text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
1 [Comment: Where the Code requires a Person other than an Athlete or Athlete Support Person to be bound by the Code, such Person would of course not be subject to Sample collection or Testing, and would not be charged with an anti -doping rule violation und er the Code for Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance... |
Rather, such Person would only be subject to discipline for a violation of Code Articles 2.5 (Tampering), 2.7 (Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration) , 2.9 (Complicity), 2.10 (Pro hibited Association) and 2.11 (Retaliation). |
Furthermore, such Person would be subject to the additional roles and responsibilities according to Code Article 21.3. |
Also, the obligation to require an employee to be bound by the Cod e is subject to applicable law. |
FIS shall ensure that, as per Article 19 of these Anti -Doping Rules, any arrangements with their Council members, directors, officers, and specified employees, as well as with the Delegated Third Parties and their employees – either employment, contr actual or otherwise – have explicit provisions incorporated accordi... |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 10 Edition January 2021 Within the overall pool of Athletes set out above who are bound by an d required to comply with these Anti -Doping Rules, the following Athletes shall be considered to be International -Level Athletes for purposes of these Anti -Doping Rules, and therefore , the... |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 11 Edition January 2021 ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.1 1 of these Anti -Doping Rules. |
ARTICLE 2 ANTI -DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti -doping rule violations. |
Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules have been violated. |
Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti -doping rule violation and the substances and meth ods which have been included on the Prohibited List. |
The following constitute anti -doping rule violations: 2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample 2.1.1 It is the Athletes ' personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. |
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples . |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault , Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.1.2 2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of... |
2 [Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti -doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to an Athlete’s Fault. |
This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. |
An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this an ti-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 Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.] |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 12 Edition January 2021 2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List , International Standards or Technical Documents may est ablish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances . |
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method4 2.2.1 It is the Athlete s’ 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 Athlete ’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti -doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method . |
2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. |
It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti -doping rule violation to be committed.5 2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete Evading Sample collection ; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collec... |
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 Athlete, witness statements, documentary evi dence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profil... |
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 Organi sation provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sampl... |
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 Athlete’s part. |
The fa ct 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 respe ct of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Proh ibited Method. |
An Athlete’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti -doping rule violation unless such Substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Athlete’s Use takes place Out -of-Competition. |
(However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected In -Competition is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that Substance might have been administered.)] |
6 [Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti -doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that an Athlete was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control offi cial to evade notification or Testing. |
A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Athlete, while “evadi ng” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the A thlete.] |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 13 Edition January 2021 2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control by an Athlete or Other Person 2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person 2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of a... |
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In -Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method , or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with an Athlete , Competi... |
[Comment to Article 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) an Athlete 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) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohib... |
8 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.] |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 14 Edition January 2021 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 crim inal, disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which would have constituted a viol... |
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 Athlete or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person ’s disqualifying status. |
The burden shall be on the Athlete 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 an Athlete 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 d... |
This also prohibits association with any other Athlete 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: ob taining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodily products for analysis; or allowing the Athlete Support Person to serve as an agent or representative. |
Prohibited associa tion need not involve any form of compensation. |
While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti -Doping Organi sation to notify the Athlete or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if provided, would be important evi dence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Suppor... |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 15 Edition January 2021 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 ... |
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 FIS shall have the burden of establishing that an anti -doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether FIS 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 pr oof beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Where these Anti -Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti -doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, except as provided in Articles 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probab... |
Any Athlete or other Person seeking to challenge whether the co nditions for such 10 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons wh o 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 Organi sation 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.] |
11 [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by FIS is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.] |
12 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, FIS may establish an anti -dopin g rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the Comments to Article 2.2, or... |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 16 Edition January 2021 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 ev aluation 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 a... |
The Athlete or other Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding . |
If the Athlete or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding , then FIS shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytica... |
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 th at 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.] |
14 [Comment to Article 3. |
2.2: The burden is on the Athlete or other Person to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
Thus, once the Athlete or other Pers on establishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Athlete or other Person’s burden on causation is the somewhat lower standard of proof – “could reasonably have caused.” If the Athlete or other Person satisfies these standards, the burden shift s to FIS to prove to the c... |
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 Athlete notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the Prote... |
Sim ilarly, FIS’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.] |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 17 Edition January 2021 (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 FIS sh all... |
3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Athlete or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Athlete or other Person estab... |
3.2.5 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti -doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti -doping ru le violation based on the Athlete’s or other Person ’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearin... |
16 [Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): FIS 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.] |
FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 18 Edition January 2021 ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST 4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List These Anti -Doping Rules 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 Rules three (3) months after publication by WADA , without requiring any further action by FIS or its National Ski Associations . |
All Athletes 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 Athle tes and other Persons to familiari se themselves with the most up -to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto. |
FIS shall provide its National Ski Associations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List . |
Each National Ski Association 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 may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport. |
Prohibited Substance s and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a particular substance or method .18 4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified Methods For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substance... |
No Prohibited Method shall be a Specified Method unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List .19 17 [Comment to Article 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's webs ite 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 eve ry year whether or not changes have been made.] |
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 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 FIS Anti -Doping Rules page 19 Edition January 2021 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 a... |
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 cla ssification of substances into categories on the Prohibited List , the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Co... |
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 viola... |
4.4.2 TUE Applications 4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International -Level Athletes shall apply to their National Anti -Doping Organisation for a TUE. |
If the National Anti -Doping Organisation denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively to the national -level appeal body described in Article 13.2.2. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.