1/10
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
The Purpose of WADA Code
To protect the athlete’s fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness, and equality for athletes worldwide.
To ensure harmonised, coordinated and effective anti-doping programs at the international and national level.
2.1. Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s testing sample
It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples.
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 rule violation under Article 2.1.
8 violations considered doping under the Code
presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete's sample
use of a prohibited substance or method
evading, refusing or failing to submit a sample collection
failure to file whereabouts and missed tests
tampering or attempted tampering with any part of the doping control process
possession of a prohibited substance or method
trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or method
administration or attempted administration to an athlete of a prohibited substance or method, including assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting or covering up an anti-doping rule violation
Ratio Legis of Strict Liability
"Ratio legis" refers to the reason or purpose behind a legal rule. Here, strict liability is applied to ensure fairness in sports and combat doping effectively.
Inevitable Influence on Sporting Results
Strict liability ensures that any use of banned substances, intentional or unintentional, is addressed because such substances can unfairly influence the outcome of competitions.
Efficient Fight Against Doping
Strict liability eliminates the need to prove intent, making the anti-doping process quicker and more effective.
Objective and Subjective Elements of Athlete Liability
Objective (Material) Element: the factual element of the case
Subjective (Moral) Element: this considers the athlete’s level of fault or negligence
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof refers to who is responsible for proving that a doping rule violation has occurred.
Who Bears the Burden?
The Anti-Doping Organisation carries the burden of proving that an anti-doping rule violation took place.
If the athlete or accused individual seeks to rebut or challenge the allegation, the burden may shift to them.
Standard of Proof: for ADO
The ADO must prove the violation to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the hearing panel.
This standard:
Is higher than the "balance of probabilities" used in civil law.
Is lower than the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal law.
Why?
Doping allegations are serious and can have significant consequences for athletes, so the standard needs to be rigorous but not as strict as in criminal cases.
Standard of Proof: for Athlete
When the burden shifts to the athlete, they must prove their case based on the "balance of probabilities" (can can xac xuat) standard.
This means:
The athlete must show that it is more likely than not (i.e., >50%) that their claim is true.
Example:
An athlete claiming accidental ingestion of a prohibited substance (e.g., contaminated supplement) must provide sufficient evidence to make their explanation plausible.