ANTI-DOPING RULES

(In force from 1 January 2025)

Internal
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Anti-Doping Rule Violations
3. Proof of Doping
4. The Prohibited List
5. Testing and Investigations
6. Analysis of Samples
7. Results Management: Responsibility, Initial Review, Notice, and Provisional Suspensions
8. Results Management: Hearing and Notice of Hearing Decision
9. Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results
10. Further Sanctions on Individuals
11. Consequences to Teams
12. Disciplinary Proceedings for Failure to Comply or Offensive Conduct
13. Results Management: Appeals
14. Confidentiality and Reporting
15. Member Federation Anti-Doping Obligations
16. Sanctions against Member Federations
17. Implementation of Decisions
18. Statute of Limitations
19. Compliance Reports
20. Education
21. Interpretation of the World Anti-Doping Code

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Definitions
Appendix 2 - Athletics Anti-Doping Protocols
Appendix 3 – The 2025 Prohibited List
Appendix 4 – International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions
Appendix 5 – International Standard for Testing and Investigations
Appendix 6 – International Standard for Results Management
Appendix 7 - International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information
Appendix 8 - International Standard for Education
1. Introduction

1.1 Implementation of the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code

1.1.1 World Athletics is a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code ("Code"). These Anti-
Doping Rules have been adopted by the World Athletics Council and will be
implemented to comply with World Athletics’ obligations as a Signatory, and to
further World Athletics’ continuing efforts to eradicate doping in the sport of
Athletics.

1.1.2 These Anti-Doping Rules are intended to implement the requirements of the 2021
version of the Code in the sport of Athletics and will be interpreted and applied in a
manner that is consistent with the Code and the International Standards. The Code
and the International Standards (each as amended from time to time) are integral
parts of these Anti-Doping Rules and will prevail over these Anti-Doping Rules in case
of conflict. These Anti-Doping Rules must be interpreted as an independent and
autonomous text and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of any Signatory
or government. The comments annotating various provisions of these Anti-Doping
Rules, the Code and the International Standards will be used as an aid to
interpretation of these Anti-Doping Rules.

1.1.3 Unless otherwise stated, defined words and terms in these Anti-Doping Rules
(denoted by capital letters) bear the meaning given to them in the Definitions section
in Appendix 1. If they are not defined in Appendix 1, or elsewhere in these Anti-
Doping Rules, they bear the meaning given to them in the World Athletics
Constitution. Unless otherwise specified, references to Rules are to Rules in these
Anti-Doping Rules.

1.1.4 These Anti-Doping Rules may be amended from time to time by the World Athletics
Council on the recommendation of the Integrity Unit Board, or following consultation
with the Integrity Unit Board, and such amendments shall come into effect on the
date specified by the Council. However, for the avoidance of doubt, amendments
made by WADA to the Code, the Prohibited List and any International Standard will
come into effect automatically in the manner set out in the Code, and such
amendments will be binding upon all Athletes, Athlete Support Persons and other
Persons without further formality.

1.1.5 In the case of conflict between the provisions of these Anti-Doping Rules and the
provisions of any part of the Integrity Code of Conduct or any other World Athletics
Rules, the provisions of these Anti-Doping Rules will prevail.

1.2 The Athletics Integrity Unit

1.2.1 In accordance with the World Athletics Constitution, World Athletics has established
an Athletics Integrity Unit ("Integrity Unit") whose role is to protect the integrity of
Athletics, including fulfilling World Athletics' obligations as a Signatory to the Code.
 1.2.2 World Athletics has delegated implementation of these Anti-Doping Rules to the
Integrity Unit, including but not limited to the following activities in respect of
International-Level Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel: Education, Testing,
Investigations, Results Management, Hearings, Sanctions and Appeals. As such,
references in these Anti-Doping Rules to the Integrity Unit will, where applicable, be
references to the Integrity Unit acting on behalf of World Athletics. For the avoidance
of doubt, while the Integrity Unit may act on World Athletics' behalf, World Athletics
will be considered as the party asserting anti-doping rule violations and for the
purposes of any actions to be taken within the Results Management process, as the
responding party in appeals, and as the party in any other matter under these Anti-
Doping Rules where that role would appropriately fall to a Signatory under the Code.

1.2.3 The Integrity Unit may delegate any aspect of Doping Control or anti-doping
Education to a Delegated Third Party. However, the Integrity Unit will require the
Delegated Third Party to perform such aspects in compliance with these Anti-Doping
Rules (and any protocols adopted pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules), the Code
and the International Standards, and the Integrity Unit remains responsible for such
compliance. Any relevant reference to the Integrity Unit in these Anti-Doping Rules
encompasses any such Delegated Third Party, where applicable and within the
context of the afore-mentioned delegation.

1.3 The Disciplinary Tribunal

World Athletics has established a Disciplinary Tribunal (the "Disciplinary Tribunal") to hear
alleged anti-doping rule violations and other breaches of these Anti-Doping Rules. The
Disciplinary Tribunal operates with Operational Independence in compliance with the
International Standard for Results Management.

1.4 Scope of Application of the Anti-Doping Rules

1.4.1 These Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to World Athletics and to each of its Member
Federations and Area Associations. All Member Federations and Area Associations
shall comply with the Anti-Doping Rules. These Anti-Doping Rules shall be
incorporated either directly, or by reference, into the rules or regulations of each
Member Federation and Area Association, and each Member Federation and Area
Association shall include in its rules the procedural regulations or by-laws necessary
to implement the Anti-Doping Rules effectively (and any changes that may be made
to them from time to time). The rules of each Member Federation and Area
Association shall specifically provide that all Athletes and other Persons under their
jurisdiction shall be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, including submitting to the
Results Management authority set out in these Rules.

1.4.2 Without limitation to the above, these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to:

(a) World Athletics, including its Council Members, Executive Board

Members and other Officials as defined in the World Athletics
Constitution;
(b) the Integrity Unit Board and consultants and advisors to the Integrity
Unit;

(c) subject to applicable laws, any World Athletics employee who works for
the Integrity Unit or who is involved in any aspect of Doping Control on
behalf of World Athletics/Integrity Unit;

(d) Delegated Third Parties (and their employees) who are involved in any
aspect of Doping Control and/or anti-doping Education on behalf of
World Athletics/Integrity Unit;

[Comment to Rule 1.4.2(d): Delegated Third Parties involved in any aspect of Doping
Control on behalf of World Athletics/Integrity Unit include any individuals serving as
independent contractors who perform Doping Control services (e.g., non-employee
Doping Control officers or chaperones)].

(e) each of World Athletics' Member Federations, including their council

and board members, directors, officers, consultants and advisors, and
any employees and Delegated Third Parties (and their employees) who
are involved in any aspect of Doping Control on behalf of a Member
Federation; and

(f) the following Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons:

(i) all Athletes who have signed an agreement with World Athletics
or have been accredited or granted an official status by World
Athletics/the Integrity Unit (for example, by way of inclusion in the
International Registered Testing Pool or by designation of a
Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze Label status) and all Athlete
Support Personnel who have been accredited or granted an
official status by World Athletics (for example, by way of an
identity card) or who participate in International Events organised
or sanctioned by World Athletics;

(ii) all Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who are
members of or authorised by any Member Federation, or any
member or affiliate organisation of any Member Federation
(including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues);

(iii) all Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons

preparing for or participating in such capacity in Events and/or
other activities organised, convened, authorised, sanctioned or
recognised by (i) World Athletics (ii) any Member Federation or any
member or affiliate organisation of any Member Federation
(including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues), or (iii) any
Area Association, wherever held, and all Athlete Support Personnel
supporting or associated with such Athletes' preparation or
participation; and
 (iv) any other Athlete or Athlete Support Personnel or other Person
who, whether by virtue of an accreditation, a licence or other
contractual arrangement, or otherwise, is subject to the authority
of World Athletics, or of any Member Federation, or of any
member or affiliate organisation of any Member Federation
(including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues), for purposes
of anti-doping; and

(v) Athletes who are not regular members of World Athletics or of one
of its Members Federations, but who want to be eligible to
compete in a particular International Event and all Athlete Support
Personnel supporting such Athletes' participation in the relevant
International Event(s).

1.4.3 Each of the Persons covered by Rule 1.4.2 is deemed, as a condition of their
membership, accreditation, participation, employment and/or involvement in the
sport, to have agreed to be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, and to have
submitted to the authority of the Integrity Unit to enforce these Anti-Doping Rules
on behalf of World Athletics, including any Consequences for breach thereof, and
(with the exception of World Athletics' employees) to the jurisdiction of the hearing
panels identified below to hear and determine cases and appeals brought under
these Anti-Doping Rules.

[Comment to Rule 1.4.3: Under the laws of Monaco, World Athletics' employees cannot be required to
submit to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal and any breach of these Anti-Doping Rules by a
World Athletics' employee shall be resolved before the relevant tribunal or authority in Monaco in
accordance with the disciplinary processes prescribed under such laws. For the avoidance of doubt, Rule
1.4.3 is binding on consultants and advisors to World Athletics/the Integrity Unit who are not employees
of World Athletics.]

1.4.4 Within the overall pool of Athletes set out above who are bound by and required to
comply with these Anti-Doping Rules, each of the following Athletes at the relevant
time shall be considered to be an International-Level Athlete ("International-Level
Athlete") for the purposes of these Anti-Doping Rules and therefore the specific
provisions in these Anti-Doping Rules applicable to International-Level Athletes (e.g.,
Testing, TUEs, whereabouts and Results Management) shall apply to such Athletes:

(a) An Athlete who is in the International Registered Testing Pool as

published from time to time on the Integrity Unit website:
https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/know-the-process/registered-testing-pool;

(b) An Athlete who is entered for, or is competing in, any of the following
International Events

(i) World Athletics Series Events;

(ii) the Athletics programme of the Olympic Games; and

(iii) such other International Events as shall be determined and

published by the Integrity Unit on its website.
 [Comment to Rule 1.4.4(b)(ii). Athletes will only be International-Level Athletes for the
purposes of these Anti-Doping Rules if they are included on the final list of entries for the
relevant edition of the Olympic Games].

(c) An Athlete who has Platinum or Gold Status under the World Athletics
Label Road Races Programme, as published by the Integrity Unit on its
website.

(d) For the purposes of Results Management responsibility, in addition to

having Results Management responsibility over any Athlete falling
within Rule 1.4.4(a), (b) or (c) above, the Integrity Unit shall have Results
Management responsibility over Athletes or other Persons whenever
the asserted anti-doping rule violation results from (i) Testing conducted
under the Testing authority of World Athletics; (ii) an investigation
conducted by the Integrity Unit, or (iii) in any of the other circumstances
in which World Athletics/the Integrity Unit has Results Management
responsibility under Rule 7.

1.5 Responsibilities of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel, other Persons, and Member
Federations

1.5.1 Athletes must:

(a) be knowledgeable of and comply with these Anti-Doping Rules at all

times;

(b) know what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and the substances
and methods that have been included on the Prohibited List;

(c) be available for Sample collection at all times;

(d) take responsibility, in the context of anti-doping, for what they ingest
and Use;

(e) carry out research regarding any products or substances that they
intend to Use (prior to such Use) to ensure that Using them will not
constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation. Such research must,
at a minimum, include a reasonable internet search of:

(i) the name of the product or substance;

(ii) the ingredients/substances listed on the product or substance

label;

(iii) other related information revealed through research of points (i)

and (ii).
 (f) inform medical personnel of their obligation not to Use Prohibited
Substances and Prohibited Methods, and make sure that any medical
treatment they receive does not violate these Anti-Doping Rules;

(g) disclose to their National Anti-Doping Organisation and the Integrity

Unit any decision (whether by a Signatory or a non-Signatory) that they
committed an anti-doping rule violation within the previous ten years;

(h) co-operate fully with the Integrity Unit and any other Anti-Doping
Organisations investigating possible anti-doping rule violations and/or
other breaches of these Anti-Doping Rules. Failure by an Athlete to
cooperate in full with the Integrity Unit investigating anti-doping rule
violations or other breaches of these Anti-Doping Rules will constitute a
violation of Rule 12; and

(i) disclose the identity of their Athlete Support Personnel upon request by
the Integrity Unit, a Member Federation, and/or any other Anti-Doping
Organisation with authority over the Athlete.

1.5.2 Athlete Support Personnel must:

(a) be knowledgeable of and comply with these Anti-Doping Rules at all

times;

(b) co-operate with Doping Control;

(c) use their influence on Athlete values and behaviour to foster anti-doping
attitudes;

(d) disclose to their National Anti-Doping Organisation and the Integrity

Unit any decision (whether by a Signatory or by a non-Signatory) finding
that they committed an anti-doping rule violation within the previous
ten years;

(e) co-operate fully with the Integrity Unit and any other Anti-Doping
Organisations investigating possible anti-doping rule violations and/or
other breaches of these Anti-Doping Rules. Failure by any Athlete
Support Person to cooperate in full with the Integrity Unit investigating
anti-doping rule violations or other breaches of these Anti-Doping Rules
will constitute a violation of Rule 12; and

(f) not Use or possess any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

without valid justification. Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method by an Athlete Support Person without valid
justification will constitute a violation of Rule 2.

1.5.3 Other Persons subject to these Anti-Doping Rules must:

 (a) be knowledgeable of and comply with these Anti-Doping Rules at all
times;

(b) disclose to the Integrity Unit (and, if applicable, their National Anti-
Doping Organisation) any decision (whether by a Signatory or by a non-
Signatory) finding that they committed an anti-doping rule violation
within the previous ten years; and

(c) co-operate fully with the Integrity Unit and any other Anti-Doping
Organisations investigating possible anti-doping rule violations and/or
other breaches of these Anti-Doping Rules. Failure by any other Person
to cooperate in full with the Integrity Unit and/or other Anti-Doping
Organisations investigating anti-doping rule violations and/or other
breaches of these Anti-Doping Rules will constitute a violation of Rule
12.

