Dennis Koolaard –

A. General introduction on Doping B. General introduction on the WADC C. System of the WADC 2

IAAF enacted an anti-doping provision (1928) Knud Enemark Jensen (1960) Tommy Simpson (1967) IOC established list of Prohibited Substances (1968) Ben Johnson (1988) Tour de France (1998) Creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (1999) First version of WADC was enacted (2003) Recognition of WADC by UNESCO Convention (2005) Revised WADC enacted (2009) 3

I. Purpose of the WADC II. Differences between sports III.Differences between countries 4

The purpose of the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Programme 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 harmonised, coordinated and effective anti- doping programs at the international and national level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping. 5

Signatories of the WADC: The IOC International Paralympic Committee All National Olympic Committees All Olympic International Federations Almost all International sports-governing bodies Governments are not signatories: In 2005 UNESCO enacted the International Convention Against Doping in Sport. 139 countries ratified, entered and/or accepted this Convention, whereby the Governments expressed their support of the Code. 6

Why would International Federations implement the WADC? Pressure and responsibility because of being the global governing body of a sport. Art. 43 Olympic Charter: The World Anti-Doping Code is mandatory for the whole Olympic Movement. 7

The WADC sets forth specific anti-doping rules and principles that are to be followed by Anti-Doping Organizations Some provisions are mandatory Other provisions only establish mandatory guiding principles Consequence: Not the WADC, but the Anti-Doping Regulations of the National/ International Federation are directly applicable as a lex specialis. Differences between sports Examples: Differences in testing pools Different appeals procedures 8

International Federation FIFAFIBAFINAIAAF Doping test conducted by National Federation Relevant Tribunal of National Federation Doping test conducted by International Federation FIFA Disciplinary Committee FIBA Disciplinary Panel FINA Doping Panel Relevant Tribunal of National Federation Internal AppealFIFA Appeals Committee Appeals Tribunal of FIBA. External AppealInternational-level athletes: CAS. Others: national appeals procedure and possibly CAS. 9

Compliance of national laws with the WADC Examples: Art WADC: (…) Athletes in a Registered Testing Pool shall provide accurate, current location information (art d IST: including temporary lodgings, hotels, etc.) Art c. (Spanish Law) Although Athletes must provide information regarding their whereabouts, this information only includes the habitual residence and the training place of the athlete. 10

I. Burden and Standards of Proof II. Burden of Proof III. Standard of Proof IV. Anti-Doping Rule Violations 11

Art. 3.1 WADA Code: 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, except as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.6 where the Athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof. 12

The Burden of Proof: As a general principle of law, the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing (…) The Anti-Doping Organisation, except where: (…) the Code places the burden upon the Athlete (…) Art : Departure from the International Standard for Laboratories Art : If the Athlete establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence Art : If the Athlete establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence The Athlete 13

Beyond any reasonably doubt The highest standard of proof used as a burden of proof and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. Balance of probabilities Common standard in Civil proceedings. For the Panel to be satisfied that a fact is demonstrated on a balance of probability simply means, in percentage terms, that it is satisfied that there is a 51% chance of it having occurred. Comfortable satisfaction (…) in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 14

Anti-Doping Organization: Comfortable Satisfaction Athlete : Balance of probability 15

Violations: Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athletes Sample Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method Refusing to submit to Sample collection Violation of Out-of-Competition Testing Tampering of Doping Control Possession of Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods Trafficking or Attempted trafficking of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method Administration, assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity 16

Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athletes Sample Strict liability principle: (…) Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance (…) found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athletes part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1. Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance (…) in the Athletes A Sample where the Athelete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athletes B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance (…) found in the Athletes A Sample. 17

Prohibited & Specified substances: There is a greater likelihood that Specified Substances, as opposed to other Prohibited Substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non-doping explanation. All Prohibited Substances shall be considered as Specified Substances except Substances in classes S1, S2.1 to S2.5, S.4.4 and S6.a, and Prohibited Methods M1, M2 and M3. Examples: Testosterone: Prohibited substance Furosemide: Specified substance Ephedrine: Specified substance, only if threshold is reached Cocaine, Cannabis: Prohibited substance, only prohibited in competition Alcohol: Prohibited substance, only in particular sports and if threshold is reached 18

Specified substance: 1. Establish how the substance entered the body 2. Establish that it was not intended to enhance sporting performance Established? Sanction: Minimum: Reprimand Maximum: Two year period of Ineligibility Prohibited substance: No Fault or Negligence 1. Establish how the substance entered the body 2. Establish that the Athlete bears No Fault or Negligence Established? Sanction eliminated No Significant Fault or Negligence 1. Establish how the substance entered the body 2. Establish that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence Established? Sanction: Minimum: 1 year period of ineligibility Maximum: 2 year period of ineligibility 19