DC 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS

Doping Control Rules 2009-2013

DC 10.1 Disqualification of Results in Competition During which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation Occurs

An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with a Competition may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Competition, lead to Disqualification of all of the Competitor's individual results obtained in that Competition with all Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in DC 10.1.1.

[Comment to DC 10.1: Whereas DC 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results) Disqualifies the result in a single Event in which the Competitor tested positive (e.g., the 100 meter backstroke), this Article may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Competition (e.g., the FINA World Championships).

Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in a Competition might include, for example, the severity of the Competitor’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Competitor tested negative in the other Events.]

DC 10.1.1 If the Competitor establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Competitor's individual results in the other Events shall not be Disqualified unless the Competitor's results in Events other than the Event in which the anti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Competitor's anti-doping rule violation.

DC 10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods

The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of DC 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), DC 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) or DC 2.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods) shall be as follows, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in DC 10.4 and 10.5, or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in DC 10.6, are met:

First violation: Two (2) years' Ineligibility.

[Comment to DC 10.2: Harmonization of sanctions has been one of the most discussed and debated areas of anti-doping. Harmonization means that the same rules and criteria are applied to assess the unique facts of each case. Arguments against requiring harmonization of sanctions are based on differences between sports including, for example, the following: in some sports the Competitors are professionals making a sizable income from the sport and in others the Competitors are true amateurs; in those sports where a Competitor's career is short (e.g., artistic gymnastics) a two year Disqualification has a much more significant effect on the Competitor than in sports where careers are traditionally much longer (e.g., equestrian and shooting); in Individual Sports, the Competitor is better able to maintain competitive skills through solitary practice during Disqualification than in other sports where practice as part of a team is more important. A primary argument in favor of harmonization is that it is simply not right that two Competitors 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, flexibility in sanctioning has often been viewed as an unacceptable opportunity for some sporting organizations to be more lenient with dopers. The lack of harmonization of sanctions has also frequently been the source of jurisdictional conflicts between International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations.]

DC 10.3 Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations
The period of Ineligibility for anti-doping rule violations other than as provided in DC 10.2 shall be as follows:

DC 10.3.1 For violations of DC 2.3 (Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection) or DC 2.5 (Tampering with Doping Control), the Ineligibility period shall be two (2) years unless the conditions provided in DC 10.5, or the conditions provided in DC 10.6, are met.

DC 10.3.2 For violations of DC 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) or DC 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method), the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility unless the conditions provided in DC 10.5 are met. An anti-doping rule violation involving a Minor shall be considered a particularly serious violation, and, if committed by Competitor Support Personnel for violations other than Specified Substances referenced in DC 4.2.1, shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Competitor Support Personnel. In addition, significant violations of DC 2.7 or 2.8 which also may violate non-sporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.

[Comment to DC 10.3.2: Those who are involved in doping Competitors or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions which are more severe than the Competitors who test positive. Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited to Ineligibility for credentials, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Competitor Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.]

DC 10.3.3 For violations of DC 2.4 (Whereabouts Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests), the period of Ineligibility shall be at a minimum one (1) year and at a maximum two (2) years based on the Competitor’s degree of fault.

[Comment to DC 10.3.3: The sanction under DC 10.3.3 shall be two years where all three filing failures or missed tests are inexcusable. Otherwise, the sanction shall be assessed in the range of two years to one year, based on the circumstances of the case.]

DC 10.4 Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances

Where a Competitor or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his or her body or came into his or her Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Competitor’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in DC 10.2 shall be replaced with the following:

First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility from future Competitions, and at a maximum, two years’ of Ineligibility.

To justify any elimination or reduction, the Competitor or other Person must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his or her word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance enhancing substance. The Competitor’s or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility.

[Comment to DC 10.4: Specified Substances are not necessarily less serious agents for purposes of sports doping than other Prohibited Substances (for example, a stimulant that is listed as a Specified Substance could be very effective to a Competitor in competition); for that reason, a Competitor who does not meet the criteria under this Article would receive a two-year period of Ineligibility and could receive up to a four-year period of Ineligibility under Article 10.6. However, there is a greater likelihood that Specified Substances, as opposed to other Prohibited Substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non-doping explanation.

