text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
FISA shall ensure that, as per Article 19 of these Anti-Doping Bye-Laws, any arrangements with their board members, directors, officers, and specified employees, as well as with the Delegated Third Parties and their employees – either employment, contractual or otherwise – have explicit provisions incorporated according to which such Persons are bound by, agree to comply with these Anti-Doping Bye-Laws, and agree on the FISA’s authority to solve the anti-doping cases.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 6 of 67 Rowers or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List . |
The following constitute anti-doping rule violations: 2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Rower’s Sample 2.1.1 It is the Rowers’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. |
Rowers are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples . |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Rower’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1. |
2 2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Rower’s A Sample where the Rower waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analysed; or, where the Rower’s B Sample is analysed and the analysis of the Rower’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Rower’s A Sample; or where the Rower’s A or B Sample is split into two (2) parts and the analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first part of the split Sample or the Rower waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample.3 2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the Prohibited List or a Technical Document , the presence of any reported quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Rower’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. |
2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List , International Standards or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances . |
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by a Rower of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 4 2 [Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to a Rower’s Fault. |
This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. |
A Rower’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. |
This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.] |
3 [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analysed even if the Rower does not request the analysis of the B Sample.] |
4 [Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. |
As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Rower, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of the Rower Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. |
For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organisation provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 7 of 67 2.2.1 It is the Rowers’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used. |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Rower’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method . |
2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. |
It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed.5 2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by a Rower Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorised Person.6 2.4 Whereabouts Failures by a Rower Any combination of three (3) missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Results Management , within a twelve (12) month period by a Rower in a Registered Testing Pool. |
2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any Part of Doping Control by a Rower or Other Person 2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by a Rower or Rower Support Person 2.6.1 Possession by a Rower In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method , or Possession by a Rower Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Rower establishes that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification. |
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method , or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with a Rower, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is 5 [Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Rower’s part. |
The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular anti-doping rule violation does not undermine the Strict Liability principle established for violations of Article 2.1 and violations of Article 2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. |
A Rower’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Rower’s Use takes place Out-of-Competition. |
(However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected In-Competition is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that substance might have been administered.)] |
6 [Comment to Article 2.3: Error! |
Main Document Only. |
For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that a Rower was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. |
A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Rower, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Rower.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 8 of 67 consistent with a TUE granted to a Rower in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification. |
7 2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by a Rower or Other Person 2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration by a Rower or Other Person to any Rower In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method , or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Rower Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is Prohibited Out-of-Competition 2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by a Rower or Other Person Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity or Attempted complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.14.1 by another Person.8 2.10 Prohibited Association by a Rower or Other Person 2.10.1 Association by a Rower or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support Person who: 2.10.1.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation , is serving a period of Ineligibility ; or 2.10.1.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation and where Ineligibility has not been addressed in a Results Management process pursuant to the Code, has been convicted or found in a criminal, disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which would have constituted a violation of anti-doping rules if Code-compliant rules had been applicable to such Person. |
The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six (6) years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or 2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2. |
2.10.2 To establish a violation of Article 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organisation must establish that the Rower or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person’ s disqualifying status. |
7 [Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child.] |
[Comment to Article 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) a Rower or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine auto-injector), or (b) a Rower Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE.] |
8 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 9 of 67 The burden shall be on the Rower or other Person to establish that any association with an Athlete Support Person described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity and/or that such association could not have been reasonably avoided. |
