10. Sanctions On Individuals
10. Sanctions On Individuals
10. Sanctions On Individuals
10. Sanctions On Individuals
10. Sanctions On Individuals45
10.1 Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation Occurs
An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event, lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete’s individual results obtained in that Event with all Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Rule 10.1.1.
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.46
10.1.1 If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Athlete’s individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified unless the Athlete’s results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation.
10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of a Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods
The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Rules 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Rules 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7:
10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility, subject to Rule 10.2.4 shall be four years where:
10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.47
10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance or a Specified Method and the Commission can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional.
10.2.2 If Rule 10.2.1 does not apply, subject to Rule 10.2.4.1 , the period of Ineligibility shall be two years.
10.2.3 As used in Rule 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 manifestly disregarded that risk. 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 unrelated to sport performance.48
10.2.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in Rule 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 period of Ineligibility shall be three months Ineligibility.
In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Rule 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one month if the Athlete or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by the Commission. The period of Ineligibility established in this Rule 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Rule 10.6.49
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 performance, then the ingestion, Use or Possession shall not be considered intentional for purposes of Rule 10.2.1 and shall not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances under Rule 10.4.
10.3 Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations
The period of Ineligibility for anti-doping rule violations other than as provided in Rule 10.2 shall be as follows, unless Rule 10.6 or Rule 10.7 are applicable:
10.3.1 For violations of Rule 2.3 or Rule 2.5, the Ineligibility period shall be four years except,
(i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can establish that the commission of the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years;
(ii) in all other cases, if the Athlete or other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the period of Ineligibility, the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range from two years to four years depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault; or
(iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete, the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range between a maximum of two years and, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault.
10.3.2 For violations of Rule 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault. The flexibility between two years and one year of Ineligibility in this Rule 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 Rule 2.7 or Rule 2.8, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of four years up to lifetime Ineligibility depending on the seriousness of the violation. A Rule 2.7 or Rule 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person shall 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 such Athlete Support Personnel. In addition, significant violations of Rule 2.7 or Rule 2.8 which may also violate non-sporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.50
10.3.4 For violations of Rule 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of two years, up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation.
10.3.5 For violations of Rule 2.10, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year, depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.51
10.3.6 For violations of Rule 2.11, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of two years, up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation by the Athlete or other Person.52
10.4 Aggravating Circumstances which may Increase the Period of Ineligibility
If the Commission establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations under Rule 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), Rule 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration), Rule 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) or Rule 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting) that Aggravating Circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be increased by an additional period of Ineligibility of up to two years depending on the seriousness of the violation and the nature of the Aggravating Circumstances, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation.53
10.5 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence
If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.54
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 Rule 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6.
All reductions under Rule 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 reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.
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 period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.55
10.6.1.3 Protected Persons or Recreational Athletes
Where the anti-doping rule violation not involving a Substance of Abuse is committed by a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete, and the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two 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 Rule 10.6.156
If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Rule 10.6.1 is not applicable, that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then, subject to further reduction or elimination as provided in Rule 10.7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight years.
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 Establishing Code Violations57
10.7.1.1 Prior to a final appellate decision under Rule 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, the Commission may suspend a part of the Consequences (other than Disqualification and mandatory Public Disclosure) imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organisation, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body that results in: (i) the Anti-Doping Organisation discovering or bringing forward an anti-doping rule violation by another Person; or (ii) in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules committed by another Person and the information provided by the Person providing Substantial Assistance is made available to the Commission or other Anti-Doping Organisation with the Results Management responsibility; or (iii) which results in WADA initiating a proceeding against a Signatory, WADA-accredited laboratory or Athlete passport management unit (as defined in the International Standard for Laboratories) for non-compliance with the Code, International Standard or Technical Document; or (iv) with the approval by WADA, which results in a criminal or disciplinary body bringing forward a criminal offense or the breach of professional or sport rules arising out of a sport integrity violation other than doping. After an appellate decision under Rule 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, the Commission may only suspend part of the otherwise applicable Consequences with the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation.
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 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 Rule must be no less than eight years. For the purposes of this paragraph, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall not include any period of Ineligibility that could be added under Rule 10.9.3.2.