This Article applies only in those cases where the hearing panel is comfortably satisfied by the objective circumstances of the case that the Competitor in taking or Possessing a Prohibited Substance did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance. Examples of the type of objective circumstances which in combination might lead a hearing panel to be comfortably satisfied of no performance-enhancing intent would include: the fact that the nature of the Specified Substance or the timing of its ingestion would not have been beneficial to the Competitor; the Competitor’s open Use or disclosure of his or her Use of the Specified Substance; and a contemporaneous medical records file substantiating the non sport-related prescription for the Specified Substance. Generally, the greater the potential performance-enhancing benefit, the higher the burden on the Competitor to prove lack of an intent to enhance sport performance.

While the absence of intent to enhance sport performance must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, the Competitor may establish how the Specified Substance entered the body by a balance of probability.

In assessing the Competitor’s or other Person’s degree of fault, the circumstances considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Competitor’s or other Person’s departure from the expected standard of behavior. Thus, for example, the fact that a Competitor would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility or the fact that the Competitor only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under this Article. It is anticipated that the period of Ineligibility will be eliminated entirely in only the most exceptional cases.]

DC 10.5 Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances

DC 10.5.1 No Fault or Negligence.

If a Competitor establishes in an individual Case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Competitor's Sample in violation of DC 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance), the Competitor must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this Article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under DC 10.7.

DC 10.5.2 No Significant Fault or Negligence.

If a Competitor or other Person establishes in an individual Case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced, 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 (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Competitor's Sample in violation of DC 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), the Competitor must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced.

[Comment to DC 10.5.1 and 10.5.2: The Code provides for the possible reduction or elimination of the period of Ineligibility in the unique circumstance where the Competitor can establish that he or she had No Fault or Negligence, or No Significant Fault or Negligence, in connection with the violation. This approach is consistent with basic principles of human rights and provides a balance between those Anti-Doping Organizations that argue for a much narrower exception, or none at all, and those that would reduce a two year suspension based on a range of other factors even when the Competitor was admittedly at fault. These Articles apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. DC 10.5.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation even though it will be especially difficult to meet the criteria for a reduction for those anti-doping rule violations where knowledge is an element of the violation.

DC 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 are meant to have an impact only in cases where the circumstances are truly exceptional and not in the vast majority of cases.

To illustrate the operation of DC 10.5.1, an example where No Fault or Negligence would result in the total elimination of a sanction is where a Competitor could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, a sanction could not be completely eliminated on the basis of No Fault or Negligence in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Competitors are responsible for what they ingest (DC 2.1.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b) the administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Competitor’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Competitor (Competitors 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 Competitor’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Competitor’s circle of associates (Competitors 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 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence. (For example, reduction may well be appropriate in illustration (a) if the Competitor clearly establishes that the cause of the positive test was contamination in a common multiple vitamin purchased from a source with no connection to Prohibited Substances and the Competitor exercised care in not taking other nutritional supplements.)

For purposes of assessing the Competitor’s or other Person’s fault under DC 10.5.1 and 10.5.2, the evidence considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Competitor’s or other Person’s departure from the expected standard of behavior. Thus, for example the fact that a Competitor would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility or the fact that the Competitor only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under this Article.

While Minors are not given special treatment per se in determining the applicable sanction, certainly youth and lack of experience are relevant factors to be assessed in determining the Competitor or other Person’s fault under DC 10.5.2, as well as DC 10.4 and 10.5.1.

DC 10.5.2 should not be applied in cases where DC 10.3.3 or 10.4 apply, as those Articles already take into consideration the Competitor or other Person’s degree of fault for purposes of establishing the applicable period of Ineligibility.]

DC 10.5.3 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations.

The FINA Executive or hearing panel may, prior to a final appellate decision under DC 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the Competitor or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to FINA or a criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in FINA’s discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another Person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person. After a final appellate decision under DC 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, FINA may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA. 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 Competitor or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Competitor or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. 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 section must be no less than eight (8) years. If FINA suspends any part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility under this Article, it shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decision. If FINA subsequently reinstates any part of the suspended period of Ineligibility because the Competitor or other Person has failed to provide the Substantial Assistance which was anticipated, the Competitor or other Person may appeal the reinstatement pursuant to DC 13.2.

[Comment to DC 10.5.3: The cooperation of Competitors, Competitor 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.