1.5.4 Offensive conduct by an Athlete, Athlete Support Person or other Person towards a
Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control that does not
otherwise constitute Tampering is a violation and may be prosecuted as such under
Rule 12 of these Anti-Doping Rules and/or the Integrity Code of Conduct.

1.6 Notices and time-limits

1.6.1 Any notice to be given under these Anti-Doping Rules by the Integrity Unit or any
party (“Notifying Party”) will be deemed to have been given sufficiently to the party
to whom the notice is required to be sent (“Receiving Party”) if it is given in writing
and delivered by one of the following means to the Receiving Party:

(a) by post to the last known address of the Receiving Party;

(b) by personal delivery (including by courier) to the published physical

address of the Receiving Party;

(c) by electronic mail or other electronic means of communication, to the

email or other electronic address of the Receiving Party; or

(d) by facsimile to the published facsimile number of the Receiving Party.

[Comment to 1.6.1(c): In the case of notice to an Athlete, notice will be effective if the Integrity Unit
sends it to the e-mail address recorded for that Athlete in ADAMS and, in the case of notice to a Member
Federation, notice will be effective if the Integrity Unit sends it to the Member Federation’s
@mf.worldathletics.org e-mail address published by World Athletics].

1.6.2 Alternatively, where the Receiving Party is a member of or affiliated to a Member

Federation, notification may be accomplished by delivery of the notice by one of the
foregoing means to the Member Federation. It will be the responsibility of the
Member Federation to without delay (i) forward the notice to the Receiving Party,
and (ii) inform the Notifying Party of such notification.
 [Comment to 1.6.2: Notice will be effective under Rule 1.6.2 if the Integrity Unit sends the notice to the
Member Federation’s @mf.worldathletics.org e-mail address published by World Athletics].

1.6.3 Any time-limits stated in these Anti-Doping Rules will begin on the working day after
the day on which the Notifying Party sends the notification that triggers the time-
limit. Official holidays and non-working days are included in the calculation of time-
limits, save that if the last day of the time-limit falls on an official holiday or non-
working day in the country where the party who is subject to the time-limit resides,
then the last day of the time-limit will be deemed to be the next working day. A
time-limit will be deemed to have been met if the notification is received before
midnight Central European Time on the last day of the specified time limit.

1.7 Effective Date and Transitional Provisions

1.7.1 These 2025 Anti-Doping Rules come into full force and effect on 1 January 2025 (the
"Effective Date") replacing the 2024 World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules that were in
force prior to the Effective Date.

1.7.2 These Anti-Doping Rules do not apply retroactively to matters pending before the
Effective Date, save that:

(a) Anti-doping rule violations taking place prior to the Effective Date count
as 'first violations' or 'second violations' for the purposes of determining
the Consequences under Rule 10.9 for anti-doping rule violations taking
place after the Effective Date.

(b) Any anti-doping rule violation case that is pending as of the Effective
Date or is brought after the Effective Date but based on an anti-doping
rule violation that occurred prior to the Effective Date, shall be governed
by the substantive anti-doping rules in effect at the time the alleged
anti-doping rule violation occurred and not by the substantive anti-
doping rules set out in these Anti-Doping Rules, unless the hearing panel
determines that the principle of lex mitior appropriately applies under
the circumstances of the case, and with respect to procedural matters
by these Anti-Doping Rules (unless by the Effective Date the case has
already been referred to a hearing body in accordance with Rule 38 of
the 2016-2017 IAAF Competition Rules, in which event the case shall
proceed before such hearing body under the 2016-2017 IAAF
Competition Rules). For the purposes of this Rule, the retrospective
periods in which prior violations can be considered for the purposes of
multiple violations under Rule 10.9.4 and the statute of limitations set
out in Rule 18 are procedural rules, not substantive rules, and should be
applied retroactively, along with all the other procedural rules in these
Anti-Doping Rules (provided however that Rule 18 will only be applied
retroactively if the statute of limitations period – whether the original
one or as extended by subsequent rules – has not already expired by the
Effective Date).
(c) Any Rule 2.4 whereabouts failure (whether a filing failure or a missed
test, as defined in the International Standard for Results Management)
that took place prior to the Effective Date may be relied upon as one of
the requisite elements of a Rule 2.4 anti-doping rule violation under
these Anti-Doping Rules until 12 months after it took place.

(d) With respect to cases where a final decision finding an anti-doping rule
violation has been rendered prior to the Effective Date, but the Athlete
or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility as of the Effective
Date, the Athlete or other Person may apply to the Integrity Unit or
other Anti-Doping Organisation that had Results Management
responsibility for the anti-doping rule violation to consider a reduction
in the period of Ineligibility in light of these Anti-Doping Rules. Such
application must be made before the period of Ineligibility has expired.
The decision rendered may be appealed pursuant to Rule 13.2. These
Anti-Doping Rules will have no application to any case where a final
decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered and the
period of Ineligibility has expired.

(e) For the purposes of assessing the period of Ineligibility for a second
violation under Rule 10.9.1, where the sanction for the first violation
was determined based on rules in force prior to the Effective Date, the
period of Ineligibility that would have been assessed for that first
violation, had these Anti-Doping Rules been applicable at that time, will
be applied.

[Comment to Rule 1.6.2(e): Other than the situation described in Rule 1.6.2(e), where
a final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered prior to the
Effective Date and the period of Ineligibility imposed has been completely served, these
Anti-Doping Rules may not be used to re-characterise the prior violation.]

(f) Changes to the WADA Prohibited List and/or to Technical Documents

relating to substances or methods on the Prohibited List will not be
applied retroactively unless they specifically so provide. However,
where the effect of the change is to remove a Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method from the Prohibited List, an Athlete or other Person
who is serving a period of Ineligibility on account of that (former)
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may apply to the Integrity
Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation that had Results Management
responsibility for the anti-doping rule violation to consider a reduction
in the period of Ineligibility in light of its removal from the Prohibited
List.

(g) The analytical results and data from Samples collected before the
Effective Date may be used for any legitimate purpose under World
Athletics Rules or Regulations, for example, to monitor the eligibility of
Athletes under those Rules or Regulations in accordance with Article
23.2.2 of the Code.
2. Anti-Doping Rule Violations

Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the violations set out in Rules 2.1 to 2.11 below.

The purpose of this Rule 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti-doping rule
violations. Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these
specific rules have been violated.

Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation
and the substances and methods that have been included on the Prohibited List.

Each of the following constitutes an anti-doping rule violation:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample

2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their
body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or
Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary to
demonstrate intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part in order
to establish a Rule 2.1 anti-doping rule violation.

2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 2.1 is established by any
of the following: (i) the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or
Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample
and the B Sample is not analysed; (ii) where the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample
confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers
found in the Athlete’s A Sample; or (iii) where the Athlete’s A or B Sample is split into
two parts and the analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the
presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first
part of the split Sample or the Athlete waives analysis of the confirmation part of the
split Sample.

2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in the
Prohibited List or a Technical Document, the presence of any reported quantity of a
Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample will
constitute an anti-doping rule violation.

2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Rule 2.1, the Prohibited List, International
Standards or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the
evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances.

2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

2.2.1 It is the Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their
body and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly, it is not necessary to
demonstrate intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part in order
to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a
Prohibited Method.
 [Comment to Rule 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 Rule 3.2,
unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 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 that does not
otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish the presence of a Prohibited Substance under Rule
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 the Anti-Doping Organisation provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in
the other Sample.]

2.2.2 The success or failure of the 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 Rule 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
Attempted Use does not undermine the strict liability principle established for violations of Rule 2.1 and
violations of Rule 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 Prohibited 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 will be a violation of Rule 2.1, regardless of when that Prohibited Substance might have
been Administered.]

2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete

An Athlete evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection

without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorised Person.

[Comment to Rule 2.3: For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of 'evading Sample collection' if it
were established that an Athlete was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or
Testing. A violation of 'failing to submit to Sample collection' may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct
of the Athlete, while 'evading' or 'refusing' Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Athlete.]

2.4 Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool

Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International
Standard for Results Management, within a 12-month period by an Athlete in a Registered
Testing Pool.

2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control by an Athlete or other
Person

2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete

Support Person

2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited

Substance, or Possession by an Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited
Method or any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, unless
the Athlete establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted in
accordance with Rule 4.3 or other acceptable justification.
 2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited
Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by Athlete Support Person Out-
of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is
prohibited Out-of-Competition, in connection with an Athlete, Competition or
training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is
consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Rule 4.3 or other
acceptable justification.

[Comment to Rules 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) an Athlete or
a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and
emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine auto-injector), or (b) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a
determination on a TUE. Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing
a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical
circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying insulin for a diabetic child.]

2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by an

Athlete or other Person

2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration by an Athlete or other Person to any Athlete

In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or Prohibited Substance, or Administration or
Attempted Administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or
any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out-of-Competition

2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or other Person

Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up, or any other type of
intentional complicity or Attempted complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, an
Attempted anti-doping rule violation, or violation of Rule 10.14.1 by another Person.

[Comment to Rule 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance.]

2.10 Prohibited Association by an Athlete or other Person

2.10.1 Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping

Organisation in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support
Person who:

(a) if subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation, is serving a

period of Ineligibility; or

(b) if not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation and where

Ineligibility has not been addressed in a Results Management process
pursuant to the Code, has been convicted or found in a criminal,
disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct that
would have constituted a violation of anti-doping rules if rules compliant
with the Code had been applicable to such Person. The disqualifying
status of such Person will be in force for the longer of (i) six years from
 the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or (ii) the duration of
the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or

(c) is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Rule

2.10.1(a) or 2.10.1(b).

2.10.2 To establish a Rule 2.10 anti-doping rule violation, the Integrity Unit or other Anti-
Doping Organisation must establish that the Athlete or other Person knew of the
Athlete Support Person's disqualifying status.

The burden will be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association
with an Athlete Support Person described in Rule 2.10.1(a) and 2.10.1(b) is not in a
professional or sport-related capacity and/or that such association could not have
been reasonably avoided.

If the Integrity Unit (or other Anti-Doping Organisation) becomes aware of any
Athlete Support Person who meets the criteria described in Rules 2.10.1(a),
2.10.1(b), or 2.10.1(c), it must submit that information to WADA.

[Comment to Rule 2.10: Athletes and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other
Athlete Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an anti-doping rule violation or who have been
criminally convicted or professionally disciplined in relation to doping. This also prohibits association with any other
Athlete who is acting as a coach or Athlete Support Person while serving a period of Ineligibility. Some examples
of the types of association that are prohibited include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical
advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodily products for analysis; or allowing the
Athlete Support Person to serve as an agent or representative. Prohibited association need not involve any form
of compensation. While Rule 2.10 does not require the Integrity Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation to notify
the Athlete or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if provided, would
be important evidence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the
Athlete Support Person. If the Athlete or other Person discharges the burden on them under Rule 2.10.2, that will
be a complete defence to the charge that the Athlete or other Person has committed a Rule 2.10 anti-doping rule
violation.]

2.11 Acts by an Athlete or other Person to Discourage or Retaliate against Reporting to

Authorities

Where such conduct does not otherwise constitute a violation of Rule 2.5 (Tampering):

2.11.1 Any act that threatens or seeks to intimidate another Person with the intent of
discouraging the Person from the good-faith reporting of information that relates to
an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with these Anti-Doping
Rules or the Code to WADA, the Integrity Unit, another Anti-Doping Organisation, a
law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, a hearing body, or a
Person conducting an investigation for WADA or the Integrity Unit or another Anti-
Doping Organisation.

2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who has provided evidence or information in good faith
that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with
these Anti-Doping Rules or the Code to WADA, the Integrity Unit, another Anti-Doping
Organisation, a law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, a
 hearing body, or a Person conducting an investigation for WADA or the Integrity Unit
or another Anti-Doping Organisation.

[Comment to Rule 2.11.2: This Rule is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports and does
not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.]

2.11.3 For the purposes of Rule 2.11, retaliation, threatening, and intimidation include an act
taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a
disproportionate response.

[Comment to Rule 2.11.3: Retaliation would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or
mental well-being or economic interests of the reporting Persons, their families or associates. Retaliation
would not include an Anti-Doping Organisation asserting in good faith an anti-doping rule violation
against the reporting Person. For the purposes of Rule 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the
Person making the report knows the report to be false.]

3. Proof of Doping

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

The Integrity Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation will have the burden of establishing that
an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof will be whether the Integrity
Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the
comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation
that has been 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 these Anti-Doping Rules
place 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,
except as provided in Rules 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, the standard of proof will be by a balance of
probability.

[Comment to Rule 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by the Integrity Unit is comparable to the standard
that is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.]

3.2 Methods of establishing Facts and Presumptions

Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including
admissions.

[Comment to Rule 3.2: For example, the Integrity Unit may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 2.2
(Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of
third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in
the comments to Rule 2.2, or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Athlete’s blood or urine Samples,
such as data from the Athlete's Biological Passport.]

