ISRM – January 2023

Page 1 of 54

International Standard for Results Management
The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Results Management is amandatory International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping
Program. It was developed in consultation with Signatories, public authorities, andother relevant stakeholders.
The International Standard for Results Management was first adopted andapproved by the WADA Executive Committee at the World Conference on Dopingin Sport in Katowice on 7 November 2019 and came into effect January 2021.
This version of the International Standard for Results Management incorporates
minor revisions to align the International Standard for Results Management witha number of other WADA regulatory documents. It was approved by the WADA
Executive Committee on 20 May 2021 and has been effective since this date.

Published by:World Anti-Doping Agency
Stock Exchange Tower
800 Place Victoria (Suite 1700)
PO Box 120
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H4Z 1B7
www.wada-ama.org
Tel:+1 514 904 9232
Fax:
+1 514 904 8650
E-mail: code@wada-ama.org

ISRM – January 2023

Page 2 of 54

TABLE OF CONTENTSPART ONE: INTRODUCTION, CODE PROVISIONS, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD PROVISIONSAND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.0

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................... 5

2.0

CODE PROVISIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.0

DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION ......................................................................................... 6
3.1

Defined Terms from the 2021 Code that are Used in the International Standard for Results
Management ........................................................................................................................... 6

3.2

Defined Terms from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations .................... 13

3.3

Defined Terms from the International Standard for Laboratories .......................................... 13

3.4

Defined Term from the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions .................. 14

3.5

Defined Term from the International Standard for Protection of Privacy and Personal
Information ............................................................................................................................ 14

3.6

Defined Terms Specific to the International Standard for Results Management ................... 15

3.7Interpretation ......................................................................................................................... 16

PART TWO: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES ................................................. 17
4.0

GENERAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................... 17
4.1

Confidentiality of Results Management ................................................................................. 17

4.2

Timeliness ............................................................................................................................. 17

PART THREE: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – PRE-ADJUDICATION .................................................. 18
5.0

6.0

7.0

FIRST RESULTS MANAGEMENT PHASE .................................................................................. 18
5.1

Adverse Analytical Findings .................................................................................................. 18

5.2

Atypical Findings ................................................................................................................... 23

5.3

Matters Not Involving an Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding.............................. 24

5.4

Decision Not to Move Forward .............................................................................................. 25

PROVISIONAL SUSPENSIONS ................................................................................................... 25
6.1

Scope .................................................................................................................................... 25

6.2

Imposition of a Provisional Suspension................................................................................. 26

6.3

Voluntary Provisional Suspension ......................................................................................... 27

6.4

Notification............................................................................................................................. 28

CHARGE........................................................................................................................................ 28

PART FOUR: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – ADJUDICATION ............................................................. 32
8.0

HEARING PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 32

9.0

DECISIONS ................................................................................................................................... 35

ISRM – January 2023

Page 3 of 54

9.1

Content .................................................................................................................................. 35

9.2

Notification............................................................................................................................. 36

10.0 APPEALS ...................................................................................................................................... 37
10.1 The Rules Governing Appeal Rights and Avenues are Set Out at Code Article 13. ............. 37
10.2 With Respect to National Appellate Instances Within the Meaning of Code Article 13.2.2: .. 37
10.3 With Respect to Appeals Before CAS: .................................................................................. 38
11.0 VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST PARTICIPATION DURING INELIGIBILITY .... 38
ANNEX A – REVIEW OF A POSSIBLE FAILURE TO COMPLY .......................................................... 39
A.1 Responsibility ........................................................................................................................ 39
A.2 Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 39
ANNEX B – RESULTS MANAGEMENT FOR WHEREABOUTS FAILURES ....................................... 40
B.1 Determining a Potential Whereabouts Failure....................................................................... 40
B.2 Requirements for a Potential Filing Failure or Missed Test................................................... 40
B.3 Results Management for a Potential Whereabouts Failure ................................................... 43
ANNEX C - RESULTS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT ................................................................................................... 47
C.1 Administrative Management .................................................................................................. 47
C.2 Initial Review Phase .............................................................................................................. 48
C.3 Review by Three (3) Experts ................................................................................................. 51
C.4 Conference Call, Compilation of the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package
and Joint Expert Report......................................................................................................... 52
C.5 Issuing an Adverse Passport Finding .................................................................................... 53
C.6 Review of Explanation from Athlete and Disciplinary Proceedings ....................................... 53
C.7 Passport Re-setting ............................................................................................................... 54

ISRM – January 2023

Page 4 of 54

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION, CODE PROVISIONS, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD
PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1.0

Introduction and Scope
The International Standard for Results Management is a mandatory International Standard
developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.
The purpose of the International Standard for Results Management is to set out the core
responsibilities of Anti-Doping Organizations with respect to Results Management. In addition todescribing certain general principles of Results Management (section 4), this International Standard
also sets out the core obligations applicable to the various phases of Results Management from theinitial review and notification of potential anti-doping rule violations (section 5), through Provisional
Suspensions (section 6), the assertion of anti-doping rule violations and proposal of Consequences(section 7), the Hearing Process (section 8) until the issuance and notification of the decision(section 9) and appeal (section 10).
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of this International Standard and the possibility thatdepartures by Anti-Doping Organizations may give rise to compliance consequences under theInternational Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories, departures from this International
Standard shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation andshall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation, except as expressly provided for under
Code Article 3.2.3.
Terms used in this International Standard that are defined terms from the Code are italicized. Terms
that are defined in this or another International Standard are underlined.

2.0

Code Provisions
The following articles in the Code are directly relevant to the International Standard for Results
Management; they can be obtained by referring to the Code itself:•

Code Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations•

Code Article 3 Proof of Doping•

Code Article 5 Testing and Investigations•

Code Article 7 Results Management: Responsibility, Initial Review, Notice and Provisional
Suspensions•

Code Article 8 Results Management: Right to a Fair Hearing and Notice of Hearing Decision•

Code Article 9 Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results•

Code Article 10 Sanctions on Individuals•

Code Article 11 Consequences to Teams

ISRM – January 2023

Page 5 of 54

3.0

•

Code Article 13 Results Management: Appeals•

Code Article 14 Confidentiality and Reporting•

Code Article 15 Implementation of Decisions•

Code Article 20 Additional Roles and Responsibilities of Signatories and WADA

Definitions and Interpretation
3.1 Defined Terms from the Code that are used in the International Standard for Results
Management
ADAMS: The Anti-Doping Administration and Management System is a Web-based databasemanagement tool for data entry, storage, sharing, and reporting designed to assist stakeholders
and WADA in their anti-doping operations in conjunction with data protection legislation.
Administration: Providing, supplying, supervising, facilitating, or otherwise participating in the
Use or Attempted Use by another Person of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
However, this definition shall not include the actions of bona fide medical personnel involving
a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method Used for genuine and legal therapeutic purposesor other acceptable justification and shall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances
which are not prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a wholedemonstrate that such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal
therapeutic purposes or are intended to enhance sport performance.
Adverse Analytical Finding: A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADAapproved laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories,
establishes in a Sample the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers
or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method.
Adverse Passport Finding: A report identified as an Adverse Passport Finding as describedin the applicable International Standards.
Anti-Doping Organization: WADA or a Signatory that is responsible for adopting rules for
initiating, implementing or enforcing any part of the Doping Control process. This includes, forexample, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, other
Major Event Organizations that conduct Testing at their Events, International Federations, andNational Anti-Doping Organizations.
Athlete: Any Person who competes in sport at the international level (as defined by each
International Federation) or the national level (as defined by each National Anti-Doping
Organization). An Anti-Doping Organization has discretion to apply anti-doping rules to an
Athlete who is neither an International-Level Athlete nor a National-Level Athlete, and thus tobring them within the definition of “Athlete”. In relation to Athletes who are neither InternationalLevel nor National-Level Athletes, an Anti-Doping Organization may elect to: conduct limited
Testing or no Testing at all; analyze Samples for less than the full menu of Prohibited
Substances; require limited or no whereabouts information; or not require advance TUEs.
However, if an Article 2.1, 2.3 or 2.5 anti-doping rule violation is committed by any Athlete over

ISRM – January 2023

Page 6 of 54

whom an Anti-Doping Organization has elected to exercise its authority to test and whocompetes below the international or national level, then the Consequences set forth in the
Code must be applied. For purposes of Article 2.8 and Article 2.9 and for purposes of antidoping information and Education, any Person who participates in sport under the authority of
any Signatory, government, or other sports organization accepting the Code is an Athlete.
[Comment to Athlete: Individuals who participate in sport may fall in one of five categories: 1)
International-Level Athlete, 2) National-Level Athlete, 3) individuals who are not Internationalor National-Level Athletes but over whom the International Federation or National Anti-Doping
Organization has chosen to exercise authority, 4) Recreational Athlete, and 5) individuals overwhom no International Federation or National Anti-Doping Organization has, or has chosen to,
exercise authority. All International and National-Level Athletes are subject to the anti-doping
rules of the Code, with the precise definitions of international and national level sport to be set
forth in the anti-doping rules of the International Federations and National Anti-Doping
Organizations.]
Athlete Biological Passport: The program and methods of gathering and collating data as
described in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and International
Standard for Laboratories.
Attempt: Purposely engaging in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in a course of
conduct planned to culminate in the commission of an anti-doping rule violation. Provided,
however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on an Attempt to commit a
violation if the Person renounces the Attempt prior to it being discovered by a third party not
involved in the Attempt.
Atypical Finding: A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved
laboratory which requires further investigation as provided by the International Standard forLaboratories or related Technical Documents prior to the determination of an Adverse
Analytical Finding.
Atypical Passport Finding: A report described as an Atypical Passport Finding as describedin the applicable International Standards.
CAS: The Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Code: The World Anti-Doping Code.
Competition: A single race, match, game or singular sport contest. For example, a basketballgame or the finals of the Olympic 100-meter race in athletics. For stage races and other sport
contests where prizes are awarded on a daily or other interim basis the distinction between a
Competition and an Event will be as provided in the rules of the applicable International
Federation.
Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“Consequences”): An Athlete’s or other
Person’s violation of an anti-doping rule may result in one or more of the following: (a)Disqualification means the Athlete’s results in a particular Competition or Event are invalidated,with all resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes; (b)Ineligibility means the Athlete or other Person is barred on account of an anti-doping rule
ISRM – January 2023

Page 7 of 54

violation for a specified period of time from participating in any Competition or other activity or
funding as provided in Article 10.14.1; (c) Provisional Suspension means the Athlete or other
Person is barred temporarily from participating in any Competition or activity prior to the final
decision at a hearing conducted under Article 8; (d) Financial Consequences means a financial
sanction imposed for an anti-doping rule violation or to recover costs associated with an antidoping rule violation; and (e) Public Disclosure means the dissemination or distribution of
information to the general public or Persons beyond those Persons entitled to earlier
notification in accordance with Article 14. Teams in Team Sports may also be subject toConsequences as provided in Article 11.
Contaminated Product: A product that contains a Prohibited Substance that is not disclosed
on the product label or in information available in a reasonable Internet search.
Delegated Third Parties: Any Person to which an Anti-Doping Organization delegates any
aspect of Doping Control or anti-doping Education programs including, but not limited to, third
parties or other Anti-Doping Organizations that conduct Sample collection or other Doping
Control services or anti-doping educational programs for the Anti-Doping Organization, or
individuals serving as independent contractors who perform Doping Control services for the
Anti-Doping Organization (e.g., non-employee Doping Control Officers or chaperones). Thisdefinition does not include CAS.
Disqualification: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
Doping Control: All steps and processes from test distribution planning through to ultimate
disposition of any appeal and the enforcement of Consequences, including all steps andprocesses in between, including but not limited to, Testing, investigations, whereabouts, TUEs,
Sample collection and handling, laboratory analysis, Results Management and investigations
or proceedings relating to violations of Article 10.14 (Status During Ineligibility or Provisional
Suspension).
Event: A series of individual Competitions conducted together under one ruling body (e.g., theOlympic Games, World Championships of an International Federation, or Pan American
Games).
Financial Consequences: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
In-Competition: The period commencing at 11:59 p.m. on the day before a Competition inwhich the Athlete is scheduled to participate through the end of such Competition and the
Sample collection process related to such Competition. Provided, however, WADA may
approve, for a particular sport, an alternative definition if an International Federation provides
a compelling justification that a different definition is necessary for its sport; upon such approval
by WADA, the alternative definition shall be followed by all Major Event Organizations for thatparticular sport.
[Comment to In-Competition: Having a universally accepted definition for In-Competition
provides greater harmonization among Athletes across all sports, eliminates or reduces
confusion among Athletes about the relevant timeframe for In-Competition Testing, avoids
inadvertent Adverse Analytical Findings in between Competitions during an Event and assists

ISRM – January 2023

Page 8 of 54

in preventing any potential performance enhancement benefits from substances prohibited
Out-of-Competition being carried over to the Competition period.]
Ineligibility: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
Institutional Independence: Hearing panels on appeal shall be fully Independent
Institutionally from the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Results Management. They
must therefore not in any way be administered by, connected or subject to the Anti-Doping
Organization responsible for Results Management.
International Event: An Event or Competition where the International Olympic Committee, theInternational Paralympic Committee, an International Federation, a Major Event Organization,or another international sport organization is the ruling body for the Event or appoints thetechnical officials for the Event.
International-Level Athlete: Athletes who compete in sport at the international level, as
defined by each International Federation, consistent with the International Standard for Testing
and Investigations.
[Comment to International-Level Athlete: Consistent with the International Standard for Testing
and Investigations, the International Federation is free to determine the criteria it will use toclassify Athletes as International-Level Athletes, e.g., by ranking, by participation in particularInternational Events, by type of license, etc. However, it must publish those criteria in clear andconcise form, so that Athletes are able to ascertain quickly and easily when they will become
classified as International-Level Athletes. For example, if the criteria include participation incertain International Events, then the International Federation must publish a list of thoseInternational Events.]
International Standard: A standard adopted by WADA in support of the Code. Compliancewith an International Standard (as opposed to another alternative standard, practice orprocedure) shall be sufficient to conclude that the procedures addressed by the International
Standard were performed properly. International Standards shall include any TechnicalDocuments issued pursuant to the International Standard.
Major Event Organizations: The continental associations of National Olympic Committees
and other international multi-sport organizations that function as the ruling body for any
continental, regional or other International Event.
Marker: A compound, group of compounds or biological variable(s) that indicates the Use of a
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
Minor: A natural Person who has not reached the age of eighteen years.
National Anti-Doping Organization: The entity(ies) designated by each country as
possessing the primary authority and responsibility to adopt and implement anti-doping rules,
direct the collection of Samples, manage test results and conduct Results Management at thenational level. If this designation has not been made by the competent public authority(ies), theentity shall be the country’s National Olympic Committee or its designee.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 9 of 54