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to provide Substantial Assistance, the Commission shall allow the Athlete or other Person to provide the information to the Commission 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, the Commission shall reinstate the suspended Consequences. If the Commission decides to reinstate suspended Consequences or decides not to reinstate suspended Consequences that decision may be appealed by any Person entitled to appeal under Rule 13.
10.7.1.2 To further encourage Athletes and other Persons to provide Substantial Assistance to Anti-Doping Organisations, at the request of the Commission 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 at any stage of the Results Management process, including after an appellate decision under Rule 13, to what it considers to be an appropriate suspension of the otherwise-applicable period of Ineligibility and other Consequences. 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 Rule, or even no period of Ineligibility, no mandatory Public Disclosure and/or no return of prize money or payment of fines or costs. WADA’s approval shall be subject to reinstatement of Consequences, as otherwise provided in this Rule. Notwithstanding Rule 13, WADA’s decisions in the context of this Rule 10.7.1.2 may not be appealed.
10.7.1.3 If the Commission 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 Organisations with a right to appeal under Rule 13.2.3 as provided in Rule 14. In unique circumstances where WADA determines that it would be in the best interest of anti-doping, WADA may authorize the Commission 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 anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation other than Rule 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the anti-doping rule violation at the time of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.58
10.7.3 Application of Multiple Grounds for Reduction of a Sanction
Where an Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to reduction in sanction under more than one provision of Rule 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7, before applying any reduction or suspension under Rule 10.7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined in accordance with Rules 10.2, 10.3, 10.5 and 10.6. If the Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under Rule 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-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 the Commission of a potential anti-doping rule violation that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of four or more years (including any period of Ineligibility asserted under Rule 10.4), admits the violation and accepts the asserted period of Ineligibility no later than 20 days after receiving notice of an anti-doping rule violation charge, the Athlete or other Person may receive a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility asserted by the Commission. Where the Athlete or other Person receives the one-year reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility under this Rule 10.8.1, no further reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility shall be allowed under any other Rule.59
10.8.2 Case Resolution Agreement
Where the Athlete or other Person admits an anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by the Commission and agrees to Consequences acceptable to the Commission and WADA, at their sole discretion, then: (a) the Athlete or other Person may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on an assessment by the Commission and WADA of the application of Rule 10.1 through 10.7 to the asserted anti- doping rule violation, the seriousness of the violation, the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and how promptly the Athlete or other Person admitted the violation; and (b) the period of Ineligibility may start as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. In each case, however, where this Rule is applied, the Athlete or other Person shall serve at least one-half of the agreed- upon period of 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 the Commission 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 Rule 13.
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to enter into a case resolution agreement under this Rule, the Commission 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.60
10.9 Multiple Violations
10.9.1 Second or Third Anti-Doping Rule Violation
10.9.1.1 For an Athlete or other Person’s second anti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility shall be the greater of:
(a) A six-month period of Ineligibility; or
(b) A period of Ineligibility in the range between:
(i) the sum of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the first anti-doping rule violation plus the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to the second anti- doping rule violation treated as if it were a first violation, and
(ii) twice the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to the second anti-doping rule violation treated as if it were a first violation.
The period of Ineligibility within this range is to 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 fulfils the condition for elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility under Rule 10.5 or 10.6 or involves a violation of Rule 2.4. In these particular cases, the period of Ineligibility shall be from eight years to lifetime Ineligibility.
10.9.1.3 The period of Ineligibility established in Rule 10.9.1.1 and 10.9.1.2 may then be further reduced by the application of Rule 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 Rule 10.9. In addition, an anti-doping rule violation sanctioned under Rule 10.2.4.1 shall not be considered a violation for purposes of Rule 10.9.
10.9.3 Additional Rules for Certain Potential Multiple Violations
10.9.3.1 For purposes of imposing sanctions under Rule 10.9, except as provided in Rules 10.9.3.2 and 10.9.3.3, an anti-doping rule violation will only be considered a second violation if the Commission can establish that the Athlete or other Person committed the additional anti-doping rule violation after the Athlete or other Person received notice under Rule 7, or after the Commission made reasonable efforts to give notice, of the first anti-doping rule violation; if the Commission cannot establish this, the anti-doping rule 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 Rule 10.10.61
10.9.3.2 If the Commission establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed an additional anti-doping rule violation prior to notification, and that the additional violation occurred 12 months or more before or after the first-noticed violation, then the period of Ineligibility for the additional violation shall be calculated as if the additional violation were a stand-alone first violation and this period of Ineligibility is served consecutively, rather than concurrently, with the period of Ineligibility imposed for the earlier-noticed violation. Where this Rule 10.9.3.2 applies, the violations taken together shall constitute a single violation for purposes of Rule 10.9.1.