The following rules of proof will be applicable in doping cases:

3.2.1 Analytical methods or Decision Limits that have been approved by WADA after
consultation within the relevant scientific community or that have been the subject
of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. Any Athlete or other Person
seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presumption have been met
 or to rebut this presumption of scientific validity will, as a condition precedent to
any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge.
The initial hearing body, appellate body or CAS may also (on its own initiative) inform
WADA of any such challenge. Within ten days of WADA’s receipt of such notice and
the case file related to such challenge, WADA will also have the right to intervene as
a party, appear as amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding.
In cases before CAS, at WADA’s request, the CAS panel will appoint an appropriate
scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge.

[Comment to Rule 3.2.1: For certain Prohibited Substances, WADA may instruct WADA-accredited
laboratories not to report Samples as an Adverse Analytical Finding if the estimated concentration of
the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers is below a Minimum Reporting Level. WADA’s
decision in determining that Minimum Reporting Level or in determining which Prohibited Substances
should be subject to Minimum Reporting Levels is not subject to challenge. Further, the laboratory’s
estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate. In no event
will the possibility that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may be below
the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defence to an anti-doping rule violation based on the
presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.]

3.2.2 Compliance with an International Standard (as opposed to an alternative standard,

practice or procedure) will be sufficient to conclude that the procedures addressed
by the International Standard were performed properly.

3.2.3 WADA-accredited laboratories and other laboratories approved by WADA are

presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in
accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories. The Athlete or other
Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the
International Standard for Laboratories occurred that could reasonably have caused
the Adverse Analytical Finding.

If the Athlete or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a
departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred that could
reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then the Integrity Unit will
have the burden of establishing that such departure did not cause the Adverse
Analytical Finding.

[Comment to Rule 3.2.3: The burden is on the Athlete or other Person to establish, by a balance of
probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have
caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. Thus, once the Athlete or other Person establishes the departure
by a balance of probability, the Athlete's or other Person’s burden on causation is the somewhat lower
standard of proof – 'could reasonably have caused'. If the Athlete or other Person satisfies these
standards, the burden shifts to the Integrity Unit to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing
panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.]

3.2.4 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule policy
set forth or referred to in the World Anti-Doping Code or in these Anti-Doping Rules
will not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation
or other breach of these Anti-Doping Rules and will not constitute a defence to an
anti-doping rule violation or other breach of these Anti-Doping Rules; provided,
however, if the Athlete or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the
specific International Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused
 an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts
failure, then the Integrity Unit will have the burden of establishing that such a
departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the whereabouts failure:

(a) a departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations
relating to Sample collection or Sample handling that could reasonably have
caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding,
in which case the Integrity Unit will have the burden to establish that such
departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding;

(b) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management or

International Standard for Testing and Investigations relating to an Adverse
Passport Finding that could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule
violation, in which case the Integrity Unit will have the burden to establish
that such departure did not cause the anti-doping rule violation;

(c) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management

relating to the requirement to provide notice to the Athlete of the B Sample
opening that could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation
based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, in which case the Integrity Unit will
have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse
Analytical Finding; or

[Comment to Rule 3.2.4(c): The Integrity Unit would meet its burden to establish that such
departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding by showing that, for example, the B
Sample opening and analysis were observed by an independent witness and no irregularities
were observed.]

(d) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management

relating to Athlete notification that could reasonably have caused an anti-
doping rule violation based on a whereabouts failure, in which case the
Integrity Unit will have the burden to establish that such departure did not
cause the whereabouts failure.

[Comment to Rule 3.2.4: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample
collection or handling, Adverse Passport Finding, or Athlete notification relating to whereabouts failure
or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the
Protection of Privacy and Personal Information or International Standard for Therapeutic Use
Exemptions – may result in compliance proceedings by WADA but are not a defence in an anti-doping
rule violation proceeding and are not relevant on the issue of whether the Athlete committed an anti-
doping rule violation. Similarly, a violation of the Athlete's Anti-Doping Rights Act by the Integrity Unit
(or other relevant body) will not constitute a defence to an anti-doping rule violation.]

3.2.5 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of

competent jurisdiction that is not the subject of a pending appeal will be irrefutable
evidence against the Athlete or other Person to whom the decision pertained of
those facts, unless the Athlete or other Person establishes that the decision violated
principles of natural justice.
 3.2.6 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw an
inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed
an anti-doping rule violation based on the Athlete’s or other Person’s refusal, after
a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the
hearing (either in person or by telephone as directed by the hearing panel) and to
answer questions either from the hearing panel or from the Integrity Unit or other
Anti-Doping Organisation asserting the anti-doping rule violation.

4. The Prohibited List

4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List

4.1.1 These Anti-Doping Rules incorporate the Prohibited List, which is published and
revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the Code.

4.1.2 Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List and/or a revision, the Prohibited List
and revisions will come into effect under these Anti-Doping Rules three months after
publication of the Prohibited List or revision by WADA automatically, i.e., without
requiring any further action by World Athletics. All Athletes and other Persons will be
bound by the Prohibited List and any revisions thereto from the date they come into
effect, without further formality. It is the responsibility of all Athletes and other
Persons to familiarise themselves with the most up-to-date version of the Prohibited
List and all revisions thereto.

[Comment to Rule 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at https://www.wada-ama.org.
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises. However, for the
sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made.]

4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods identified on the Prohibited List

4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods

(a) The Prohibited List identifies those substances and methods that are
prohibited as doping at all times (i.e., both In-Competition and Out-of-
Competition) because of their potential to enhance performance in
future Competitions or their masking potential, and those substances
and methods that are prohibited In-Competition only. Prohibited
Substances and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited
List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference
to a particular substance or method.

(b) As described in Article 4.2.1 of the Code, WADA may expand the
Prohibited List for the sport of Athletics.

(c) WADA may also include additional substances or methods that have the
potential for abuse in the sport of Athletics, in the monitoring program
described in Article 4.5 of the Code.
 [Comment to Rule 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance that is only prohibited In-Competition
is not an anti-doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its
Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample collected In-Competition.]

4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified Methods

For the purposes of the application of Rule 10, all Prohibited Substances will be
deemed to be Specified Substances except as identified on the Prohibited List. A
Prohibited Method will not be considered to be a Specified Method unless it is
specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List.

[Comment to Rule 4.2.2: The Specified Substances and Specified Methods identified in Rule 4.2.2 should
not in any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping substances. Rather,
they are simply substances that are more likely to have been consumed by an Athlete for a purpose
other than the enhancement of sport performance.]

4.2.3 Substances of Abuse

For the purposes of the application of Rule 10, certain Prohibited Substances are
specifically identified on the Prohibited List as Substances of Abuse because they are
frequently abused in society outside of the context of sport.

4.3 WADA’s determination of the Prohibited List

WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that are (or will
be) included on the Prohibited List, the classification of substances into categories on the
Prohibited List, the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition
only, and the classification of a substance or method as a Specified Substance, Specified
Method or Substance of Abuse, is final and will not be subject to any challenge by an Athlete
or other Person, including (without limitation) any challenge based on an argument that the
substance or method is not a masking agent or does not have the potential to enhance
performance, represent a health risk, or violate the spirit of sport.

4.4 Therapeutic Use Exemptions ("TUEs")

4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (Rule 2.1),
and/or Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
(Rule 2.2), Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method (Rule 2.6),
or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method (Rule 2.8), will not be considered an anti-doping rule violation if
it is consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted in accordance with the
International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

4.4.2 TUE applications

(a) Athletes who are not International-Level Athletes must apply to their
National Anti-Doping Organisation for a TUE. If the National Anti-Doping
Organisation denies the application, the Athlete may appeal exclusively to
the national-level appeal body described in Rule 13.2.
 (b) Athletes who are International-Level Athletes must apply to World
Athletics/the Integrity Unit for a TUE.

4.4.3 TUE recognition

(a) Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping
Organisation pursuant to Rule 4.4.2(a) for the substance or method in
question, and if that TUE meets the criteria set out in the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, World Athletics/the Integrity Unit
will recognise it for purposes of International Events If World Athletics
considers that the TUE does not meet those criteria and so refuses to
recognise it, World Athletics will notify the Athlete and the Athlete's National
Anti-Doping Organisation promptly with reasons. The Athlete or the National
Anti-Doping Organisation will have 21 days from such notification to refer the
matter to WADA for review in accordance with Rule 4.4.7. If the matter is
referred to WADA for review, the TUE granted by the National Anti-Doping
Organisation is not valid for International Events but remains valid for
national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing pending WADA’s
decision. If the matter is not referred to WADA for review within the 21-day
deadline the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation must determine
whether the original TUE granted by that National Anti- Doping Organisation
should nevertheless remain valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-
Competition Testing (provided that the Athlete ceases to be an
International-Level Athlete and does not participate in international-level
Competition). Pending the National Anti-Doping Organisation’s decision, the
TUE remains valid for national-level Competition and Out-of-Competition
Testing (but is not valid for international-level Competition).

[Comment to Rule 4.4.3(a): Further to Articles 5.7 and 7.1 of the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions, World Athletics will publish and keep updated a notice on its
website and/or the Integrity Unit website that sets out clearly (1) which Athletes under its
authority are required to apply to it for a TUE, (2) which TUE decisions it will automatically
recognise in lieu of such application (if any), and (3) which TUE decisions of other Anti-Doping
Organisations will have to be submitted to it for recognition.]

(b) If the Integrity Unit chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-
Level Athlete, the Integrity Unit will recognise a TUE granted to that Athlete
by their National Anti-Doping Organisation.

[Comment to Rule 4.4.3: If the Integrity Unit refuses to recognise a TUE granted by a National Anti-
Doping Organisation only because medical records or other information are missing that are needed to
demonstrate satisfaction with the criteria in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions,
the matter should not be referred to WADA. Instead, the file should be completed and re-submitted to
the Integrity Unit. The Integrity Unit may agree with a National Anti-Doping Organisation that the
National Anti-Doping Organisation will consider TUE applications on behalf of the Integrity Unit.]

4.4.4 TUE application process

(a) If the Athlete does not already have a TUE granted by their National Anti-
Doping Organisation for the substance or method in question, the Athlete
 must apply directly to World Athletics/the Integrity Unit for a TUE in
accordance with the process set out in the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions using the form posted on the World Athletics’
website and/or the Integrity Unit website (link).

(b) An application to World Athletics for grant or recognition of a TUE must be

made as soon as possible (save where Articles 4.1 or 4.3 of the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions applies) and in any event at least
30 days before the Athlete’s next Event.

(c) World Athletics will appoint a panel to consider applications for the grant or
recognition of TUEs (the "TUE Committee").

(d) The TUE Committee will promptly evaluate and decide upon the application
in accordance with the relevant provisions of the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions and any specific World Athletics protocols
posted on the World Athletics and/or Integrity Unit website, and usually (i.e.,
unless exceptional circumstances apply) within no more than 21 days of
receipt of a complete application. Where the application is made in a
reasonable time prior to an Event, the TUE Committee will use its best
endeavours to issue its decision before the start of the Event.

(e) The decision of the TUE Committee will be the final decision of the World
Athletics and may be appealed in accordance with Rule 4.4.7. The TUE
Committee decision will be notified in writing to the Athlete, and to WADA
and other relevant Anti-Doping Organisations, including the Athlete’s
National Anti-Doping Organisation in accordance with the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. It will also promptly be reported
into ADAMS.

(f) If World Athletics (or the National Anti-Doping Organisation, where it has
agreed to consider the application on behalf of World Athletics) denies the
Athlete’s application, it must notify the Athlete promptly, with reasons. If
World Athletics grants the Athlete’s application, it must notify not only the
Athlete but also their National Anti-Doping Organisation. If the National Anti-
Doping Organisation considers that the TUE granted by World Athletics does
not meet the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic
Use Exemptions, it has 21 days from such notification to refer the matter to
WADA for review in accordance with Rule 4.4.7(a).

(g) If the National Anti-Doping Organisation refers the matter to WADA for
review, the TUE granted by World Athletics remains valid for International-
Level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing but is not valid for
national-level Competition testing pending WADA’s decision. If the National
Anti-Doping Organisation does not refer the matter to WADA for review, the
TUE granted by World Athletics becomes valid for national-level Competition
Testing as well when the 21-day review deadline expires.
 [Comment to Rule 4.4.4: Submitting to the TUE Committee or the Integrity Unit falsified documents or
false or misleadingly incomplete information in support of a TUE application (including but not limited
to the failure to advise of the unsuccessful outcome of a prior application to another Anti-Doping
Organisation for such a TUE), offering or accepting a bribe to/from a Person to perform or fail to perform
an act, procuring false testimony from any witness, or committing any other fraudulent act or any other
similar intentional interference or Attempted interference with any aspect of the TUE process will result
in a charge of Tampering or Attempted Tampering under Rule 2.5.

An Athlete should not assume that their application for grant or recognition of a TUE (or for renewal of
a TUE) will be granted. Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method before an application has been granted is entirely at the Athlete’s own risk.]

4.4.5 Retroactive TUE applications

(a) Subject to Rule 4.4.5(b), an Athlete may apply for a retroactive TUE on the
grounds set out in Articles 4.1 and 4.3 of the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

(b) If the Integrity Unit chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-
Level Athlete or a National-Level Athlete, the Integrity Unit will permit that
Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE for any Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method that the Athlete is Using for therapeutic reasons.

4.4.6 Expiration, cancellation, withdrawal or reversal of a TUE

(a) A TUE granted pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules:

(i) will expire automatically at the end of any period for which it was
granted, without the need for any further notice or other formality;

(ii) will be cancelled if the Athlete does not promptly comply with any
requirements or conditions imposed by the TUE Committee upon
grant of the TUE;

(iii) may be withdrawn by the TUE Committee if it is subsequently

determined that the criteria for grant of a TUE are not in fact met; or

(iv) may be reversed on review by WADA or on appeal.