National-Level Athlete: Athletes who compete in sport at the national level, as defined byeach National Anti-Doping Organization, consistent with the International Standard for Testing
and Investigations.
Operational Independence: This means that (1) board members, staff members, commission
members, consultants and officials of the Anti-Doping Organization with responsibility for
Results Management or its affiliates (e.g., member federation or confederation), as well as any
Person involved in the investigation and pre-adjudication of the matter cannot be appointed as
members and/or clerks (to the extent that such clerk is involved in the deliberation process
and/or drafting of any decision) of hearing panels of that Anti-Doping Organization withresponsibility for Results Management and (2) hearing panels shall be in a position to conduct
the hearing and decision-making process without interference from the Anti-Doping
Organization or any third party. The objective is to ensure that members of the hearing panel
or individuals otherwise involved in the decision of the hearing panel, are not involved in theinvestigation of, or decisions to proceed with, the case.
Out-of-Competition: Any period which is not In-Competition.
Person: A natural Person or an organization or other entity.
Possession: The actual, physical Possession, or the constructive Possession (which shall befound only if the Person has exclusive control or intends to exercise control over the Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method exists); provided, however, that if the Person does not have exclusive control over theProhibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substanceor Prohibited Method exists, constructive Possession shall only be found if the Person knew
about the presence of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and intended to exercise
control over it. Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on
Possession if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the Person has committed an antidoping rule violation, the Person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the Person
never intended to have Possession and has renounced Possession by explicitly declaring it toan Anti-Doping Organization. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, thepurchase (including by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method constitutes Possession by the Person who makes the purchase.
[Comment to Possession: Under this definition, anabolic steroids found in an Athlete’s car
would constitute a violation unless the Athlete establishes that someone else used the car; inthat event, the Anti-Doping Organization must establish that, even though the Athlete did nothave exclusive control over the car, the Athlete knew about the anabolic steroids and intended
to have control over them. Similarly, in the example of anabolic steroids found in a home
medicine cabinet under the joint control of an Athlete and spouse, the Anti-Doping Organizationmust establish that the Athlete knew the anabolic steroids were in the cabinet and that the
Athlete intended to exercise control over them. The act of purchasing a Prohibited Substancealone constitutes Possession, even where, for example, the product does not arrive, is received
by someone else, or is sent to a third-party address.]
Prohibited List: The list identifying the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods.
Prohibited Method: Any method so described on the Prohibited List.
ISRM – January 2023

Page 10 of 54

Prohibited Substance: Any substance, or class of substances, so described on the Prohibited
List.
Provisional Hearing: For purposes of Article 7.4.3, an expedited abbreviated hearing
occurring prior to a hearing under Article 10 that provides the Athlete with notice and an
opportunity to be heard in either written or oral form.
[Comment to Provisional Hearing: A Provisional Hearing is only a preliminary proceeding which
may not involve a full review of the facts of the case. Following a Provisional Hearing, theAthlete remains entitled to a subsequent full hearing on the merits of the case. By contrast, an“expedited hearing,” as that term is used in Article 7.4.3, is a full hearing on the merits
conducted on an expedited time schedule.]
Provisional Suspension: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
Publicly Disclose: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
Registered Testing Pool: The pool of highest-priority Athletes established separately at theinternational level by International Federations and at the national level by National Anti-Doping
Organizations, who are subject to focused In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing aspart of that International Federation’s or National Anti-Doping Organization’s test distribution
plan and therefore are required to provide whereabouts information as provided in Article 5.5
and the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Results Management: The process encompassing the timeframe between notification as per
Article 5 of the International Standard for Results Management, or in certain cases (e.g.,
Atypical Finding, Athlete Biological Passport, Whereabouts Failure), such pre-notification steps
expressly provided for in Article 5 of the International Standard for Results Management,
through the charge until the final resolution of the matter, including the end of the hearing
process at first instance or on appeal (if an appeal was lodged).
Sample or Specimen: Any biological material collected for the purposes of Doping Control.
[Comment to Sample or Specimen: It has sometimes been claimed that the collection of blood
Samples violates the tenets of certain religious or cultural groups. It has been determined that
there is no basis for any such claim.]
Signatories: Those entities accepting the Code and agreeing to implement the Code, as
provided in Article 23.
Specified Method: See Article 4.2.2.
Specified Substance: See Article 4.2.2.
Substance of Abuse: See Article 4.2.3.
Substantial Assistance: For purposes of Article 10.7.1, a Person providing Substantial
Assistance must: (1) fully disclose in a signed written statement or recorded interview all
information he or she possesses in relation to anti-doping rule violations or other proceeding
ISRM – January 2023

Page 11 of 54

described in Article 10.7.1.1, and (2) fully cooperate with the investigation and adjudication of
any case or matter related to that information, including, for example, presenting testimony ata hearing if requested to do so by an Anti-Doping Organization or hearing panel. Further, theinformation provided must be credible and must comprise an important part of any case orproceeding which is initiated or, if no case or proceeding is initiated, must have provided asufficient basis on which a case or proceeding could have been brought.
Tampering: Intentional conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would
not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering shall include,
without limitation, offering or accepting a bribe to perform or fail to perform an act, preventing
the collection of a Sample, affecting or making impossible the analysis of a Sample, falsifying
documents submitted to an Anti-Doping Organization or TUE committee or hearing panel,procuring false testimony from witnesses, committing any other fraudulent act upon the AntiDoping Organization or hearing body to affect Results Management or the imposition ofConsequences, and any other similar intentional interference or Attempted interference withany aspect of Doping Control.
[Comment to Tampering: For example, this Article would prohibit altering identification numbers
on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B bottle at the time of “B” Sample
analysis, altering a Sample by the addition of a foreign substance, or intimidating or attempting
to intimidate a potential witness or a witness who has provided testimony or information in the
Doping Control process. Tampering includes misconduct which occurs during the Results
Management and hearing process. See Article 10.9.3.3. However, actions taken as part of a
Person's legitimate defense to an anti-doping rule violation charge shall not be considered
Tampering. Offensive conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in
Doping Control which does not otherwise constitute Tampering shall be addressed in thedisciplinary rules of sport organizations.]
Target Testing: Selection of specific Athletes for Testing based on criteria set forth in theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Technical Document: A document adopted and published by WADA from time to time
containing mandatory technical requirements on specific anti-doping topics as set forth in an
International Standard.
Testing: The parts of the Doping Control process involving test distribution planning, Sample
collection, Sample handling, and Sample transport to the laboratory.
Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE): A Therapeutic Use Exemption allows an Athlete with a
medical condition to use a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, but only if the conditions
set out in Article 4.4 and the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions are met.
Use: The utilization, application, ingestion, injection or consumption by any means whatsoeverof any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
WADA: The World Anti-Doping Agency.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 12 of 54

3.2 Defined Terms from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations
Doping Control Officer (or DCO): An official who has been trained and authorized by the
Sample Collection Authority to carry out the responsibilities given to DCOs in the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Sample Collection Authority: The organization that is responsible for the collection of
Samples in compliance with the requirements of the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations, whether (1) the Testing Authority itself; or (2) a Delegated Third Party to whom
the authority to conduct Testing has been granted or sub-contracted. The Testing Authority
always remains ultimately responsible under the Code for compliance with the requirements of
the International Standard for Testing and Investigations relating to collection of Samples.
Sample Collection Session: All of the sequential activities that directly involve the Athlete fromthe point that initial contact is made until the Athlete leaves the Doping Control Station after
having provided their Sample(s).
Testing Authority: The Anti-Doping Organization that authorizes Testing on Athletes it has
authority over. It may authorize a Delegated Third Party to conduct Testing pursuant to theauthority of and in accordance with the rules of the Anti-Doping Organization. Such authorization
shall be documented. The Anti-Doping Organization authorizing Testing remains the Testing
Authority and ultimately responsible under the Code to ensure the Delegated Third Party
conducting the Testing does so in compliance with the requirements of the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Unsuccessful Attempt Report: A detailed report of an unsuccessful attempt to collect a
Sample from an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool or Testing pool setting out the date of theattempt, the location visited, the exact arrival and departure times at the location, the steps
taken at the location to try to find the Athlete (including details of any contact made with third
parties), and any other relevant details about the attempt.
Whereabouts Filing: Information provided by or on behalf of an Athlete in a Registered Testing
Pool (or Testing pool if applicable) that sets out the Athlete’s whereabouts during the following
quarter, in accordance with Article 4.8.
3.3 Defined Terms from the International Standard for Laboratories
Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU): A unit composed of a Person or Persons thatis responsible for the timely management of Athlete Biological Passports in ADAMS on behalfof the Passport Custodian.
Confirmation Procedure (CP): An Analytical Testing Procedure that has the purpose ofconfirming the presence and/or, when applicable, confirming the concentration/ratio/score
and/or establishing the origin (exogenous or endogenous) of one or more specific Prohibited
Substances, Metabolite(s) of a Prohibited Substance, or Marker(s) of the Use of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method in a Sample.
Independent Witness: A Person, invited by the Testing Authority, the Laboratory or WADA towitness parts of the Analytical Testing process. The Independent Witness shall be independent
ISRM – January 2023

Page 13 of 54

of the Athlete and his/her representative(s), the Laboratory, the Sample Collection Authority,
the Testing Authority / Results Management Authority or WADA, as applicable. The
Independent Witness may be indemnified for his/her service.
Laboratory(ies): (A) WADA-accredited laboratory(ies) applying Test Methods and processes
to provide evidentiary data for the detection and/or identification of Prohibited Substances or
Prohibited Methods on the Prohibited List and, if applicable, quantification of a Threshold
Substance in Samples of urine and other biological matrices in the context of Doping Control
activities.
Laboratory Documentation Package: The material produced by the Laboratory to support.ananalytical result such as an Adverse Analytical Finding as set forth in the WADA TechnicalDocument for Laboratory Documentation Packages (TD LDOC).
Limit of Quantification (LOQ): Analytical parameter of assay technical performance. Lowest
concentration of an Analyte in a Sample that can be quantitatively determined with acceptable
precision and accuracy (i.e., acceptable Measurement Uncertainty) under the stated test
conditions
Threshold Substance: An exogenous or endogenous Prohibited Substance, Metabolite orMarker of a Prohibited Substance for which the identification and quantitative determination(e.g., concentration, ratio, score) in excess of a pre-determined Decision Limit, or, whenapplicable, the establishment of an exogenous origin, constitutes an Adverse Analytical
Finding. Threshold Substances are identified as such in the Technical Document on Decision
Limits (TD DL).

3.4 Defined Term from the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions
Therapeutic: Of or relating to the treatment of a medical condition by remedial agents or
methods; or providing or assisting in a cure.
3.5 Defined Term from the International Standard for Protection of Privacy and Personal
Information
Personal Information: Information, including without limitation Sensitive Personal
Information, relating to an identified or identifiable Participant or relating to other Person whose
information is Processed solely in the context of an Anti-Doping Organization’s Anti-Doping
Activities.
[Comment to Personal Information: It is understood that Personal Information includes, but is
not limited to, information relating to an Athlete’s name, date of birth, contact details andsporting affiliations, whereabouts, designated TUEs (if any), anti-doping test results, andResults Management (including disciplinary hearings, appeals and sanctions). Personal
Information also includes personal details and contact information relating to other Persons,such as medical professionals and other Persons working with, treating or assisting an Athlete
in the context of Anti-Doping Activities. Such information remains Personal Information and is

ISRM – January 2023

Page 14 of 54

regulated by this International Standard for the entire duration of its Processing, irrespective ofwhether the relevant individual remains involved in organized sport.]
3.6 Defined Terms Specific to the International Standard for Results Management
Adaptive Model: A mathematical model designed to identify unusual longitudinal results from
Athletes. The model calculates the probability of a longitudinal profile of Marker values
assuming that the Athlete has a normal physiological condition.
Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package: The material compiled by the Athlete
Passport Management Unit to support an Adverse Passport Finding such as, but not limited
to, analytical data, Expert Panel comments, evidence of confounding factors as well as otherrelevant supporting information.
Athlete Passport Management Unit Report: A report maintained by the Athlete Passport
Management Unit, available in the Athlete’s Passport in ADAMS, that provides acomprehensive summary of the Expert(s) review(s) and recommendations for effective andappropriate follow-up Testing by the Passport Custodian.
Expert: The Expert(s) and/or Expert Panel, with knowledge in the concerned field, chosen by
the Anti-Doping Organization and/or Athlete Passport Management Unit, are responsible forproviding an evaluation of the Passport. The Expert must be external to the Anti-Doping
Organization.
Failure to Comply: A term used to describe anti-doping rule violations under Code Articles
2.3 and/or 2.5.
Filing Failure: A failure by the Athlete (or by a third party to whom the Athlete has delegated
the task) to make an accurate and complete Whereabouts Filing that enables the Athlete to belocated for Testing at the times and locations set out in the Whereabouts Filing or to updatethat Whereabouts Filing where necessary to ensure that it remains accurate and complete, allin accordance with Article 4.8 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations andAnnex B.2 of the International Standard for Results Management.
Hearing Process: The process encompassing the timeframe between the referral of a matterto a hearing panel or tribunal until the issuance and notification of a decision by the hearing
panel (whether at first instance or on appeal).
Missed Test: A failure by the Athlete to be available for Testing at the location and time
specified in the 60-minute time slot identified in their Whereabouts Filing for the day in question,in accordance with Article 4.8 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations andAnnex B.2 of the International Standard for Results Management.
Passport: A collation of all relevant data unique to an individual Athlete that may include
longitudinal profiles of Markers, heterogeneous factors unique to that particular Athlete andother relevant information that may help in the evaluation of Markers.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 15 of 54

Passport Custodian: The Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Result Management of
the Athlete’s Passport and for sharing any relevant information associated to that Athlete’s
Passport with other Anti-Doping Organization(s).
Results Management Authority: The Anti-Doping Organization responsible for conducting
Results Management in a given case.
Whereabouts Failure: A Filing Failure or a Missed Test.
3.7 Interpretation
3.7.1

The official text of the International Standard for Results Management shall be
published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English andFrench versions, the English version shall prevail.