10.9.3.3 If the Commission establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed a violation of Rule 2.5 in connection with the Doping Control process for an underlying asserted anti-doping rule violation, the violation of Rule 2.5 shall be treated as a stand-alone first violation and the period of Ineligibility for such violation shall be served consecutively, rather than concurrently, with the period of Ineligibility, if any, imposed for the underlying anti-doping rule violation. Where this Rule 10.9.3.3 is applied, the violations taken together shall constitute a single violation for purposes of Rule 10.9.1.
10.9.3.4 If the Commission establishes that an Athlete or other 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 a Ten-Year Period
For purposes of Rule 10.9, each anti-doping rule violation must take place within the same ten year period in order to be considered multiple violations.
10.10 Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent to Sample Collection or Commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Rule 9, all other competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti- doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.62
10.11 Forfeited Prize Money
An Anti-Doping Organisation or other Signatory that has recovered prize money forfeited as a result of an anti-doping rule violation shall take reasonable measures to allocate and distribute this prize money to the Athletes who would have been entitled to it had the forfeiting Athlete not competed. An International Federation may provide in its rules whether or not the redistributed prize money shall be considered for purposes of its ranking of Athletes.63
10.12 Financial Consequences
Where the Commission brings proceedings before the Sports Tribunal the recovery of costs or imposition of financial sanctions shall be as determined by the Sports Tribunal.
10.13 Commencement of Ineligibility Period
Where an Athlete is already serving a period of Ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation, any new period of Ineligibility shall commence on the first day after the current period of Ineligibility has been served. Otherwise, except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived or there is no hearing, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed.
10.13.1 Delays Not Attributable to the Athlete or other Person
Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control, and the Athlete or other Person can establish that such delays are not attributable to the Athlete or other Person, the body imposing the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. All competitive results achieved during the period of Ineligibility, including retroactive Ineligibility, shall be Disqualified.64
10.13.2 Credit for Provisional Suspension or Period of Ineligibility Served
10.13.2.1 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed and respected by the Athlete or other Person, then the Athlete or other Person shall receive a credit for such period of Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed. If the Athlete or other Person does not respect a Provisional Suspension, then the Athlete or other Person shall receive no credit for any period of Provisional Suspension served. If a period of Ineligibility is served pursuant to a decision that is subsequently appealed, then the Athlete or other Person shall receive a credit for such period of Ineligibility served against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed on appeal.
10.13.2.2 If an Athlete or other Person voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from the Commission and thereafter respects the Provisional Suspension, the Athlete or other Person shall receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed. A copy of the Athlete’s or other Person’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension shall be provided promptly to each party entitled to receive notice of an asserted anti-doping rule violation under Rule 14.1.65
10.13.2.3 No credit against a period of Ineligibility shall be given for any time period before the effective date of the Provisional Suspension or voluntary Provisional Suspension regardless of whether the Athlete elected not to compete or was suspended by a team.
10.13.2.4 In Team Sports, where a period of Ineligibility is imposed upon a team, unless fairness requires otherwise, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period of team Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served.
10.14 Status during Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension
10.14.1 Prohibition against Participation during Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension
No Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible or is subject to a Provisional Suspension may, during a period of Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorised anti- doping Education or rehabilitation programs) authorised or organised by any Signatory or Signatory’s member organisation, or a club or other member organisation of a Signatory’s member organisation, or in Competitions authorised or organised by any professional league or any international- or national-level Event organisation or any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.
An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility longer than four years may, after completing four years of the period of Ineligibility, participate as an Athlete in local sport events not sanctioned or otherwise under the jurisdiction of a Code Signatory or member of a Code Signatory, but only so long as the local sport event is not at a level that could otherwise qualify such Athlete or other Person directly or indirectly to compete in (or accumulate points toward) a national championship or International Event, and does not involve the Athlete or other Person working in any capacity with Protected Persons.