(b) The Athlete will not be subject to any Consequences based on their Use or
Possession or Administration of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method in question in accordance with the TUE prior to the effective date of
expiry, cancellation, withdrawal or reversal of the TUE. The review pursuant
to Article 5.1.1.1 of the International Standard for Results Management of an
Adverse Analytical Finding, reported shortly after the TUE expiry,
cancellation, withdrawal or reversal, will include consideration of whether
such finding is consistent with Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method prior to that date, in which event no anti-doping rule violation will
be asserted.

4.4.7 Reviews and appeals of TUE decisions

 (a) WADA must review any decision by World Athletics not to recognise a TUE
granted by the National Anti-Doping Organisation that is referred to WADA
by the Athlete or the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation. In
addition, WADA must review any decision by World Athletics to grant a TUE
that is referred to WADA by the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation.
WADA may review any other TUE decisions at any time, whether upon
request by those affected or on its own initiative. If the TUE decision being
reviewed meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions, WADA will not interfere with it. If the TUE
decision does not meet those criteria, WADA will reverse it.

[Comment to Rule 4.4.7(a): WADA may charge a fee to cover the costs of: (a) any review it is
required to conduct in accordance with Rule 4.4.7; and (b) any review it chooses to conduct,
where the decision being reviewed is reversed.]

(b) Any TUE decision by World Athletics (or by a National Anti-Doping

Organisation where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of
World Athletics/the Integrity Unit) that is not reviewed by WADA, or that is
reviewed by WADA but is not reversed upon review, may be appealed by the
Athlete and/or the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation, exclusively
to CAS.

[Comment to Rule 4.4.7(b): In such cases, the decision being appealed is the decision of the TUE
Committee, not WADA’s decision not to review the TUE Committee decision or (having reviewed
it) not to reverse the TUE Committee decision. However, the deadline to appeal the TUE
Committee decision does not begin to run until the date that WADA communicates its decision.
In any event, whether the decision has been reviewed by WADA or not, WADA must be given
notice of the appeal so that it may participate if it sees fit.]

(c) A decision by WADA to reverse a TUE decision may be appealed by the

Athlete, the National Anti-Doping Organisation and/or the Integrity Unit on
behalf of World Athletics exclusively to CAS.

(d) A failure to render a decision within a reasonable time on a properly

submitted application for grant or recognition of a TUE or for review of a TUE
decision will be considered a denial of the application thus triggering the
applicable rights of review/appeal.

(e) Until such time as a TUE decision pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules has
been reversed upon review by WADA or upon appeal, that TUE decision will
remain in full force and effect.

5. Testing and Investigations

5.1 Purpose of Testing and Investigations

5.1.1 Testing and investigations may be undertaken under these Anti-Doping Rules for any
anti-doping purpose. They will be conducted in conformity with the provisions of the
International Standard for Testing and Investigations and by the Integrity Unit where
 applicable in accordance with the provisions supplementing that International
Standard as set out in these Anti-Doping Rules.

5.1.2 Testing will be undertaken to obtain analytical evidence as to whether the Athlete
has violated Rule 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or
Markers in an Athlete's Sample) or Rule 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of
a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method).

[Comment to Rule 5.1.2: Where Testing is conducted for anti-doping purposes, the analytical results and
data may be used for other legitimate purposes under these Anti-Doping Rules and/or under other
World Athletics Rules or Regulations, for example, to monitor eligibility under the World Athletics
Eligibility Regulations for Transgender Athletes or the World Athletics Eligibility Regulations for the
Female Classification].

5.2 Authority to test

5.2.1 Subject to the limitations for Event Testing set out in Rule 5.4, the Integrity Unit will
have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes who
are subject to these Anti-Doping Rules.

5.2.2 The Integrity Unit may require any Athlete over whom it has Testing authority
(including any Athlete serving a period of Ineligibility) to provide a Sample at any
time and at any place.

[Comment to Rule 5.2.2: The Integrity Unit may obtain additional authority to conduct Testing by means
of bilateral or multilateral agreements with Code Signatories. Unless the Athlete has identified a 60-
minute Testing window between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or has otherwise consented to
Testing during that period, the Integrity Unit will not test an Athlete during that period unless it has a
serious and specific suspicion that the Athlete may be engaged in doping. A challenge to whether the
Integrity Unit had sufficient suspicion for Testing during this time period shall not be a defence to an
anti-doping rule violation based on such test or attempted test.]

5.2.3 WADA will have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority as set out
in Article 20.7.10 of the Code.

5.2.4 If the Integrity Unit delegates or contracts any part of Testing to a National Anti-
Doping Organisation, directly or through a Member Federation, that National Anti-
Doping Organisation may collect additional Samples or direct the laboratory to
perform additional types of analysis at the National Anti-Doping Organisation’s
expense. If additional Samples are collected or additional types of analyses are
performed, the Integrity Unit must be notified.

5.3 Test Distribution Planning

5.3.1 The Integrity Unit will conduct test distribution planning and Testing as required by
the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

5.3.2 Where reasonably feasible, Testing will be coordinated by the Integrity Unit and
other Anti-Doping Organisations through ADAMS in order to maximise the
effectiveness of the combined Testing effort and to avoid unnecessary repetitive
Testing.
5.4 In-Competition Testing

5.4.1 Except as otherwise provided below, only a single organisation will have authority
to conduct Testing at Event Venues during an Event Period.

5.4.1.1 At International Events the Integrity Unit (or other international

organisation that is the ruling body for the International Event, if not
World Athletics) will have authority to conduct Testing.

5.4.1.2 At the request of the Integrity Unit on behalf of World Athletics (or other
international organisation that is the ruling body for an International
Event), any Testing during the Event Period outside of the Event Venues
must be coordinated with the Integrity Unit (or the relevant ruling body
of the International Event).

5.4.1.3 At National Events the National Anti-Doping Organisation of the country

in which the National Event is staged will have authority to conduct
Testing.

5.4.2 If an Anti-Doping Organisation that would otherwise have Testing authority but is
not responsible for initiating and directing Testing at an Event desires to conduct
Testing of Athletes at the Event Venue(s) during the Event Period, the Anti-Doping
Organisation must first confer with the Integrity Unit on behalf of World Athletics
(or other international organisation that is the ruling body of the Event) to obtain
permission to conduct and coordinate such Testing. If the Anti-Doping Organisation
is not satisfied with the response from the Integrity Unit (or other international
organisation that is the ruling body of the Event), in accordance with the procedures
described in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, the Anti-
Doping Organisation may ask WADA for permission to conduct Testing and to
determine how to coordinate such Testing. WADA will not grant approval for such
Testing before consulting with and informing the Integrity Unit on behalf of World
Athletics (or other international organisation that is the ruling body for the Event).
WADA’s decision will be final and not subject to appeal. Unless otherwise provided
in the authorisation to conduct Testing, such tests will be considered Out-of-
Competition tests. Results Management for any such test will be the responsibility
of the Anti-Doping Organisation initiating the test unless provided otherwise in the
rules of the ruling body of the Event.

5.4.3 World Athletics/the Integrity Unit may appoint an Anti-Doping Delegate to attend at
any of the International Events under Rule 5.4.1 for the purpose of supervising the
anti-doping operations at such Events, advising the local organising committee and
ensuring that these Anti-Doping Rules are properly applied. The local organising
committees of such Events shall do everything necessary to authorise and facilitate
the World Athletics/the Integrity Unit delegate's attendance at such International
Events

5.4.4 World Athletics and the organising committees for International Events, as well as
Member Federations and the organising committees for National Events will
 authorise and facilitate the Independent Observer Program at such Events where so
requested by WADA.

5.5 Out-of-Competition Testing and Athlete whereabouts requirements

5.5.1 Any period that is not an In-Competition Period is an Out-of-Competition period for
the purposes of these Anti-Doping Rules.

5.5.2 Any Sample collected pursuant to a notification given to an Athlete outside of an In-
Competition period will be considered to have been collected Out-of-Competition.

5.5.3 The Integrity Unit shall identify an International Registered Testing Pool of Athletes
who are required to comply with the whereabouts requirements set out in the
International Standard for Testing and Investigations, including (a) advising the
Integrity Unit of their whereabouts on a quarterly basis; (b) updating that
information as necessary so that it remains accurate and complete at all times; and
(c) making themselves available for Testing at such whereabouts.

5.5.4 For the purposes of Rule 2.4, failure by an Athlete in the International Registered
Testing Pool to comply with the requirements of the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations shall be deemed a filing failure or a missed test where the
conditions set out in Appendix B of the International Standard for Results
Management for declaring a filing failure or missed test are met.

5.5.5 The Integrity Unit will make available through ADAMS a list which identifies those
Athletes included in the International Registered Testing Pool either by name or by
clearly defined, specific criteria. The Integrity Unit shall coordinate with National
Anti-Doping Organizations in respect of the identification of such Athletes and the
collection of their whereabouts information. The Integrity Unit shall review and
update as necessary the criteria for including Athletes in the International Registered
Testing Pool and shall revise the membership of the International Registered Testing
Pool from time to time as appropriate in accordance with the set criteria.

5.5.6 Athletes will be notified before they are included in the International Registered
Testing Pool and when they are removed from that pool. The notification will
contain the information set out in the International Standard for Testing and
Investigations.

5.5.7 An Athlete in the International Registered Testing Pool will continue to be subject to
the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirements set out in the
International Standard for Testing and Investigations unless and until (a) the Athlete
gives written notice to World Athletics/the Integrity Unit of their retirement; or (b)
the Integrity Unit has informed the Athlete that they are no longer in the
International Registered Testing Pool.

5.5.8 The Integrity Unit will coordinate with National Anti-Doping Organisations to identify
the Athletes in the International Registered Testing Pool and to collect their
whereabouts information. Where an Athlete is included in the International
 Registered Testing Pool and in a national registered testing pool by their National
Anti-Doping Organisation, the National Anti-Doping Organisation and the Integrity
Unit will agree which of them will accept that Athlete's whereabouts filings. In no
case will an Athlete be required to make whereabouts filings to more than one of
them.

5.5.9 Whereabouts information relating to an Athlete will be shared (through ADAMS)

with WADA and other Anti-Doping Organisations having authority to test that
Athlete, will be maintained in strict confidence at all times, will be used exclusively
for the purposes set out in Article 5.5 of the Code, and will be destroyed in
accordance with the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and
Personal Information once it is no longer relevant for these purposes.

5.5.10 The Integrity Unit may identify a second tier of Athletes whom it does not require to
provide whereabouts information in accordance with the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations but for whom it does require some whereabouts
information in order to be able to conduct Testing on them (such as basic contact
information, the Athlete's main place of residence, regular training location and
anticipated competition schedule for the year). The Integrity Unit shall inform the
Athletes what whereabouts information is required of them, when it is required of
them and in what form it is required. If an Athlete in the second tier fails to comply
with the whereabouts requirements applicable to him, the Integrity Unit shall
consider moving the Athlete up to the International Registered Testing Pool.

5.6 Retired Athletes returning to competition

5.6.1 Athletes in the International Registered Testing Pool who have given notice of
retirement to World Athletics/the Integrity Unit may not resume competing in
International Events or National Events until they have given the World Athletics/the
Integrity Unit and their National Anti-Doping Organisation written notice of their
intent to resume competing and have made themselves available for Testing for a
period of six months before returning to competition, including (if requested)
complying with the whereabouts requirements of the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations. WADA, in consultation with the Integrity Unit and the
Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation, may grant an exemption to the six-
month written notice rule where the strict application of that rule would be unfair
to an Athlete. WADA's decision to grant or not to grant such exemption may be
appealed under Rule 13. Any competitive results obtained in violation of this Rule
5.6.1 will be Disqualified, unless the Athlete can establish that they could not have
reasonably known that they participated in an International Event or a National
Event

5.6.2 If an Athlete retires from sport while subject to a period of Ineligibility, the Athlete
must notify the Integrity Unit (and, if the period of Ineligibility was not imposed
under the Anti-Doping Rules, the Anti-Doping Organisation that imposed the period
of Ineligibility) in writing of such retirement. The Athlete may not resume competing
in International Events or National Events until the Athlete has given six months prior
written notice (or notice equivalent to the period of Ineligibility remaining as of the
 date the Athlete retired, if that period was longer than six months) to the Integrity
Unit and to the Athlete's National Anti-Doping Organisation of their intent to resume
competing and has made themselves available for Testing for that notice period,
including (if requested) complying with the whereabouts requirements of the
International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

5.6.3 An Athlete who is not in the International Registered Testing Pool who has given
notice of retirement to the Integrity Unit may not resume competing unless they
notify the Integrity Unit and their National Anti-Doping Organisation at least six
months before they wish to return to competition and make themselves available
for unannounced Out-of-Competition Testing, including (if requested) complying
with the whereabouts requirements of the International Standard for Testing and
Investigations, during the period before actual return to competition.

5.7 Investigations and Intelligence Gathering

5.7.1 In addition to conducting Testing in accordance with Rule 5 above, the Integrity Unit
shall have the power to gather anti-doping intelligence and conduct investigations
into matters that may evidence or lead to the discovery of evidence of an anti-doping
rule violation or other breach of these Anti-Doping Rules. Such investigations may
be conducted in conjunction with, and/or information obtained in such
investigations may be shared with, other Signatories and/or relevant authorities.
The Integrity Unit shall have discretion, where it deems it appropriate, to stay its
own investigation pending the outcome of investigations being conducted by other
Signatories and/or other relevant authorities.