3.7.2

Like the Code, the International Standard for Results Management has been drafted
giving consideration to the principles of proportionality, human rights, and otherapplicable legal principles. It shall be interpreted and applied in that light.

3.7.3

The comments annotating various provisions of the International Standard for Results
Management shall be used to guide its interpretation.

3.7.4

Unless otherwise specified, references to Sections and Articles are references to
Sections and Articles of the International Standard for Results Management.

3.7.5

Where the term “days” is used in the International Standard for Results Management,
it shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specified.

3.7.6

The Annexes to the International Standard for Results Management have the same
mandatory status as the rest of the International Standard.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 16 of 54

PART TWO: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES
4.0

General Principles
4.1 Confidentiality of Results Management
Save for disclosures, including Public Disclosure, that are required or permitted under
Code Article 14 or this International Standard, all processes and procedures related to Results
Management are confidential.
4.2 TimelinessIn the interest of fair and effective sport justice, anti-doping rule violations should be prosecutedin a timely manner. Irrespective of the type of anti-doping rule violation involved, and save forcases involving complex issues or delays not in the control of the Anti-Doping Organization(e.g., delays attributable to the Athlete or other Person), Anti-Doping Organizations should be
able to conclude Results Management (including the Hearing Process at first instance) withinsix (6) months from the notification as per Article 5 below.
[Comment to Article 4.2: The six (6) months’ period is a guideline, which may lead toconsequences in terms of compliance for the Results Management Authority only in case of
severe and/or repeated failure(s).]ISRM – January 2023

Page 17 of 54

PART THREE: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – PRE-ADJUDICATION
5.0

First Results Management Phase
This Article 5 sets out the procedures applicable for the first Results Management phase as follows:
Adverse Analytical Findings (Article 5.1), Atypical Findings (Article 5.2) and other matters (Article5.3), which include potential Failures to Comply (Article 5.3.1.1), Whereabouts Failures (Article
5.3.1.2) and Athlete Biological Passport cases (Article 5.3.1.3). The notification requirements in
respect of matters falling under the scope of Article 5.3 are described under Article 5.3.2.
[Comment to Article 5: Where the anti-doping rules of a Major Event Organization provide for an
expedited resolution of the limited Results Management, the anti-doping rules of the Major Event
Organization may provide that there will be only one notification to the Athlete or other Person. The
content of the notification letter should reflect the provisions of Article 5 mutatis mutandis.]
5.1 Adverse Analytical Findings
5.1.1

Initial Review
Upon receipt of an Adverse Analytical Finding, the Results Management Authority shallconduct a review to determine whether (a) an applicable TUE has been granted or will
be granted as provided in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions(Article 5.1.1.1), (b) there is any apparent departure from the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations or International Standard for Laboratories that caused theAdverse Analytical Finding (Article 5.1.1.2) and/or (c) it is apparent that the Adverse
Analytical Finding was caused by an ingestion of the relevant Prohibited Substancethrough a permitted route (Article 5.1.1.3).
5.1.1.1

Therapeutic Use Exemption
5.1.1.1.1 The Results Management Authority shall consult the Athlete’s
records in ADAMS and with other Anti-Doping Organizations thatmight have approved a TUE for the Athlete (e.g., the National AntiDoping Organization or the International Federation) to determine
whether a TUE exists.
[Comment to Article 5.1.1.1.1: As per the Prohibited List and theTechnical Document for Decision Limits for the Confirmatory
Quantification of Threshold Substances, the detection in an
Athlete’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of
any quantity of certain Threshold Substances (identified in theProhibited List), in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent, will
be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless the Athlete
has an approved TUE for that substance in addition to the one
granted for the diuretic or masking agent. Therefore, in the event ofsuch detection, the Results Management Authority shall also
determine whether the Athlete has an approved TUE for thedetected Threshold Substance.]

ISRM – January 2023

Page 18 of 54

5.1.1.1.2 If the initial review reveals that the Athlete has an applicable TUE,
then the Results Management Authority shall conduct such follow
up review as necessary to determine if the specific requirements of
the TUE have been complied with.
5.1.1.2

Apparent Departure from International Standard for Testing andInvestigations and/or International Standard for Laboratories
The Results Management Authority must review the Adverse Analytical
Finding to determine if there has been any departure from the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations and/or the International Standard forLaboratories. This may include a review of the Laboratory Documentation
Package produced by the Laboratory to support the Adverse Analytical
Finding (if available at the time of the review) and relevant Doping Control
form(s) and Testing documents.

5.1.1.3

Apparent Ingestion through Permitted Route
If the Adverse Analytical Finding involves a Prohibited Substance permitted
through (a) specific route(s) as per the Prohibited List, the Results
Management Authority shall consult any relevant available documentation(e.g. Doping Control form) to determine whether the Prohibited Substanceappears to have been administered through a permitted route and, if so, shallconsult an expert to determine whether the Adverse Analytical Finding iscompatible with the apparent route of ingestion.
[Comment to Article 5.1.1.3: For the sake of clarity, the outcome of the initial
review shall not prevent an Athlete from arguing that his Use of the Prohibited
Substance came from a permitted route at a later stage of Results
Management.]

5.1.2

Notification
5.1.2.1

If the review of the Adverse Analytical Finding does not reveal an applicable
TUE or entitlement to the same as provided in the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions, a departure from the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations or the International Standard for Laboratories thatcaused the Adverse Analytical Finding or that it is apparent that the Adverse
Analytical Finding was caused by an ingestion of the relevant Prohibited
Substance through an authorized route, the Results Management Authority
shall promptly notify the Athlete of:a)

The Adverse Analytical Finding;[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 a): In the event that the Adverse Analytical
Finding relates to salbutamol, formoterol, human chorionic gonadotrophin
or another Prohibited Substance subject to specific Results Management
requirements in a Technical Document, the Results Management
Authority shall in addition comply with Article 5.1.2.2. The Athlete shall be

ISRM – January 2023

Page 19 of 54

provided with any relevant documentation, including a copy of the Doping
Control form and the Laboratory results.]b)

The fact that the Adverse Analytical Finding may result in an anti-doping
rule violation of Code Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2 and the applicable
Consequences;[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 b): The Results Management Authority
should always refer to both Code Articles 2.1 and 2.2 in the notificationand charge letter (Article 7) to an Athlete if the matter relates to an
Adverse Analytical Finding. The Results Management Authority shallrefer to ADAMS and contact WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping
Organizations to determine whether any prior anti-doping rule violation
exists and take such information into account in determining theapplicable Consequences.]c)

The Athlete’s right to request the analysis of the “B” Sample or, failingsuch request, that the “B” Sample analysis may be deemed irrevocably
waived;[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 c): The Results Management Authority may
still request the “B” Sample analysis even if the Athlete does not request
the “B” Sample analysis or expressly or impliedly waives their right toanalysis of the “B” Sample. The Results Management Authority may
provide in its anti-doping rules that the costs of the “B” Sample analysis
shall be covered by the Athlete.]d)

The opportunity for the Athlete and/or the Athlete’s representative toattend the “B” Sample opening and analysis in accordance with theInternational Standard for Laboratories;e)

The Athlete’s right to request copies of the “A” Sample Laboratory
Documentation Package which includes information as required by theInternational Standard for Laboratories;[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 e): This request shall be made to the Results
Management Authority and not the Laboratory directly.
The Results Management Authority may provide in its anti-doping rulesthat the costs relating to the issuance of the Laboratory Documentation
Package(s) shall be covered by the Athlete.]

ISRM – January 2023

f)

The opportunity for the Athlete to provide an explanation within a shortdeadline;g)

The opportunity for the Athlete to provide Substantial Assistance as set
out under Code Article 10.7.1, to admit the anti-doping rule violation andpotentially benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility

Page 20 of 54

under Code Article 10.8.1 (if applicable) or to seek to enter into a caseresolution agreement under Code Article 10.8.2; andh)5.1.2.2

5.1.2.3

Any matters relating to Provisional Suspension (including the possibility
for the Athlete to accept a voluntary Provisional Suspension) as per
Article 6 (if applicable).

In addition, in the event that the Adverse Analytical Finding relates to theProhibited Substances set out below, the Results Management Authority
shall:
a)Salbutamol or Formoterol: draw the attention of the Athlete in the
notification letter that the Athlete can prove, through a controlled
pharmacokinetic study, that the Adverse Analytical Finding was theconsequence of a Therapeutic dose by inhalation up to the maximum
dose indicated under class S3 of the Prohibited List. The Athlete’s
attention shall in addition be drawn to the key guiding principles for acontrolled pharmacokinetic study and they shall be provided with a list ofLaboratories, which could perform the controlled pharmacokinetic study.
The Athlete shall be granted a deadline of seven (7) days to indicate
whether they intend to undertake a controlled pharmacokinetic study,
failing which the Results Management Authority may proceed with theResults Management;b)

Urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin: follow the procedures set out at
Article 6 of the 2019 Technical Document for the Reporting &Management of Urinary Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) andLuteinizing Hormone (LH) Findings in Male Athletes (TD2019CG/LH) or
any subsequent version of the Technical Document;c)Other Prohibited Substance subject to specific Results Management
requirements in a Technical Document or other document issued by
WADA: follow the procedures set out in the relevant Technical Document
or other document issued by WADA.

The Results Management Authority shall also indicate the scheduled date,time and place for the “B” Sample analysis for the eventuality that the Athlete
or Results Management Authority chooses to request an analysis of the “B”
Sample; it shall do so either in the notification letter described in Article 5.1.2.1
or in a subsequent letter promptly after the Athlete (or the Results
Management Authority) has requested the “B” Sample analysis.
[Comment to Article 5.1.2.3: As per Article 5.3.6.2.3 of the International
Standard for Laboratories, the “B” Sample confirmation should be performed
as soon as possible following the reporting of the “A” Sample Adverse
Analytical Finding.
The timing of the “B” Sample confirmation analysis may be strictly fixed in the
short term with no postponement possible, when circumstances so justify it.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 21 of 54

This can notably and without limitation be the case in the context of Testing
during or immediately before or after Major Events, or when the further
postponement of the “B” Sample analysis could significantly increase the riskof Sample degradation.]
5.1.2.4

If the Athlete requests the “B” Sample analysis but claims that they and/or
their representative is not available on the scheduled date indicated by the
Results Management Authority, the Results Management Authority shall liaise
with the Laboratory and propose (at least) two (2) alternative dates.
[Comment to Article 5.1.2.4: The alternative dates should take into account:(1) the reasons for the Athlete’s unavailability; and (2) the need to avoid any
degradation of the Sample and ensure timely Results Management.]

5.1.2.5

If the Athlete and their representative claim not to be available on thealternative dates proposed, the Results Management Authority shall instruct
the Laboratory to proceed regardless and appoint an Independent Witness toverify that the “B” Sample container shows no signs of Tampering and that theidentifying numbers match that on the collection documentation.
[Comment to Article 5.1.2.5: An Independent Witness may be appointed even
if the Athlete has indicated that they will be present and/or represented.]

5.1.2.6

If the results of the “B” Sample analysis confirm the results of the “A” Sample
analysis, the Results Management Authority shall promptly notify the Athleteof such results and shall grant the Athlete a short deadline to provide or
supplement their explanations. The Athlete shall also be afforded thepossibility to admit the anti-doping rule violation to potentially benefit from a
one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility under Code Article 10.8.1, if
applicable, and/or to voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension as per Code
Article 7.4.4.

5.1.2.7

Upon receipt of any explanation from an Athlete, the Results Management
Authority may, without limitation, request further information and/or
documents from the Athlete within a set deadline or liaise with third parties inorder to assess the validity of the explanation.
[Comment to Article 5.1.2.7: If the positive finding involves a Prohibited
Substance subject to a permitted route (e.g. by inhalation, by transdermal orby ophthalmic Use) and the Athlete alleged that the positive finding came fromthe permitted route, the Results Management Authority should assess thecredibility of the explanation by contacting third parties (including scientificexperts) before deciding not to move forward with Results Management.]

5.1.2.8

ISRM – January 2023

Any communication provided to the Athlete under this Article 5.1.2 shallsimultaneously be provided by the Results Management Authority to the
Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s), International Federation and
WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.

Page 22 of 54

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.8: To the extent not already set out in thecommunication to the Athlete, this notification shall include the following
information (if applicable): the Athlete’s name, country, sport and discipline
within the sport, whether the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition,
the date of Sample collection, the analytical result reported by the Laboratory
and other information as required by the International Standard for Testing
and Investigations.]
5.2 Atypical Findings
5.2.1

Upon receipt of an Atypical Finding, the Results Management Authority shall conduct a
review to determine whether: (a) an applicable TUE has been granted or will be granted
as provided in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (see Article
5.1.1.1 by analogy); (b) there is any apparent departure from the International Standard
for Testing and Investigations or International Standard for Laboratories that caused
the Atypical Finding (see Article 5.1.1.2 by analogy) and/or (c) it is apparent that theingestion of the Prohibited Substance was through a permitted route (see Article 5.1.1.3
by analogy). If that review does not reveal an applicable TUE, an apparent departurethat caused the Atypical Finding or an ingestion through a permitted route, the Results
Management Authority shall conduct the required investigation.
[Comment to Article 5.2.1 : If the Prohibited Substance involved is subject to specificResults Management requirements in a Technical Document, the Results Management
Authority shall also follow the procedures set out therein.
In addition, the Results Management Authority may contact WADA to determine whichinvestigative steps should be undertaken. These investigative steps may be provided
for by WADA in a specific notice or other document.]

