Scroll for more

Rules and Regulation

DC 2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete 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, 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 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 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 any Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]

DC 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 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 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 DC 2.1 and violations of DC 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 DC 2.1 regardless of when that substance might have been administered.]