5.7.2 Where an Athlete or other Person knows or suspects that any other Athlete or other
Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation or other breach of these Anti-
Doping Rules, it shall be the obligation of the first Athlete or other Person to report
such knowledge or suspicion to the Integrity Unit as soon as possible. The first
Athlete or other Person shall have a continuing obligation to report any new
knowledge or suspicion regarding any anti-doping rule violation or other breach of
these Anti-Doping Rules to the Integrity Unit even if their prior knowledge or
suspicion has already been reported. In cases of refusal or failure to comply with
any of the foregoing without compelling justification, Rule 12 shall apply.

5.7.3 Athletes and other Persons must co-operate fully with investigations conducted
pursuant to Rule 5.7.1, including without limitation providing accurate and complete
information and/or documentation as may be requested by the Integrity Unit
(whether as part of a formal Demand or otherwise) and, in case of a refusal or failure
to co-operate without compelling justification, Rule 12 shall apply.

5.7.4 The Head of the Integrity Unit may at any stage make a written demand (Demand)
to an Athlete or other Person to provide the Integrity Unit with any information,
record, article or thing in their possession or control that the Head of the Integrity
Unit reasonably believes may be relevant to an investigation under Rule 5.7.1.
Where the Integrity Unit has notice of (i) an Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical
Finding for a Non-Specified Substance, (ii) an Adverse Passport Finding, or (iii) a
 ‘Likely Doping’ opinion in accordance with Appendix C of the International Standard
for Results Management (whether upon initial Expert review or by consensus of the
Expert panel) , the Athlete’s Electronic Devices and/or Electronic Services and any
other records, data, or files in hardcopy or electronic format shall be deemed to be
relevant to the investigation for the purposes of this Rule.

[Comment to Rule 5.7.4: this Rule makes it clear that a Demand may be made at any stage of the
process, including without limitation before a first notification is made to an Athlete or other Person
under Rule 7 as well as at any time after the Integrity Unit has issued a Notice of Allegation or Notice of
Charge].

5.7.5 Without limiting the foregoing, pursuant to Rule 5.7.4, the Head of the Integrity Unit
may require an Athlete or other Person to:

(a) attend before the Integrity Unit for an interview, or to answer any
question, or to provide a written statement setting out their knowledge
of any relevant facts and circumstances;

(b) provide (or procure to the best of their ability the provision by any third
party) for inspection, extraction, copying and/or downloading any
records or data or files in hardcopy or electronic format, that the Head
of the Integrity Unit reasonably believes may contain relevant
information (such as itemised telephone bills, bank statements, ledgers,
notes, files, correspondence, emails, messages, servers, cloud data,
cloud services);

(c) provide (or procure to the best of their ability the provision by any third
party) for inspection, extraction, copying and/or downloading any
Electronic Devices and/or Electronic Services in or on which the Head of
the Integrity Unit reasonably believes relevant information may be
stored;

(d) provide full and unlimited access to their premises for the purpose of
securing information, records, articles or things the subject of a
Demand;

(e) provide passwords, login credentials, multi/two-factor authentication,

and other information required to access electronically stored data that
is the subject of a Demand.

5.7.6 The Integrity Unit Board may authorise from time to time a policy that sets out
guidance on the use of Demands, including the extraction and use by the Integrity
Unit of data stored on an Athlete or other Person’s Electronic Device(s) and/or
Electronic Services pursuant to a Demand. The Integrity Unit shall take all reasonable
steps to implement the Demand in accordance with the policy.

5.7.7 Subject to Rule 5.7.8, an Athlete or other Person must comply with a Demand in such
reasonable period of time as determined by the Head of the Integrity Unit and set
out in the Demand. Each Athlete or other Person waives and forfeits any rights,
 defences and privileges provided by any law in any jurisdiction to withhold any
information, record, article or thing requested in a Demand or otherwise not to co-
operate with an investigation.

5.7.8 Where a Demand relates to any information, record, article or thing that the Head
of the Integrity Unit reasonably believes is capable of being damaged, altered,
destroyed or hidden (any Electronic Device or Electronic Service shall be deemed to
meet this criterion), then for the purposes of preserving the evidence, the Integrity
Unit may require an Athlete or other Person to comply immediately with the
Demand. In such a case:

(a) the Athlete or other Person must immediately comply with the Demand
and permit the Integrity Unit to take immediate possession of, copy,
extract and/or download the information, record, article or thing.
However, the Integrity Unit may take no steps to inspect, analyse or use
the same other than as provided in Rule 5.7.8(d);

(b) in case of a refusal or failure by an Athlete or other Person to comply

immediately with the Demand, Rule 12 shall apply and any attempted
or actual damage, alteration, destruction or hiding of such information,
record, article or thing upon receipt of or after the Demand shall
constitute an independent violation of Rule 2.5 (Tampering or
Attempted Tampering);

(c) notwithstanding the Athlete or other Person’s obligation to comply

immediately with the Demand, the Athlete or other Person has 7 days
from receipt of the Demand to file an objection to the Demand by
requesting a review by the chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal or
their delegate in accordance with Rule 7.3;

(d) if the Athlete or other Person does not file an objection within 7 days of
receipt of the Demand (or files an objection and the chairperson of the
Disciplinary Tribunal or their delegate subsequently finds there is a
reasonable belief basis to the Demand and dismisses the objection) or
notifies the Integrity Unit that they do not object to the Demand, the
Integrity Unit may forthwith inspect and analyse the information,
record, article or thing and otherwise make use of it in accordance with
these Anti-Doping Rules.

5.7.9 Any information, record, article or thing provided to the Integrity Unit under this
Rule will be kept confidential except when it becomes necessary to disclose such
information, record, article or thing to further the investigation of and/or to bring,
or as part of, proceedings relating to an anti-doping rule violation, or when such
information, record, article or thing is reported to administrative, professional or
judicial authorities pursuant to an investigation or prosecution of non-sporting laws
or regulations, or is otherwise required by law.
 5.7.10 If an Athlete or other Person obstructs or delays an investigation (e.g., by providing
false, misleading or incomplete information or documentation and/or by tampering
or destroying any documentation or other information that may be relevant to the
investigation), proceedings may be brought against them for a violation of Rule 2.5
(Tampering or Attempted Tampering) and the application of Rule 10.4 (Aggravating
Circumstances).

5.7.11 A hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation or other breach of these
Anti-Doping Rules may draw an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person
charged with an anti-doping rule violation or other breach of these Anti-Doping
Rules based on the Athlete or other Person's refusal or failure to comply with a
Demand or to co-operate fully (i.e., by refusing or failing to respond to any questions
put to them) with a Rule 5 investigation.

5.7.12 The Head of the Integrity Unit may at any time require a Member Federation (i) to
investigate a possible violation of these Anti-Doping Rules by one or more Athlete or
other Person under the Member Federation's jurisdiction (where appropriate, acting
in conjunction with the National Anti-Doping Organisation in the Country concerned
and/or other relevant national authority or body) and (ii) to provide a written report
on such investigation within a reasonable time period as stipulated by the Head of
the Integrity Unit. There shall be an automatic investigation conducted by a Member
Federation (and a written report of the investigation provided to the Integrity Unit)
of Athlete Support Personnel under the Member Federation's jurisdiction in the case
of any anti-doping rule violation committed by a Protected Person or where any
Athlete Support Personnel has provided support to more than one Athlete found to
have committed an anti-doping rule violation. A failure or refusal by a Member
Federation to conduct an investigation under this Rule or to produce a written report
on such investigation within a reasonable time period as stipulated by the Integrity
Unit may lead to the imposition of sanctions on the Member Federation in
accordance with Rule 16.

5.7.13 Where during the course of an Investigation, the Integrity Unit identifies any
additional Athlete or Person whom it considers should be investigated for a potential
anti-doping rule violation, the investigation may be expanded to deal with their
respective involvement.

5.7.14 Where, as a result of an investigation under this Rule 5, the Head of the Integrity
Unit forms the view that an Athlete or other Person has a case to answer for
commission of an anti-doping rule violation, the matter shall proceed in accordance
with Rule 7. Where, as a result of an investigation, the Head of the Integrity Unit
forms the view that an Athlete or other Person has a case to answer for commission
of a breach of these Rules that is not an anti-doping rule violation, the matter shall
proceed in accordance with Rule 12 and/or under the Integrity Code of Conduct.

6. Analysis of Samples

Samples will be analysed in accordance with the following principles:

6.1 Use of Accredited/Approved Laboratories and other Laboratories

6.1.1 For the purposes of directly establishing an Adverse Analytical Finding under Rule
2.1, Samples will be analysed only in WADA-accredited laboratories or laboratories
otherwise approved by WADA. In the case of Samples collected by the Integrity Unit,
the Integrity Unit will send Samples to WADA-accredited or WADA-approved
laboratories (or, where applicable, to other WADA-approved entities) determined
exclusively by the Integrity Unit.

6.1.2 For the purposes of screening a blood (or other non-urine) Sample to determine
whether the Athlete's corresponding urine Sample should be analysed as set out at
Rule 6.1.1, the Integrity Unit may send Samples either to laboratories that have been
accredited or approved by WADA or to any other entity approved by WADA (e.g., a
local hospital or a mobile testing unit).

6.1.3 For the purposes of ABP Testing, the Integrity Unit may send Samples to a laboratory
or laboratories that has/have been accredited or otherwise approved by WADA or
to the satellite facility of a WADA-accredited laboratory or using mobile units
operated under applicable ISO accreditation by a WADA-accredited laboratory.

6.1.4 As provided in Rule 3.2, facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be
established by any reliable means. This would include, for example, reliable
laboratory or other forensic testing conducted outside of WADA-accredited or
approved laboratories.

[Comment to Rule 6.1: Violations of Rule 2.1 may be established only by Sample analysis performed by a laboratory
accredited or otherwise approved by WADA. Violations of other Rules may be established using analytical results
from other laboratories so long as the results are reliable.]

6.2 Purpose of Analysis of Samples and Data

Samples and related analytical data or Doping Control information will be analysed to detect
Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods identified on the Prohibited List and other
substances as may be directed by WADA pursuant to the monitoring program described in
Article 4.5 of the Code, or to assist the Integrity Unit in profiling relevant parameters in an
Athlete’s urine, blood or other matrix, including for DNA or genomic profiling, or for any other
legitimate anti-doping purpose.

[Comment to Rule 6.2: For example, relevant Doping Control-related information could be used to direct Target
Testing or to support an anti-doping rule violation proceeding under Rule 2.2 (Use of a Prohibited Substance), or
both.]

6.3 Research on Samples and related Data

6.3.1 Samples, related analytical data, and Doping Control information may be used for
anti-doping research purposes, although no Sample may be used for such purposes
without the Athlete's written consent. Samples and related analytical data or Doping
Control information used for research purposes must first be processed in such a
manner as to prevent Samples and related analytical data or Doping Control
information being traced back to a particular Athlete. Any research involving
 Samples and related analytical data or Doping Control information must adhere to
the principles set out in Article 19 of the Code.

6.3.2 Samples, related analytical data, and Doping Control information may also be used
for non-research purposes, such as method development or to establish reference
populations, provided that they are first processed in such a manner as to prevent
them being traced back to the Athlete, having due regard to the principles set out in
Article 19 of the Code, as well as the requirements of the International Standard for
Laboratories and International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal
Information.

[Comment to Rule 6.3: As is the case in most medical or scientific contexts, use of Samples and related information
for quality assurance, quality improvement, method improvement and development or to establish reference
populations is not considered research. Samples and related information used for such permitted non-research
purposes must also first be processed in such a manner as to prevent them from being traced back to the particular
Athlete, having due regard to the principles set out in Article 19 of the Code, as well as the requirements of the
International Standard for Laboratories and International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal
Information.]

6.4 Standards for Sample Analysis and Reporting

6.4.1 Laboratories will analyse Samples in conformity with the International Standard for
Laboratories and Article 4.7 of the International Standard for Testing and
Investigations.

6.4.2 Laboratories at their own initiative and expense may analyse Samples for Prohibited
Substances or Prohibited Methods not included on the standard Sample analysis
menu, or as requested by the Integrity Unit (if it initiated and directed Sample
collection). Results from any such analyses will be reported to the Integrity Unit and
have the same validity and Consequences as any other analytical result.

[Comment to Rule 6.4: The objective of this Rule is to extend the principle of 'Intelligent Testing' to the Sample
analysis menu so as to most effectively and efficiently detect doping. It is recognised that the resources available to
fight doping are limited and that increasing the Sample analysis menu may, in some sports and countries, reduce
the number of Samples that can be analysed.]

6.5 Further Analysis of a Sample prior to or during Results Management

There is no limitation on the authority of a laboratory to conduct repeat or additional analysis

on a Sample prior to the time the Integrity Unit notifies an Athlete that the Sample is the basis
of a Rule 2.1 anti-doping rule violation charge. If after such notification the Integrity Unit
wishes to conduct additional analyses on that Sample, it may do so with the consent of the
Athlete or else with the approval of the panel hearing the case against the Athlete.