5.2.2

The Results Management Authority need not provide notice of an Atypical Finding until
it has completed its investigation and decided whether it will bring the Atypical Finding
forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless one of the following circumstances
exists:a) If the Results Management Authority determines that the “B” Sample should beanalyzed prior to the conclusion of its investigation, the Results Management
Authority may conduct the “B” Sample analysis after notifying the Athlete, with such
notice to include a description of the Atypical Finding and the information describedin Article 5.1.2.1 c) to e) and Article 5.1.2.3;b) If the Results Management Authority receives a request, either from a Major Event
Organization shortly before one of its International Events or from a sportorganization responsible for meeting an imminent deadline for selecting teammembers for an International Event, to disclose whether any Athlete identified on alist provided by the Major Event Organization or sport organization has a pending
Atypical Finding, the Results Management Authority shall identify any Athlete after
first providing notice of the Atypical Finding to the Athlete; orISRM – January 2023

Page 23 of 54c) If the Atypical Finding is, in the opinion of qualified medical or expert personnel,
likely to be connected to a serious pathology that requires urgent medical attention.
5.2.3

If after the investigation is completed the Results Management Authority decides topursue the Atypical Finding as an Adverse Analytical Finding, then the procedure shallfollow the provisions of Article 5.1 mutatis mutandis.

5.3 Matters not Involving an Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding
5.3.1

Specific cases
5.3.1.1

Report of a potential Failure to Comply
The pre-adjudication phase of Results Management of a possible Failure toComply shall take place as provided in Annex A – Review of a Possible Failure
to Comply.

5.3.1.2

Whereabouts Failures
The pre-adjudication phase of Results Management of potential Whereabouts
Failures shall take place as provided in Annex B – Results Management for
Whereabouts Failures.

5.3.1.3

Athlete Biological Passport Cases
The pre-adjudication phase of Results Management of Atypical Passport
Findings or Passports submitted to an Expert by the Athlete Passport
Management Unit when there is no Atypical Passport Finding shall take placeas provided in Annex C – Results Management Requirements andProcedures for the Athlete Biological Passport.

5.3.2

Notification for specific cases and other anti-doping rule violations under Article
5.3
5.3.2.1

At such time as the Results Management Authority considers that the Athlete
or other Person may have committed (an) anti-doping rule violation(s), theResults Management Authority shall promptly notify the Athlete of:a) The relevant anti-doping
Consequences;

ruleviolation(s)

and

the

applicableb) The relevant factual circumstances upon which the allegations are based;c) The relevant evidence in support of those facts that the Results
Management Authority considers demonstrate that the Athlete or other
Person may have committed (an) anti-doping rule violation(s);d) The Athlete or other Person’s right to provide an explanation within areasonable deadline;
ISRM – January 2023

Page 24 of 54e) The opportunity for the Athlete or other Person to provide Substantial
Assistance as set out in Code Article 10.7.1, to admit the anti-doping ruleviolation and potentially benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of
Ineligibility in Code Article 10.8.1 (if applicable) or seek to enter into a caseresolution agreement in Code Article 10.8.2; andf)

Any matters relating to Provisional Suspension (including the possibility
for the Athlete or other Person to accept a voluntary Provisional
Suspension) as per Article 6 (if applicable).

5.3.2.2

Upon receipt of the Athlete’s or other Person’s explanation, the Results
Management Authority may, without limitation, request further information
and/or documents from the Athlete or other Person within a set deadline orliaise with third parties in order to assess the validity of the explanation.

5.3.2.3

The communication provided to the Athlete or other Person shallsimultaneously be provided by the Results Management Authority to the
Athlete’s or other Person’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s), International
Federation and WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.
[Comment to Article 5.3.2.3: To the extent not already set out in thecommunication to the Athlete or other Person, this notification shall include
the following information (if applicable): the Athlete’s or other Person’s name,country, sport and discipline within the sport.]

5.4 Decision Not to Move Forward
If at any point during Results Management up until the charge under Article 7, the Results
Management Authority decides not to move forward with a matter, it must notify the Athlete orother Person (provided that the Athlete or other Person had been already informed of theongoing Results Management) and give notice (with reasons) to the Anti-Doping Organizations
with a right of appeal under Code Article 13.2.3.
6.0

Provisional Suspensions
6.1 Scope
6.1.1

In principle, a Provisional Suspension means that an Athlete or other Person is barred
temporarily from participating in any capacity in any Competition or activity as per Code
Article 10.14.1 prior to the final decision at a hearing pursuant to Article 8.

6.1.2

Where the Results Management Authority is the ruling body of an Event or is
responsible for team selection, the rules of such Results Management Authority shallprovide that the Provisional Suspension is limited to the scope of the Event, respectively
team selection. Upon notification under Article 5, the International Federation of theAthlete or other Person shall be responsible for Provisional Suspension beyond thescope of the Event.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 25 of 54

6.2 Imposition of a Provisional Suspension
6.2.1

Mandatory Provisional Suspension
6.2.1.1

As per Code Article 7.4.1, Signatories identified in the provision shall adopt
rules providing that when an Adverse Analytical Finding or Adverse Passport
Finding (upon completion of the Adverse Passport Finding review process) is
received for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method other than aSpecified Substance or Specified Method, a Provisional Suspension shall be
imposed promptly upon or after the review and notification required by Code
Article 7.2.
[Comment to Article 6.2.1.1: The review and notification required by Code
Article 7.2 is set out in Article 5.]6.2.1.2

6.2.2

A mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Athlete
demonstrates to the hearing panel that the violation is likely to have involveda Contaminated Product, or (ii) the violation involves a Substance of Abuse
and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility
under Code Article 10.2.4.1. A hearing body’s decision not to eliminate amandatory Provisional Suspension on account of the Athlete’s assertion
regarding a Contaminated Product shall not be appealable.

Optional Provisional Suspension
As per Code Article 7.4.2, a Signatory may adopt rules, applicable to any Event for
which the Signatory is the ruling body or to any team selection process for which the
Signatory is responsible or where the Signatory is the applicable International
Federation or has Results Management Authority over the alleged anti-doping ruleviolation, permitting Provisional Suspensions to be imposed for anti-doping ruleviolations not covered by Code Article 7.4.1 prior to analysis of the Athlete’s “B” Sample
or final hearing as described in Code Article 8. The optional Provisional Suspension
may also be lifted at the discretion of the Results Management Authority at any timeprior to the hearing panel decision under Article 8, unless provided otherwise.
[Comment to Article 6.2.2: Whether or not to impose an optional Provisional
Suspension is a matter for the Results Management Authority to decide in its discretion,
taking into account all the facts and evidence. The Results Management Authority
should keep in mind that if an Athlete continues to compete after being notified and/or
charged in respect of an anti-doping rule violation and is subsequently found to havecommitted an anti-doping rule violation, any results, prizes and titles achieved andawarded in that timeframe may be subject to Disqualification and forfeited.
Nothing in this provision prevents provisional measures (including a lifting of theProvisional Suspension upon request of the Athlete or other Person) being ordered by
the hearing panel.]

ISRM – January 2023

Page 26 of 54

6.2.3General Provisions
6.2.3.1

Notwithstanding Articles 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, a Provisional Suspension may not
be imposed unless the rules of the Anti-Doping Organization provide theAthlete or other Person with: (a) an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing,either before imposition of the Provisional Suspension or on a timely basis
after imposition of the Provisional Suspension; or (b) an opportunity for an
expedited hearing in accordance with Code Article 8 on a timely basis after
imposition of a Provisional Suspension. The rules of the Anti-Doping
Organization shall also provide for an opportunity for an expedited appeal
against the imposition of a Provisional Suspension, or the decision not to
impose a Provisional Suspension, in accordance with Code Article 13.

6.2.3.2

A Provisional Suspension shall start on the date on which it is notified (ordeemed to be notified) by the Results Management Authority to the Athlete orother Person.

6.2.3.3

The period of Provisional Suspension shall end with the final decision of thehearing panel conducted under Article 8, unless earlier lifted in accordancewith this Article 6. However, the period of Provisional Suspension shall not
exceed the maximum length of the period of Ineligibility that may be imposedon the Athlete or other Person based on the relevant anti-doping ruleviolation(s).

6.2.3.4

If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an “A” Sample Adverse
Analytical Finding and a subsequent “B” Sample analysis does not confirm
the “A” Sample analysis result, then the Athlete shall not be subject to any
further Provisional Suspension on account of a violation of Code Article 2.1.
[Comment to Article 6.2.3.4: The Results Management Authority may
nonetheless decide to maintain and/or re-impose a Provisional Suspension
on the Athlete based on another anti-doping rule violation notified to the
Athlete, e.g. a violation of Code Article 2.2.]

6.2.3.5

In circumstances where the Athlete (or the Athlete’s team as may be provided
in the rules of the applicable Major Event Organization or International
Federation) has been removed from an Event based on a violation of Code
Article 2.1 and the subsequent “B” Sample analysis does not confirm the “A”
Sample finding, if, without otherwise affecting the Event, it is still possible for
the Athlete or team to be reinstated, the Athlete or team may continue to takepart in the Event.

6.3 Voluntary Provisional Suspension
6.3.1

As per Code Article 7.4.4, Athletes on their own initiative may voluntarily accept a
Provisional Suspension if done so prior to the later of: (i) the expiration of ten (10) days
from the report of the “B” Sample (or waiver of the “B” Sample) or ten (10) days fromnotification of any other anti-doping rule violation, or (ii) the date on which the Athlete
first competes after such report or notification. Other Persons on their own initiative may

ISRM – January 2023

Page 27 of 54

voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension if done so within ten (10) days fromnotification of the anti-doping rule violation. Upon such voluntary acceptance, theProvisional Suspension shall have the full effect and be treated in the same manner as
if the Provisional Suspension had been imposed under Article 6.2.1 or 6.2.2; provided,
however, at any time after voluntarily accepting a Provisional Suspension, the Athlete
or other Person may withdraw such acceptance, in which event the Athlete or other
Person shall not receive any credit for time previously served during the Provisional
Suspension.
6.4 Notification
6.4.1

Unless already notified under another provision of this International Standard, any
imposition of a Provisional Suspension notified to the Athlete or other Person or
voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension, or lifting of either, shall promptly be
notified by the Results Management Authority to the Athlete’s or other Person’s
National Anti-Doping Organization(s), International Federation and WADA and shallpromptly be reported into ADAMS.
[Comment to Article 6.4.1: To the extent not already set out in the communication to
the Athlete or other Person, this notification shall include the following information (ifapplicable): the Athlete’s or other Person’s name, country, sport and discipline within
the sport.]

7.0

Charge7.1 If, after receipt of the Athlete or other Person’s explanation or expiry of the deadline to provide
such explanation, the Results Management Authority is (still) satisfied that the Athlete or other
Person has committed (an) anti-doping rule violation(s), the Results Management Authority
shall promptly charge the Athlete or other Person with the anti-doping rule violation(s) they areasserted to have breached. In this letter of charge, the Results Management Authority:a) Shall set out the provision(s) of its anti-doping rules asserted to have been violated by the
Athlete or other Person;[Comment to Article 7.1 a): The Results Management Authority is not limited by the antidoping rules violation(s) set out in the notification under Article 5. In its discretion, theResults Management Authority may decide to assert further anti-doping rule violation(s) in
its notice of charge.
Notwithstanding the above, whereas it is a Results Management Authority’s duty to set out
all and any asserted anti-doping rule violations against an Athlete or other Person in thenotice of charge, a failure to formally charge an Athlete with an anti-doping rule violationthat is, in principle, an integral part of a more specific (asserted) anti-doping rule violation(e.g. a Use violation (Code Article 2.2) as part of a Presence violation (Code Article 2.1),
or a Possession violation (Code Article 2.6) as part of an asserted Administration violation(Code Article 2.8)) shall not prevent a hearing panel from finding that the Athlete or other
Person committed a violation of the subsidiary anti-doping rule violation in the event thatthey are not found to have committed the explicitly asserted anti-doping rule violation.]

