23_-_World_Anti_Doping_Agency_Code_(2015).pdf

WORLD

ANTI-DOPING

CODE

WORLD

ANTI-DOPING

CODE

World Anti-Doping Code The World Anti-Doping Code was first adopted in 2003, took effect in 2004, and was then amended effective 1 January 2009. The following document incorporates revisions to the World Anti-Doping Code that were approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency Foundation Board in Johannesburg, South Africa on 15 November 2013. The revised 2015 World Anti-Doping Code is effective as of 1 January 2015.

Published by:

World Anti-Doping Agency Stock Exchange Tower 800 Place Victoria (Suite 1700) PO Box 120 Montreal, Quebec Canada H4Z 1B7

URL: www.wada-ama.org

Tel: +1 514 904 9232 Fax: +1 514 904 8650 E-mail: code@wada-ama.org

Table of Contents

PURPOSE, SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION OF

THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING PROGRAM AND THE CODE

THE Code

THE WORLD ANTi-DOPiNg PROgRAM

InternatIonal StandardS

MODELS OF BEST PRACTiCE AND gUiDELiNES

FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE FOR

THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE

PART ONE DOPING CONTROL

INTRODUCTION

ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING

ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

2.1 PRESENCE OF A ProhIbIted SubStanCe

OR iTS MetabolIteS OR MarkerS iN AN athlete’S SaMPle

2.2 uSe OR atteMPted uSe By AN athlete OF A ProhIbIted SubStanCe OR A ProhIbIted Method

2.3 EVADiNg, REFUSiNg OR FAiLiNg TO SUBMiT

TO SaMPle COLLECTiON

2.4 WHEREABOUTS FAiLURES

2.5 taMPerIng OR atteMPted taMPerIng WiTH ANy PART OF doPIng Control

2.6 PoSSeSSIon OF A ProhIbIted SubStanCe

OR A ProhIbIted Method

2.7 traffICkIng OR atteMPted traffICkIng iN ANy ProhIbIted SubStanCe OR ProhIbIted Method

2.8 adMInIStratIon OR atteMPted adMInIStratIon 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

