text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
WADA : The World Anti -Doping Agency. |
Without Prejudice Agreement : For purposes of Articles 10.7.1.1 and 10.8.2, a written agreement between an Anti-Doping Organization and an Athlete or other Person that allows the Athlete or other Person to provide information to the Anti-Doping Organization in a defined time -limited setting with the understandin... |
Such an agreement shall not preclude the Anti-Doping Organization , Athlete or other Person from using any information or evidence gathered from any source other t han during the specific time -limited setting described in the agreement. |
Anti-doping Rules Anti-doping Rules *** Adopted on 9 December 2020 Come into force on 1 January 2021 WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 2 of 68 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. |
These Anti-Doping Rules are sport rules governing the conditions under which sport is played. |
Aimed at enforcing anti-doping rules in a global and harmonized manner, they are distinct in nature from criminal and civil laws. |
They are not intended to be subject to or limited by any national requirements and legal standards applicable to criminal or civil proceedings, although they are intended to be applied in a manner which respects the principles of proportionality and human rights. |
When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral tribunals and other adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of these Anti-Doping Rules, which implement the Code, and the fact that these rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the... |
As provided in the Code, WBSC shall be responsible for conducting all aspects of Doping Control. |
Any aspect of Doping Control or anti-doping Education may be delegated by WBSC to a Delegated Third Party, such as the International Testing Agency (ITA), however, WBSC shall require the Delegated Third Party to perform such aspects in compliance with the Code, International Standards, and these Anti-Doping Rules. |
WBSC may delegate its adjudication and Results Management responsibilities to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD). |
IF WBSC delegates its responsibilities to implement part or all of Doping Control to the ITA or to another Delegated Third Party, any reference to WBSC in these Rules should be intended as a reference to the ITA or to the other Delegated Third Party, where applicable and within the context of the aforementioned delegat... |
WBSC shall always remain fully responsible for ensuring that any delegated aspects are performed in compliance with the Code. |
Italicized terms in these Anti-Doping Rules are defined terms in Appendix 1. |
Unless otherwise specified, references to Articles are references to Articles of these Anti-Doping Rules. |
Fundamental Rationale for the Code and WBSC's Anti-Doping Rules Anti-doping programs are founded on the intrinsic value of sport. |
This intrinsic value is often referred to as "the spirit of sport": the ethical pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each Athlete’s natural talents. |
Anti-doping programs seek to protect the health of Athletes and to provide the opportunity for Athletes to pursue human excellence without the Use of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods. |
Anti-doping programs seek to maintain the integrity of sport in terms of respect for rules, other competitors, fair competition, a level playing field, and the value of clean sport to the world. |
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind. |
It is the essence of Olympism and is reflected in the values we find in and through sport, including: x Health x Ethics, fair play and honesty x Athletes’ rights as set forth in the Code WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 4 of 68 x Excellence in performance x Character and Education x Fun and joy x Teamwork x Dedi... |
Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport. |
Scope of these Anti-Doping Rules These Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to: (a) WBSC, including its board members, directors, officers and specified employees, and Delegated Third Parties and their employees, who are involved in any aspect of Doping Control; (b) each of its National Federations, including their board me... |
To be eligible for participation in International Events, an Athlete or Athlete Support Personnel or other Person must have personally signed the consent form as provided by WBSC. |
All forms from Minors must be counter-signed by their legal guardians; and (iv) Athletes who are not regular members of WBSC or of one of its National Federations but who want to be eligible to compete in a particular International Event. |
Each of the abovementioned Persons is deemed, as a condition of his or her participation or involvement in the sport, to have agreed to and be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, and to have submitted to the authority of WBSC to enforce these Anti-Doping Rules, including any Consequences for the breach thereof, and to th... |
For the avoidance of doubt, WBSC will publish the complete list of the Events which qualify Athletes as International Level Athlete on the WBSC website at the following link: https://www.wbsc.org/calendar. |
The Athletes participating in the aforementioned Events shall be considered International-Level Athletes starting two (2) months prior to the specific Event in question. |
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of these Anti-Doping Rules. |
ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti-doping rule violations. |
Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules have been violated. |
Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List. |
The following constitute anti-doping rule violations: 2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample 2.1.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. |
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its under the Code for Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. |
Rather, such Person would only be subject to discipline for a violation of Code Articles 2.5 (Tampering), 2.7 (Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration), 2.9 (Complicity), 2.10 (Prohibited Association) and 2.11 (Retaliation). |
Furthermore, such Person would be subject to the additional roles and responsibilities according to Code Article 21.3. |
Also, the obligation to require an employee to be bound by the Code is subject to applicable law. |
WBSC shall ensure that, as per Article 19 of these Anti-Doping Rules, any arrangements with their board members, directors, officers, and specified employees, as well as with the Delegated Third Parties and their employees – either employment, contractual or otherwise – have explicit provisions incorporated according t... |
WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 6 of 68 Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1. |
2 2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B S... |
2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List, International Standards or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances. |
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 4 2.2.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used. |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method. |
2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. |
It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance 2 [Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to an Athlete’s Fault. |
This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. |
An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. |
This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.] |
3 [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.] |
4 [Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. |
As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling,... |
For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.... |
WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 7 of 68 or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed.5 2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without ... |
2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any Part of Doping Control by an Athlete or Other Person 2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person 2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession... |
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or trai... |
7 5 [Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Athlete’s part. |
The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular anti-doping rule violation does not undermine the Strict Liability principle established for violations of Article 2.1 and violations of Article 2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. |
An Athlete’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such Substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Athlete’s Use takes place Out-of-Competition. |
(However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected In-Competition is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that Substance might have been administered.)] |
6 [Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that an Athlete was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. |
A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Athlete, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Athlete.] |
7 [Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a dia... |
[Comment to Article 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) an Athlete or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine auto-injector), or (b) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohib... |
WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 8 of 68 2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Other Person 2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration by an Athlete or Other Person to any Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Met... |
The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six (6) years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or 2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.... |
2.10.2 To establish a violation of Article 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Athlete or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status. |
The burden shall be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association with an Athlete Support Person described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity and/or that such association could not have been reasonably avoided. |
8 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.] |
WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 9 of 68 Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2, or 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information to WADA.9 2.11 Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to A... |
2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who, in good faith, has provided evidence or information that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organization, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conductin... |
For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response.10 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof WBSC shall have the burden of establishing that an anti... |
The standard of proof shall be whether WBSC has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. |
This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Where these Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of 9 [Comment to Article 2.10: Athletes and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Athlete Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an anti-doping rule violation or who have been c... |
This also prohibits association with any other Athlete who is acting as a coach or Athlete Support Person while serving a period of Ineligibility. |
Some examples of the types of association which are prohibited include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodily products for analysis; or allowing the Athlete Support Person to serve as an agent or representative. |
Prohibited association need not involve any form of compensation. |
While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti-Doping Organization to notify the Athlete or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if provided, would be important evidence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Support P... |
10 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.] |
[Comment to Article 2.11.2: Retaliation would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or mental well-being or economic interests of the reporting Persons, their families or associates. |
Retaliation would not include an Anti-Doping Organization asserting in good faith an anti-doping rule violation against the reporting Person. |
For purposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false.] |
WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 10 of 68 proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, except as provided in Articles 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.11 ... |
Any Athlete or other Person seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presumption have been met or to rebut this presumption of scientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. |
The initial hearing body, appellate body or CAS, on its own initiative, may also inform WADA of any such challenge. |
Within ten (10) days of WADA’s receipt of such notice and the case file related to such challenge, WADA shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear as amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding. |
In cases before CAS, at WADA’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge.13 3.2.2 WADA-accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved by WADA, are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accorda... |
The Athlete or other Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
If the Athlete or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then WBSC shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical F... |
12 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, WBSC may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the Comments to Article 2.2, or con... |
13 [Comment to Article 3.2.1: For certain Prohibited Substances, WADA may instruct WADA-accredited laboratories not to report Samples as an Adverse Analytical Finding if the estimated concentration of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers is below a Minimum Reporting Level. |
WADA’s decision in determining that Minimum Reporting Level or in determining which Prohibited Substances should be subject to Minimum Reporting Levels shall not be subject to challenge. |
Further, the laboratory’s estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate. |
In no event shall the possibility that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may be below the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.] |
14 [Comment to Article 3.2.2: The burden is on the Athlete or other Person to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
Thus, once the Athlete or other Person establishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Athlete or other Person’s burden on causation is the somewhat lower standard of proof – “could reasonably have caused.” If the Athlete or other Person satisfies these standards, WBSC 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 11 of 68 ... |
3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be the burden shifts to WBSC to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the de... |
15 [Comment to Article 3.2.3: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample collection or handling, Adverse Passport Finding, or Athlete notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the Protec... |
Similarly, WBSC’s violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 of the Code shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation.] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.