An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall remain subject to Testing, any requirement by the Commission to provide whereabouts information and all the provisions of the Rules.66
10.14.2 Return to Training
As an exception to Rule 10.14.1, an Athlete may return to train with a team or to use the facilities of a club or other member organisation of the Commission or other Signatory’s member organisation during the shorter of: (1) the last two months of the Athlete’s period of Ineligibility, or (2) the last one-quarter of the period of Ineligibility imposed.67
10.14.3 Violation of the Prohibition of Participation During Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension
Where an Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible violates the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility described in Rule 10.14.1, the results of such participation shall be Disqualified and a new period of Ineligibility equal in length to the original period of Ineligibility shall be added to the end of the original period of Ineligibility. The new period of Ineligibility, including a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, may be adjusted based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case. The determination of whether an Athlete or other Person has violated the prohibition against participation, and whether an adjustment is appropriate, shall be referred by the Commission or the Anti-Doping Organisation whose Results Management led to the imposition of the initial period of Ineligibility to the Sports Tribunal under Rule 8 or the hearing body of the Anti-Doping Organisation whose Results Management led to the imposition of the initial period of Ineligibility. This decision may be appealed under Rule 13.
An Athlete or other Person who violates the prohibition against participation during a Provisional Suspension described in Rule 10.14.1 shall receive no credit for any period of Provisional Suspension served and the results of such participation shall be Disqualified.
Where an Athlete Support Person or other Person assists a Person in violating the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility or a Provisional Suspension, the Commission shall seek that the Sports Tribunal impose sanctions for a violation of Rule 2.9 for such assistance.
10.14.4 Withholding of Financial Support during Ineligibility
In addition, for any anti-doping rule violation not involving a reduced sanction as described in Rule 10.5 or Rule 10.6, some or all sport-related financial support or other sport-related benefits received by such Person will be withheld by the New Zealand Government, National Sporting Organisations, the New Zealand Olympic Committee and Paralympics New Zealand.
10.15 Automatic Publication of Sanction
A mandatory part of each sanction shall include automatic publication, as provided in Rule 14.3.
Footnotes
45 [Comment to Rule 10: Harmonisation of sanctions has been one of the most discussed and debated areas of anti-doping. Harmonisation means that the same rules and criteria are applied to assess the unique facts of each case. Arguments against requiring harmonisation of sanctions are based on differences between sports including, for example, the following: in some sports the Athletes are professionals making a sizable income from the sport and in others the Athletes are true amateurs; in those sports where an Athlete’s career is short, a standard period of Ineligibility has a much more significant effect on the Athlete than in sports where careers are traditionally much longer. A primary argument in favour of harmonisation is that it is simply not right that two Athletes from the same country who test positive for the same Prohibited Substance under similar circumstances should receive different sanctions only because they participate in different sports. In addition, too much flexibility in sanctioning has often been viewed as an unacceptable opportunity for some sporting organisations to be more lenient with dopers. The lack of harmonisation of sanctions has also frequently been the source of conflicts between International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organisations.]
46 [Comment to Rule 10.1: Whereas Rule 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Results) Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Athlete tested positive (e.g., the 100 metre backstroke), this Rule may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g., the FINA World Championships).]
47 [Comment to Rule 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 Rule 2.1 an Athlete will be successful in proving that the Athlete acted unintentionally without establishing the source of the Prohibited Substance.]
48 [Comment to Rule 10.2.3: This Rule provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Rule 10.2.]
49 [Comment to Rule 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 the sole discretion of the Anti-Doping Organisation. This Article is intended to give Anti-Doping Organisations 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.]
50 [Comment to Rule 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions which are more severe than the Athletes who test positive. Since the authority of sport organisations 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.]
51 [Comment to Rule 10.3.5: Where the “other Person” referenced in Rule 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that entity may be disciplined as provided in Rule 12.]
52 [Comment to Rule 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Rule 2.5 (Tampering) and Rule 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.]
53 [Comment to Rule 10.4: Violations under Rule 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), Rule 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration), Rule 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) and Rule 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting) are not included in the application of Rule 10.4 because the sanctions for these violations already build in sufficient discretion up to a lifetime ban to allow consideration of any aggravating circumstance.]
54 [Comment to Rule 10.5: This Rule and Rule 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, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabelled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Rule 2.1.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s Personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical Personnel and for advising medical Personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and (c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink). However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Rule 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.]