2.10 PROHiBiTED ASSOCiATiON

ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING

3.1 BURDENS AND STANDARDS OF PROOF

3.2 METHODS OF ESTABLiSHiNg FACTS AND

PRESUMPTiONS

ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST

4.1 PUBLiCATiON AND REViSiON OF

THE ProhIbIted lISt

4.2 ProhIbIted SubStanCeS AND ProhIbIted

MethodS iDENTiFiED ON THE ProhIbIted lISt

4.3 CRiTERiA FOR iNCLUDiNg SUBSTANCES

AND METHODS ON THE ProhIbIted lISt

4.4 THERAPEUTiC USE EXEMPTiONS (“tues”)

4.5 MONiTORiNg PROgRAM

ARTICLE 5 TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS

5.1 PURPOSE OF teStIng AND iNVESTigATiONS

5.2 SCOPE OF teStIng

5.3 event teStIng

5.4 TEST DiSTRiBUTiON PLANNiNg

5.5 teStIng REQUiREMENTS

5.6 athlete WHEREABOUTS iNFORMATiON

5.7 RETiRED athleteS RETURNiNg TO CoMPetItIon

5.8 iNVESTigATiONS AND iNTELLigENCE gATHERiNg

ARTICLE 6 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES

6.1 USE OF ACCREDiTED AND APPROVED

LABORATORiES

6.2 PURPOSE OF ANALySiS OF SaMPleS

6.3 RESEARCH ON SaMPleS

6.4 STANDARDS FOR SaMPle ANALySiS AND REPORTiNg ...44

6.5 FURTHER ANALySiS OF SaMPleS

ARTICLE 7 RESULTS MANAGEMENT

7.1 RESPONSiBiLiTy FOR CONDUCTiNg RESULTS

MANAgEMENT

7.2 REViEW REgARDiNg adverSe analytICal fIndIngS

7.3 NOTiFiCATiON AFTER REViEW REgARDiNg

adverSe analytICal fIndIngS

7.4 REViEW OF atyPICal fIndIngS

7.5 REViEW OF atyPICal PaSSPort fIndIngS AND

adverSe PaSSPort fIndIngS

7.6 REViEW OF WHEREABOUTS FAiLURES

7.7 REViEW OF OTHER ANTi-DOPiNg RULE ViOLATiONS

NOT COVERED By ARTiCLES 7.1–7.6

7.8 iDENTiFiCATiON OF PRiOR ANTi-DOPiNg RULE ViOLATiONS

7.9 PRiNCiPLES APPLiCABLE TO ProvISIonal

SuSPenSIonS

7.10 NOTiFiCATiON OF RESULTS MANAgEMENT DECiSiONS 56

7.11 RETiREMENT FROM SPORT

ARTICLE 8 RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND NOTICE

OF HEARING DECISION

8.1 FAiR HEARiNgS

8.2 event HEARiNgS

8.3 WAiVER OF HEARiNg

8.4 NOTiCE OF DECiSiONS

8.5 SiNgLE HEARiNg BEFORE CaS

ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION

OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS

ARTICLE 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS

10.1 dISqualIfICatIon OF RESULTS iN THE event DURiNg WHiCH AN ANTi-DOPiNg RULE ViOLATiON OCCURS

10.2 InelIgIbIlIty FOR PRESENCE, uSe OR atteMPted

uSe OR PoSSeSSIon OF A ProhIbIted SubStanCe OR ProhIbIted Method

10.3 InelIgIbIlIty FOR OTHER ANTi-DOPiNg

RULE ViOLATiONS

10.4 ELiMiNATiON OF THE PERiOD OF InelIgIbIlIty

WHERE THERE iS no fault or neglIgenCe

10.5 REDUCTiON OF THE PERiOD OF InelIgIbIlIty BASED

ON no SIgnIfICant fault or neglIgenCe

10.6 ELiMiNATiON, REDUCTiON, OR SUSPENSiON OF

PERiOD OF InelIgIbIlIty OR OTHER ConSequenCeS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN fault

10.7 MULTiPLE ViOLATiONS

10.8 dISqualIfICatIon OF RESULTS iN CoMPetItIonS SUBSEQUENT TO SaMPle COLLECTiON OR COMMiSSiON OF AN ANTi-DOPiNg RULE ViOLATiON

10.9 ALLOCATiON OF CaS COST AWARDS AND FORFEiTED

PRiZE MONEy

10.10 fInanCIal ConSequenCeS

10.11 COMMENCEMENT OF InelIgIbIlIty PERiOD

10.12 STATUS DURiNg InelIgIbIlIty

10.13 AUTOMATiC PUBLiCATiON OF SANCTiON

ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS

11.1 teStIng OF teaM SPortS

11.2 ConSequenCeS FOR teaM SPortS

11.3 event RULiNg BODy MAy ESTABLiSH STRiCTER ConSequenCeS FOR teaM SPortS

ARTICLE 12 SANCTIONS AGAINST SPORTING BODIES

ARTICLE 13 APPEALS

13.1 DECiSiONS SUBJECT TO APPEAL

13.2 APPEALS FROM DECiSiONS REgARDiNg

ANTi-DOPiNg RULE ViOLATiONS, ConSequenCeS, ProvISIonal SuSPenSIonS, RECOgNiTiON OF DECiSiONS AND JURiSDiCTiON

13.3 FAiLURE TO RENDER A TiMELy DECiSiON By AN

antI-doPIng organIzatIon

13.4 APPEALS RELATiNg TO tueS

13.5 NOTiFiCATiON OF APPEAL DECiSiONS

13.6 APPEALS FROM DECiSiONS UNDER PART THREE

AND PART FOUR OF THE Code

13.7 APPEALS FROM DECiSiONS SUSPENDiNg OR

REVOkiNg LABORATORy ACCREDiTATiON

ARTICLE 14 CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORTING

14.1 iNFORMATiON CONCERNiNg adverSe analytICal fIndIngS, atyPICal fIndIngS, AND OTHER ASSERTED ANTi-DOPiNg RULE ViOLATiONS