Factors to be considered in assessing the importance of the Substantial Assistance would include, for example, the number of individuals implicated, the status of those individuals in the sport, whether a scheme involving Trafficking under DC 2.7 or administration under DC 2.8 is involved and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in Testing. The maximum suspension of the Ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases. An additional factor to be considered in connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation is any performance-enhancing benefit which the Person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.

If the Competitor or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility under this Article in connection with the Competitor or other Person’s waiver of a hearing under DC 8.2.5 (Waiver of Hearing), the FINA Executive shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article. If the Competitor or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility before the conclusion of a hearing under DC 8 on the anti-doping rule violation, the hearing panel shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article at the same time the hearing panel decides whether the Competitor or other Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation. If a portion of the period of Ineligibility is suspended, the decision shall explain the basis for concluding the information provided was credible and was important to discovering or proving the anti-doping rule violation or other offense. If the Competitor or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility after a final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered and is not subject to appeal under DC 13, but the Competitor or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility, the Competitor or other Person may apply to FINA to consider a suspension in the period of Ineligibility under this Article. Any such suspension of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall require the approval of WADA. If any condition upon which the suspension of a period of Ineligibility is based is not fulfilled, FINA shall reinstate the period of Ineligibility which would otherwise be applicable. Decisions rendered by FINA under this Article may be appealed pursuant to DC 13.2.

This is the only circumstance under the Code where the suspension of an otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is authorized.]

DC 10.5.4 Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence.

Where a Competitor 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 DC 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to DC 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the 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.

[Comment to DC 10.5.4: This Article is intended to apply when a Competitor or other Person comes forward and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where no Anti-Doping Organization 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 Competitor or other Person believes he or she is about to be caught.]

DC 10.5.5 Where a Competitor or Other Person Establishes Entitlement to Reduction in Sanction Under More than One Provision of this Article.

Before applying any reduction or suspension under DC 10.5.2, 10.5.3 or 10.5.4, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined in accordance with DC 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6. If the Competitor or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under two or more of DC 10.5.2, 10.5.3 or 10.5.4, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-quarter of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.

[Comment to DC 10.5.5: The appropriate sanction is determined in a sequence of four steps. First, the hearing panel determines which of the basic sanctions (DC 10.2, DC 10.3, DC 10.4 or DC 10.6) applies to the particular anti-doping rule violation. In a second step, the hearing panel establishes whether there is a basis for suspension, elimination or reduction of the sanction (DC 10.5.1 through 10.5.4). Note, however, not all grounds for suspension, elimination or reduction may be combined with the provisions on basic sanctions. For example, DC 10.5.2 does not apply in cases involving DC 10.3.3 or 10.4, since the hearing panel, under DC 10.3.3 and 10.4, will already have determined the period of Ineligibility based on the Competitor or other Person’s degree of fault. In a third step, the hearing panel determines under DC 10.5.5 whether the Competitor or other Person is entitled to elimination, reduction or suspension under more than one provision of DC 10.5. Finally, the hearing panel decides on the commencement of the period of Ineligibility under DC 10.9. The following four examples demonstrate the proper sequence of analysis:

Example 1.

Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding involves the presence of an anabolic steroid; the Competitor promptly admits the anti-doping rule violation as asserted; the Competitor establishes No Significant Fault (DC 10.5.2); and the Competitor provides Substantial Assistance (DC 10.5.3).

Application of DC 10:

1. The basic sanction would be two years under DC 10.2. (Aggravating Circumstances (DC 10.6) would not be considered because the Competitor promptly admitted the violation. DC 10.4 would not apply because a steroid is not a Specified Substance.)

2. Based on No Significant Fault alone, the sanction could be reduced up to one-half of the two years. Based on Substantial Assistance alone, the sanction could be reduced up to three-quarters of the two years.

3. Under DC 10.5.5, in considering the possible reduction for No Significant Fault and Substantial Assistance together, the most the sanction could be reduced is up to three-quarters of the two years. Thus, the minimum sanction would be a six-month period of Ineligibility.

4. Under DC 10.9.2, because the Competitor promptly admitted the anti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility could start as early as the date of Sample collection, but in any event the Competitor would have to serve at least one-half of the Ineligibility period (minimum three months) after the date of the hearing decision.

