DC 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

Doping Control Rules 2009-2013

[Comment to DC 2: The purpose of DC 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.]

Competitors 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:

DC 2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Competitor’s Sample.

DC 2.1.1 It is each Competitor’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Competitors 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 Competitor’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation under DC 2.1.

[Comment to DC 2.1.1: For purposes of anti-doping rule violations involving the presence of a Prohibited Substance (or its Metabolites or Markers), the Code adopts the rule of strict liability which was found in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (“OMADC”) and the vast majority of pre-Code anti-doping rules. Under the strict liability principle, a Competitor is responsible, and an anti-doping rule violation occurs, whenever a Prohibited Substance is found in a Competitor’s Sample. The violation occurs whether or not the Competitor intentionally or unintentionally Used a Prohibited Substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. If the positive Sample came from an In-Competition test, then the results of that Competition are automatically invalidated (DC 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results)). However, the Competitor then has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if the Competitor can demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault (DC 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances)) or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance (DC 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances)).

The strict liability rule for the finding of a Prohibited Substance in a Competitor's Sample, with a possibility that sanctions may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all "clean" Competitors and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a Prohibited Substance entered a Competitor’s system through No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence on the Competitor’s part. It is important to emphasize that while the determination of whether the anti-doping rule violation has occurred is based on strict liability, the imposition of a fixed period of Ineligibility is not automatic. The strict liability principle set forth in the Code has been consistently upheld in the decisions of CAS.]

DC 2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Competitor’s A Sample where the Competitor waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Competitor’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Competitor’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Competitor’s A Sample.

[Comment to DC 2.1.2: FINA or its Member Federation with results management responsibility may in its discretion choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Competitor does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]

DC 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 a Competitor’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.

DC 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.

DC 2.2 Use or Attempted Use by a Competitor of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

[Comment to DC 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 DC 3.2 (Proof of Doping), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under DC 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Competitor, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “presence” of a Prohibited Substance under DC 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 FINA or its Member Federation provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]

DC 2.2.1 It is each Competitor’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Competitor’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

DC 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 DC 2.2.2: Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance requires proof of intent on the Competitor’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 DC 2.1 and violations of DC 2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

A Competitor’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Competitor’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 DC 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers) regardless of when that substance might have been administered.)]

DC 2.3 Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorized in these anti-doping rules, or otherwise evading Sample collection.

[Comment to DC 2.3: Failure or refusal to submit to Sample collection after notification was prohibited in almost all pre-Code anti-doping rules. This Article expands the typical pre-Code rule to include "otherwise evading Sample collection" as prohibited conduct. Thus, for example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation if it were established that a Competitor was hiding from a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of "refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Competitor, while "evading" Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Competitor.]

DC 2.4 Violation of applicable requirements regarding Competitor availability for Out-of-Competition Testing, including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests which are declared based on rules which comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an eighteen-month period as determined by Anti-Doping Organizations with jurisdiction over the Competitor shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.

[Comment to DC 2.4: Separate whereabouts filing failures and missed tests declared under these Anti-Doping Rules or the rules of any other Anti-Doping Organization with authority to declare whereabouts filing failures and missed tests in accordance with the International Standard for Testing shall be combined in applying this Article. In appropriate circumstances, missed tests or filing failures may also constitute an anti-doping rule violation under DC 2.3 or DC 2.5.]

DC 2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control

[Comment to DC 2.5: This Article prohibits conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. For example, altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B Bottle at the time of B Sample analysis or providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization.]

DC 2.6 Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods

DC 2.6.1 Possession by a Competitor In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by a Competitor Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance which is prohibited Out-of-Competition, unless the Competitor establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted in accordance with DC 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.

DC 2.6.2 Possession by a Competitor Support Personnel In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by a Competitor Support Personnel Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance which is prohibited Out-of-Competition, in connection with a Competitor, Competition or training, unless the Competitor Support Personnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted to a Competitor in accordance with DC 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.

[Comment to DC 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.]

[Comment to DC 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would include, for example, a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances for dealing with acute and emergency situations.]

DC 2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

DC 2.8 Administration or Attempted administration to any Competitor In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or Prohibited Substance, or administration or Attempted administration to any Competitor Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation.