III. Sanctions on individuals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

II. Proof of doping • 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 ADO 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 is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 3.1) • Where the WADA Code places the burden of proof on the athlete alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except if provided otherwise (Article 3.1) • Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions (Article 3.2) ‣ Testimonies (CAS 2004/O/645 USADA v. Tim Montgomery, CAS 2004/O/649 USADA v. Chryste Gaines) ‣ Athlete’s biological passport (CAS 2010/A/2174 Francesco De Bonis v. CONI & UCI, CAS 2010/A/2235 UCI v. Tadej Valjavec & OCS) ‣ DNA analysis (TAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde c. CONI)
II. Proof of doping • WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the international standard for laboratories. The athlete may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from such standard occurred which could reasonably have caused the AAF. If the athlete rebuts this presumption, then the ADO shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the AAF (Article 3.2.1) ‣ Some athletes have failed to rebut this presumption: CAS 2005/A/884 Tyler Hamilton v. USDA & UCI, CAS 2007/A/1394 Floyd Landis v. USADA, TAS 2007/A/1444 & 2008/A/1465 UCI c. Iban Mayo & RFEC ‣ Others succeeded: TAS 2006/A/1119 UCI c. Iñigo Landaluce, CAS 2008/A/1607 Varis v. IBU, CAS 2009/A/1752 & 1753 Devyatovskiy & Tsikhan v. IOC, CAS 2010/A/2161 Wen Tong v. IJF • The same applies to other standards (Article 3.2.2) • The hearing panel may draw an inference adverse to the athlete who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on her/his refusal to appear at the hearing and to answer questions from the hearing panel (Article 3.2.4)
Page 1 and 2: Issues relating to doping matters W
Page 3 and 4: I. Introduction • In 2003, the Wo
Page 5: I. Introduction ‣ Article 2.5 - t
Page 9 and 10: III. Sanct
Page 15 and 16: IV. Consequences to teams • If mo
Page 17: Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of

III. Sanctions on individuals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?