2. Anti-Doping Rule Violations
2. Anti-Doping Rule Violations
2. Anti-Doping Rule Violations
2. Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Rules 2.1 to 2.11 of the Rules.
The purpose of Rule 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti-doping rule violations. Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules has been violated.
Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List.
The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:
2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
2.1.1 It is the Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. 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 demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 2.1. 2
2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited 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 analysed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analysed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample or where the Athlete’s A or B Sample is split into two parts and the analysis of the confirmation part of the split sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the part of the split Sample or the Athlete waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample.3
2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the Prohibited List or a Technical Document, the presence of any reported quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.
2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Rule 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 Method4
2.2.1 It is the Athlete’s 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 Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.
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 collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorised Person.6
2.4 Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete
Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Results Management, within a twelve-month period by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool.
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, or Possession by an Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of- Competition unless the Athlete establishes that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) granted in accordance with Rule 4.4 or other acceptable justification.7
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 or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Rule 4.4 or other acceptable justification.8
2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Other Person.
2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration by an Athlete or Other Person to any Athlete In- Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is prohibited Out-of-Competition.
2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other Person
Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity or Attempted complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted anti-doping rule violation, or violation of Rule 10.14.1 by another Person.9
2.10 Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person
2.10.1 Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti- Doping Organisation in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support Person who:
2.10.1.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or
2.10.1.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation and where Ineligibility has not been addressed in a Results Management process pursuant to the Code, has been convicted or found in a criminal, disciplinary, or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which would have constituted a violation of anti- doping rules if Code-compliant rules had been applicable to such Person. The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six 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 Rule 2.10.1.1 or Rule 2.10.1.2.
2.10.2 To establish a violation of Rule 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organisation 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 Rule 2.10.1.1 or Rule 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 Organisations that are aware of the Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Rule 2.10.1.1, Rule 2.10.1.2 or Rule 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information to WADA.10
2.11 Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities.
Where such conduct does not otherwise constitute a violation of Rule 2.5:
2.11.1 Any act which threatens or seeks to intimidate another Person with the intent of discouraging the Person from the good-faith reporting of information that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organisation, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation.
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 Organisation, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation.11
For the purposes of Rule 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response.
Footnotes
2 [Comment to Rule 2.1.1: An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is committed under this Rule 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 Rule 10. This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.]
3 [Comment to Rule 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analysed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]
4 [Comment to Rule 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 Rule 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 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 profiling, including data collected as part of the Athlete Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Rule 2.1. 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 Organisation provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]
5 [Comment to Rule 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 Rule 2.1 and violations of Rule 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 Rule 2.1 regardless of when that substance might have been administered.)]
6 [Comment to Rule 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.]
7 [Comment to Rules 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 diabetic child.]
8 [Comment to Rule 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 Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE.]
9 [Comment to Rule 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.]
10 [Comment to Rule 2.10: Athletes and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Athlete Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an anti-doping rule violation or who have been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined in relation to doping. 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 Rule 2.10 does not require the Anti-Doping Organisation 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 Person.]
11 [Comment to Rule 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.
12 [Comment to Rule 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 Organisation asserting in good faith an anti-doping rule violation against the reporting Person. For purposes of Rule 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false.]