Anti-Doping Organisations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2, or 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information to WADA.9 2.11 Acts by a Rower or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities Where such conduct does not otherwise constitute a violation of Article 2.5: 2.11.1 Any act which threatens or seeks to intimidate another Person with the intent of discouraging the Person from the good-faith reporting of information that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organisation , law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation . |
2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who, in good faith, has provided evidence or information that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organisation , law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation . |
For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response.10 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof 9 [Comment to Article 2.10: Rowers and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Athlete Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an anti-doping rule violation or who have been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined in relation to doping. |
This also prohibits association with any other Rower who is acting as a coach or Athlete Support Person while serving a period of Ineligibility. |
Some examples of the types of association which are prohibited include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodily products for analysis; or allowing the Rower Support Person to serve as an agent or representative. |
Prohibited association need not involve any form of compensation. |
While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti-Doping Organisation to notify the Rower or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if provided, would be important evidence to establish that the Rower or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Support Person.] |
10 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.] |
[Comment to Article 2.11.2: Retaliation would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or mental well-being or economic interests of the reporting Persons, their families or associates. |
Retaliation would not include an Anti-Doping Organisation asserting in good faith an anti-doping rule violation against the reporting Person. |
For purposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 10 of 67 FISA shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether FISA has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. |
This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Where these Anti-Doping Bye-Laws place the burden of proof upon the Rower or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, except as provided in Articles 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.11 3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.12 The following rules of proof shall be applicable in doping cases: 3.2.1 Analytical methods or Decision Limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community or which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. |
Any Rower or other Person seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presumption have been met or to rebut this presumption of scientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. |
The initial hearing body, appellate body or CAS, on its own initiative, may also inform WADA of any such challenge. |
Within ten (10) days of WADA’s receipt of such notice and the case file related to such challenge, WADA shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear as amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding. |
In cases before CAS, at WADA’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge.13 3.2.2 WADA-accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved by WADA, are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories. |
The Rower or other Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding . |
If the Rower or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding , then FISA shall 11 [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by FISA is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.] |
12 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, FISA may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Rower’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the Comments to Article 2.2, or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Rower’s blood or urine Samples, such as data from the Rower Biological Passport.] |
13 [Comment to Article 3.2.1: For certain Prohibited Substances, WADA may instruct WADA-accredited laboratories not to report Samples as an Adverse Analytical Finding if the estimated concentration of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers is below a Minimum Reporting Level. |
WADA’s decision in determining that Minimum Reporting Level or in determining which Prohibited Substances should be subject to Minimum Reporting Levels shall not be subject to challenge. |
Further, the laboratory’s estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate. |
In no event shall the possibility that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may be below the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 11 of 67 have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding .14 3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or these Anti-Doping Bye-Laws shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, and shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation;15 provided, however, if the Rower or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the specific International Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure, then FISA shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the whereabouts failure: (i) a departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to Sample collection or Sample handling which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding , in which case FISA shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ; (ii) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Passport Finding which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case FISA shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the anti-doping rule violation; (iii) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to the requirement to provide notice to the Rower of the B Sample opening which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding , in which case FISA shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding ;16 (iv) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to Rower notification which could reasonably have caused an 14 [Comment to Article 3.2.2: Error! |
Main Document Only. |
The burden is on the Rower or other Person to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
Thus, once the Rower or other Person establishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Rower or other Person’s burden on causation is the somewhat lower standard of proof – “could reasonably have caused.” If the Rower or other Person satisfies these standards, the burden shifts to FISA to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.] |
15 [Comment to Article 3.2.3: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample collection or handling, Adverse Passport Finding, or Rower notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information or International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions – may result in compliance proceedings by WADA but are not a defense in an anti-doping rule violation proceeding and are not relevant on the issue of whether the Rower committed an anti-doping rule violation. |