14.2 NOTiCE OF ANTi-DOPiNg RULE ViOLATiON

DECiSiONS AND REQUEST FOR FiLES

14.3 PublIC dISCloSure

14.4 STATiSTiCAL REPORTiNg

14.5 doPIng Control iNFORMATiON CLEARiNgHOUSE

14.6 DATA PRiVACy

ARTICLE 15 APPLICATION AND RECOGNITION OF DECISIONS

ARTICLE 16 DOPING CONTROL FOR ANIMALS COMPETING IN SPORT ...94

ARTICLE 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

PART TWO EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

ARTICLE 18 EDUCATION

18.1 BASiC PRiNCiPLE AND PRiMARy gOAL

18.2 PROgRAMS AND ACTiViTiES

18.3 PROFESSiONAL CODES OF CONDUCT

18.4 COORDiNATiON AND COOPERATiON

ARTICLE 19 RESEARCH

19.1 PURPOSE AND AiMS OF ANTi-DOPiNg RESEARCH

19.2 TyPES OF RESEARCH

19.3 COORDiNATiON OF RESEARCH AND SHARiNg OF

RESULTS

19.4 RESEARCH PRACTiCES

19.5 RESEARCH USiNg ProhIbIted SubStanCeS AND

ProhIbIted MethodS

19.6 MiSUSE OF RESULTS

PART THREE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

ARTICLE 20 ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

OF SIGNATORIES

20.1 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF

THE iNTERNATiONAL OLyMPiC COMMiTTEE

20.2 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF

THE iNTERNATiONAL PARALyMPiC COMMiTTEE

20.3 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF

iNTERNATiONAL FEDERATiONS

20.4 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF natIonal

olyMPIC CoMMItteeS AND NATiONAL PARALyMPiC COMMiTTEES

20.5 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF

natIonal antI-doPIng organIzatIonS

20.6 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF

Major event organIzatIonS

20.7 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF Wada

ARTICLE 21 ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

OF ATHLETES AND OTHER PERSONS

21.1 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF athleteS

21.2 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF

athlete SuPPort PerSonnel

21.3 ROLES AND RESPONSiBiLiTiES OF

regIonal antI-doPIng organIzatIonS

ARTICLE 22 INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENTS

PART FOUR ACCEPTANCE, COMPLIANCE,

MODIFICATION AND

INTERPRETATION

ARTICLE 23 ACCEPTANCE, COMPLIANCE AND MODIFICATION

23.1 ACCEPTANCE OF THE Code

23.2 iMPLEMENTATiON OF THE Code

23.3 iMPLEMENTATiON OF ANTi-DOPiNg PROgRAMS

23.4 COMPLiANCE WiTH THE Code

23.5 MONiTORiNg COMPLiANCE WiTH THE Code

AND uneSCo ConventIon

23.6 ADDiTiONAL ConSequenCeS OF A SIgnatory’S

NON-COMPLiANCE WiTH THE Code

23.7 MODiFiCATiON OF THE Code

23.8 WiTHDRAWAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE Code

ARTICLE 24 INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE

ARTICLE 25 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

25.1 gENERAL APPLiCATiON OF THE 2015 Code

25.2 NON-RETROACTiVE EXCEPT FOR ARTiCLES 10.7.5

AND 17 OR UNLESS PRiNCiPLE OF “LEX MiTiOR” APPLiES

25.3 APPLiCATiON TO DECiSiONS RENDERED PRiOR

TO THE 2015 Code

25.4 MULTiPLE ViOLATiONS WHERE THE FiRST

ViOLATiON OCCURS PRiOR TO 1 JANUARy 2015

25.5 ADDiTiONAL Code AMENDMENTS

APPENDiX 1 DEFINITIONS

DEFINITIONS

APPENDiX 2 EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION

OF ARTICLE 10

EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 10

World Anti-Doping Code • 201510

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 11

[Comment: The Olympic Charter and the International Convention against Doping in Sport 2005 adopted in Paris on 19 October 2005 (“UNESCO Convention”), both recognize the prevention of and the fight against doping in sport as a critical part of the mission of the International Olympic Committee and UNESCO, and also recognize the fundamental role of the Code.]

PURPOSE, SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION

OF THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING PROGRAM

AND THE CODE

The purposes of the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Program which supports it are:

• To protect the athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for athletes worldwide, and

• To ensure harmonized, coordinated and effective anti-doping programs at the international and national level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping.

The Code

The Code is the fundamental and universal document upon which the World Anti-Doping Program in sport is based.