6.6 Further Analysis of a Sample after it has been reported as negative or has otherwise not
resulted in an anti-doping rule violation charge

After a laboratory has reported a Sample as negative, or the Sample has not otherwise resulted
in an anti-doping rule violation charge, it may be stored and subjected to further analyses for
the purpose of Rule 6.2 at any time exclusively at the direction of the Integrity Unit (if it
initiated and directed Sample collection), the Anti-Doping Organisation that initiated and
 directed Sample collection (if not the Integrity Unit) or WADA. Any other Anti-Doping
Organisation with authority to test the Athlete that wishes to conduct further analyses on a
stored Sample may do so with the permission of the Integrity Unit (if it initiated and directed
Sample collection), the Anti-Doping Organisation that initiated and directed Sample collection
(if not the Integrity Unit) or WADA, and will be responsible for any follow-up Results
Management. Any Sample storage or further analysis initiated by WADA, the Integrity Unit or
another Anti-Doping Organisation will be at (respectively) WADA’s, the Integrity Unit's or other
organisation's expense. Further analysis of Samples must comply with the requirements of the
International Standard for Laboratories.

6.7 Split of A or B Sample

Where WADA, the Integrity Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management
authority, and/or a WADA-accredited laboratory (with approval from WADA or the Integrity
Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management authority) wishes to split an
A or B Sample for the purpose of using the first part of the split Sample for an A Sample analysis
and the second part of the split Sample for confirmation, then the procedures set out in the
International Standard for Laboratories must be followed.

6.8 WADA's right to take possession of Samples and Data

6.8.1 WADA may, in its sole discretion at any time, with or without prior notice, take
physical possession of any Sample and related analytical data or information in the
possession of a laboratory or Anti-Doping Organisation. Upon request by WADA, the
laboratory or Anti-Doping Organisation in possession of the Sample or data will
immediately grant access to and enable WADA to take physical possession of the
Sample or data. If WADA has not provided prior notice to the laboratory or Anti-
Doping Organisation before taking possession of a Sample or data, it will provide
such notice to the laboratory and each Anti-Doping Organisation whose Samples or
data have been taken by WADA within a reasonable time after taking possession.

6.8.2 After analysis and any investigation of a seized Sample or data, WADA may direct
another Anti-Doping Organisation with authority to test the Athlete to assume
Results Management responsibility for the Sample or data if a potential anti-doping
rule violation is discovered.

[Comment to Rule 6.8: Resistance or refusal to WADA taking physical possession of Samples may constitute
Tampering, Complicity or an act of non-compliance as provided in the International Standard for Code Compliance
by Signatories and may also constitute a violation of the International Standard for Laboratories. Where necessary,
the laboratory and/or the Anti-Doping Organisation must assist WADA in ensuring that the seized Sample and
related data are not delayed in exiting the applicable country. WADA would not, of course, unilaterally take
possession of Samples or analytical data without good cause related to a potential anti-doping rule violation, non-
compliance by a Signatory or doping activities by another Person. However, the decision as to whether good cause
exists is for WADA to make in its discretion and is not subject to challenge. In particular, whether there is good cause
or not shall not be a defence against an anti-doping rule violation or its Consequences.]
7. Results Management: Responsibility, Initial Review, Notice and Provisional Suspensions

7.1 Results Management Rules and Responsibility

7.1.1 These Anti-Doping Rules incorporate the International Standard for Results
Management, as amended from time to time. The International Standard for Results
Management is therefore binding on all Athletes and other Persons in the same way
as these Anti-Doping Rules are binding on them.

7.1.2 Except as provided for in Rules 6.6, 6.8 and 7.1.3 below, Results Management and
hearings shall be the responsibility of, and shall be governed by, the procedural rules
of the Member Federation (acting as a Delegated Third Party) or Anti-Doping
Organisation that initiated and directed Sample collection (or, if no Sample
collection is involved, the Member Federation (acting as a Delegated Third Party) or
Anti-Doping Organisation which first provides notice to an Athlete or other Person
of an asserted anti-doping rule violation and then diligently pursues that anti-doping
rule violation). Regardless of which organisation conducts Results Management, it
shall respect the Results Management principles set out in this Rule, Rule 8, Rule 13
and the International Standard for Results Management.

7.1.3 The Integrity Unit shall have Results Management responsibility under these Anti-
Doping Rules in the following circumstances:

(a) For potential violations arising in connection with any Testing conducted
under these Anti-Doping Rules by World Athletics/the Integrity Unit,
including investigations conducted by the Integrity Unit into Athlete
Support Personnel or other Persons potentially involved in such
violations.

(b) For potential violations arising where World Athletics/the Integrity Unit
is the Testing Authority or has been delegated Results Management
responsibility.

(c) For potential violation of these Anti-Doping Rules where no Testing is

involved and where the potential anti-doping rule violation or other
breach of these Anti-Doping Rules involves:

(i) Any International-Level Athlete, Athlete Support Person or other

Person who has an involvement in any capacity in International
Eventsor with International-Level Athletes (unless another Anti-
Doping Organisation with competent authority has first provided
notice to such an Athlete or other Person of an asserted Anti-
Doping Rule Violation and has diligently pursued that violation);
or

(ii) Where the Integrity Unit on behalf of World Athletics is the Anti-
Doping Organisation which first provides notice to an Athlete or
 other Person of an asserted Anti-Doping Rule Violation and then
diligently pursues that violation.

(d) For potential violations arising in connection with any investigation

conducted by the Integrity Unit in accordance with Rule 5.

(e) Results Management in relation to a potential whereabouts failure (a

filing failure or a missed test) shall be administered by the Integrity Unit
if the Athlete in question is in the International Registered Testing Pool
or files their whereabouts information with the Integrity Unit. Any Anti-
Doping Organisation that determines a filing failure or missed test shall
submit that information to WADA through ADAMS or another system
approved by WADA, where it will be made available to other relevant
Anti-Doping Organisations.

(f) The Integrity Unit shall additionally have Results Management

responsibility in the following further cases:

(i) Where a National Anti-Doping Organisation elects to collect

additional Samples pursuant to Rule 5.2.4, then it shall be
considered the National Anti-Doping Organisation that initiated
and directed Sample collection and shall have Results
Management responsibility over such additional Samples. Where
however the National Anti-Doping Organisation only directs the
laboratory to perform additional types of analysis at the National
Anti-Doping Organisation's expense, then the Integrity Unit shall
have Results Management responsibility.

(ii) In circumstances where the rules of a Member Federation (acting

as a Delegated Third Party) or National Anti-Doping Organisation
do not give the Member Federation or National Anti-Doping
Organisation authority over an Athlete or other Person who is not
a national, resident, licence holder or member of a sport
organisation of that country, or the Member Federation or
National Anti-Doping Organisation fails or declines to exercise
such authority, Results Management shall be conducted by the
Integrity Unit or by a third party with authority over the Athlete or
other Person.

(iii) For a test or a further analysis conducted by WADA on its own

initiative, or an anti-doping rule violation discovered by WADA,
WADA shall designate an Anti-Doping Organisation with authority
over the Athlete or other Person to conduct Results Management.

(iv) For Results Management relating to a Sample initiated and taken

during an Event organised by a Major Event Organisation, or an
anti-doping rule violation occurring during such Event, the Major
Event Organisation for the Event shall assume Results
 Management responsibility to at least the limited extent of
conducting a hearing to determine whether an anti-doping rule
violation was committed and, if so, the applicable Disqualification
of results from that Event, any forfeiture of any medals, points or
prizes, and any recovery of costs applicable to the anti-doping rule
violation. If the Major Event Organization assumes only limited
Results Management responsibility, or there is a prior agreement
between the Major Event Organization and the Integrity Unit with
respect to Results Management responsibility, the Integrity Unit
shall have Results Management responsibility in relation to
Consequences beyond exclusion from the Event in question,
Disqualification of results in that Event, forfeiture of any medals,
points or prizes, and recovery of costs applicable to the anti-
doping rule violation. Upon request, the Major Event Organisation
(or their delegate) shall provide the Integrity Unit with a copy of
the full case file within 15 days.

(g) Where a Member Federation (acting as a Delegated Third Party) or an

Anti-Doping Organisation claims to have Results Management
responsibility under applicable rules, the Integrity Unit may at its
absolute discretion agree to the Member Federation or Anti-Doping
Organisation concerned conducting Results Management and a hearing
in the case in accordance with Rule 8 and the International Standard for
Results Management. If a dispute arises between World Athletics and a
Member Federation or an Anti-Doping Organisation over which
organisation has Results Management responsibility, WADA shall decide
which organisation has such responsibility. WADA's decision may be
appealed to CAS within 7 days of notification of the WADA decision by
any of the Anti-Doping Organisations involved in the dispute. The
appeal shall be dealt with by CAS in an expedited manner and shall be
heard before a single arbitrator.

(h) WADA may direct an Anti-Doping Organization with Results

Management authority to conduct Results Management in a particular
case. If that Anti-Doping Organization refuses to conduct Results
Management within a reasonable deadline set by WADA, such refusal
shall be considered an act of non-compliance, and WADA may direct
another Anti-Doping Organization with authority over the Athlete or
other Person, that is willing to do so, to take Results Management
responsibility in place of the refusing Anti-Doping Organization or, if
there is no such Anti-Doping Organization, any other Anti-Doping
Organization that is willing to do so. In such case, the refusing Anti-
Doping Organization shall reimburse the costs and legal fees of
conducting Results Management to the other Anti-Doping Organization
designated by WADA, and a failure to reimburse costs and legal fees
shall be considered an act of noncompliance.
 (i) In any case where the Integrity Unit has Results Management
responsibility under these Anti-Doping Rules, it may delegate such
responsibility to the Athlete or other Person's Member Federation for it
to conduct the Results Management and/or hearing process in
accordance with Article 8 of the Code and the International Standard for
Results Management.

7.2 Review and Notification regarding potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations

7.2.1 Review and notification with respect to a potential anti-doping rule violation shall
be carried out in accordance with the International Standard for Results
Management.

7.2.2 Before giving an Athlete or other Person notice of a potential anti-doping rule
violation, the Integrity Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation will refer to ADAMS
and, if need be, contact WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping Organisations to
determine whether any prior anti-doping rule violation exists.

7.2.3 Where a Member Federation is delegated responsibility for Results Management as

a Delegated Third Party, it must ensure that such Results Management is conducted
in accordance with Article 8 of the Code and the International Standard for Results
Management.

7.3 Review of Demands

7.3.1 An Athlete or other Person may object to a Demand made under Rule 5.7.4 by filing
an application with the chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal within 7 days of
receipt of the Demand specifying the grounds for such objection. Where such an
application is made, subject always to Rule 5.7.9 the time for complying with a
Demand shall be stayed pending the outcome of the objection.

7.3.2 The chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal or their delegate shall consider the
objection to the Demand with as much expediency as the justice of the matter
permits and, unless exceptional circumstances apply, such review shall be
conducted by way of written evidence and submissions only. In considering the
Demand, the chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal or their delegate shall have
the discretion but not the obligation to invite submissions from the Integrity Unit
and the Athlete or other Person, as they see fit.

7.3.3 Where the chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal or their delegate determines
that there is no reasonable belief basis to the Demand, then the Integrity Unit shall
not pursue the Demand with the Athlete or other Person and the information,
record, Rule or thing and any copy or download of the same shall either be
immediately returned to the Athlete or other Person or destroyed (as applicable),
as the case requires.

7.3.4 Where the chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal or their delegate determines
that there is a reasonable belief basis to the Demand, then if the Athlete or other
 Person fails to produce the information, record, Rule or thing and any copy or
download of the same, Rule 12 shall apply.

7.3.5 The ruling of the chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal or their delegate as to
whether there is a reasonable belief basis to a Demand shall not be subject to
appeal.

7.3.6 If a Demand is set aside, it shall not preclude the Integrity Unit from making any
other Demand in relation to the same or another investigation.

7.4 Provisional Suspensions

7.4.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspensions: When an Adverse Analytical Finding is reported

for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, other than a Specified Substance,
or when an Adverse Passport Finding is reported (upon completion of the Adverse
Passport Finding review process), the Integrity Unit shall promptly impose a
Provisional Suspension upon the review and notification described in Rule 7.2 above.
In all such cases, the Athlete shall be given an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing
either (at the election of the Integrity Unit) before imposition of the Provisional
Suspension or on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension. A
mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if the Athlete demonstrates that
the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product or the violation involves
a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of
Ineligibility under Rule 10.2.4(a). A decision not to eliminate a mandatory Provisional
Suspension on account of the Athlete’s assertion regarding a Contaminated Product
shall not be appealable.

7.4.2 Optional Provisional Suspensions in the case of an Adverse Analytical Finding for a
Specified Substance, Contaminated Product or other Anti-Doping Rule Violations:
Where an Adverse Analytical Finding is reported for a Specified Substance,
Contaminated Product, or in the case of other Anti-Doping Rule Violations not covered
by Rule 7.4.1, the Integrity Unit may Provisionally Suspend the Athlete or other Person
pending resolution of their case, provided however that a Provisional Suspension may
not be imposed unless the Athlete or other Person is given an opportunity for a
Provisional Hearing either (at the election of the Integrity Unit) before imposition of
the Provisional Suspension or on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional
Suspension.

7.4.3 Notice of a Provisional Suspension: Notice of a Provisional Suspension may be

included by the Integrity Unit in the notification under Rule 7 or otherwise provided
simultaneously with or upon the Integrity Unit sending an Athlete or other Person a
Charge in accordance with Rule 8. The Provisional Suspension shall take effect as from
the day indicated in the written notice to the Athlete or other Person.