Example 2.

Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding involves the presence of an anabolic steroid; aggravating circumstances exist and the Competitor is unable to establish that he did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation; the Competitor does not promptly admit the anti-doping rule violation as alleged; but the Competitor does provide Substantial Assistance (DC 10.5.3).

Application of DC 10:

1. The basic sanction would be between two and four years Ineligibility as provided in DC 10.6.

2. Based on Substantial Assistance, the sanction could be reduced up to three-quarters of the maximum four years.

3. DC 10.5.5 does not apply.

4. Under DC 10.9.2, the period of Ineligibility would start on the date of the hearing decision.

Example 3.

Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding involves the presence of a Specified Substance; the Competitor establishes how the Specified Substance entered his body and that he had no intent to enhance his sport performance; the Competitor establishes that he had very little fault; and the Competitor provides Substantial Assistance (Article 10.5.3).

Application of DC 10:

1. Because the Adverse Analytical Finding involved a Specified Substance and the Competitor has satisfied the other conditions of DC 10.4, the basic sanction would fall in the range between a reprimand and two years Ineligibility. The hearing panel would assess the Competitor’s fault in imposing a sanction within that range. (Assume for illustration in this example that the panel would otherwise impose a period of Ineligibility of eight months.)

2. Based on Substantial Assistance, the sanction could be reduced up to three-quarters of the eight months. (No less than two months.) No Significant Fault (DC 10.2) would not be applicable because the Competitor’s degree of fault was already taken into consideration in establishing the eight-month period of Ineligibility in step 1.

3. DC 10.5.5 does not apply.

4. Under DC 9.2, because the Competitor promptly admitted the anti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility could start as early as the date of Sample collection, but in any event, the Competitor would have to serve at least half of the Ineligibility period after the date of the hearing decision. (Minimum one month.)

Example 4.

Facts: A Competitor who has never had an Adverse Analytical Finding or been confronted with an anti-doping rule violation spontaneously admits that he intentionally used multiple Prohibited Substances to enhance his performance. The Competitor also provides Substantial Assistance (DC 10.5.3).

Application of DC 10:

1. While the intentional Use of multiple Prohibited Substances to enhance performance would normally warrant consideration of aggravating circumstances (DC 10.6), the Competitor’s spontaneous admission means that DC 10.6 would not apply. The fact that the Competitor’s Use of Prohibited Substances was intended to enhance performance would also eliminate the application of DC 10.4 regardless of whether the Prohibited Substances Used were Specified Substances. Thus, DC 10.2 would be applicable and the basic period of Ineligibility imposed would be two years.

2. Based on the Competitor’s spontaneous admissions (DC 10.5.4) alone, the period of Ineligibility could be reduced up to one-half of the two years. Based on the Competitor’s Substantial Assistance (DC 10.5.3) alone, the period of Ineligibility could be reduced up to three-quarters of the two years.

3. Under DC 10.5.5, in considering the spontaneous admission and Substantial Assistance together, the most the sanction could be reduced would be up to three-quarters of the two years. (The minimum period of Ineligibility would be six months.)

4. If DC 10.5.4 was considered by the hearing panel in arriving at the minimum six month period of Ineligibility at step 3, the period of Ineligibility would start on the date the hearing panel imposed the sanction. If, however, the hearing panel did not consider the application of DC 10.5.4 in reducing the period of Ineligibility in step 3, then under DC 10.9.2, the commencement of the period of Ineligibility could be started as early as the date the anti-doping rule violation was committed, provided that at least half of that period (minimum of three months) would have to be served after the date of the hearing decision.]

DC 10.6 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility

If FINA or a Member Federation establishes in an individual Case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations under DC 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and DC 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) 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 up to a maximum of four years unless the Competitor or other Person can prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation.

A Competitor or other Person can avoid the application of this Article by admitting the anti-doping rule violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by FINA or a Member Federation.

[Comment to DC 10.6: Examples of aggravating circumstances which may justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction are: the Competitor or other Person committed the anti-doping rule violation as part of a doping plan or scheme, either individually or involving a conspiracy or common enterprise to commit anti-doping rule violations; the Competitor or other Person used or possessed multiple Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods or used or possessed a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method on multiple occasions; a normal individual would be likely to enjoy the performance-enhancing effects of the anti-doping rule violation(s) beyond the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility; the Competitor or Person engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation.

