text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
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. |
]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. |
]8 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Out-of-Competition of any... |
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 , Compet... |
[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... |
]8 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 9rules had been applicable to such Person . |
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; or2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10... |
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. |
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 .92.11 Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to AuthoritiesWhere such conduct does not oth... |
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 pro -tect 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 purpos -es of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false. |
]10 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULESARTICLE 3PROOF OF DOPING3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof IWF shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. |
The standard of proof shall be whether IWF 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 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 probabil... |
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.133.2.2 WADA- accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved by WADA, are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accord... |
The Athlete or 11 [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by IWF is comparable to the standard which is ap -plied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. |
]12 [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, IWF 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 conc... |
]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 sub -ject 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. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 11other 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 IWF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical... |
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 IWF to prove to the com... |
]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 Standards for Education, Data Privacy or TUEs – may result in... |
Similarly, IWF’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): IWF would meet its burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding by showing that, for example, the B Sample opening and analysis were observed by an independent witness and no irregularities were observed. |
]12 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES(iv) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to Athlete notification which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on a whereabouts failure, in which case IWF shall have the burden to establish tha... |
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, t... |
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 IWF or its Member 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. |
IWF shall provide its Member Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List . |
Each Member Federation shall in turn ensure that its members, and the constituents of its members, are also provided with the most recent version of the Prohibited List .174.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on the Prohibited List 4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods The Pro... |
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises. |
However, for the sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 13In-Competition and Out-of-Competition ) because of their potential to enhance performance in future Competitions or their masking potential, and those substances and methods which are prohibited In-Competition only. |
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.184.2.2 Specified Substance s or Specified Methods For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances sh... |
No Prohibited Method shall be a Specified Method unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List .194.2.3 Substances of Abuse For purposes of applying Article 10, Substances of Abuse shall include those Prohibited Substances which are specifically identified as Substances of Abuse... |
4.3 WADA ’s Determination of the Prohibited List WADA ’s determination 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-Compet... |
4.4.2 TUE Applications4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International-Level Athletes shall apply to their National Anti-Doping Organization for a TUE. |
If the National Anti-Doping 18 [Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition is not an an -ti-doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample collected In-Competition. |
]19 [Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances and Methods identified in Article 4.2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping substances or methods. |
Rather, they are simply sub -stances 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. |
]14 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULESOrganization denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively to the national-level appeal body described in Article 13.2.2.4.4.2.2 Athletes who are International-Level Athletes shall apply to IWF.4.4.3 TUE Recognition204.4.3.1 Where the Athlete ... |
The application shall be made in accordance with Article 6 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions as posted on IWF’s website.4.4.4.3 IWF has established a Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (“TUEC”) to consider applications for the grant or recognition of TUEs in accordance with Article 4.4.4... |
20 [Comment to Article 4.4.3: If IWF refuses to recognize a TUE granted by a National Anti-Doping Organization only be -cause 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 not... |
Instead, the file should be completed and re-submitted to IWF.] |
[Comment to Article 4.4.3: IWF may agree with a National Anti-Doping Organization that the National Anti-Doping Organization will consider TUE applications on behalf of IWF. |
]21 [Comment to Article 4.4.4: The submission of falsified documents to a TUEC or IWF, offering or accepting a bribe to a Person to perform or fail to perform an act, procuring false testimony from any witness, or committing any other fraud -ulent act or any other similar intentional interference or Attempted interfere... |
An Athlete should not assume that their application for the grant or recognition of a TUE (or for renewal of a TUE) will be granted. |
Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method before an applica -tion has been granted is entirely at the Athlete’s own risk.] |
IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 15(b) Before serving as a member of the TUEC, each member must sign a conflict of interest and confidentiality declaration. |
The appointed members shall not be employees of IWF. |
(c) When an application to IWF for the grant or recognition of a TUE is made, three (3) members (which may include the Chair) shall be appointed to consider the application. |
(d) Before considering a TUE application, each member shall disclose any circumstances likely to affect their impartiality with respect to the Athlete making the application. |
If a member is unwilling or unable to assess the Athlete’s TUE application, for any reason, a replacement shall be reappointed from the pool of members appointed under point (a) above. |
The Chair cannot serve as a member of the TUEC if there are any circumstances which are likely to affect the impartiality of the TUE decision.4.4.4.4 The TUEC shall promptly evaluate and decide upon the application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions ... |
Where the application is made in a reasonable time prior to an Event, the TUEC must use its best endeavors to issue its decision before the start of the Event .4.4.4.5 The TUEC decision shall be the final decision of IWF and may be appealed in accordance with Article 4.4.7. |
The TUEC decision shall be notified in writing to the Athlete, and to WADA and other Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions . |
It shall also promptly be reported into ADAMS .4.4.4.6 If IWF (or the National Anti-Doping Organization , where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of IWF) denies the Athlete ’s application, it must notify the Athlete promptly, with reasons. |
If IWF grants the Athlete’ s application, it must notify not only the Athlete but also their National Anti-Doping Organization . |
If the National Anti-Doping Organization considers that the TUE granted by IWF does not meet the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , it has twenty-one (21) days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for review in accordance with Article 4.4.7. |
If the National Anti-Doping Organization refers the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by IWF remains valid for international-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for national-level Competition ) pending WADA’ s decision. |
If the National Anti-Doping Organization does not refer the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by IWF becomes valid for national-level Competition as well when the twenty-one (21) day review deadline expires.16 / IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES› IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES4.4.5 Retroactive TUE Applications If IW... |
4.4.6.2 In such event, the Athlete shall not be subject to any Consequences based on their Use or Possession or Administration of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question in accordance with the TUE prior to the effective date of expiry, withdrawal, or reversal of the TUE. |
The review pursuant to Article 5.1.1.1 of the International Standard for Results Management of an Adverse Analytical Finding , reported shortly after the TUE expiry, withdrawal or reversal, shall include consideration of whether such finding is consistent with Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method pr... |
In addition, WADA must review IWF’s decision to grant a TUE that is referred to WADA by the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization . |
WADA may review any other TUE decisions at any time, whether upon request by those affected or on its own initiative. |
If the TUE decision being reviewed meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions , WADA will not interfere with it. |
If the TUE decision does not meet those criteria, WADA will reverse it.22 4.4.7.2 Any TUE decision by IWF (or by a N ational Anti-Doping Organization where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of IWF) that is not reviewed by WADA , or that is reviewed by WADA but is not reversed upon review, may be a... |
]23 [Comment to Article 4.4.7.2: In such cases, the decision being appealed is the IWF’s TUE decision, not WADA’s decision not to review the TUE decision or (having reviewed it) not to reverse the TUE decision. |
However, the time to appeal the TUE decision does not begin to run until the date that WADA communicates its decision. |
In any event, whether the deci -sion has been reviewed by WADA or not, WADA shall be given notice of the appeal so that it may participate if it sees fit. |
]IWF 2021 ANTI-DOPING RULES / 174.4.7.3 A decision by WADA to reverse a TUE decision may be appealed by the Athlete , the National Anti-Doping Organization and/or IWF, exclusively to CAS.4.4.7.4 A failure to render a decision within a reasonable time on a properly submitted application for grant/recognition of a ... |
They shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and the eventual specific protocols of IWF supplementing that International Standard.5.1.2 Testing shall be undertaken to obtain analytical evidence as to whether the Athlete has violated Article 2... |
5.2 Authority to Test5.2.1 Subject to the limitations for Event Testing set out in Article 5.3, IWF shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes specified in the Introduction to these Anti-Doping Rules (Section “Scope of these Anti-Doping Rules”).5.2.2 IWF may require any At... |
5.2.4 If IWF delegates or contracts any part of Testing to a National Anti-Doping Organization directly or through a Member Federation , that National Anti-Doping Organization may collect additional Samples or direct the laboratory to 24 [Comment to Article 5.1: Where Testing is conducted for anti-doping purposes,... |
See, e.g., Comment to Article 23.2.2 of the Code. |
]25 [Comment to Article 5.2.2: IWF may obtain additional authority to conduct Testing by means of bilateral or multilateral agreements with other Signatories. |
Unless the Athlete has identified a sixty (60) minute Testing window between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or has otherwise consented to Testing during that period, IWF will not test an Athlete during that period unless it has a serious and specific suspicion that the Athlete may be engaged in doping. |
A challenge to whether IWF had sufficient suspicion for Testing during this time period shall not be a defense to an anti-doping rule violation based on such test or attempted test. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.