text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 30 of 68 applicable, a justification for why the greatest potential Consequences were not imposed. |
8.3.4 IRF shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3, and shall promptly report it into ADAMS. |
IRF shall Publicly Disclose that decision in accordance with Article 14.3.2. |
8.4 Single Hearing Before CAS Anti-doping rule violations asserted against International-Level Athletes, National-Level Athletes or other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person, IRF (where it has Results Management responsibility in accordance with Article 7) and WADA, be heard in a single hearin... |
37 [Comment to Article 8.4: In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international or national level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial. |
Where all of the parties identified in this Article are satisfied that their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need for the Athlete or Anti-Doping Organizations to incur the extra expense of two (2) hearings. |
An Anti-Doping Organization may participate in the CAS hearing as an observer. |
Nothing set out in Article 8.4 precludes the Athlete or other Person and IRF (where it has Results Management responsibility) to waive their right to appeal by agreement. |
Such waiver, however, only binds the parties to such agreement and not any other entity with a right of appeal under the Code.] |
38 [Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual players will be Disqualified. |
However, Disqualification of the team will be as provided in Article 11. |
In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams, Disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the International Federation.] |
38 [Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual players will be Disqualified. |
However, Disqualification of the team will be as provided in Article 11. |
In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams, Disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the International Federation.] |
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 31 of 68 Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might include, for example, the seriousness of the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Athlete tested negative in the other Competitions.39 10.1.2 If the Athlete establish... |
10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7: 10.2.1 The ... |
10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, subject to Article 10.2.4.1, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years. |
10.2.3 As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifest... |
An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably presumed to be not “intentional” if the substance is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition. |
An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a context unre... |
40 [Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional without showing how the Prohibited Substance entered one’s system, it is highly unlikely that in a doping case under Article 2.1 an Athlete will be suc... |
41 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.] |
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 32 of 68 10.2.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in Article 10.2, where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Substance of Abuse: 10.2.4.1 If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the per... |
In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the Athlete or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by IRF. |
The period of Ineligibility established in this Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Article 10.6.42 10.2.4.2 If the ingestion, Use or Possession occurred In-Competition, and the Athlete can establish that the context of the ingestion, Use or Possession was unrelated to sport per... |
10.3 Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations The period of Ineligibility for anti-doping rule violations other than as provided in Article 10.2 shall be as follows, unless Article 10.6 or 10.7 are applicable: 10.3.1 For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four (4) years... |
10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault. |
The flexibility between two (2) years and one (1) year of Ineligibility in this Article is not available to Athletes where a pattern of last-minute whereabouts changes or other conduct raises a serious suspicion that the Athlete was trying to avoid being available for Testing. |
10.3.3 For violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation. |
An Article 2.7 or Article 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person shall 42 [Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the treatment program is approved and whether the Athlete or other Person has satisfactorily completed the program shall be made in... |
This Article is intended to give IRF the leeway to apply their own judgment to identify and approve legitimate and reputable, as opposed to “sham”, treatment programs. |
It is anticipated, however, that the characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widely and change over time such that it would not be practical for WADA to develop mandatory criteria for acceptable treatment programs.] |
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 33 of 68 be considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Athlete Support Personnel for violations other than for Specified Substances, shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Athlete Support Personnel. |
In addition, significant violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non-sporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.43 10.3.4 For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of two (2) years, u... |
10.3.5 For violations of Article 2.10, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.44 10.3.6 For violations of Article 2.11, the period of Ineligibility shal... |
Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited to Ineligibility for accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.] |
44 [Comment to Article 10.3.5: Where the “other Person” referenced in Article 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that entity may be disciplined as provided in Article 12.] |