For the avoidance of doubt, the examples of aggravating circumstances described in this Comment to DC 10.6 are not exclusive and other aggravating factors may also justify the imposition of a longer period of Ineligibility. Violations under DC 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) are not included in the application of DC 10.6 because the sanctions for these violations (from four years to lifetime Ineligibility) already build in sufficient discretion to allow consideration of any aggravating circumstance.]

DC 10.7 Multiple Violations

DC 10.7.1 Second Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

For a Competitor or other Person’s first anti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility is set forth in DC 10.2 and 10.3 (subject to elimination, reduction or suspension under DC 10.4 or 10.5, or to an increase under DC 10.6). For a second anti-doping rule violation the period of Ineligibility shall be within the range set forth in the table below.

Second Violation

FirstViolation
RS FFMT NSF St AS TRA
RS 1-4 2-4 2-4 4-6 8-10 10-life
FFMT 1-4 4-8 4-8 6-8 10-life life
NSF 1-4 4-8 4-8 6-8 10-life life
St 2-4 6-8 6-8 8-life life life
AS 4-5 10-life 10-life life life life
TRA 8-life life life life life life

Definitions for purposes of the second anti-doping rule violation table:

RS (Reduced sanction for Specified Substance under DC 10.4): The anti-doping rule violation was or should be sanctioned by a reduced sanction under DC 10.4 because it involved a Specified Substance and the other conditions under DC 10.4 were met.

FFMT (Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests): The anti-doping rule violation was or should be sanctioned under DC 10.3.3 (Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests).

NSF (Reduced sanction for No Significant Fault or Negligence): The anti-doping rule violation was or should be sanctioned by a reduced sanction under DC 10.5.2 because No Significant Fault or Negligence under DC 10.5.2 was proved by the Competitor.

St (Standard sanction under DC 10.2 or 10.3.1): The anti-doping rule violation was or should be sanctioned by the standard sanction of two years under DC 10.2 or 10.3.1.

AS (Aggravated sanction): The anti-doping rule violation was or should be sanctioned by an aggravated sanction under DC 10.6 because the Anti-Doping Organization established the conditions set forth under DC 10.6.

TRA (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking and Administration or Attempted Administration): The anti-doping rule violation was or should be sanctioned by a sanction under DC 10.3.2.

[Comment to DC 10.7.1: The table is applied by locating the Competitor or other Person’s first anti-doping rule violation in the left-hand column and then moving across the table to the right to the column representing the second violation. By way of example, assume a Competitor receives the standard period of Ineligibility for a first violation under DC 10.2 and then commits a second violation for which he receives a reduced sanction for a Specified Substance under DC 10.4. The table is used to determine the period of Ineligibility for the second violation. The table is applied to this example by starting in the left-hand column and going down to the fourth row which is “St” for standard sanction, then moving across the table to the first column which is “RS” for reduced sanction for a Specified Substance, thus resulting in a 2-4 year range for the period of Ineligibility for the second violation. The Competitor or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing a period of Ineligibility within the applicable range.]

[Comment to DC 10.7.1 RS Definition: See Article 25.4 of the Code with respect to application of DC 10.7.1 to pre-Code anti-doping rule violations.]

DC 10.7.2 Application of DC 10.5.3 and 10.5.4 to Second Violation.
Where a Competitor or other Person who commits a second anti-doping rule violation establishes entitlement to suspension or reduction of a portion of the period of Ineligibility under DC 10.5.3 or DC 10.5.4, the hearing panel shall first determine the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility within the range established in the table in DC 10.7.1, and then apply the appropriate suspension or reduction of the period of Ineligibility. The remaining period of Ineligibility, after applying any suspension or reduction under DC 10.5.3 and 10.5.4, must be at least one-fourth of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.

DC 10.7.3 Third Anti-Doping Rule Violation.
A third anti-doping rule violation will always result in a lifetime period of Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfills the condition for elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility under DC 10.4 or involves a violation of DC 2.4 (Filing Failures and/or and Missed Tests). In these particular cases, the period of Ineligibility shall be from eight years to life ban.