ISRM – January 2023

Page 28 of 54b) Shall provide a detailed summary of the relevant facts upon which the assertion is based,enclosing any additional underlying evidence not already provided in the notification under
Article 5;[Comment to Article 7.1 b): The Results Management Authority shall, however, not be
prevented from relying on other facts and/or adducing further evidence not contained ineither the notification letter under Article 5 or the charge letter under Article 7 during the
Hearing Process at first instance and/or on appeal.]c) Shall indicate the specific Consequences being sought in the event that the asserted antidoping rule violation(s) is/are upheld and that such Consequences shall have binding effecton all Signatories in all sports and countries as per Code Article 15;[Comment to Article 7.1 c): The Consequences of an anti-doping rule violation set out inthe letter of charge shall include as a minimum the relevant period of Ineligibility and
Disqualification. The Results Management Authority shall refer to ADAMS and contact
WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations to determine whether any prior antidoping rule violation exists and take such information into account in determining therelevant Consequences. The proposed Consequences shall in all circumstances becompatible with the provisions of the Code and shall be appropriate based on the
explanations given by the Athlete or other Person or the facts as established by the Results
Management Authority. For these purposes, it is expected that the Results Management
Authority will review the explanations given by the Athlete or other Person and assess their
credibility (for example, by checking the authenticity of documentary evidence and theplausibility of the explanation from a scientific perspective) before proposing any
Consequences. If the Results Management phase is substantially delayed by the review,
the Results Management Authority shall inform WADA, setting out the reasons for thesubstantial delay.]d) Shall grant a deadline of not more than twenty (20) days from receipt of the letter of charge(which may be extended only in exceptional cases) to the Athlete or other Person to admit
the anti-doping rule violation asserted and to accept the proposed Consequences bysigning, dating and returning an acceptance of Consequences form, which shall be
enclosed with the letter;e) For the eventuality that the Athlete or other Person does not accept the proposed
Consequences, shall already grant to the Athlete or other Person a deadline provided forin the Results Management Authority’s anti-doping rules (which shall not be of more thantwenty (20) days from receipt of the letter of charge and may be extended only in
exceptional cases) to challenge in writing the Results Management Authority’s assertion ofan anti-doping rule violation and/or proposed Consequences, and/or make a written
request for a hearing before the relevant hearing panel;f)Shall indicate that if the Athlete or other Person does not challenge the Results
Management Authority’s assertion of an anti-doping rule violation or proposed
Consequences nor request a hearing within the prescribed deadline, the Results
Management Authority shall be entitled to deem that the Athlete or other Person has waived
their right to a hearing and admitted the anti-doping rule violation as well as accepted theConsequences set out by the Results Management Authority in the letter of charge;

ISRM – January 2023

Page 29 of 54g) Shall indicate that the Athlete or other Person may be able to obtain a suspension ofConsequences if they provide Substantial Assistance under Code Article 10.7.1, may admit
the anti-doping rule violation(s) within twenty (20) days from receipt of the letter of charge
and potentially benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility under Code
Article 10.8.1 (if applicable) and/or seek to enter into a case resolution agreement byadmitting the anti-doping rule violation(s) under Code Article 10.8.2; andh) Shall set out any matters relating to Provisional Suspension as per Article 6 (if applicable).
7.2 The notice of charge notified to the Athlete or other Person shall simultaneously be notified by
the Results Management Authority to the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s),International Federation and WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.
[Comment to Article 7.2: To the extent not already set out in the notice of charge, thisnotification shall contain the following information (wherever applicable): Athlete’s or other
Person’s name, country, sport and discipline within the sport, and, for a violation of Code Article
2.1, whether the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition, the date of Sample collection,
the analytical result reported by the Laboratory and other information as required by theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations, and, for any other anti-doping ruleviolation, the anti-doping rule(s) violated and the basis for the asserted violation(s).]7.3 In the event that the Athlete or other Person either (i) admits the anti-doping rule violation andaccepts the proposed Consequences or (ii) is deemed to have admitted the violation andaccepted the Consequences as per Article 7.1 f), the Results Management Authority shallpromptly issue the decision and notify it in accordance with Article 9.
7.4 If, after the Athlete or other Person has been charged, the Results Management Authority
decides to withdraw the charge, it must notify the Athlete or other Person and give notice (withreasons) to the Anti-Doping Organizations with a right of appeal under Code Article 13.2.3.
7.5 Subject to Article 7.6, in the event that the Athlete or other Person requests a hearing, thematter shall be referred to the Results Management Authority’s hearing panel and be dealt withpursuant to Article 8.
[Comment to Article 7.5: Where a Results Management Authority has delegated the
adjudication part of Results Management to a Delegated Third Party, the matter shall bereferred to the Delegated Third Party.]
7.6 Single hearing before CAS
7.6.1

Pursuant to Code Article 8.5, anti-doping rule violations asserted against InternationalLevel Athletes, National-Level Athletes or other Persons may, with the consent of theAthlete or other Person, the Results Management Authority and WADA, be heard in asingle hearing directly at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement
for a prior hearing, or as otherwise agreed by the parties.

7.6.2

If the Athlete or other Person and the Results Management Authority agree to proceedwith a single hearing before CAS, it shall be the responsibility of the Results
Management Authority to liaise in writing with WADA to determine whether it agrees to

ISRM – January 2023

Page 30 of 54

the proposal. Should WADA not agree (in its entire discretion), then the case shall beheard by the Results Management Authority’s hearing panel at first instance.
[Comment to Article 7.6.2: In the event that all relevant parties agree to refer the caseto the CAS as a single instance, the Results Management Authority shall promptly notify
any other Anti-Doping Organization with a right of appeal upon initiating theproceedings so that the latter may seek to intervene in the proceedings (if they wishto). The final decision rendered by the CAS shall not be subject to any appeal, save to
the Swiss Federal Tribunal.]

ISRM – January 2023

Page 31 of 54

PART FOUR: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – ADJUDICATION
8.0

Hearing Process
8.1 The rules of the Results Management Authority shall confer jurisdiction on hearing panels tohear and determine whether an Athlete or other Person subject to its anti-doping rules has
committed an anti-doping rule violation and, if applicable, to impose the relevant
Consequences. The Results Management Authority (or a Delegated Third Party upondelegation under Code Article 20) shall bring forward the charge before the hearing panel.
[Comment to Article 8.1: Results Management Authorities may also delegate the adjudication
part of Results Management to Delegated Third Parties.
It is not a Code requirement that a hearing should take place in person. Hearings may also
take place remotely by the participants joining together using technology. There are no
restrictions as to the technology that can or should be used, but include means such asconference calling, video conferencing technology or other online communication tools.
Depending on the circumstances of a case, it may also be fair or necessary – for example,
where all the facts are agreed and the only issue is as to the Consequences – to conduct ahearing “in writing”, based on written materials without an oral hearing.]
8.2 For the purposes of Article 8.1, a wider pool of hearing panel members shall be established,from which the hearing panels for specific cases shall be nominated. Appointment to the poolmust be made based on anti-doping experience, including legal, sports, medical and/or
scientific expertise. All members of the pool shall be appointed for a period of no less than two(2) years (which may be renewable).
[Comment to Article 8.2: The number of potential hearing panel members appointed to thewider pool depends on the number of affiliates and the anti-doping history (including thenumber of anti-doping rule violations committed in the past years) of the Anti-Doping
Organization. At the very least, the number of potential hearing panel members shall be
sufficient to ensure that Hearing Processes are timely conducted and provide for replacement
possibilities in the event of a conflict of interest.]
8.3 The applicable rules shall provide for an independent person or body to determine in theirdiscretion the size and composition of a particular hearing panel to adjudicate an individualcase. At least one appointed hearing panel member must have a legal background.
[Comment to Article 8.3: For example, the independent person may be a designatedchairperson of the pool. The relevant rules should also provide for a mechanism for the eventthat the independent person or body has a conflict of interest (e.g. the chairperson may bereplaced by a designated vice-chairperson in the event of a conflict of interest, or by the mostsenior hearing panel member with no conflict of interest, where there is no vice-chairperson orboth the chairperson and vice-chairperson are in a situation of conflict).
The size and composition of the hearing panel may vary depending on the nature of the charge
and the evidence put forward. The hearing panel may be composed of a single adjudicator.
The chairperson of the pool can be appointed (or appoint themselves if applicable) to sit as

ISRM – January 2023

Page 32 of 54

single adjudicator or hearing panel member. If a single adjudicator is appointed, they shall havea legal background.]8.4 Upon appointment to a hearing panel, each hearing panel member shall sign a declaration that
there are no facts or circumstances known to him/her which might call into question theirimpartiality in the eyes of any of the parties, other than any circumstances disclosed in the
declaration. If such facts or circumstances arise at a later stage of the Hearing Process, therelevant hearing panel member shall promptly disclose them to the parties.
[Comment to Article 8.4: For example, any member who is in any way connected with the caseand/or the parties – such as family or close personal/professional ties and/or an interest in theoutcome of the case and/or having expressed an opinion as to the outcome of the particularcase – must openly disclose on the declaration all circumstances that might interfere with theimpartial performance of their functions. To assess whether a hearing panel member isimpartial, the Results Management Authority may take into account the principles set out in the
IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration as updated from time to time
available at https://www.ibanet.org.]
8.5 The parties shall be notified of the identity of the hearing panel members appointed to hearand determine the matter and be provided with their declaration at the outset of the Hearing
Process. The parties shall be informed of their right to challenge the appointment of any hearing
panel member if there are grounds for potential conflicts of interest within seven (7) days fromthe ground for the challenge having become known. Any challenge shall be decided upon by
an independent person from the wider pool of hearing panel members or by an independent
institution.
[Comment to Article 8.5: For example, the independent person may be a designatedchairperson of the pool. The relevant rules should also provide for a mechanism for the eventthat the independent person is the person subject to the challenge or is one of the othermembers of that particular hearing panel (e.g. the designated independent person may bereplaced in these circumstances by a vice-chairperson or other designated senior hearing
panel member).]
8.6 The rules governing the activities of the Results Management Authority shall guarantee the
Operational Independence of hearing panel members.
[Comment to Article 8.6: As per the Code definition, Operational Independence means that (1)board members, staff members, commission members, consultants and officials of the Results
Management Authority or its affiliates (e.g. member federation or confederation), as well as
any person involved in the investigation and pre-adjudication of the matter, cannot be
appointed as members and/or clerks (to the extent that such clerk is involved in the deliberation
process and/or drafting of any decision) of hearing panels of that Results Management
Authority and (2) that hearing panels shall be in a position to conduct the hearing and decisionmaking process without interference from the Results Management Authority or any third party.
The objective is to ensure that members of the hearing panel or individuals otherwise involvedin the decision of the hearing panel, are not involved in the investigation of, or decisions toproceed with, the case.]

ISRM – January 2023

Page 33 of 54

8.7 Anti-Doping Organizations shall provide adequate resources to ensure that hearing panels areable to fulfil their tasks efficiently and independently and otherwise in accordance with this
Article 8.
[Comment to Article 8.7: All agreed fees and reasonable expenses of the hearing panels shallbe timely paid by the Results Management Authority.]
8.8 The Hearing Process shall respect, at a minimum, all of the following principles:a) The hearing panel must remain fair, impartial and Operationally Independent at all times;b) The Hearing Process shall be accessible and affordable;[Comment to Article 8.8 b): Procedural fees, if any, shall be set at a level that does notprevent the accused Person from accessing the hearing. When necessary, the Results
Management Authority and/or the relevant hearing panel should consider establishing alegal aid mechanism in order to ensure such access.]c) The Hearing Process shall be conducted within a reasonable time;[Comment to Article 8.8 c): All decisions shall be issued and notified promptly after the
hearing in person or, if no hearing in person is requested, after the parties have filed theirwritten submissions. Save in complex matters, this timeframe should not exceed two (2)months.]d) The right to be informed in a fair and timely manner of the asserted anti-doping ruleviolation(s), the right to be represented by counsel at the Athlete or other Person’s own
expense, the right of access to and to present relevant evidence, the right to submit written
and oral submissions, the right to call and examine witnesses, and the right to an interpreterat the hearing at the Athlete or other Person’s own expense; and[Comment to Article 8.8 d): In principle, where the hearing is in person, it should becomposed of an opening phase, where the parties are given an opportunity to briefly
present their case, an evidentiary phase, where the evidence is assessed and witnesses
and experts (if any) are heard, and a closing phase, where all parties are given an
opportunity to present their final arguments in light of the evidence.]e) The right for the Athlete or the other Person to request a public hearing. The Results
Management Authority may also request a public hearing provided that the Athlete or theother Person has provided his/her written consent to the same.
[Comment to Article 8.8 e): However, the request may be denied by the hearing panel inthe interest of morals, public order, national security, where the interests of Minors or theprotection of the private life of the parties so require, where publicity would prejudice theinterests of justice or where the proceedings are exclusively related to questions of law.]
8.9 Hearing Processes held in connection with Events may be conducted by an expedited process
as permitted by the rules of the relevant Anti-Doping Organization and the hearing panel.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 34 of 54

9.0

Decisions
9.1 Content
9.1.1

Results Management decisions or adjudications by Anti-Doping Organizations must not
purport to be limited to a particular geographic area or sport and shall address anddetermine the following issues:a) Jurisdictional basis and applicable rules;b) Detailed factual background;[Comment to Article 9.1.1 b): For instance, where the violation is based on an
Adverse Analytical Finding, the decision shall set out inter alia the date and placeof the Sample Collection Session, the type of Sample collection (blood or urine),
whether the control was Out-of-Competition or In-Competition, the Prohibited
Substance detected, the WADA-accredited Laboratory that performed the analysis,
if the “B” Sample analysis was requested and/or performed as well as the results of
the analysis. For any other violation, a full and detailed description of the facts shallbe made.]c) Anti-doping rule violation(s) committed;[Comment to Article 9.1.1 c): Where the violation is based on an Adverse Analytical
Finding, the decision shall inter alia set out that there was no departure from theInternational Standards, or that the alleged departure(s) did or did not cause theAdverse Analytical Finding and demonstrate that the violation of Code Article 2 ismade out (see Code Article 2.1.2). For any other violation, the hearing panel shallassess the evidence presented and explain why it considers that the evidence
presented by the Results Management Authority meets or does not meet therequired standard of proof. In case the hearing panel considers that the anti-doping
rule violation(s) is/are established, it shall expressly indicate the anti-doping rule(s)violated.]d) Applicable Consequences; and[Comment to Article 9.1.1 d): The decision shall identify the specific provisions on
which the sanction, including any reduction or suspension, is based and provide
reasons justifying the imposition of the relevant Consequences. In particular, where
the applicable rules grant discretion to the hearing panel (e.g. for Specified
Substances or Specified Methods or Contaminated Products under Code Article
10.6.1.1 and 10.6.1.2), the decision shall explain why the period of Ineligibility
imposed is appropriate. The decision shall also indicate the start date of the period
of Ineligibility (if any) and provide justifications in the event that this date is earlier
than the date of the decision (see Code Article 10.13.1). The decision shall also
indicate the period of Disqualification, with justification in the event that certain
results are not Disqualified for reasons of fairness (Code Article 10.10 of the Code),and any forfeiture of medals or prizes. The decision shall also set if (and to what
extent) any period of Provisional Suspension is credited against any period of

ISRM – January 2023

Page 35 of 54

Ineligibility ultimately imposed, and set out any other relevant Consequences basedon the applicable rules, including Financial Consequences. As per Code Article
7.5.1, Major Event Organizations shall, however, not be required to determine
Ineligibility or Financial Consequences beyond the scope of their Event.]e) Appeal routes and deadline to appeal for the Athlete or other Person.
[Comment to Article 9.1.1 e): The decision shall indicate whether the Athlete is an
International-Level Athlete for the purposes of the appeal route under Code Article
13. If this information is not available to the hearing panel, the hearing panel shallrequest the Results Management Authority to liaise with the relevant Anti-Doping
Organization (e.g. the International Federation of the Athlete). The decision shallthen set out the appropriate appeal route (including the address to which any appeal
should be sent to) and the deadline to appeal.][Comment to Article 9.1.1: Results Management decisions include Provisional
Suspension, save that a Results Management decision on Provisional Suspension
shall not be required to determine whether an anti-doping rule violation wascommitted.]
9.1.2

A Results Management decision or adjudication by a Major Event Organization inconnection with one of its Events may be limited in its scope but shall address anddetermine, at a minimum, the following issues: (i) whether an anti-doping rule violation
was committed, the factual basis for such determination, and the specific Code Articles
violated, and (ii) applicable Disqualifications under Code Articles 9 and 10.1, with any
resulting forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.
[Comment to Article 9.1.2: With the exception of Results Management decisions byMajor Event Organizations, each decision by an Anti-Doping Organization should
address whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed and all Consequences
flowing from the violation, including any Disqualifications other than Disqualification
under Code Article 10.1 (which is left to the ruling body for an Event). Pursuant to Code
Article 15, such decision and its imposition of Consequences shall have automaticeffect in every sport in every country. For example, for a determination that an Athletecommitted 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 Code Article 9 and all other competitive results obtained by the
Athlete from the date the Sample was collected through the duration of the period of
Ineligibility are also Disqualified under Code Article 10.10; if the Adverse Analytical
Finding resulted from Testing at an Event, it would be the Major Event Organization’s
responsibility to decide whether the Athlete’s other individual results in the Event prior
to Sample collection are also Disqualified under Code Article 10.1.]

