward voluntarily.
]*C52* [Comment to Article 10.8.1: For example, if World Archery alleges that an Athlete has violated Article 2.1 for Use of ananabolic steroid and asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four (4) years, then the Athlete may unilaterally reduce the periodof Ineligibility to three (3) years by admitting the violation and accepting the three (3) year period of Ineligibility within the timespecified in this Article, with no further reduction allowed.
This resolves the case without any need for a hearing.
]*C53* [Comment to Article 10.8: Any mitigating or aggravating factors set forth in this Article 10 shall be considered in arriving atthe Consequences set forth in the case resolution agreement, and shall not be applicable beyond the terms of that agreement.
]*C54* [Comment to Article 10.9.3.1: The same rule applies where, after the imposition of a sanction, World Archery discovers factsinvolving an anti-doping rule violation that occurred prior to notification for a first anti-doping rule violation – e.g., World Archeryshall impose a sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two (2) violations had been adjudicated at the sametime, including the application of Aggravating Circumstances.
]*C55* [Comment to Article 10.10: Nothing in these Anti-Doping Rules precludes clean Athletes or other Persons who have beendamaged by the actions of a Person who has committed an anti-doping rule violation from pursuing any right which they wouldotherwise have to seek damages from such Person.
]*C56* [Comment to Article 10.11: This Article is not intended to impose an affirmative duty on World Archery to take any action tocollect forfeited prize money.
If World Archery elects not to take any action to collect forfeited prize money, it may assign its right torecover such money to the Athlete(s) who should have otherwise received the money.
“Reasonable measures to allocate and distributethis prize money” could include using collected forfeited prize money as agreed upon by World Archery and its Athletes.
]*C57* [Comment to Article 10.13.1: In cases of anti-doping rule violations other than under Article 2.1, the time required for an Anti-Doping Organization to discover and develop facts sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation may be lengthy, particularlywhere the Athlete or other Person has taken affirmative action to avoid detection.
In these circumstances, the flexibility provided inthis Article to start the sanction at an earlier date should not be used.
]*C58* [Comment to Article 10.13.2.2: An Athlete’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension is not an admission by theAthlete and shall not be used in any way to draw an adverse inference against the Athlete.
]*C59* [Comment to Article 10.14.1: For example, subject to Article 10.14.2 below, Ineligible Athletes cannot participate in a trainingcamp, exhibition or practice organized by their National Federation or a club which is a member of that National Federation orwhich is funded by a governmental agency.
Further, an Ineligible Athlete may not compete in a non-Signatory professional league(e.g., the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, etc.
), Events organized by a non-Signatory InternationalEvent organization or a non-Signatory national-level Event organization without triggering the Consequences set forth in Article10.14.3.
The term “activity” also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer,employee, or volunteer of the organization described in this Article.
Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be recognized byother sports (see Article 15.1, Automatic Binding Effect of Decisions).
An Athlete or other Person serving a period of Ineligibility isprohibited from coaching or serving as an Athlete Support Person in any other capacity at any time during the period of Ineligibility,and doing so could also result in a violation of Article 2.10 by another Athlete.
Any performance standard accomplished during aperiod of Ineligibility shall not be recognized by World Archery or its National Federations for any purpose.
]*C60* [Comment to Article 10.14.2: In many Team Sports and some individual sports (e.g., ski jumping and gymnastics), Athletescannot effectively train on their own so as to be ready to compete at the end of the Athlete’s period of Ineligibility.
During thetraining period described in this Article, an Ineligible Athlete may not compete or engage in any activity described in Article 10.14.1other than training.
]Version 2021-01-05 17:15:34 Page 37 / 39*C61* [Comment to Article 13: The object of the Code is to have anti-doping matters resolved through fair and transparent internalprocesses with a final appeal.
Anti-doping decisions by Anti-Doping Organizations are made transparent in Article 14.
SpecifiedPersons and organizations, including WADA, are then given the opportunity to appeal those decisions.
Note that the definition ofinterested Persons and organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13 does not include Athletes, or their federations, who mightbenefit from having another competitor Disqualified.]
*C62* [Comment to Article 13.1.1: The revised language is not intended tomake a substantive change to the 2015 Code, but rather for clarification.
For example, where an Athlete was charged in the firstinstance hearing only with Tampering but the same conduct could also constitute Complicity, an appealing party could pursue bothTampering and Complicity charges against the Athlete in the appeal.]
*C63* [Comment to Article 13.1.2: CAS proceedings are denovo.
Prior proceedings do not limit the evidence or carry weight in the hearing before CAS.
]*C64* [Comment to Article 13.1.3: Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of World Archery’s process (forexample, a first hearing) and no party elects to appeal that decision to the next level of World Archery’s process (e.g., the ManagingBoard), then WADA may bypass the remaining steps in World Archery’s internal process and appeal directly to CAS.
]*C65* [Comment to Article 13.2.1: CAS decisions are final and binding except for any review required by law applicable to theannulment or enforcement of arbitral awards.
]*C66* [Comment to Article 13.2.4: This provision is necessary because since 2011, CAS rules no longer permit an Athlete the right tocross appeal when an Anti-Doping Organization appeals a decision after the Athlete’s time for appeal has expired.
This provisionpermits a full hearing for all parties.
]*C67* [Comment to Article 13.3: Given the different circumstances of each anti-doping rule violation investigation and ResultsManagement process, it is not feasible to establish a fixed time period for World Archery to render a decision before WADA mayintervene by appealing directly to CAS.