2015 World Anti-Doping Code v. 2.0

Major Proposals(and a few gratuitous observations)

Tackling Doping in Sport – March 2013Joseph de Pencier, CEO, iNADO

Seven Areas of Major Change

• New ADRVs• Hearing Requirements• Tougher Sanctions• Contaminated Products/Substances of Abuse• Investigations• TUEs• WADA’s New Roles

New ADRVs

• 2.3: Evading or Refusing Sample Collection• 2.5: Tampering– Includes interference with DCO (offensive conduct

to DCOs to be covered by other rules) • 2.9: Complicity in an ADRV– By “any other Person”

• 2.10: Prohibited Association – By an Athlete

Hearing Requirements• 8: “…a fair hearing…within a reasonable time by a

fair and impartial tribunal. …reasoned decision specifically including an explanation of the reason(s) for any period of Ineligibility shall be publicly reported.”– Eight enumerated elements in 2009 Code replaced by:

“…a fair hearing … as set forth in Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and comparable principles generally accepted in international law.”

Tougher Sanctions• 10.2/10.3: 4 years for ADRV involving any Prohibited Method or a

Prohibited Substance in the classes of Anabolic Agents, Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances, Hormone and Metabolic Modulators, or Diuretics and Other Masking Agents [major doping], or for evading, refusing or tampering, unless neither intentional nor reckless

• 10.3.3/10.3.4: 1-2 years for whereabouts failures or missed tests, or prohibited association, depending on degree of fault

• 10.4: range of sanctions for Specified Substances, Contaminated Substances or Substances of Abuse depending on degree of fault– Substances of Abuse sanctions can also be reduced by participation in

rehabilitation programme

Contaminated Products/Substances of Abuse

• 10.4.2: Contaminated Products may attract lesser sanction– “…could not have know [product] contained a

prohibited substance.”• 10.4.3: Substances of Abuse may attract lesser

sanction– To be defined by Prohibited List

Investigations

• 20.3.9/20.5.8: automatic IF/NADO investigation of ASP where minor or multiple athletes involved (why the limit?)

• 20.3.13/20.5.9: IF/NADO cooperation with WADA investigations

• 20.7.10: WADA power to investigate• 10.5.3 (Comment): need to protect integrity of

investigations in cases of Substantial Assistance

TUEs• 4.4.3.2: – Athlete with NADO TUE “should apply” to IF for a

TUE, although mutual recognition “encouraged”– (IF refusing to recognise NADO TUE unlikely to grant

one to that athlete for the same prohibited substance)

– IF refusal to recognise NADO TUE invalidates that TUE – athlete must seek WADA review, or NADO must appeal to CAS (and if neither is successful?)

– No guidance on process for mutual recognition

WADA’s New Roles• Conduct Investigations (20.7.10)• Identify individuals with whom association is prohibited (2.10)• Determine violations of “Spirit of Sport” (4.3.1.2)• Sort out authority to test (5.3.2)*• Approve blood analysis labs (6.1)• Approve sport-specific testing menus (6.4)• Sort out results management authority (7.1)*• Approve reduced sanctions for prompt admission (10.2.4)*• Approve reduced sanctions for substantial assistance, and confidentiality

agreements about it (10.5.3)*• Approve specialised testing and sample analysis (20.7.9)• Why not have WADA determine TUE disputes too? (4.4.3)*

*To avoid tribunal costs and inconsistent decisions?

Questions?