7.4.4 Provisional Hearing: Where a Provisional Suspension has been imposed (or may be
imposed) in accordance with this Rule 7, the Athlete or other Person may make a
written submission to the Integrity Unit showing cause why the Provisional Suspension
 should be lifted (or, where it has not yet been imposed, should not be imposed) by
establishing that:

(a) the violation has no reasonable prospect of being upheld, e.g., due to a
serious flaw in the case such as the Integrity Unit has no jurisdiction over the
Athlete or other Person; or

(b) there is a strong arguable case that the circumstances are such that no
period of Ineligibility is likely to be imposed;

(c) the violation asserted is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product;

(d) the violation asserted involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete
establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under Rule
10.2.4(a);

(e) other facts exist that make it clearly unfair, in all the circumstances of the case,
to impose a Provisional Suspension prior to determination of the anti-doping
rule violation(s). This ground is to be construed narrowly and applied only
in truly exceptional circumstances. For example, the fact that the Provisional
Suspension would prevent the Athlete or other Person competing or
participating in a particular Event shall not qualify as exceptional
circumstances for these purposes.

[Comment to Rule 7.4.4: Rules 7.4.4(c) and (d) only apply to the elimination of Mandatory Provisional Suspensions.]

7.4.5 Appeal against a Provisional Suspension: Where the Integrity Unit imposes (or does
not lift) a Provisional Suspension after a Provisional Hearing, the Athlete or other
Person has a right to appeal the decision to CAS in accordance with Rule 13 (save that
there will be no right to appeal a decision not to eliminate a Provisional Suspension on
account of the Athlete's assertion that the violation is likely to have involved a
Contaminated Product), provided however that the Provisional Suspension shall
remain in effect pending a decision by CAS on the merits of the appeal. For the
avoidance of doubt, an appeal to CAS against a Provisional Suspension (or a decision
not to lift a Provisional Suspension) shall not stay, delay or otherwise prevent the
matter from proceeding to a hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal in accordance
with Rule 8.

7.4.6 Voluntary acceptance of Provisional Suspension

(a) An Athlete may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension following

notice of a potential anti-doping rule violation, provided that they do so
no later than the latest of the following dates: (i) 10 days after waiver of
the B Sample analysis or receipt of the results of the analysis of the B
Sample (as applicable); (ii) 10 days after receipt of an initial notice of a
potential anti-doping rule violation other than under Rule 2.1; or (iii) the
date on which the Athlete would otherwise have first competed after
such report or notice.
 (b) Other Persons may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension within
ten days from receipt of the initial notice of a potential anti-doping rule
violation.

(c) A Provisional Suspension that is voluntarily accepted by the applicable

deadline will have full effect and be treated in the same manner as if the
Provisional Suspension had been imposed under Rule 7.4.1 or 7.4.2.

(d) The Athlete or other Person may withdraw their acceptance of a

voluntary Provisional Suspension at any time, but in that event they will
not receive any credit for the Provisional Suspension served.

7.4.7 A Member Federation's Failure to impose of a Provisional Suspension: If a

Member Federation fails, in the opinion of the Head of the Integrity Unit, to impose
a Provisional Suspension as part of its Results Management responsibility acting as
a Delegated Third Party, the Head of the Integrity Unit shall impose such a
Provisional Suspension. Once the Provisional Suspension is imposed by the Head
of the Integrity Unit, it shall be notified to the Member Federation.

7.4.8 Any imposition of a Provisional Suspension notified to the Athlete or other Person
or voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension, or lifting of either, shall
promptly be notified by the body with Results Management responsibility to the
Integrity Unit, the Athlete’s or other Person’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s)
and WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.

7.4.9 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed (or voluntarily accepted) based on an A

Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent B Sample analysis does not
confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Athlete shall not be subject to any further
Provisional Suspension on account of a violation of Rule 2.1 (Presence of a
Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers). In circumstances where the
Athlete (or the Athlete's team as may be) has been removed from an Event based
on a violation of Rule 2.1 and the subsequent B Sample does not confirm the A
Sample finding, if, without otherwise affecting the Event, it is still possible for the
Athlete or team to be reinserted, the Athlete or team may continue to take part in
the Event.

[Comment to Rule 7.4.9: The Integrity Unit may nonetheless decide to maintain and/or re-impose a
Provisional Suspension on the Athlete based on another anti-doping rule violation notified to the
Athlete, e.g. a violation of Code Article 2.2.]

7.4.10 During any period of Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or voluntarily

accepted), the Athlete or other Person may not participate in any capacity (or, in
the case of an Athlete Support Person or other Person, assist an Athlete who is
participating in any capacity) in a Competition or activity (other than authorised
anti-doping Education or rehabilitation programs) authorised or organised by any
Signatory, Signatory’s member organisation, or a club or other member
organisation of a Signatory’s member organisation, or in Competitions authorised
or organised by any professional league or any international-level or national-level
 Event organisation or any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a
governmental agency.

7.5 Results Management Decisions

Results Management decisions or adjudications under these Anti-Doping Rules (including

Provisional Suspensions) must not purport to be limited to a particular geographic area or to
Athletics only and will address and determine without limitation the following issues: (i)
whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed or a Provisional Suspension should be
imposed, the factual basis for such determination, and the specific Rules that have been
violated, and (ii) all Consequences flowing from the anti-doping rule violation(s), including
applicable Disqualifications under Rules 9 and 10.10, any forfeiture of medals, titles, points,
prize money, or prizes, any period of Ineligibility (and the date it begins to run), and any
Financial Consequences.

[Comment to Rule 7.5: Results Management decisions include Provisional Suspensions. Each decision by the Integrity
Unit should address whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed and all Consequences flowing from the
violation, including any Disqualifications other than Disqualification under Rule 10.1 (which is left to the ruling body
for an Event). Pursuant to Rule 17, such decision and its imposition of Consequences will have automatic effect in
every sport in every country. For example, for a determination that an Athlete committed an anti-doping rule
violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Sample taken In-Competition, the Athlete’s results obtained
in the Competition would be Disqualified under Rule 9 and all other competitive results obtained by the Athlete from
the date the Sample was collected through the duration of the period of Ineligibility, unless fairness requires
otherwise, are also Disqualified under Rule 10.10; if the Adverse Analytical Finding resulted from Testing at an Event,
it would be the Major Event Organisation’s responsibility to decide whether the Athlete’s other individual results in
the Event prior to Sample collection are also Disqualified under Rule 10.1.]

7.6 Notification of Results Management decisions

The Integrity Unit will notify Athletes, other Persons, Signatories and WADA of Results
Management decisions as provided in Rule 14 and in the International Standard for Results
Management.

7.7 Retirement from Sport

If an Athlete or other Person retires while the Integrity Unit’s Results Management process is
underway, the Integrity Unit retains authority to complete its Results Management process. If
an Athlete or other Person retires before any Results Management process has begun, and the
Integrity Unit would have had Results Management authority over the Athlete or other Person
at the time the Athlete or other Person committed an anti-doping rule violation, the Integrity
Unit has authority to conduct Results Management.

[Comment to Rule 7.7: Conduct by an Athlete or other Person before the Athlete or other Person was subject to the
authority of any Anti-Doping Organisation would not constitute an anti-doping rule violation but could be a
legitimate basis for denying the Athlete or other Person membership in a sports organisation.]

8. Results Management: Hearing Process and Notice of Hearing Decision

8.1 World Athletics has delegated its Article 8 responsibilities for first instance hearings and
decisions to the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Disciplinary Tribunal must ensure that the Athlete
or other Person is provided with a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and
 Operationally Independent hearing panel, in compliance with these Anti-Doping Rules, the
Code and the International Standard for Results Management.

8.2 The Disciplinary Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters in which:

(a) an anti-doping rule violation or other breach of these Anti-Doping Rules is asserted
and/or Consequences or sanctions are sought by the Integrity Unit against an
International-Level Athlete or other Person in accordance with these Anti-Doping
Rules;

(b) an anti-doping rule violation is asserted and/or Consequences are sought by a Member
Federation (acting as a Delegated Third Party under these Anti-Doping Rules) or other
Anti-Doping Organisation under its rules and all parties agree to submit the matter to
the Disciplinary Tribunal with the agreement of the Integrity Unit;

(c) the Integrity Unit elects to have a case referred directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal
based on the failure by another organisation (including a Member Federation acting
as a Delegated Third Party under these Anti-Doping Rules) to initiate or diligently
pursue a hearing process, or where the Integrity Unit otherwise finds it appropriate to
do so for a fair hearing process to be granted;

(d) an Athlete or other Person objects to a Demand in accordance with Rules 5.7.7 and
7.3;

(e) the Integrity Unit elects in its sole discretion to have a case referred directly to the
Disciplinary Tribunal pursuant to an application made to the Integrity Unit under Rule
1.7.2(d).

8.3 When, following the review or investigation process described in Rule 7, an anti-doping rule
violation or other breach of these Anti-Doping Rules is asserted, the Athlete or other Person
shall be notified in accordance with Rule 8.5.2.

8.4 In all other cases where an anti-doping rule violation or other breach of these Anti-Doping
Rules is asserted (including where the Integrity Unit has delegated Results Management
responsibility to a Member Federation acting as a Delegated Third Party to conduct the Results
Management and hearing process pursuant to Rule 7.1.3), the Athlete or other Person’s
hearing shall take place before the relevant tribunal constituted or otherwise authorised by
the Member Federation acting as a Delegated Third Party. The hearing shall be conducted in
compliance with the Code and the International Standard for Results Management. Where a
Member Federation delegates the conduct of the hearing to a body, committee or tribunal
(whether within or outside the Member Federation), or where for any other reason, any
national body, committee or tribunal outside of the Member Federation is responsible for
affording an Athlete their hearing under these Rules, the decision of that body, committee or
tribunal shall be deemed, for the purposes of Rule 13, to be the decision of the Member
Federation.

8.5 Proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal

8.5.1 If, after receipt of the Athlete or other Person’s explanation or expiry of the deadline
to provide such explanation, and any further review as may be required, the Integrity
Unit is (still) satisfied that the Athlete or other Person has committed (a) violation(s)
of these Anti-Doping Rules, the Integrity Unit shall promptly charge the Athlete or
other Person with the violation(s) they are asserted to have breached (the "Notice
of Charge").

8.5.2 In the Notice of Charge, the Integrity Unit will:

(a) set out the provision(s) of these Anti-Doping Rules asserted to have
been violated by the Athlete or other Person;

(b) provide a detailed summary of the relevant facts upon which the
assertion is based and any additional underlying evidence not already
provided in the notification in Rule 7;

(c) indicate the specific Consequences being sought in the event that the
asserted violation(s) is/are upheld and that such Consequences shall
have binding effect on all Signatories in all sports and countries in
accordance with Rule 17;

(d) grant a deadline of not more than twenty (20) days from receipt of the
letter of charge to the Athlete or other Person to admit the violation
asserted and to accept the proposed Consequences by signing, dating
and returning an acceptance of Consequences form, which shall be
enclosed with the letter;

(e) for the eventuality that the Athlete or other Person does not accept the
proposed Consequences, already grant to the Athlete or other Person a
deadline of no more than twenty (20) days from receipt of the Notice of
Charge (which may be extended only in exceptional cases) to challenge
in writing the Integrity Unit’s assertion of a violation and/or proposed
Consequences, and/or make a written request for a hearing before the
Disciplinary Tribunal;

(f) indicate that, if the Athlete or other Person does not challenge the
Integrity Unit’s assertion of a violation or proposed Consequences nor
request a hearing within the prescribed deadline, the Integrity Unit shall
be entitled to deem that the Athlete or other Person has waived their
right to a hearing and admitted the anti-doping rule violation as well as
accepted the Consequences set out by the Integrity Unit in the Notice of
Charge;

(g) indicate that the Athlete or other Person may be able to obtain a
suspension of Consequences if they provide Substantial Assistance
under Rule 10.7.1, may admit the anti-doping rule violation(s) within
twenty (20) days from receipt of the Notice of Charge and potentially
benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility under
 Rule 10.8.1 (if applicable) and/or seek to enter into a case resolution
agreement by admitting the anti-doping rule violation(s) under Rule
10.8.2;

(h) set out any matters relating to Provisional Suspension as per Rule 7 (if
applicable).

8.5.3 The Notice of Charge notified to the Athlete or other Person will simultaneously be
notified by the Integrity Unit to the Athlete or other Person’s National Anti-Doping
Organization(s) and WADA and will promptly be reported into ADAMS.

[Comment to Rule 8.5.3: To the extent not already set out in the notice of charge, this notification shall
contain the following information (wherever applicable): Athlete’s or other Person’s name, country,
sport and discipline within the sport, and, for a violation of Rule 2.1, whether the test was In-
Competition or Out-of-Competition, the date of Sample collection, the analytical result reported by the
Laboratory and other information as required by the International Standard for Testing and
Investigations, and, for any other anti-doping rule violation, the anti-doping rule(s) violated and the
basis for the asserted violation(s).]

8.5.4 The Athlete or other Person may respond to the Notice of Charge in one of the
following ways:

(a) admit the violation(s) asserted and accede to the Consequences

specified in the Notice of Charge;

(b) admit the violation(s) charged but dispute and/or seek to mitigate the
Consequences specified in the Notice of Charge, and to have the
Disciplinary Tribunal determine the Consequences at a hearing
conducted in accordance with Rule 8;

(c) deny the violation(s) charged and have the Disciplinary Tribunal
determine the charge and (if the charge is upheld) any Consequences,
at a hearing conducted in accordance with this Rule 8.