The purpose of the Code is to advance the anti-doping effort through universal harmonization of core anti-doping elements.

it is intended to be specific enough to achieve complete harmonization on issues where uniformity is required, yet general enough in other areas to permit flexibility on how agreed-upon anti-doping principles are implemented. The Code has been drafted giving consideration to the principles of proportionality and human rights.

World Anti-Doping Code • 201512

[Comment: The International Standards contain much of the technical detail necessary for implementing the Code. International Standards will, in consultation with the Signatories, governments and other relevant stakeholders, be developed by experts and set forth in separate documents. It is important that the WADA Executive Committee be able to make timely changes to the International Standards without requiring any amendment of the Code.]

The World Anti-Doping Program

The World Anti-Doping Program encompasses all of the elements needed in order to ensure optimal harmonization and best practice in international and national anti-doping programs. The main elements are:

Level 1: The Code

Level 2: International Standards

Level 3: Models of Best Practice and guidelines

International Standards

International Standards for different technical and operational areas within the anti-doping program have been and will be developed in consultation with the Signatories and governments and approved by Wada. The purpose of the International Standards is harmonization among anti-doping organizations responsible for specific technical and operational parts of anti-doping programs. Adherence to the International Standards is mandatory for compliance with the Code. The International Standards may be revised from time to time by the Wada Executive Committee after reasonable consultation with the Signatories, governments and other relevant stakeholders.

International Standards and all revisions will be published on the Wada website and shall become effective on the date specified in the International Standard or revision.

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 13

[Comment: These model documents may provide alternatives from which stakeholders may select. Some stakeholders may choose to adopt the model rules and other models of best practices verbatim. Others may decide to adopt the models with modifications.

Still other stakeholders may choose to develop their own rules consistent with the general principles and specific requirements set forth in the Code.

Model documents or guidelines for specific parts of anti-doping work have been developed and may continue to be developed based on generally recognized stakeholder needs and expectations.]

Models of Best Practice and Guidelines

Models of best practice and guidelines based on the Code and International Standards have been and will be developed to provide solutions in different areas of anti-doping. The models and guidelines will be recommended by Wada and made available to Signatories and other relevant stakeholders, but will not be mandatory. in addition to providing models of anti-doping documentation, Wada will also make some training assistance available to the Signatories.

World Anti-Doping Code • 201514

FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE FOR THE

WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE

Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as “the spirit of sport.” it is the essence of Olympism, the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents. it is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:

• Ethics, fair play and honesty

• Health

• Excellence in performance

• Character and education

• Fun and joy

• Teamwork

• Dedication and commitment

• Respect for rules and laws

• Respect for self and other Participants

• Courage

• Community and solidarity

Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport.

To fight doping by promoting the spirit of sport, the Code requires each anti-doping organization to develop and implement education and prevention programs for athletes, including youth, and athlete Support Personnel.

PART ONE

DOPING CONTROL

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015

1 PA

R

T Doping Control

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Part One of the Code sets forth specific anti-doping rules and principles that are to be followed by organizations responsible for adopting, implementing or enforcing anti-doping rules within their authority, e.g., the international Olympic Committee, international Paralympic Committee, international Federations, national olympic Committees and Paralympic Committees, Major event organizations, and national anti-doping organizations. All such organizations are collectively referred to as anti-doping organizations.

All provisions of the Code are mandatory in substance and must be followed as applicable by each anti-doping organization and athlete or other Person. The Code does not, however, replace or eliminate the need for comprehensive anti-doping rules to be adopted by each anti-doping organization. While some provisions of the Code must be incorporated without substantive change by each anti-doping organization in its own anti-doping rules, other provisions of the Code establish mandatory guiding principles that allow flexibility in the formulation of rules by each anti-doping organization or establish requirements that must be followed by each anti-doping organization but need not be repeated in its own anti-doping rules.

Anti-doping rules, like competition rules, are sport rules governing the conditions under which sport is played.

athletes or other Persons accept these rules as a condition of participation and shall be bound by these rules. Each Signatory shall establish rules and procedures to ensure that all athletes or other Persons under the authority of the Signatory and its member organizations are informed of and agree to be bound by anti-doping rules in force of the relevant anti-doping organizations.