55 [Comment to Rule 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 Doping Control form.
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 Rule 10.5.]
56 [Comment to Rule 10.6.1.2: Rule 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation except those Rules where intent is an element of the anti-doping rule violation (e.g., Rule 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.11) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Rule 10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provided in a Rule based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.]
57 [Comment to Rule 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.]
58 [Comment to Rule 10.7.2: This Rule is intended to apply when an Athlete or other Person comes forward and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where no Anti-Doping Organisation is aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been committed. 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.]
59 [Comment to Rule 10.8.1: For example, if the Commission alleges that an Athlete has violated Rule 2.1 for Use of an anabolic steroid and asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four years, then the Athlete may unilaterally reduce the period of Ineligibility to three years by admitting the violation and accepting the three-year period of Ineligibility within the time specified in this Article, with no further reduction allowed. This resolves the case without any need for a hearing.]
60 [Comment to Rule 10.8.2: Any mitigating or aggravating factors set forth in this Rule 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. In some countries, the imposition of a period of Ineligibility is left entirely to a hearing body. In those countries, the Anti-Doping Organisation may not assert a specific period of Ineligibility for purposes of Rule 10.8.1 nor have the power to agree to a specific period of Ineligibility under Rule 10.8.2. In these circumstances, Rule 10.8.1 and 10.8.2 will not be applicable but may be considered by the hearing body.]
61 [Comment to Rule 10.9.3.1: The same rule applies where, after the imposition of a sanction, the Commission discovers facts involving an anti- doping rule violation that occurred prior to notification for a first anti-doping rule violation—e.g., the Commission shall impose a sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two violations had been adjudicated at the same time, including the application of Aggravating Circumstances.]
63 [Comment to Rule 10.10: Nothing in these Rules precludes clean Athletes or other Persons who have been damaged by the actions of a Person who has committed an anti-doping rule violation from pursuing any right which they would otherwise have to seek damages from such Person.]
63 [Comment to Rule 10.11: This Rule is not intended to impose an affirmative duty on the Anti-Doping Organisation or other Signatory to take any action to collect forfeited prize money. If the Anti-Doping Organisation elects not to take any action to collect forfeited prize money, it may assign its right to recover such money to the Athlete(s) who should have otherwise received the money. “Reasonable measures to allocate and distribute this prize money” could include using collected forfeited prize money as agreed upon by an International Federation and its Athletes.]
64 [Comment to Rule 10.13.1: In cases of anti-doping rule violations other than under Rule 2.1, the time required for an Anti-Doping Organisation to discover and develop facts sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation may be lengthy, particularly where the Athlete or other Person has taken affirmative action to avoid detection. In these circumstances, the flexibility provided in this Rule to start the sanction at an earlier date should not be used.]
65 [Comment to Rule 10.13.2.2: An Athlete’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension is not an admission by the Athlete and shall not be used in any way as to draw an adverse inference against the Athlete.]
66 [Comment to Rule 10.14.1: For example, subject to Rule 10.14.2 below, an Ineligible Athlete cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organised by their National Federation or a club which is a member of that National Federation or which is funded by a governmental agency. Further, an Ineligible Athlete may not compete in a non-Signatory professional league (e.g., the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, etc.), Events organised by a non-Signatory International Event organisation or a non-Signatory national-level event organisation without triggering the Consequences set forth in Rule 10.14.3. The term “activity” also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer, employee, or volunteer of the organisation described in this Rule. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be recognised by other sports (see Rule 15) Automatic Binding Effect of Decisions). An Athlete or other Person serving a period of Ineligibility is prohibited from coaching or serving as an Athlete Support Person in any other capacity at any time during the period of Ineligibility, and doing so could also result in a violation of Rule 2.10 by another Athlete. Any performance standard accomplished during a period of Ineligibility shall not be recognised by a Signatory or its National Federations for any purpose.]
67 [Comment to Rule 10.14.2: In many Team Sports and some individual sports (e.g., ski jumping and gymnastics), an Athlete cannot effectively train on his or her own so as to be ready to compete at the end of the Athlete’s period of Ineligibility. During the training period described in this Rule, an Ineligible Athlete may not compete or engage in any activity described in Rule 10.14.1 other than training.]