9.2 Notification
Decisions shall be promptly notified by the Results Management Authority to the Athlete orother Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right of appeal under Code Article
13.2.3 and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS. Where the decision is not in English or

ISRM – January 2023

Page 36 of 54

French, the Results Management Authority shall provide an English or French summary of thedecision and of the supporting reasons as well as a searchable version of the decision.
9.2.1

An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall be made aware by
the Results Management Authority of their status during Ineligibility, including theConsequences of a violation of the prohibition of participation during Ineligibility,
pursuant to Code Article 10.14. The Results Management Authority shall ensure thatthe period of Ineligibility is duly respected within its sphere of competence. The Athlete
or other Person should also be made aware that they may still provide Substantial
Assistance.

9.2.2

An Athlete subject to a period of Ineligibility should also be made aware by the Results
Management Authority that they remain subject to Testing during the period of
Ineligibility.

9.2.3

Where, further to notification of the decision, an Anti-Doping Organization with a rightof appeal requests a copy of the full case file pertaining to the decision, it shall be
provided promptly by the Results Management Authority.
[Comment to Article 9.2.5: The case file shall contain all documents relating to the case.
For an analytical case, it shall include at a minimum the Doping Control form,
Laboratory results and/or Laboratory Documentation Package(s) (if issued), any
submissions and exhibits and/or correspondence of the parties and all other documents
relied upon by the hearing body. The case file should be sent by email in an organizedmanner with a table of contents.]

9.2.4

If the decision concerns an Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding, and after
any deadline to appeal has elapsed and no appeal has been filed against the decision,
the Results Management Authority shall promptly notify the relevant Laboratory that thematter has been finally disposed of.

10.0 Appeals
10.1 The rules governing appeal rights and avenues are set out at Code Article 13.
10.2 With respect to national appellate instances within the meaning of Code Article 13.2.2:a) The appointment of hearing panel members and the Hearing Process on appeal aregoverned by Article 8 mutatis mutandis. In addition to being fair, impartial andOperationally Independent, a hearing panel on appeal shall also be Institutionally
Independent;[Comment to Article 10.2 a): For the purposes of this provision, hearing panels on appeal
shall be fully Institutionally Independent from the Results Management Authority. They
must therefore not in any way be administered by, connected or subject to the Results
Management Authority.]b) The appeal decision rendered by an appeal body shall comply with the requirements ofArticle 9.1;
ISRM – January 2023

Page 37 of 54c) The appeal decision shall promptly be notified by the Results Management Authority to
the Athlete or other Person and to the other Anti-Doping Organizations that would havebeen entitled to appeal the prior instance decision under Code Article 13.2.3;d) The further notification requirements at Article 9.2 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
10.3 With respect to appeals before CAS:a) The appeal procedure shall be governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration;b) All parties to any CAS appeal must ensure that WADA and any other party, which would
have had a right of appeal and is not a party to the CAS appeal, has been given timely
notice of the appeal;c) No settlement embodied in an arbitral award rendered by consent of the parties as per
R56 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration shall be entered into by an Anti-Doping
Organization without WADA’s written approval. Where the parties to the CAS proceedings
are envisaging settling the matter by way of a settlement embodied in an arbitral award
rendered by consent of the parties, the Anti-Doping Organization that is a party to theproceedings shall immediately notify WADA and provide it with all necessary informationin this respect;d) Any Anti-Doping Organization that is a party to an appeal before CAS shall promptly
provide the CAS award to the other Anti-Doping Organizations that would have been
entitled to appeal under Code Article 13.2.3; ande) The requirements of Articles 9.2.2 to 9.2.4 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
11.0 Violation of the Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility
11.1 In the event that an Athlete or other Person is suspected to have violated the prohibition
against participation during Ineligibility pursuant to Code Article 10.14, the Results
Management relating to this potential violation shall comply with the principles of thisInternational Standard mutatis mutandis.
[Comment to Article 11.1: In particular, the Athlete or other Person shall receive a notification
letter in accordance with Article 5.3.2 mutatis mutandis, a letter of charge in accordance with
Article 7 mutatis mutandis and be afforded the right to a hearing as per Article 8.]

ISRM – January 2023

Page 38 of 54

ANNEX A – REVIEW OF A POSSIBLE FAILURE TO COMPLY
A.1 Responsibility
A.1.1 The Results Management Authority or Testing Authority (as applicable) is responsible for
ensuring that:a) When the possible Failure to Comply comes to its attention, it notifies WADA, andinstigates review of the possible Failure to Comply based on all relevant information anddocumentation;b) The Athlete or other Person is informed of the possible Failure to Comply in writing andhas the opportunity to respond in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the International
Standard for Results Management;c) The review is conducted without unnecessary delay and the evaluation process is
documented; andd) If it decides not to move forward with the matter, its decision is notified in accordance with
Article 5.4 of the International Standard for Results Management.
A.1.2 The DCO is responsible for providing a detailed written report of any possible Failure toComply.
A.2 Requirements
A.2.1 Any potential Failure to Comply shall be reported by the DCO to the Results Management
Authority (or Testing Authority as applicable) and/or followed up by the Testing Authority andreported to the Results Management Authority as soon as practicable.
A.2.2 If the Results Management Authority determines that there has been a potential Failure toComply, the Athlete or other Person shall be promptly notified in accordance with Article 5.3.2of the International Standard for Results Management and further Results Management shallbe conducted as per Article 5 et seq. of the International Standard for Results Management.
A.2.3 Any additional necessary information about the potential Failure to Comply shall be obtained
from all relevant sources (including the Athlete or other Person) as soon as possible andrecorded.
A.2.4 The Results Management Authority (and Testing Authority as applicable) shall establish asystem for ensuring that the outcomes of its reviews into potential Failures to Comply are
considered for Results Management action and, if applicable, for further planning and Target
Testing.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 39 of 54

ANNEX B – RESULTS MANAGEMENT FOR WHEREABOUTS FAILURES
B.1

Determining a Potential Whereabouts Failure
B.1.1 Three (3) Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete within any 12-month period amount to an antidoping rule violation under Code Article 2.4. The Whereabouts Failures may be any
combination of Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests declared in accordance with Article B.3
and adding up to three (3) in total.
[Comment to Article B.1.1: While a single Whereabouts Failure will not amount to an antidoping rule violation under Code Article 2.4, depending on the facts, it could amount to an antidoping rule violation under Code Article 2.3 (Evading Sample Collection) and/or Code Article
2.5 (Tampering or Attempted Tampering with Doping Control).]
B.1.2 The 12-month period referred to in Code Article 2.4 starts to run on the date that an Athletecommits the first Whereabouts Failure being relied upon in support of the allegation of aviolation of Code Article 2.4. If two (2) more Whereabouts Failures occur during the ensuing
12-month period, then Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation is committed, irrespectiveof any Samples successfully collected from the Athlete during that 12-month period.
However, if an Athlete who has committed one (1) Whereabouts Failure does not go on tocommit a further two (2) Whereabouts Failures within the 12-months, at the end of that 12month period, the first Whereabouts Failure “expires” for purposes of Code Article 2.4, and a
new 12-month period begins to run from the date of their next Whereabouts Failure.
B.1.3 For purposes of determining whether a Whereabouts Failure has occurred within the 12month period referred to in Code Article 2.4:
a)

A Filing Failure will be deemed to have occurred (i) where the Athlete fails to provide
complete information in due time in advance of an upcoming quarter, on the first day ofthat quarter, and (ii) where any information provided by the Athlete (whether in advanceof the quarter or by way of update) transpires to be inaccurate, on the (first) date on
which such information can be shown to be inaccurate; andb)

A Missed Test will be deemed to have occurred on the date that the Sample collection
was unsuccessfully attempted.

B.1.4 Whereabouts Failures committed by the Athlete prior to retirement as defined in Article
4.8.7.3 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations may be combined, forpurposes of Code Article 2.4, with Whereabouts Failures committed by the Athlete after the
Athlete again becomes available for Out-of-Competition Testing.
[Comment to Article B.1.4: For example, if an Athlete committed two (2) Whereabouts
Failures in the six (6) months prior to their retirement, then if they commit another
Whereabouts Failure in the first six (6) months in which they are again available for Out-ofCompetition Testing, that amounts to a Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation.]
B.2 Requirements for a Potential Filing Failure or Missed Test

ISRM – January 2023

Page 40 of 54

B.2.1 An Athlete may only be declared to have committed a Filing Failure where the Results
Management Authority establishes each of the following:a)That the Athlete was duly notified: (i) that they had been designated for inclusion in a
Registered Testing Pool; (ii) of the consequent requirement to make Whereabouts Filing;and (iii) of the Consequences of any Failure to Comply with that requirement;b)That the Athlete failed to comply with that requirement by the applicable deadline;[Comment to Article B.2.1(b): An Athlete fails to comply with the requirement to make
Whereabouts Filing (i) where they do not make any such filing, or where they fail to
update the filing as required by Article 4.8.8.6 of the International Standard for Testing
and Investigations; or (ii) where they make the filing or update but do not include all of
the required information in that filing or update (e.g. they do not include the place where
they will be staying overnight for each day in the following quarter, or for each day
covered by the update, or omit to declare a regular activity that they will be pursuingduring the quarter, or during the period covered by the update); or (iii) where they include
information in the original filing or the update that is inaccurate (e.g., an address that
does not exist) or insufficient to enable the Anti-Doping Organization to locate them for
Testing (e.g., “running in the Black Forest”).]c)

In the case of a second or third Filing Failure, that they were given notice, in accordancewith Article B.3.2(d), of the previous Filing Failure, and (if that Filing Failure revealed
deficiencies in the Whereabouts Filing that would lead to further Filing Failures if not
rectified) was advised in the notice that in order to avoid a further Filing Failure they mustfile the required Whereabouts Filing (or update) by the deadline specified in the notice(which must be within 48 hours after receipt of the notice) and yet failed to rectify that
Filing Failure by the deadline specified in the notice; and[Comment to Article B.2.1(c): All that is required is to give the Athlete notice of the first
Filing Failure and an opportunity to avoid a subsequent one, before a subsequent Filing
Failure may be pursued against them. In particular, it is not necessary to complete theResults Management process with respect to the first Filing Failure before pursuing asecond Filing Failure against the Athlete.]d)That the Athlete’s failure to file was at least negligent. For these purposes, the Athlete will
be presumed to have committed the failure negligently upon proof that they were notifiedof the requirements yet did not comply with them. That presumption may only be
rebutted by the Athlete establishing that no negligent behavior on their part caused orcontributed to the failure.