Similarly, FISA’s violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 of the Code shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation.] |
16 [Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): FISA would meet its burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding by showing that, for example, the B Sample opening and analysis were observed by an independent witness and no irregularities were observed.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 12 of 67 anti-doping rule violation based on a whereabouts failure, in which case FISA shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the whereabouts failure. |
3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Rower or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Rower or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice. |
3.2.5 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Rower or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the Rower’s or other Person’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions from the hearing panel or FISA. |
ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST 4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List These Anti-Doping Bye-Laws incorporate the Prohibited List , which is published and revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the Code. |
Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions shall go into effect under these Anti-Doping Bye-Laws three (3) months after publication by WADA, without requiring any further action by FISA or its Member Federations. |
All Rowers and other Persons shall be bound by the Prohibited List , and any revisions thereto, from the date they go into effect, without further formality. |
It is the responsibility of all Rowers and other Persons to familiarise themselves with the most up-to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto. |
FISA shall provide its Member Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List . |
Each Member Federation shall in turn ensure that its members, and the constituents of its members, are also provided with the most recent version of the Prohibited List .17 4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on the Prohibited List 4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods The Prohibited List shall identify those Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods which are prohibited as doping at all times (both In-Competition and Out-of-Competition ) because of their potential to enhance performance in future Competitions or their masking potential, and those substances and methods which are prohibited In-Competition only. |
The Prohibited List may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport. |
Prohibited Substance s and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited List by general 17 [Comment to Article 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at https://www.wada-ama.org . |
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises. |
However, for the sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 13 of 67 category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a particular substance or method.18 4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified Methods For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except as identified on the Prohibited List . |
No Prohibited Method shall be a Specified Method unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List.19 4.2.3 Substances of Abuse For purposes of applying Article 10, Substances of Abuse shall include those Prohibited Substances which are specifically identified as Substances of Abuse on the Prohibited List because they are frequently abused in society outside of the context of sport. |
4.3 WADA’s Determination of the Prohibited List WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List , the classification of substances into categories on the Prohibited List , the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only, the classification of a substance or method as a Specified Substance , Specified Method or Substance of Abuse is final and shall not be subject to any challenge by a Rower or other Person including, but not limited to, any challenge based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport. |
4.4 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“TUEs”) 4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers, and/or the Use or Attempted Use , Possession or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method , shall not be considered an anti-doping rule violation if it is consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions . |
4.4.2 TUE Applications 4.4.2.1 Rowers who are not International-Level Rowers shall apply to their National Anti-Doping Organisation for a TUE. |
If the National Anti-Doping Organisation denies the application, the Rower may appeal exclusively to the appellate body described in Article 13.2.2. |
4.4.2.2 Rowers who are International-Level Rowers shall apply to FISA. |
Any International-Level Rower who needs to Use a Prohibited Substance or a 18 [Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition is not an anti-doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample collected In-Competition.] |
19 [Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances and Specified Methods identified in Article 4.2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping substances or methods. |
Rather, they are simply substances and methods which are more likely to have been consumed or used by a Rower for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance.] |
FISA 2021 Anti-Doping Bye-Laws Page 14 of 67 Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons must apply to FISA and obtain a TUE prior to Using or Possessing the substance or method in question. |
4.4.3 TUE Recognition20 4.4.3.1 Where the Rower already has a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organisation pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Code for the substance or method in question, that TUE is not automatically valid for purposes of international-level Competition. |
However, the Rower may apply to FISA to recognise that TUE. |
If following a review of the Rower’s original TUE application form and supporting materials, as required by the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , FISA considers that the Rower’s TUE meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , then FISA must recognise it for the purposes of international-level Competition as well. |
If FISA considers that the TUE does not meet those criteria and so refuses to recognise it, FISA must notify the Rower and the Rower’s National Anti-Doping Organisation promptly, with reasons. |
The Rower or the Rower’s National Anti-Doping Organisation shall have twenty-one (21) days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for review in accordance with Article 4.4.7. |
If the matter is referred to WADA for review, the TUE granted by the National Anti-Doping Organisation remains valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for international-level Competition ) pending WADA’s decision. |
If the matter is not referred to WADA for review, within the twenty-one (21) days deadline, the Rower’s National Anti-Doping Organisation must determine whether the original TUE granted by that National Anti-Doping Organisation should nevertheless remain valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (provided that the Rower ceases to be an international-level Rower and does not participate in international-level Competition . |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.