DC 10.7.4 Additional Rules for Certain Potential Multiple Violations.
• For purposes of imposing sanctions under DC 10.7, an anti-doping rule violation will only be considered a second violation if FINA or a Member Federation can establish that the Competitor or other Person committed the second anti-doping rule violation after the Competitor or other Person received notice pursuant to DC 7 (Results Management), or after FINA or a Member Federation made reasonable efforts to give notice, of the first anti-doping rule violation; if FINA or a Member Federation cannot establish this, the 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; however, the occurrence of multiple violations may be considered as a factor in determining Aggravating Circumstances (DC 10.6).

• If, after the resolution of a first anti-doping rule violation, FINA or a Member Federation discovers facts involving an anti-doping rule violation by the Competitor or other Person which occurred prior to notification regarding the first violation, then FINA or a Member Federation shall impose an additional sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two violations would have been adjudicated at the same time. Results in all Events dating back to the earlier anti-doping rule violation will be Disqualified as provided in DC 10.8. To avoid the possibility of a finding of Aggravating Circumstances (DC 10.6) on account of the earlier-in-time but later-discovered violation, the Competitor or other Person must voluntarily admit the earlier anti-doping rule violation on a timely basis after notice of the violation for which he or she is first charged. The same rule shall also apply when FINA or a Member Federation discovers facts involving another prior violation after the resolution of a second anti-doping rule violation.

[Comment to DC 10.7.4: In a hypothetical situation, a Competitor commits an anti-doping rule violation on January 1, 2008 which the Anti-Doping Organization does not discover until December 1, 2008. In the meantime, the Competitor commits another anti-doping rule violation on March 1, 2008 and the Competitor is notified of this violation by the Anti-Doping Organization on March 30, 2008 and a hearing panel rules on June 30, 2008 that the Competitor committed the March 1, 2008 anti-doping rule violation. The later-discovered violation which occurred on January 1, 2008 will provide the basis for aggravating circumstances because the Competitor did not voluntarily admit the violation in a timely basis after the Competitor received notification of the later violation on March 30, 2008.]

DC 10.7.5 Multiple Anti-Doping Rule Violations During Eight-Year Period.
For purposes of DC 10.7, each anti-doping rule violation must take place within the same eight-year period in order to be considered multiple violations.

DC 10.8 Disqualification of Results in Events Subsequent to Sample Collection or Commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Event which produced the positive Sample under DC 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results), all other competitive results 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.

DC 10.8.1 As a condition of regaining eligibility after being found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, the Competitor must first repay all prize money forfeited under this Article.

DC 10.8.2 Allocation of Forfeited Prize Money.
Forfeited prize money shall be reallocated by the FINA Executive to other Competitors.

[Comment to DC 10.8.2: Nothing in the Code precludes clean Competitors 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.]

DC 10.9 Commencement of Ineligibility Period

Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period of Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility imposed.

DC 10.9.1 Delays Not Attributable to the Competitor or other Person.

Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Competitor 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.

DC 10.9.2 Timely Admission.

Where the Competitor or other Person promptly (which, in all events, means for a Competitor before the Competitor competes again) admits the anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by FINA or a Member Federation, 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 Article is applied, the Competitor or other Person shall serve at least one-half of the period of Ineligibility going forward from the date the Competitor or other Person accepted the imposition of a sanction, the date of a hearing decision imposing a sanction, or date the sanction is otherwise imposed.

[Comment to DC 10.9.2: This Article shall not apply where the period of Ineligibility already has been reduced under DC 10.5.4 (Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence).]

DC 10.9.3 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed and respected by the Competitor, then the Competitor shall receive a credit for such period of Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed.

DC 10.9.4 If a Competitor voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from FINA and a Member Federation and thereafter refrains from competing, the Competitor 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 Competitor’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension shall be provided promptly to each party entitled to receive notice of a potential anti-doping rule violation under DC 14.6.

[Comment to DC 10.9.4: A Competitor’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension is not an admission by the Competitor and shall not be used in any way as to draw an adverse inference against the Competitor.]

DC 10.9.5 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 Competitor elected not to compete or was suspended by his or her team.

[Comment to DC 10.9: The text of DC 10.9 has been revised to make clear that delays not attributable to the Competitor, timely admission by the Competitor and Provisional Suspension are the only justifications for starting the period of Ineligibility earlier than the date of the hearing decision. This amendment corrects inconsistent interpretation and application of the previous text.]