Each Signatory shall establish rules and procedures to ensure that all athletes or other Persons under the authority of the Signatory and its member organizations consent to the dissemination of their private data as required or authorized by the Code, and are bound by and compliant with Code anti-doping rules, and that the appropriate Consequences are imposed on those athletes or other Persons who are not

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 17

[Comment: Those Articles of the Code which must be incorporated into each Anti-Doping Organization’s rules without substantive change are set forth in Article 23.2.2. For example, it is critical for purposes of harmonization that all Signatories base their decisions on the same list of anti-doping rule violations, the same burdens of proof and impose the same Consequences for the same anti-doping rule violations. These rules must be the same whether a hearing takes place before an International Federation, at the national level or before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Code provisions not listed in Article

23.2.2 are still mandatory in substance even though an Anti-Doping Organization is not required to incorporate them verbatim. Those provisions generally fall into two categories. First, some provisions direct Anti-Doping Organizations to take certain actions but there is no need to restate the provision in the Anti-Doping Organization’s own anti-doping rules. For example, each Anti-Doping Organization must plan and conduct Testing as required by Article 5, but these directives to the Anti-Doping Organization need not be repeated in the Anti-Doping Organization’s own rules. Second, some provisions are mandatory in substance but give each Anti-Doping Organization some flexibility in the implementation of the principles stated in the provision. As an example, it is not necessary for effective harmonization to force all Signatories to use one single results management and hearing process. At present, there are many different, yet equally effective processes for results management and hearings within different International Federations and different national bodies. The Code does not require absolute uniformity in results management and hearing procedures; it does, however, require that the diverse approaches of the Signatories satisfy principles stated in the Code.] in conformity with those rules. These sport-specific rules and procedures, aimed at enforcing anti-doping rules in a global and harmonized way, are distinct in nature from criminal and civil proceedings. They are not intended to be subject to or limited by any national requirements and legal standards applicable to such proceedings, although they are intended to be applied in a manner which respects the principles of proportionality and human rights. When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral hearing panels and other adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport.

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 1 Definition of Doping ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations

ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING

Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.10 of the Code.

ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

The purpose of Article 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 have 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 each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. 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 Article 2.1.

[Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article 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.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 19

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 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 analyzed; or, where the athlete’s B Sample is analyzed 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 B Sample is split into two bottles and the analysis of the second bottle confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first bottle.

2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a

quantitative threshold is specifically identified in the Prohibited list, the presence of any 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 Article 2.1, the Prohibited list or International Standards may establish special criteria for the evaluation of Prohibited Substances that can also be produced endogenously.

[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.]

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations

[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 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 Article 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 Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]

2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a

Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

2.2.1 it is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body 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.

[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.)]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 21

2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to

Sample Collection

Evading Sample collection, or without compelling justification, refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules.

2.4 Whereabouts Failures

Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the international Standard for Testing and investigations, 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

Conduct which subverts the doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. tampering shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting to interfere with a doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an anti-doping organization or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness.

[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.]

[Comment to Article 2.5: For example, this Article would prohibit altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B bottle at the time of B Sample analysis, or altering a Sample by the addition of a foreign substance.

Offensive conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control which does not otherwise constitute Tampering shall be addressed in the disciplinary rules of sport organizations.]

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations

2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a

Prohibited Method

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 Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.

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 Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.

2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any

Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

[Comment to Article 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would include, for example, a team doctor carrying

Prohibited Substances for dealing with acute and emergency situations.]

[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 diabetic child.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 23

2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration 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

Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.12.1 by another Person.

2.10 Prohibited Association

Association by an athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an anti-doping organization in a professional or sport-related capacity with any athlete Support Person who:

2.10.1 If subject to the authority of an anti-doping

organization, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or

2.10.2 If not subject to the authority of an anti-doping

organization, 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

2.10.3 is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2.

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations ARTICLE 3 Proof of Doping in order for this provision to apply, it is necessary that the athlete or other Person has previously been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the athlete or other Person, or by Wada, of the athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status and the potential Consequence of prohibited association and that the athlete or other Person can reasonably avoid the association. The anti-doping organization shall also use reasonable efforts to advise the athlete Support Person who is the subject of the notice to the athlete or other Person that the athlete Support Person may, within 15 days, come forward to the anti-doping organization to explain that the criteria described in Articles 2.10.1 and

2.10.2 do not apply to him or her. (Notwithstanding Article 17, this Article applies even when the athlete Support Person’s disqualifying conduct occurred prior to the effective date provided in Article 25.)

