text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its 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 demonstr ated 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 Prohi bited 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 Athlet... |
2.1.4 As an exception to the gener al 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 Athlet e’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti -doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method . |
2 [Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti -doping rule violation is committed under this A rticle 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 profi li... |
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... |
ISA 2021 Anti -Doping Rules Page 8 of 67 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 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 collect... |
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... |
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... |
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 Prohibit ed 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 Samp le 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: Error! |
Main Document Only. |
For example, it would be an anti -doping rule violation of “evading Sample collect ion” if it were established that an Athlete was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Test ing. |
A violation of “failing to submit to Sample c ollection” 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... |
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... |
2.10.2 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 Per son’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 asso ciation could not have been reasonably avoided. |
[Comment to Article 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, f or 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 Proh... |
8 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.] |
ISA 2021 Anti -Doping Rules Page 10 of 67 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 Reporti... |
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 conduc... |
For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken aga inst 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 ISA shall have the bur den of establishing that an a... |
The standard of proof shall be whether ISA 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 proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti -doping rule violation to 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 accou... |
T his 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 t o serve as an agent or representative. |
Prohibited association need not involve any form of co mpensation. |
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 Suppor... |
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 r eporting Persons, their families or associates. |
Retaliation would not include an Anti -Doping Organizati on 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 w here the Person making the report knows the report to be false.] |
ISA 2021 Anti -Doping Rules Page 11 of 67 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 3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti -doping rule violat... |
Any Athlete or other Person seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presumption have been met or t o rebut th is 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, appe llate body or CAS, on its own initiative, may also infor m 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 acco... |
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 fr om the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then ISA shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analyti... |
12 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, ISA 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 co... |
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 Fi nding 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 t o 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 Prohibit ed Substance in the Sample may be below the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defense to an anti -doping rule violation based on the pr esence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.] |
14 [Comment to Article 3.2.2: Error! |
Main Document Only. |
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, the burden shifts to ISA to prove t o the c... |
ISA 2021 Anti -Doping Rules Page 12 of 67 3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti -doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or these Anti -Doping Rules shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti -doping rule violation, and shall not constitute a def ense... |
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 15 [Comment to Article 3.2.3: Departures from an International St... |
Similarly, ISA’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.] |
16 [Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): ISA would meet its burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analy tical Finding by showing that, for example, the B Sample opening and analysis were observed by an independent witness and no irregularities were observed.] |
ISA 2021 Anti -Doping Rules Page 13 of 67 pertained of those facts unless the Athlete or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice. |
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... |
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. |
Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions shall go into effect under these Anti -Doping Rules three (3) months after publication by WADA, without requiring any further action by ISA or its Nat ional Federations. |
All Athletes and other Persons shall be bound by the Prohibited List , and any revisions thereto, from the date they go into effect, without further formality. |
It is the responsibility of all Athletes and other Persons to familiarize themselves with the most up- to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto. |
ISA shall provide its National Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List. |
Each National Federation shall in turn ensure that its members , and t he constituents of its members , are also provided with the most recent version of the Prohibited List .17 4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on the Prohibited List 4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods ... |
The Prohibited List may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport. |
Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a particular substance or method.18 4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified Methods For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances sh... |
No Prohibited Method shall be a 17 [Comment t o Article 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at https://www.wada -ama.org . |
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises. |
However, for t he sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made.] |
18 [Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out -of-Competition Use of a substance which is only prohibited In- Competition is not an anti -doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or M arkers is reported for a Sample collected In- Competition.] |
ISA 2021 Anti -Doping Rules Page 14 of 67 Specified Method unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List.19 4.2.3 Substances of Abuse For purposes of applying Article 10, Substances of Abuse shall incl ude those Prohibited Substances which are specifically identified as Subs... |
4.3 WADA’s Determination of the Prohibited List WADA’s determ ination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List , the classification of substances into categories on the Prohibited List , the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In -C... |
4.4 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“ TUEs ”) 4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Subst ance or its Metabolites or Markers , and/or the Use or Attempted Use, Possession or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, shall not be considered an anti -doping rule viol ati... |
4.4.2 TUE Applications 4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International -Level Athletes shall apply to their National Anti -Doping Organization for a TUE. |
If the National Anti -Doping Organization denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively to the appe llate body described in Article 13.2.2. |
4.4.2.2 Athletes who are International -Level Athletes shall apply to ISA. |
4.4.3 TUE Recognition20 4.4.3.1 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by their National Anti -Doping Organization pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Code for the substance or method in question and provided that such TUE has 19 [Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances and Specified Methods identified ... |
Rather, they are simply substances and methods which are more likely to have been consumed or used by an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance. ] |
20 [Comment to Article 4.4.3: If ISA refuses to recognize a TUE granted by a National Anti -Doping Organization only because medical records or other information are missing that are needed to demonstrate satisfaction with the criteria in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, the matter should n... |
Instead, the file should be completed and re-submitted to ISA .] |
[Comment to Article 4.4.3: ISA may agree with a National Anti -Doping Organization that the National Anti -Doping Organization will consider TUE applications on behalf of ISA.] |
ISA 2021 Anti -Doping Rules Page 15 of 67 been reported in accordance with Article 5. |
5 of the I nternational Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , ISA will automatically recognize it for purposes of international -level Competition without the need to review the relevant clinical information . |
4.4.3. |
2 If ISA chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International -Level Athlete , ISA must recognize a TUE granted to that Athlete by their National Anti -Doping Organization unless the Athlete is required to apply for recognition of the TUE pursuant to Articles 5.8 and 7.0 of the International Standard for Therapeu... |
4.4.4 TUE Application Process 21 4.4.4.1 If the Athlete does not already have a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organization for the substance or method in question, the Athlete must apply directly to ISA . |
4.4.4.2 An application to ISA for grant or recognition of a TUE must be made as soon as possible, save where Articles 4.1 or 4.3 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions apply . |
The application shall be made in accordance with Article 6 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions as posted on ISA ’ website. |
4.4.4.3 ISA shall establish a Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (“TUEC” ) to consider applications for the grant or recognition of TUEs in accordance with Article 4.4.4. |
3(a)-(d) below : (a) The TUEC shall consist of a minimum of five (5) members with experience in the care and treatment of Athletes and sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.