Question: Which statement best reflects WADC Art. 10.6.1.2?
Options:
Contaminated Source In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Source, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a...
For purposes of imposing sanctions under Article 10.9, except as provided in Articles 10.9.3.2 and 10.9.3.3, an anti -doping rule violation will only be considered a second violation if the Anti-Doping Organization can establish that the Athlete or other...
An anti-doping rule violation for which an Athlete or other Person has established No Fault or Negligence shall not be considered a violation for purposes of Article 10.9.
Where the Athlete cannot establish that the violation was not intentional, but can establish how the Prohibited Substance entered their system or the Prohibited Method was Used and that the context of the ingestion or Use was unrelated to sport performance...
Correct option number: 1
Explanation: WADC Art. 10.6.1.2: Contaminated Source In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Source, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a...
Source: WADC Art. 10.6.1.2