The burden shall be on the athlete or other Person to establish that any association with athlete Support Personnel described in Article

2.10.1 or 2.10.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity.

anti-doping organizations that are aware of athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1, 2.10.2, or 2.10.3 shall submit that information to Wada.

[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 account of an anti-doping rule violation or who have been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined in relation to doping. 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.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 25

ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

The anti-doping organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the anti-doping organization 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 the Code places 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, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions

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:

3.2.1 Analytical methods or decision limits approved

by Wada after consultation within the relevant scientific community and which have been

[Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti- Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.]

[Comment to Article 3.2: For example, an Anti-Doping Organization 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 conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Athlete’s blood or urine Samples, such as data from the Athlete Biological Passport.]

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 3 Proof of Doping the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. Any athlete or other Person seeking 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. CaS, on its own initiative, may also inform Wada of any such challenge. At Wada’s request, the CaS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge. Within 10 days of Wada’s receipt of such notice, and Wada’s receipt of the CaS file, Wada shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding.

3.2.2 Wada-accredited laboratories, and other

laboratories approved by Wada, are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the international Standard for Laboratories. 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 from the international Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding, then the anti-doping organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding.

[Comment to Article 3.2.2: 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. If the Athlete or other Person does so, the burden shifts to the Anti-Doping Organization to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 27

3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard

or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or anti-doping organization rules which did not cause an adverse analytical finding or other anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such evidence or results. if the athlete or other Person establishes a departure from another International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an adverse analytical finding or other anti-doping rule violation, then the anti-doping organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation.

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 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, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions from the hearing panel or the anti-doping organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation.

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited List

ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST

4.1 Publication and Revision of the Prohibited List

Wada shall, as often as necessary and no less often than annually, publish the Prohibited list as an International Standard. The proposed content of the Prohibited list and all revisions shall be provided in writing promptly to all Signatories and governments for comment and consultation. Each annual version of the Prohibited list and all revisions shall be distributed promptly by Wada to each Signatory, Wada-accredited or approved laboratory, and government, and shall be published on Wada’s website, and each Signatory shall take appropriate steps to distribute the Prohibited list to its members and constituents. The rules of each anti-doping organization shall specify that, unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited list or a revision, the Prohibited list and revisions shall go into effect under the anti-doping organization’s rules three months after publication of the Prohibited list by Wada without requiring any further action by the anti-doping organization.

4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods

Identified on the Prohibited List

4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods

The Prohibited list shall identify those Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods which are prohibited as doping at all times (both In-Competition and out-of-Competition) because of their potential to enhance performance in future Competitions or their masking potential, [Comment to Article 4.1: 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. WADA will always have the most current Prohibited List published on its website. The Prohibited List is an integral part of the International Convention against Doping in Sport.

WADA will inform the Director-General of UNESCO of any change to the Prohibited List.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 29 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.

4.2.2 Specified Substances

For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except substances in the classes of anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited list.

The category of Specified Substances shall not include Prohibited Methods.

4.2.3 New Classes of Prohibited Substances

in the event Wada expands the Prohibited list by adding a new class of Prohibited Substances in accordance with Article 4.1, Wada’s Executive Committee shall determine whether any or all Prohibited Substances within the new class of Prohibited Substances shall be considered Specified Substances under Article 4.2.2.

[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 Markers is reported for a Sample collected In-Competition.]

[Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances identified in Article 4.2.2 should not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping substances. Rather, they are simply substances which are more likely to have been consumed by an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance.]

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited List

4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods

on the Prohibited List

Wada shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited list:

4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for

inclusion on the Prohibited list if Wada, in its sole discretion, determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;

4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete;

4.3.1.3 Wada’s determination that the use

of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.

4.3.2 A substance or method shall also be included

on the Prohibited list if Wada determines there is medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that

[Comment to Article 4.3.1.1: This Article anticipates that there may be substances that, when used alone, are not prohibited but which will be prohibited if used in combination with certain other substances. A substance which is added to the Prohibited List because it has the potential to enhance performance only in combination with another substance shall be so noted and shall be prohibited only if there is evidence relating to both substances in combination.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 31 the substance or method has the potential to mask the use of other Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods.

4.3.3 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, and the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only, is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.