B.2.2 While Code Article 5.2 specifies that every Athlete must submit to Testing at any time andplace upon request by an Anti-Doping Organization with Testing Authority over them, in
addition, an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool must specifically be present and available
for Testing on any given day during the 60-minute time slot specified for that day in their
Whereabouts Filing, at the location that the Athlete has specified for that time slot in such
filing. Where this requirement is not met by the Athlete, it shall be pursued as an apparent
Missed Test. If the Athlete is tested during such a time slot, the Athlete must remain with the
DCO until the Sample collection has been completed, even if this takes longer than the 60ISRM – January 2023

Page 41 of 54

minute time slot. A failure to do so shall be pursued as an apparent violation of Code Article
2.3 (refusal or failure to submit to Sample collection).
B.2.3 To ensure fairness to the Athlete, where an unsuccessful attempt has been made to test an
Athlete during one of the 60-minute time slots specified in their Whereabouts Filing, any
subsequent unsuccessful attempt to test that Athlete (by the same or any other Anti-Doping
Organization) during one of the 60-minute time slots specified in their Whereabouts Filing
may only be counted as a Missed Test (or, if the unsuccessful attempt was because theinformation filed was insufficient to find the Athlete during the time slot, as a Filing Failure)against that Athlete if that subsequent attempt takes place after the Athlete has received
notice, in accordance with Article B.3.2(d), of the original unsuccessful attempt.
[Comment to Article B.2.3: All that is required is to give the Athlete notice of one Missed Test
or Filing Failure before a subsequent Missed Test or Filing Failure may be pursued against
them. In particular, it is not necessary to complete the Results Management process withrespect to the first Missed Test or Filing Failure before pursuing a second Missed Test orFiling Failure against the Athlete.]
B.2.4 An Athlete may only be declared to have committed a Missed Test where the Results
Management Authority can establish each of the following:a)That when the Athlete was given notice that they had been designated for inclusion in a
Registered Testing Pool, they were advised that they would be liable for a Missed Test if
they were unavailable for Testing during the 60-minute time slot specified in their
Whereabouts Filing at the location specified for that time slot;b)That a DCO attempted to test the Athlete on a given day in the quarter, during the 60minute time slot specified in the Athlete’s Whereabouts Filing for that day, by visiting thelocation specified for that time slot;c)That during that specified 60-minute time slot, the DCO did what was reasonable in thecircumstances (i.e. given the nature of the specified location) to try to locate the Athlete,
short of giving the Athlete any advance notice of the test;[Comment to Article B.2.4(c): Due to the fact that the making of a telephone call isdiscretionary rather than mandatory, and is left entirely to the absolute discretion of the
Sample Collection Authority, proof that a telephone call was made is not a requisite
element of a Missed Test, and the lack of a telephone call does not give the Athlete a
defense to the assertion of a Missed Test.]d)That Article B.2.3 does not apply or (if it applies) was complied with; ande)That the Athlete’s non-availability for Testing at the specified location during thespecified 60-minute time slot was at least negligent. For these purposes, the Athlete will
be presumed to have been negligent upon proof of the matters set out at sub-Articles
B.2.4 (a) to (d). That presumption may only be rebutted by the Athlete establishing thatno negligent behavior on their part caused or contributed to their failure (i) to beavailable for Testing at such location during such time slot, and (ii) to update their most

ISRM – January 2023

Page 42 of 54

recent Whereabouts Filing to give notice of a different location where they would instead
be available for Testing during a specified 60-minute time slot on the relevant day.
B.3 Results Management for a Potential Whereabouts Failure
B.3.1 In accordance with Code Articles 7.1.6, the Results Management Authority in relation topotential Whereabouts Failures shall be the International Federation or the National AntiDoping Organization with whom the Athlete in question files their whereabouts information.
[Comment to Article B.3.1: If an Anti-Doping Organization that receives an Athlete's
Whereabouts Filing (and so is their Results Management Authority for whereabouts
purposes) removes the Athlete from its Registered Testing Pool after recording one or two
Whereabouts Failures against them, then if the Athlete is put in another Anti-Doping
Organization's Registered Testing Pool, and that other Anti-Doping Organization starts
receiving their Whereabouts Filing, then, that other Anti-Doping Organization becomes the
Results Management Authority in respect of all Whereabouts Failures by that Athlete,
including those recorded by the first Anti-Doping Organization. In that case, the first AntiDoping Organization shall provide the second Anti-Doping Organization with full information
about the Whereabouts Failure(s) recorded by the first Anti-Doping Organization in therelevant period, so that if the second Anti-Doping Organization records any further
Whereabouts Failure(s) against that Athlete, it has all the information it needs to bringproceedings against them, in accordance with Article B.3.4, for violation of Code Article 2.4.]
B.3.2 When a Whereabouts Failure appears to have occurred, Results Management shall proceed
as follows:a)

If the apparent Whereabouts Failure has been uncovered by an attempt to test the
Athlete, the Testing Authority shall timely obtain an Unsuccessful Attempt Report fromthe DCO. If the Testing Authority is different from the Results Management Authority, it
shall provide the Unsuccessful Attempt Report to the Results Management Authority
without delay, and thereafter it shall assist the Results Management Authority asnecessary in obtaining information from the DCO in relation to the apparent Whereabouts
Failure.

b)

The Results Management Authority shall timely review the file (including any
Unsuccessful Attempt Report filed by the DCO) to determine whether all of the Article
B.2.1 requirements (in the case of a Filing Failure) or all of the Article B.2.4 requirements(in the case of a Missed Test) are met. It shall gather information as necessary from third
parties (e.g., the DCO whose test attempt uncovered the Filing Failure or triggered theMissed Test) to assist it in this task.

c)

If the Results Management Authority concludes that any of the relevant requirements
have not been met (so that no Whereabouts Failure should be declared), it shall so advise
WADA, the International Federation or National Anti-Doping Organization (asapplicable), and the Anti-Doping Organization that uncovered the Whereabouts Failure,giving reasons for its decision. Each of them shall have a right of appeal against thatdecision in accordance with Code Article 13.

d)

If the Results Management Authority concludes that all of the relevant requirements as

ISRM – January 2023

Page 43 of 54

set out in B.2.1 (Filing Failure) and B.2.4 (Missed Test) have been met, it should notify
the Athlete within fourteen (14) days of the date of the apparent Whereabouts Failure.
The notice shall include sufficient details of the apparent Whereabouts Failure to enable
the Athlete to respond meaningfully, and shall give the Athlete a reasonable deadline torespond, advising whether they admit the Whereabouts Failure and, if they do not admit
to the Whereabouts Failure, then an explanation as to why not. The notice should also advise
the Athlete that three (3) Whereabouts Failures in any 12-month period is a Code Article
2.4 anti-doping rule violation, and should note whether they had any other Whereabouts
Failures recorded against them in the previous twelve (12) months. In the case of a Filing
Failure, the notice must also advise the Athlete that in order to avoid a further Filing
Failure they must file the missing whereabouts information by the deadline specified in
the notice, which must be within 48 hours after receipt of the notice.
e)

If the Athlete does not respond within the specified deadline, the Results Management
Authority shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them.
If the Athlete does respond within the deadline, the Results Management Authority shallconsider whether their response changes its original decision that all of the requirements
for recording a Whereabouts Failure have been met.
i.

If so, it shall so advise the Athlete, WADA, the International Federation or National
Anti-Doping Organization (as applicable), and the Anti-Doping Organization that
uncovered the Whereabouts Failure, giving reasons for its decision. Each of themshall have a right of appeal against that decision in accordance with Code Article
13.

ii.

If not, it shall so advise the Athlete (with reasons) and specify a reasonable deadlineby which they may request an administrative review of its decision. The
Unsuccessful Attempt Report shall be provided to the Athlete at this point if it has
not been provided to them earlier in the process.

f)

If the Athlete does not request an administrative review by the specified deadline, theResults Management Authority shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against
them. If the Athlete does request an administrative review before the deadline, it shall be
carried out, based on the papers only, by one or more person not previously involved in
the assessment of the apparent Whereabouts Failure. The purpose of the administrative
review shall be to determine anew whether or not all of the relevant requirements forrecording a Whereabouts Failure are met.

g)

If the conclusion following administrative review is that all of the requirements forrecording a Whereabouts Failure are not met, the Results Management Authority shallso advise the Athlete, WADA, the International Federation or National Anti-Doping
Organization (as applicable), and the Anti-Doping Organization that uncovered theWhereabouts Failure, giving reasons for its decision. Each of them shall have a right ofappeal against that decision in accordance with Code Article 13. On the other hand, if theconclusion is that all of the requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure are met,
it shall notify the Athlete and shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 44 of 54

B.3.3 The Results Management Authority shall promptly report a decision to record a Whereabouts
Failure against an Athlete to WADA and all other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations, on aconfidential basis, via ADAMS.
[Comment to Article B.3.3: For the avoidance of doubt, the Results Management Authority isentitled to notify other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations (on a strictly confidential basis) of
the apparent Whereabouts Failure at an earlier stage of the Results Management process,where it considers it appropriate (for test planning purposes or otherwise). In addition, an
Anti-Doping Organization may publish a general statistical report of its activities that discloses
in general terms the number of Whereabouts Failures that have been recorded in respect ofAthletes under its jurisdiction during a particular period, provided that it does not publish any
information that might reveal the identity of the Athletes involved. Prior to any proceedings
under Code Article 2.4, an Anti-Doping Organization should not Publicly Disclose that a
particular Athlete does (or does not) have any Whereabouts Failures recorded against them(or that a particular sport does, or does not, have Athletes with Whereabouts Failures
recorded against them).]
B.3.4 Where three (3) Whereabouts Failures are recorded against an Athlete within any 12-month
period, the Results Management Authority shall notify the Athlete and other Anti-Doping
Organizations in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the International Standard for Results
Management alleging violation of Code Article 2.4 and proceed with Results Management inaccordance with Article 5 et seq. of the International Standard for Results Management. If
the Results Management Authority fails to bring such proceedings against an Athlete within
30-days of WADA receiving notice of the recording of that Athlete’s third Whereabouts Failure
in any 12-month period, then the Results Management Authority shall be deemed to havedecided that no anti-doping rule violation was committed, for purposes of triggering theappeal rights set out at Code Article 13.2.
B.3.5 An Athlete asserted to have committed a Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation shall havethe right to have such assertion determined at a full evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Code Article 8 and Articles 8 and 10 of the International Standard for Results Management.
The hearing panel shall not be bound by any determination made during the Results
Management process, whether as to the adequacy of any explanation offered for a
Whereabouts Failure or otherwise. Instead, the burden shall be on the Anti-Doping
Organization bringing the proceedings to establish all of the requisite elements of eachalleged Whereabouts Failure to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel. If thehearing panel decides that one (or two) Whereabouts Failure(s) have been established to
the required standard, but that the other alleged Whereabouts Failure(s) has/have not, thenno Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation shall be found to have occurred. However, if theAthlete then commits one (or two, as applicable) further Whereabouts Failure(s) within therelevant 12-month period, new proceedings may be brought based on a combination of the
Whereabouts Failure(s) established to the satisfaction of the hearing panel in the previous
proceedings (in accordance with Code Article 3.2.3) and the Whereabouts Failure(s)subsequently committed by the Athlete.
[Comment to Article B.3.5: Nothing in Article B.3.5 is intended to prevent the Anti-Doping
Organization challenging an argument raised on the Athlete’s behalf at the hearing on thebasis that it could have been but was not raised at an earlier stage of the Results Management
process.]
ISRM – January 2023

Page 45 of 54

B.3.6 A finding that an Athlete has committed a Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation has thefollowing Consequences: (a) imposition of a period of Ineligibility in accordance with Code
Article 10.3.2 (first violation) or Code Article 10.9 (subsequent violation(s)); and (b) inaccordance with Code Article 10.10 (Disqualification, unless fairness requires otherwise) of
all individual results obtained by the Athlete from the date of the Code Article 2.4 anti-doping
rule violation through to the date of commencement of any Provisional Suspension or
Ineligibility period, with all of the resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals,
points and prizes. For these purposes, the anti-doping rule violation shall be deemed to haveoccurred on the date of the third Whereabouts Failure found by the hearing panel to haveoccurred. The impact of any Code Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation by an individual Athleteon the results of any team for which that Athlete has played during the relevant period shallbe determined in accordance with Code Article 11.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 46 of 54

ANNEX C – RESULTS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT
C.1 Administrative Management
C.1.1 The requirements and procedures described in this Annex apply to all modules of the Athlete
Biological Passport except where expressly stated or implied by the context.
C.1.2 These processes shall be administered and managed by an Athlete Passport Management
Unit on behalf of the Passport Custodian. The Athlete Passport Management Unit will initiallyreview profiles to facilitate targeting recommendations for the Passport Custodian whenappropriate or refer to the Experts as required. Management and communication of thebiological data, Athlete Passport Management Unit reporting and Expert reviews shall berecorded in ADAMS and be shared by the Passport Custodian with other Anti-Doping
Organizations with Testing Authority over the Athlete to coordinate further Passport Testing
as appropriate. A key element for Athlete Biological Passport management andcommunication is the Athlete Passport Management Unit Report in ADAMS, which provides
an overview of the current status of the Athlete’s Passport including the latest targeting
recommendations and a summary of the Expert reviews.
C.1.3 This Annex describes a step-by-step approach to the review of an Athlete’s Passport:a)

The review begins with the application of the Adaptive Model.

b)

In case of an Atypical Passport Finding or when the Athlete Passport Management Unit
considers that a review is otherwise justified, an Expert conducts an initial review andreturns an evaluation based on the information available at that time.

c)

In case of a “Likely doping” initial review, the Passport is then subjected to a review by
three (3) Experts including the Expert who conducted the initial review.

d)

In case of a “Likely doping” consensus of the three (3) Experts, the process continues
with the creation of an Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package.

e)

An Adverse Passport Finding is reported by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to the
Passport Custodian if the Experts’ opinion is maintained after review of all information
available at that stage, including the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation
Package.

f)

The Athlete is notified of the Adverse Passport Finding and offered the opportunity toprovide explanations.

g)

If after review of the explanations provided by the Athlete, the Experts maintain theirunanimous conclusion that it is highly likely that the Athlete Used a Prohibited Substanceor a Prohibited Method, an anti-doping rule violation is asserted against the Athlete by
the Passport Custodian.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 47 of 54

C.2 Initial Review Phase
C.2.1 Review by the Adaptive Model
C.2.1.1.

In ADAMS, the Adaptive Model automatically processes data on the biologicalMarkers of the Athlete Biological Passport. These Markers include primaryMarkers that are defined as the most specific to doping and secondary Markers
that provide supporting evidence of doping in isolation or in combination with otherMarkers. The Adaptive Model predicts for an individual an expected range within
which a series of Marker values falls assuming a normal physiological condition.
Outliers correspond to those values outside of the 99%-range, from a lower limit
corresponding to the 0.5th percentile to an upper limit corresponding to the 99.5th
percentile (1:100 chance or less that this result is due to normal physiologicalvariation). A specificity of 99% is used to identify Atypical Passport Findings. In thecase of sequence deviations (sequence Atypical Passport Findings), the applied
specificity is 99.9% (1:1000 chance or less that this is due to normal physiologicalvariation).

C.2.1.2.

An Atypical Passport Finding is a result generated by the Adaptive Model in
ADAMS which identifies either:a) a primary Marker(s) value(s) as being outside the Athlete’s intra-individual
range, or,b) a longitudinal profile consisting of (up to) the last five (5) valid primary Marker
values as deviating from expected ranges (sequence Atypical Passport
Findings), assuming a normal physiological condition.
An Atypical Passport Finding requires further attention and review.

C.2.1.3.

