The Telegraph
Since 1st March, 1999
Email This Page

Athletes, including minors, and athlete support personnel are bound by Article 1 by virtue of their membership, or accreditation, or participation in sport or sport organizations.

The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:

The presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen.

It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance found to be present in their bodily specimens...It is not necessary that intent, fault or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation.

Excepting those substances for which a quantitative reporting threshold is specifically identified in the prohibited list, the detected presence of any quantity of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.

When a detected prohibited substance can also be endogenously produced, the athlete shall, subject to any quantitative reporting threshold or other requirement set forth in the prohibited list... have the burden of establishing that the presence of the substance in his or her specimen was the result of a physiological or pathological condition.

...The success or failure of the 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.

Failing or refusing to submit to sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwise evading sample collection.

Violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing including missed tests and failure to provide required whereabouts information.

Tampering, or attempting to tamper, with any part of the process of sample collection or sample analysis.

Possession by an athlete at any time or place of a substance that is prohibited in out-of-competition testing unless the possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted in [the code].

Possession of such substance by athlete support personnel in connection with an athlete, competition or training, unless that person can establish that the possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted or other acceptable justification for such possession.

Trafficking in any prohibited substance.

Administration or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any athlete, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any attempted violation.

The anti-doping organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. The standard of proof to be applied to establish whether the anti-doping organization has met this burden is greater than a mere balance of probabilities but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of establishing exceptional circumstances or other mitigating facts shall be on the person alleged to have committed the anti-doping rule violation to establish to the degree of proof specifically set forth in the applicable article.

...Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. The following rules of proof shall be applicable in doping cases:

The World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the standards established by WADA and other prevailing and acceptable standards of scientific practice. The approved laboratory shall have no onus in the first instance to show that it conducted the procedures other than in accordance with its customary practices. The athlete may rebut this presumption by showing by convincing evidence that a departure from the established standards or other irregularity occurred in the laboratory sample analysis or custodial procedures.

Email This Page