4.4 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“TUEs”)

4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance 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 violation if it is consistent with the provisions of a tue granted in accordance with the international Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

4.4.2 An athlete who is not an International-level

athlete should apply to his or her national anti-doping organization for a tue. if the national anti-doping organization denies the application, the athlete may appeal exclusively to the national-level appeal body described in Articles

13.2.2 and 13.2.3.

[Comment to Article 4.3.2: As part of the process each year, all Signatories, governments and other interested

Persons are invited to provide comments to WADA on the content of the Prohibited List.]

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited List

4.4.3 An athlete who is an International-level athlete

should apply to his or her international Federation.

4.4.3.1 Where the athlete already has a

tue granted by his or her national anti-doping organization for the substance or method in question, if that tue meets the criteria set out in the international Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, then the international Federation must recognize it. If the international Federation considers that the tue does not meet those criteria and so refuses to recognize it, it must notify the athlete and his or her national anti-doping organization promptly, with reasons. The athlete or the national anti-doping organization shall have 21 days from such notification to refer the matter to Wada for review. if the matter is referred to Wada for review, the tue granted by the national anti-doping organization remains valid for national-level Competition and out-of-Competition testing (but is not valid for international-level Competition) pending Wada’s decision. if the matter is not referred to Wada for review, the tue becomes invalid for any purpose when the 21-day review deadline expires.

4.4.3.2 if the athlete does not already have a tue granted by his or her national

[Comment to Article 4.4.3: If the International Federation 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 not be referred to WADA. Instead, the file should be completed and re-submitted to the International Federation.

If an International Federation chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete, it must recognize a TUE granted to that Athlete by his or her National Anti-Doping Organization.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 33 anti-doping organization for the substance or method in question, the athlete must apply directly to his or her international Federation for a tue as soon as the need arises. if the international Federation (or the national anti-doping organization, where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of the international Federation) denies the athlete’s application, it must notify the athlete promptly, with reasons. if the international Federation grants the athlete’s application, it must notify not only the athlete but also his or her national anti-doping organization, and if the national anti-doping organization considers that the tue does not meet the criteria set out in the international Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, it has 21 days from such notification to refer the matter to Wada for review. if the national anti-doping organization refers the matter to Wada for review, the tue granted by the international Federation 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 the international Federation becomes valid for national-level Competition as well when the 21-day review deadline expires.

4.4.4 A Major event organization may require athletes

to apply to it for a tue if they wish to use a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method in connection with the event. in that case:

R

T Doping Control

ARTICLE 4 The Prohibited List

4.4.4.1 The Major event organization must

ensure a process is available for an athlete to apply for a tue if he or she does not already have one. if the tue is granted, it is effective for its event only.

4.4.4.2 Where the athlete already has a tue

granted by his or her national anti-doping organization or international Federation, if that tue meets the criteria set out in the international Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, the Major event organization must recognize it. If the Major event organization decides the tue does not meet those criteria and so refuses to recognize it, it must notify the athlete promptly, explaining its reasons.

4.4.4.3 A decision by a Major event organization

not to recognize or not to grant a tue may be appealed by the athlete exclusively to an independent body established or appointed by the Major event organization for that purpose. if the athlete does not appeal (or the appeal is unsuccessful), he or she may not use the substance or method in question in connection with the event, but any tue granted by his or her national anti-doping organization or international Federation for that substance or method remains valid outside of that event.

[Comment to Article 4.4.4.3: For example, the CAS Ad Hoc Division or a similar body may act as the independent appeal body for particular Events, or WADA may agree to perform that function. If neither CAS nor WADA are performing that function, WADA retains the right (but not the obligation) to review the TUE decisions made in connection with the Event at any time, in accordance with Article 4.4.6.]

World Anti-Doping Code • 2015 35

4.4.5 if an anti-doping organization chooses to collect a Sample from a Person who is not an International-level or national-level athlete, and that Person is using a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons, the anti-doping organization may permit him or her to apply for a retroactive tue.

4.4.6 Wada must review an international Federation’s

decision not to recognize a tue granted by the national anti-doping organization that is referred to it by the athlete or the athlete’s national anti-doping organization. in addition, Wada must review an international Federation’s decision to grant a tue that is referred to it 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.

4.4.7 Any tue decision by an international Federation

(or by a national anti-doping organization where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of an…