[NOTE: The introduction above is meant to assist National Anti-Doping Organizations to use the Model Rules while implementing the 2015 Code. It does not have to be reproduced in the National Anti-Doping Organization's rules.] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 PREFACE 5 5 6 6 ARTICLE 1 APPLICATION OF ANTI-DOPING RULES 7 ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONSDEFINITION OF DOPING &- ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS 910 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING 1415 ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST 1617 ARTICLE 5 TESTING 19 AND INVESTIGATIONS 22 ARTICLE 6 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES 2528 ARTICLE 7 RESULTS MANAGEMENT 2729 ARTICLE 8 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE 32RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING 36 ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS 3739 ARTICLE 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS 3839 ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS 5752 ARTICLE 12 SANCTIONS AND COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST NATIONAL FEDERATIONS 5853 ARTICLE 13 APPEALS 5854 ARTICLE 14 CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORTING AND RECOGNITION 65 61 ARTICLE 15 MUTUALAPPLICATION AND RECOGNITION 68 OF DECISIONS 65 ARTICLE 16 INCORPORATION OF [NADO] ANTI-DOPING RULES AND OBLIGATIONS OF NATIONAL FEDERATIONS 65 ARTICLE 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 6966 ARTICLE 1718 [NADO] COMPLIANCE REPORTS TO WADA 6966 ARTICLE 1819 EDUCATION 66 ARTICLE 20 AMENDMENT, AND INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY 69OF ANTI-DOPING RULES 67 ARTICLE 19 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND VALIDITY……………………………………… 21 INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE 68 OF
Analytical Finding. If the Athlete or other Person does so, the burden shifts to [NADO] to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.] 3.2.2 3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard for Laboratories or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or these Anti-Doping Rules which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such evidence or results. If the Athlete or other Person establishes that a departure from another International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy which could reasonably have caused thean anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, then [NADO] shall have the burden to establish that such a departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation. 3.2.3 3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Athlete or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Athlete or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice. 3.2.4 3.2.5 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the Athlete’s or other Person’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions either from the hearing panel or from the Anti-Doping Organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation[NADO]. [Comment to Article 3.2.4: Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances has been recognized in numerous CAS decisions.] ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST 4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List These Anti-Doping Rules incorporate the Prohibited List which is published and revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the Code. [NADO] will make the current Prohibited List available to each National Federation, and each National Federation shall ensure that the current Prohibited List is available to its members and constituents.