Primary and Secondary Markers
C.2.1.3.1

For the Haematological Module, the Adaptive Model automaticallyprocesses in ADAMS two primary Markers, haemoglobin concentration(HGB) and stimulation index OFF-score (OFFS), and two secondaryMarkers, the reticulocyte percentage (RET%) and the Abnormal Blood
Profile Score (ABPS). HGB and RET% are Markers measured in blood
ABP Samples while OFFS and ABPS are calculated using values ofMarkers measured in blood ABP Samples.

C.2.1.3.2

The Steroidal Module comprises steroid Markers measured in urine
and/or blood (serum) Samples. For urine Samples, the Adaptive Model
automatically processes in ADAMS one primary Marker, theTestosterone to Epitestosterone ratio (T/E), and four (4) secondaryMarkers: the Androsterone to Testosterone ratio (A/T), theAndrosterone to Etiocholanolone ratio (A/Etio), the 5-Androstane3,17β-diol to 5β-Androstane-3,17β-diol ratio (5Adiol/5βAdiol) andthe 5-Androstane-3,17β-diol to Epitestosterone ratio (5Adiol/E).
For blood Samples, the Adaptive Model automatically processes in

ISRM – January 2023

Page 48 of 54

ADAMS one primary Marker, the Testosterone to Androstenedione
ratio (T/A4).
C.2.1.3.3

C.2.1.4.

For the Endocrine Module, the Adaptive Model automatically processes
in ADAMS one primary Marker, the GH-2000 score calculated using aformula including and two (2) secondary Markers, insulin-like growth
factor-I (IGF-I) and N-terminal pro-peptide of type III collagen (P-III-NP)
measured in blood (serum) Samples.

Departure from WADA Athlete Biological Passport requirements
C.2.1.4.1 If there is a departure from WADA Athlete Biological Passport
requirements for Sample collection, transport and analysis, thebiological Marker result obtained from this Sample affected by the nonconformity shall not be considered in the Adaptive Model calculations(for example, RET% can be affected but not HGB under certaintransportation conditions).
C.2.1.4.2 A Marker result which is not affected by the non-conformity can still beconsidered in the Adaptive Model calculations. In such case, theAthlete Passport Management Unit shall provide the specificexplanations supporting the inclusion of the result(s). In all cases, theSample shall remain recorded in the Athlete’s Passport. The Experts
may include all results in their review provided that their conclusions
may be validly supported when taking into account the effects of the
non-conformity.

C.2.2 The Initial Expert Review
C.2.2.1

A Passport generating an Atypical Passport Finding, or for which a review isotherwise justified, shall be sent by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to an
Expert for review in ADAMS. This should take place within seven (7) days following
the generation of the Atypical Passport Finding in ADAMS. The review of the
Passport shall be conducted based on the Passport and other basic information(e.g. Competition schedules), which may be available, such that the Expert isblinded to the identity of the Athlete. The Expert shall provide the individual reportin ADAMS and this should take place within seven (7) days after receipt of therequest.

C.2.2.2

If a Passport has been recently reviewed by an Expert and the Passport Custodian
is in the process of executing a specific multi-Sample Testing strategy on the
Athlete, the Athlete Passport Management Unit may delay the review of a Passport
generating an Atypical Passport Finding triggered by one of the Samples collectedin this context until completion of the planned series of tests. In such situations,
the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall clearly indicate the reason for
delaying the review of the Passport in the Athlete Passport Management Unit
Report.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 49 of 54

C.2.2.3

If the first and unique result in a Passport is flagged as an Atypical Passport Findingby the Adaptive Model, the Athlete Passport Management Unit may recommend thecollection of an additional Sample before initiating the initial Expert review.

C.2.2.4 Review in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding
C.2.2.4.1 A Passport may also be sent for Expert review in the absence of an
Atypical Passport Finding where the Passport includes other elements
otherwise justifying a review.
These elements may include, without limitation:a)Data not considered in the Adaptive Model;b)

Any abnormal levels and/or variations of Marker(s);c)

Signs of hemodilution in the haematological Passport;d)Marker levels below the corresponding Limit of Quantification of theassay; ore)Intelligence in relation to the Athlete concerned.

C.2.2.4.2 An Expert review initiated in the above-mentioned situations may resultin the same Consequences as an Expert review triggered by an Atypical
Passport Finding.
C.2.2.5 Expert Evaluation
C.2.2.5.1 When evaluating a Passport, an Expert weighs the likelihood that the
Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method against the likelihood that the Passport is the result of a normal
physiological or pathological condition in order to provide one of thefollowing opinions: “Normal”, “Suspicious”, “Likely doping” or “Likely
medical condition”. For a “Likely doping” opinion, the Expert shall cometo the conclusion that the likelihood that the Passport is the result of the
Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method outweighs thelikelihood that the Passport is the result of a normal physiological or
pathological condition.
[Comment to Article C.2.2.5.1: When evaluating competing propositions,the likelihood of each proposition is evaluated by the Expert based on theevidence available for that proposition. It is acknowledged that it is therelative likelihoods (i.e., likelihood ratio) of the competing propositions
that ultimately determine the Expert’s opinion. For example, where theExpert is of the view that a Passport is highly likely the result of the Use ofa Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, it is necessary for a “Likely
doping” evaluation that the Expert consider that it is unlikely that it may
be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition. Similarly,
ISRM – January 2023

Page 50 of 54

where the Expert is of the view that a Passport is likely the result of the
Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, it is necessary fora “Likely doping” evaluation that the Expert consider that it is highly
unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathologicalcondition.]
C.2.2.5.2 To reach a conclusion of “Likely doping” in the absence of an Atypical
Passport Finding, the Expert shall come to the opinion that it is highly
likely that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substanceor Prohibited Method and that it is highly unlikely that the Passport is theresult of a normal physiological or pathological condition.
C.2.3 Consequences of the Initial Review
Depending on the outcome of the initial review, the Athlete Passport Management Unit willtake the following action:
Expert Evaluation

Athlete Passport Management Unit Action“Normal”

Continue normal Testing plan.

“Suspicious”

Provide recommendations to the Passport
Custodian for Target Testing, Sample analysis
and/or requesting further information as required.

“Likely doping”

Send to a panel of three (3) Experts, including theinitial Expert, as per section C.2 of this Annex C.

If recommended by the Expert, inform the Athlete“Likely medical condition” as soon as possible via the Passport Custodian (orsend to other Experts).
[Comment to Article C.2.3: The Athlete Biological Passport is a tool to detect the possible
Use of Prohibited Substance(s) or Prohibited Method(s) and it is not intended as a healthcheck or for medical monitoring. It is important that the Passport Custodian educate theAthletes to ensure that they undergo regular health monitoring and not rely on the Athlete
Biological Passport for this purpose. Nevertheless, the Passport Custodian should inform theAthlete in case the Passport indicates a likely pathology as determined by the Experts.]
C.3 Review by Three (3) Experts
C.3.1 In the event that the opinion of the appointed Expert in the initial review, pending otherexplanation to be provided at a later stage, is that of “Likely doping”, the Passport shall thenbe sent by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to two (2) additional Experts for review.
This should take place within seven (7) days after the reporting of the initial review. These
additional reviews shall be conducted without knowledge of the initial review. These three
ISRM – January 2023

Page 51 of 54

(3) Experts now constitute the Expert Panel, composed of the Expert appointed in the initial
review and these two (2) other Experts.
C.3.2 The review by the three (3) Experts must follow the same procedure, where applicable, aspresented in section C.2.2 of this Annex. The three (3) Experts shall each provide theirindividual reports in ADAMS. This should take place within seven (7) days after receipt of therequest.
C.3.3 The Athlete Passport Management Unit is responsible for liaising with the Experts and foradvising the Passport Custodian of the subsequent Expert assessment. The Experts canrequest further information, as they deem relevant for their review, notably information related
to medical conditions, Competition schedule and/or Sample(s) analysis results. Such
requests are directed via the Athlete Passport Management Unit to the Passport Custodian.
C.3.4 A unanimous opinion among the three (3) Experts is necessary in order to proceed further
towards declaring an Adverse Passport Finding, which means that all three (3) Experts
render an opinion of “Likely doping”. The conclusion of the Experts must be reached with thethree (3) Experts assessing the Athlete’s Passport with the same data.
[Comment to Article C.3.4: The three (3) Expert opinions cannot be accumulated over time
based on different data.]
C.3.5 To reach a conclusion of “Likely doping” in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding, theExpert Panel shall come to the unanimous opinion that it is highly likely that the Passport is
the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method and that there is no reasonably
conceivable hypothesis under which the Passport is the result of a normal physiologicalcondition and highly unlikely that it is the result of pathological condition.
C.3.6 In the case when two (2) Experts evaluate the Passport as “Likely doping” and the third Expert
as “Suspicious”, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall promptly confer with the Expert
Panel before they finalize their opinion. The group can also seek advice from an appropriate
outside Expert, although this must be done while maintaining strict confidentiality of theAthlete’s Personal Information.
C.3.7 If no unanimity can be reached among the three (3) Experts, the Athlete Passport
Management Unit shall promptly report the Passport as “Suspicious”, update the Athlete
Passport Management Unit Report, and recommend that the Passport Custodian pursue
additional Testing and/or gather intelligence on the Athlete (refer to Information Gathering
and Intelligence Sharing Guidelines), as appropriate.
C.4 Conference Call, Compilation of the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package
and Joint Expert Report
C.4.1 If a unanimous opinion of “Likely doping” is rendered by all three (3) Experts, the Athlete
Passport Management Unit shall promptly declare a “Unanimous likely doping” evaluation in
the Athlete Passport Management Unit Report in ADAMS and should organize a conference
call with the Expert Panel to initiate the next steps for the case, including proceeding with thecompilation of the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package (see TechnicalDocument for Athlete Passport Management Units) and drafting of the joint Expert report. In
ISRM – January 2023

Page 52 of 54

preparation for this conference call, the Athlete Passport Management Unit should coordinate
with the Passport Custodian to compile any potentially relevant information to share with theExperts (e.g. suspicious analytical findings, relevant intelligence and relevant
pathophysiological information).
C.4.2 Once completed, the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package shall be sent by
the Athlete Passport Management Unit to the Expert Panel, who will review it and provide a
joint Expert report to be signed by all three (3) Experts. The conclusion within the joint Expert
report shall be reached without interference from the Passport Custodian. If necessary, theExpert Panel may request complementary information from the Athlete Passport
Management Unit.
C.4.3 At this stage, the identity of the Athlete is not mentioned but it is accepted that specificinformation provided may allow to identify the Athlete. This shall not affect the validity of theprocess.
C.4.4 If after review of the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package, the Expert Panelis no longer unanimous in their opinion of “Likely doping”, the Expert Panel shall update theirrespective opinions in ADAMS and the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall update theAthlete Passport Management Unit Report accordingly.
C.5 Issuing an Adverse Passport Finding
C.5.1 If the Expert Panel confirms their unanimous position of “Likely doping”, the Athlete Passport
Management Unit shall promptly declare an Adverse Passport Finding in ADAMS that
includes a written statement of the Adverse Passport Finding, the Athlete Biological PassportDocumentation Package and the joint Expert report
C.5.2 After reviewing the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package and joint Expert
report, the Passport Custodian shall:a)Notify the Athlete of the Adverse Passport Finding in accordance with Article 5.3.2;

b)Provide the Athlete the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package and thejoint Expert report;c)

Invite the Athlete to provide their own explanation, in a timely manner, of the data
provided to the Passport Custodian.

C.6 Review of Explanation from Athlete and Disciplinary Proceedings
C.6.1 Upon receipt of any explanation and supporting information from the Athlete, which should
be received within the specified deadline, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shallforward it to the Expert Panel for review with any additional information that the Expert Panelconsiders necessary to render its opinion in coordination with both the Passport Custodianand the Athlete Passport Management Unit, and update their recommendation in ADAMS as“Athlete’s explanation provided to Expert panel”. At this stage, the review is no longer

ISRM – January 2023

Page 53 of 54

anonymous. The Expert Panel shall promptly reassess or reassert the case and reach oneof the following conclusions:a)Unanimous opinion of “Likely doping” by the Experts based on the information in the
Passport and any explanation provided by the Athlete; orb)

Based on the available information, the Experts are unable to reach a unanimous
opinion of “Likely doping” set forth above.

[Comment to Article C.6.1: Such a reassessment shall also take place when the Athlete does
not provide any explanation.]
C.6.2 If the Expert Panel expresses the opinion set forth in section C.6.1(a), then the Athlete
Passport Management Unit shall promptly update their recommendation in ADAMS as “APF
confirmed” and inform the Passport Custodian, who shall charge the Athlete in accordancewith Article 7 above and continue with Results Management in accordance with thisInternational Standard.
C.6.3 If the Expert Panel expresses the opinion set forth in section C.6.1(b), the Expert Panel shallpromptly update their respective opinions in ADAMS and the Athlete Passport Management
Unit shall update the Athlete Passport Management Unit Report, accordingly, andrecommend the Passport Custodian to pursue additional Testing and/or gather intelligenceon the Athlete (refer to Information Gathering and Intelligence Sharing Guidelines), asappropriate. The Passport Custodian shall notify the Athlete and WADA of the outcome of
the review.
C.7 Passport Re-setting
C.7.1 In the event the Athlete has been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation basedon the Passport, the Athlete’s Passport shall be reset by the Passport Custodian at the startof the relevant period of Ineligibility and a new Biological Passport ID shall be assigned in
ADAMS. This maintains the Athlete’s anonymity for potential Athlete Passport Management
Unit and Expert Panel reviews conducted in the future.
C.7.2 When an Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation on any basis otherthan the Athlete Biological Passport, the Passport will remain in effect, except in those cases
where the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may have altered Passport Markers(e.g. for an AAF reported for anabolic androgenic steroids, which may affect the Markers of
the steroid profile, or for the Use of Agents Affecting Erythropoiesis or blood transfusions,which would alter the haematological Markers). The Passport Custodian shall consult with
their Athlete Passport Management Unit following an Adverse Analytical Finding to determine
whether a Passport reset is warranted. In such instances, the Athlete’s profile(s) would bereset from the time of the beginning of the sanction.

ISRM – January 2023

Page 54 of 54