DC 10.10 Status During Ineligibility

DC 10.10.1 Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility.

No Competitor or other Person who has been declared Ineligible may, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by FINA, any FINA member organization, or a club or other member organization of a FINA member organization, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international or national level Competition organization.

A Competitor or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility longer than four years may, after completing four years of the period of Ineligibility, participate in local sport Competitions in a sport other than the sport in which the Person committed the anti-doping rule violation, but only so long as the local sport Competition is not at a level that could otherwise qualify such Person directly or indirectly to compete in (or accumulate points toward) a national championship or International Competition.

A Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall remain subject to Testing.

[Comment to DC 10.10.1: For example, an ineligible Competitor cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organized by his or her Member Federation or a club which is a member of that Member Federation. FINA shall also recognize sanctions imposed by other sports (see DC 15 Mutual Recognition).]

DC 10.10.2 Violation of the Prohibition of Participation During Ineligibility.

Where a Competitor or other Person who has been declared Ineligible violates the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility described in DC 10.10.1, the results of such participation shall be Disqualified and the period of Ineligibility which was originally imposed shall start over again as of the date of the violation. The new period of Ineligibility may be reduced under DC 10.5.2 if the Competitor or other Person establishes he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for violating the prohibition against participation. The determination of whether a Competitor or other Person has violated the prohibition against participation, and whether a reduction under DC 10.5.2 is appropriate, shall be made by FINA or the Member Federation whose results management led to the imposition of the initial period of Ineligibility. Where a Competitor Support Personnel or other Person substantially assists a Competitor in violating the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility, the FINA Executive may impose appropriate sanctions.

[Comment to DC 10.10.2: If a Competitor or other Person is alleged to have violated the prohibition against participation during a period of Ineligibility, FINA or the Member Federation shall determine whether the Competitor or other Person violated the prohibition and, if so, whether the Competitor or other Person has established grounds for a reduction in the restarted period of Ineligibility under DC 10.5.2. Decisions rendered under this Article may be appealed pursuant to DC 13.2.]

DC 10.10.3 Withholding of Financial Support during Ineligibility.

In addition, for any anti-doping rule violation not involving a reduced sanction for Specified Substances as described in DC 10.4, the FINA Executive and its Member Federations shall withhold all sport-related financial support or other sport-related benefits received by such Person.

DC 10.11 Reinstatement Testing.

As a condition to regaining eligibility at the end of a specified period of Ineligibility, a Competitor must, during any period of Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility, make him or herself available for Out-of-Competition Testing by FINA, the applicable Member Federation, and any other Anti-Doping Organization having Testing jurisdiction, and must, if requested, provide current and accurate whereabouts information. If a Competitor subject to a period of Ineligibility retires from sport and is removed from Out-of-Competition Testing pools and later seeks reinstatement, the Competitor shall not be eligible for reinstatement until the Competitor has notified FINA and the applicable Member Federation and has been subject to Out-of-Competition Testing for a period of time equal to the longer of nine (9) months as provided in DC 5.5.2 or the period of Ineligibility remaining as of the date the Competitor had retired. During such remaining period of Ineligibility, a minimum of three tests must be conducted by the Competitor’s Member Federation with at least three months between each test. The results of such tests shall be reported to FINA. In addition, immediately prior to the end of the period of Ineligibility, a Competitor must undergo Testing by FINA for the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods for Out-of-Competition Testing. Once the period of a Competitor’s Ineligibility has expired, and the Competitor has fulfilled the conditions of reinstatement, he/she will then become automatically re-eligible. No application by a Competitor or by his or her Member Federation will then be necessary.

DC 10.12 Imposition of Financial Sanctions

The FINA Executive or the Member Federation with results management responsibility may also impose financial sanctions up to $50,000 on account of an anti-doping rule violation. However, no financial sanction may be considered a basis for reducing the period of Ineligibility or other sanction which would otherwise be applicable under the Code.

[Comment to DC 10.12: For example, if a hearing panel were to find in a case that the cumulative effect of the sanction applicable under the Code and a financial sanction would result in too harsh a consequence, then the financial sanction, not the other Code sanctions (e.g., Ineligibility and loss of results), would give way.]