45 [Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) shall be sanctioned based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction.] |
46 [Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) and 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) are not included in the... |
47 [Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. |
They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 34 of 68 10.6 Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence 10.6.1 Reduction of Sanctions in Particular Circumstances for Violations of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6. |
All reductions under Article 10.6.1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative. |
10.6.1.1 Specified Substances or Specified Methods Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse) or Specified Method, and the Athlete or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a rep... |
10.6.1.2 Contaminated Products In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse) came from a Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no per... |
Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b)... |
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.] |
48 [Comment to Article 10.6.1.2: In order to receive the benefit of this Article, the Athlete or other Person must establish not only that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, but must also separately establish No Significant Fault or Negligence. |
It should be further noted that Athletes are on notice that they take nutritional supplements at their own risk. |
The sanction reduction based on No Significant Fault or Negligence has rarely been applied in Contaminated Product cases unless the Athlete has exercised a high level of caution before taking the Contaminated Product. |
In assessing whether the Athlete can establish the source of the Prohibited Substance, it would, for example, be significant for purposes of establishing whether the Athlete actually Used the Contaminated Product, whether the Athlete had declared the product which was subsequently determined to be contaminated on the D... |
This Article should not be extended beyond products that have gone through some process of manufacturing. |
Where an Adverse Analytical Finding results from environment contamination of a “non-product” such as tap water or lake water in circumstances where no reasonable person would expect any risk of an anti-doping rule violation, typically there would be No Fault or Negligence under Article 10.5.] |
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 35 of 68 then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility, depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault. |
10.6.2 Application of No Significant Fault or Negligence beyond the Application of Article 10.6.1 If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Article 10.6.1 is not applicable that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then, subject to further reduction or elimination as provide... |
If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years.49 10.7 Elimination, Reduction, or Suspension of Period of Ineligibility or Other Consequences for Reasons Other than Fault 10.7.1 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Esta... |
After an appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, IRF may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable Consequences with the approval of WADA. |
The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or ... |
50 [Comment to Article 10.7.1: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti-doping rule violations to light is important to clean sport.] |
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 36 of 68 other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport, non-compliance with the Code and/or sport integrity violations. |
No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. |
If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this Article must be no less than eight (8) years. |
For purposes of this paragraph, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall not include any period of Ineligibility that could be added under Article 10.9.3.2 of these Anti-Doping Rules. |
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to provide Substantial Assistance, IRF shall allow the Athlete or other Person to provide the information to it subject to a Without Prejudice Agreement. |
If the Athlete or other Person fails to continue to cooperate and to provide the complete and credible Substantial Assistance upon which a suspension of Consequences was based, IRF shall reinstate the original Consequences. |
If IRF decides to reinstate suspended Consequences or decides not to reinstate suspended Consequences, that decision may be appealed by any Person entitled to appeal under Article 13. |
10.7.1.2 To further encourage Athletes and other Persons to provide Substantial Assistance to Anti-Doping Organizations, at the request of IRF or at the request of the Athlete or other Person who has, or has been asserted to have, committed an anti-doping rule violation, or other violation of the Code, WADA may agree ... |
In exceptional circumstances, WADA may agree to suspensions of the period of Ineligibility and other Consequences for Substantial Assistance greater than those otherwise provided in this Article, or even no period of Ineligibility, no mandatory Public Disclosure and/or no return of prize money or payment of fines or co... |
WADA’s approval shall be subject to reinstatement of Consequences, as otherwise provided in this Article. |
Notwithstanding Article 13, WADA’s decisions in the context of this Article 10.7.1.2 may not be appealed. |
10.7.1.3 If IRF suspends any part of an otherwise applicable sanction because of Substantial Assistance, then notice providing justification for the decision shall be provided to the other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3 as provided in Article 14. |
In unique circumstances where WADA determines that it would be in the best interest of anti-doping, WADA may authorize IRF to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements limiting or delaying the disclosure of the Substantial Assistance agreement or the nature of Substantial Assistance being provided. |
10.7.2 Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample collection which could establish an IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 37 of 68 anti-doping... |
If the Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.7, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-fourth of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility. |
10.8 Results Management Agreements 10.8.1 One (1) Year Reduction for Certain Anti-Doping Rule Violations Based on Early Admission and Acceptance of Sanction Where an Athlete or other Person, after being notified by IRF of a potential anti-doping rule violation that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of f... |
Where the Athlete or other Person receives the one (1) year reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility under this Article 10.8.1, no further reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility shall be allowed under any other Article.52 10.8.2 Case Resolution Agreement Where the Athlete or other Person admits ... |
In each case, however, where this Article is applied, the Athlete or other Person shall serve at least one-half of the agreed-upon period of 51 [Comment to Article 10.7.2: This Article is intended to apply when an Athlete or other Person comes forward and admits to an an... |
It is not intended to apply to circumstances where the admission occurs after the Athlete or other Person believes he or she is about to be caught. |
The amount by which Ineligibility is reduced should be based on the likelihood that the Athlete or other Person would have been caught had he or she not come forward voluntarily.] |
52 [Comment to Article 10.8.1: For example, if IRF alleges that an Athlete has violated Article 2.1 for Use of an anabolic steroid and asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four (4) years, then the Athlete may unilaterally reduce the period of Ineligibility to three (3) years by admitting the violation and ... |
This resolves the case without any need for a hearing.] |
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 38 of 68 Ineligibility going forward from the earlier of the date the Athlete or other Person accepted the imposition of a sanction or a Provisional Suspension which was subsequently respected by the Athlete or other Person. |
The decision by WADA and IRF to enter or not enter into a case resolution agreement, and the amount of the reduction to, and the starting date of, the period of Ineligibility are not matters for determination or review by a hearing body and are not subject to appeal under Article 13. |
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to enter into a case resolution agreement under this Article, IRF shall allow the Athlete or other Person to discuss an admission of the anti-doping rule violation with it subject to a Without Prejudice Agreement.53 10.9 Multiple Violations 10.9.1 Second or Th... |
The period of Ineligibility within this range shall be determined based on the entirety of the circumstances and the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault with respect to the second violation. |
10.9.1.2 A third anti-doping rule violation will always result in a lifetime period of Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfills the condition for elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.5 or 10.6, or involves a violation of Article 2.4. |
In these particular cases, the period of Ineligibility shall be from eight (8) years to lifetime Ineligibility. |
10.9.1.3 The period of Ineligibility established in Articles 10.9.1.1 and 10.9.1.2 may then be further reduced by the application of Article 10.7. |
10.9.2 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 this Article 10.9. |
In addition, an anti-doping rule violation sanctioned under Article 10.2.4.1 shall not be considered a violation for purposes of Article 10.9. |
53 [Comment to Article 10.8: Any mitigating or aggravating factors set forth in this Article 10 shall be considered in arriving at the Consequences set forth in the case resolution agreement, and shall not be applicable beyond the terms of that agreement.] |
IRF 2021 Anti-Doping Rules Page 39 of 68 10.9.3 Additional Rules for Certain Potential Multiple Violations 10.9.3.1 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 IRF can esta... |
If IRF cannot establish this, the violations shall be considered together as one single first violation, and the sanction imposed shall be based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction, including the application of Aggravating Circumstances. |
Results in all Competitions dating back to the earlier anti-doping rule violation will be Disqualified as provided in Article 10.10.54 10.9.3.2 If IRF establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed an additional anti-doping rule violation prior to notification, and that the additional violation occurred twelve... |
Where this Article 10.9.3.2 applies, the violations taken together shall constitute a single violation for purposes of Article 10.9.1. |
10.9.3.3 If IRF establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed a violation of Article 2.5 in connection with the Doping Control process for an underlying asserted anti-doping rule violation, the violation of Article 2.5 shall be treated as a stand-alone first violation and the period of Ineligibility for such v... |
Where this Article 10.9.3.3 is applied, the violations taken together shall constitute a single violation for purposes of Article 10.9.1. |
10.9.3.4 If IRF establishes that an Athlete or Person has committed a second or third anti-doping rule violation during a period of Ineligibility, the periods of Ineligibility for the multiple violations shall run consecutively, rather than concurrently. |
10.9.4 Multiple Anti-Doping Rule Violations during Ten (10) Year Period For purposes of Article 10.9, each anti-doping rule violation must take place within the same ten (10) year period in order to be considered multiple violations. |
54 [Comment to Article 10.9.3.1: The same rule applies where, after the imposition of a sanction, IRF discovers facts involving an anti-doping rule violation that occurred prior to notification for a first anti-doping rule violation – e.g., IRF shall impose a sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.