8.5.5 If the Athlete or other Person wishes to exercise their right to a hearing before the
Disciplinary Tribunal, they must submit a written request for such a hearing so that
it is received by the Integrity Unit, with a copy to the Disciplinary Tribunal, as soon
as possible, but in any event within fourteen (14) days of the Athlete or other
Person's receipt of the Notice. The request must also state how the Athlete or other
Person responds to the charge in the Notice and must explain (in summary form) the
basis for such response.

8.5.6 In the event that the Athlete or other Person either (i) admits the violation and
accepts the proposed Consequences or (ii) is deemed to have admitted the violation
and accepted the Consequences as per Rule 8.5.2(f), the Integrity Unit will promptly:

(a) issue a decision confirming the commission of the violation(s) and the
imposition of the specified Consequences (including, if applicable, a
justification for why the maximum potential sanction was not imposed);
 (b) Publicly Report that decision in accordance with Rule 14;

(c) send a copy of the decision to the Athlete or other Person and to any
other party that has a right, further to Rule 13, to appeal the decision
(and any such party may, within 15 days of receipt, request a copy of the
full case file pertaining to the decision).

8.5.7 If, after the Athlete or other Person has been charged, the Integrity Unit decides to
withdraw the charge, it must notify the Athlete or other Person and give notice (with
reasons) to the Anti-Doping Organizations with a right of appeal under Rule 13.2.3.

8.5.8 Subject to Rule 8.6, in the event that the Athlete or other Person requests a hearing,
the matter shall proceed before the Disciplinary Tribunal in accordance with Rule
8.7.

8.6 Single Hearing before CAS

8.6.1 Pursuant to Article 8.5 of the Code, anti-doping rule violations asserted against
International-Level Athletes and other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete
or other Person, the Integrity Unit and WADA, be heard in a single hearing directly
at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement for a prior hearing, or
as otherwise agreed by the parties.

8.6.2 If the Athlete or other Person and the Integrity Unit agree to proceed with a single
hearing before CAS, it will be the responsibility of the Integrity Unit to liaise in writing
with WADA to determine whether it agrees to the proposal. Should WADA not agree
(in its entire discretion), then the case will be heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal at
first instance.

[Comment to Rule 8.6.2: In the event that all relevant parties agree to refer the case to the CAS as a
single instance, the Integrity Unit will promptly notify any other Anti-Doping Organization with a right
of appeal upon initiating the proceedings so that the latter may seek to intervene in the proceedings (if
they wish to). The final decision rendered by the CAS shall not be subject to any appeal, save to the Swiss
Federal Tribunal.]

8.7 Appointment of the Panel of the Disciplinary Tribunal

8.7.1 On receipt of a request for a hearing from an Athlete or other Person in accordance
with Rule 8.5.5, the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal shall appoint the
members of the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and decide the alleged violation(s) set
out in the Notice of Charge. The size and composition of the Panel may vary
depending on the nature of the charge and the evidence put forward. The Panel may
be composed of a single adjudicator who will have a legal background, or of three
members, at least one of whom will have a legal background. The Chairperson of the
Disciplinary Tribunal may be appointed as a single adjudicator or as Chair or a
member of a Panel.

8.7.2 No member of the Disciplinary Tribunal may be on the Panel in any case if he:
 (a) has any personal connection or interest (whether directly or indirectly)
with any of the parties or witnesses; or

(b) has had any prior involvement with any matter or any facts arising in the
proceedings (save as provided for in these Rules including a review of a
Demand); or,

(c) is of the same nationality as a party involved in a proceeding (unless

their appointment is agreed by the Chairperson or is agreed by the
parties); or

(d) their impartiality or independence could be seriously questioned (as

determined by the Chairperson).

8.7.3 Upon being appointed to a Panel of the Disciplinary Tribunal for a particular matter,
each member must sign a declaration that there are no facts or circumstances
known to them that might call into question their impartiality in the eyes of any of
the parties, other than matters disclosed in the declaration. If any such facts or
circumstances arise at a later stage of the Hearing Process, the relevant panel
member must sign an updated declaration.

[Comment to Rule 8.7.3: For example, any member who is in any way connected with the case and/or
the parties or witnesses – such as family or close personal/professional ties and/or an interest in the
outcome of the case and/or having expressed an opinion as to the outcome of the particular case – must
openly disclose on the declaration all circumstances that might interfere with the impartial performance
of their functions. To assess whether a hearing panel member is impartial, the parties may take into
account the principles set out in the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration
as updated from time to time available at https://www.ibanet.org.]

8.7.4 The parties shall be notified of the identity of the Panel members appointed to hear
and determine the matter and be provided with their signed declaration at the
outset of the Hearing Process. The parties shall be informed of their right to
challenge the appointment of any Panel member if there are grounds for potential
conflicts of interest. Any challenge to a Panel member must be made to the
Chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal without delay, and in any event within 7
days of:

(a) receipt of the signed declaration (or updated declaration) referred to in

Rule 8.7.3; or

(b) learning by any other means (including any subsequent means) of the
facts or circumstances giving rise to the challenge.

Failure to raise a challenge within the time stipulated will constitute a waiver of
the right to challenge. Any challenge made will be decided upon by the Chairperson
of the Disciplinary Tribunal (or their delegate), or if the Chairperson is challenged,
by another senior independent member of the Disciplinary Tribunal, and their
decision will be final and there shall be no right of appeal.
 8.7.5 If a member of a Panel is, for whatever reason, unable, unwilling or unfit to hear or
continue to hear, and decide a proceeding, the Chairperson of the Disciplinary
Tribunal (or his delegate) may, in their absolute discretion:

(a) appoint another member of the Disciplinary Tribunal to replace them in

that proceeding; or

(b) authorise the remaining member(s) of the Panel to hear and decide the
proceeding alone, in which case, if the decision cannot be reached
unanimously or by majority, then the Chairperson of the Disciplinary
Tribunal shall have a casting vote.

8.8 The rules governing the activities of World Athletics/the Integrity Unit shall guarantee the
Operational Independence of the Panel members.

[Comment to Rule 8.8: As per the Code definition, Operational Independence means that (1) board members, staff
members, commission members, consultants and other officials of World Athletics/the Integrity Unit or its affiliates
(e.g. Member Federations or Area Associations), as well as any person involved in the investigation and pre-
adjudication of the matter, cannot be appointed as members and/or clerks (to the extent that such clerk is involved
in the deliberation process and/or drafting of any decision) of the Disciplinary Tribunal and (2) that hearing panels
of the Disciplinary Tribunal shall be in a position to conduct the hearing and decision making process without
interference from the Integrity Unit or any third party.]

8.9 Powers of the Disciplinary Tribunal

8.9.1 The Disciplinary Tribunal, and any Panel of the Disciplinary Tribunal, shall have all
powers necessary for, and incidental to, the discharge of its responsibilities,
including (without limitation) the power, whether on the application of a party or of
its own motion:

(a) to rule on its own jurisdiction;

(b) to appoint an independent expert to assist or advise it on specific issues,

with the costs of such expert to be borne as directed by the Disciplinary
Tribunal;

(c) to expedite or to adjourn, postpone or suspend its proceedings, upon

such terms as it will determine, where fairness so requires;

(d) to extend or abbreviate any time limit specified in any Rules or by the
Disciplinary Tribunal itself, save for any limitations period or appeal
deadline;

(e) to order any party to make any property, document or other thing in its
possession or under its control available for inspection by the
Disciplinary Tribunal and/or any other party;

(f) to allow one or more third parties to intervene or be joined in the

proceedings, to make all appropriate procedural directions in relation to
 such intervention or joinder, and thereafter to make a single final
decision or separate decisions in respect of all parties;

(g) to order that certain preliminary and/or potentially dispositive

questions (e.g. as to jurisdiction, or as to whether a condition precedent
has been met) be heard and determined in advance of any other issues
in the matter;

(h) to award interim relief or other conservatory measures on a provisional

basis and subject to final determination;

(i) to make any other procedural direction or take any other procedural
steps which the Disciplinary Tribunal considers to be appropriate in
pursuit of the efficient and proportionate management of any
Proceeding or matter pending before it; and

(j) to impose costs orders.

8.9.2 Any procedural rulings may be made by the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal
or the Chair of a Panel alone.

8.10 Preliminary Meeting with the Chair of the Panel

8.10.1 If the Athlete or other Person charged exercises their right to a hearing, the Chair of
the Panel shall convene a preliminary meeting with the Integrity Unit and its legal
representatives, and with the Athlete or other Person and/or their legal
representatives (if any). The meeting may be held by telephone conference call. The
non-attendance of the Athlete or other Person or their representative at the
meeting, after proper notice of the meeting has been provided, shall not prevent the
Chair of the Panel from proceeding with the meeting in the Athlete or other Person's
absence, whether or not any written submissions are made on the Athlete or other
Person's behalf.

8.10.2 The purpose of the preliminary meeting shall be to allow the Chair of the Panel to
address any pre-hearing issues. In particular (but without limitation), the Chair shall:

(a) consider any request by either party that the Chair hear the matter
sitting alone;

(b) consider any request by either party that the case be consolidated for
hearing with any other pending case(s);

(c) determine the date(s) (which must be at least twenty-one (21) days after
the meeting, unless the parties consent to a shorter period) upon which
the hearing shall be held. Subject to the foregoing, the hearing shall be
commenced as soon as practicable after the Notice of Charge is sent and
shall be completed expeditiously. Hearing Processes held in connection
with World Championships or the Olympic Games may be conducted by
an expedited process with the consent of the parties;
 (d) establish dates reasonably in advance of the date of the hearing at
which:

(i) the Integrity Unit shall submit a brief with argument on all issues
that it wishes to raise at the hearing and written witness
statements from each fact and/or expert witness that the Integrity
Unit intends to call at the hearing, setting out the evidence that it
wishes the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear from the witness, and
enclosing copies of the documents that the Integrity Unit intends
to introduce at the hearing;

(ii) the Athlete or other Person shall submit an answer brief,

addressing the Integrity Unit's arguments and setting out
argument on the issues that the Athlete or other Person wishes to
raise at the hearing, as well as written witness statements from
the Athlete or other Person and from each other witness (fact
and/or expert) that the Athlete or other Person intends to call at
the hearing, setting out the evidence that the Athlete or other
Person wishes the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear from the witness,
and enclosing copies of the documents that the Athlete or other
Person intends to introduce at the hearing; and

(iii) the Integrity Unit may submit a reply brief, responding to the
Athlete or other Person's answer brief and producing any rebuttal
witness statements and/or documents; and

(e) make such order as the Chair shall deem appropriate in relation to the
production of relevant documents and/or other materials between the
parties; provided that, save for good cause shown, no documents and/or
other materials shall be ordered to be produced in relation to any
Adverse Analytical Finding beyond the documents that the International
Standard for Laboratories requires to be included in the laboratory
documentation pack.

8.11 Conduct of Hearings before the Disciplinary Tribunal

8.11.1 Subject to the discretion of the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal to order
otherwise for good cause shown by either party, hearings before the Disciplinary
Tribunal shall take place in London or Monaco.

[Comment to Rule 8.11.1: It is not a Code requirement that a hearing should take place in person.
Hearings may also take place remotely by the participants joining together using technology. There are
no restrictions as to the technology that can or should be used, but include means such as conference
calling, video conferencing technology or other online communication tools. Depending on the
circumstances of a case, it may also be fair or necessary – for example, where all the facts are agreed
and the only issue is as to the Consequences – to conduct a hearing “in writing”, based on written
materials without an oral hearing].

8.11.2 The Panel will remain fair, impartial and Operationally Independent at all times;
 8.11.3 Each of the Integrity Unit and the Athlete or other Person has the right to be present
and to be heard at the hearing. Each of the Integrity Unit and the Athlete or other
Person also has the right (at their own expense) to be represented at the hearing by
legal counsel of their own choosing.

8.11.4 Subject strictly to Rule 3.2.5, the Athlete or other Person may choose not to appear
in person at the hearing, but rather to provide a written submission for consideration
by the Panel, in which case the Panel shall consider the submission in its
deliberations. However, the non-attendance of the Athlete or other Person or their
representative at the hearing, after proper notice of the hearing has been provided,
shall not prevent the Panel from proceeding with the hearing in their absence,
whether or not any written submissions are made on their behalf.

8.11.5 The hearing shall be conducted in private unless the Chair rules otherwise. The
Athlete or other Person shall have the right to request a public hearing and the
Integrity Unit may also request a public hearing provided that the Athlete or other
Person has provided their prior written consent to the same. The Chair may reject
any request made for a public hearing on reasonable grounds.

8.11.6 The procedure followed at the hearing shall be at the discretion of the Panel,
provided that the hearing is conducted in a fair manner with a reasonable
opportunity for each party to present evidence (including the right to call and
examine witnesses), address the Panel and present their case.

8.11.7 Save where the Panel orders otherwise for good cause shown by either party, the
hearing shall be in English or French, and certified translations shall be submitted of
any non-English or non-French documents (as applicable) put before the Panel. The
cost of the translation shall be borne by the party offering the document(s) unless
otherwise ordered by the Panel. If required by the Panel, arrangements shall be
made to have the hearing recorded or transcribed and the costs of such transcription
shall be paid by the Integrity Unit. The Athlete or other Person has the right to an
interpreter at the hearing at their own expense.

8.11.8 The Panel shall not be bound by judicial rules governing the admissibility of evidence.
Instead, facts relating to an anti-doping rule violation or other breach of the Anti-
Doping Rules may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. The
Panel shall apply the burdens and standards of proof and the methods of
establishing facts and presumptions as described in Rule 3 of these Anti-Doping
Rules.

8.12 Decisions of the Disciplinary Tribunal

8.12.1 Once the parties have completed their respective submissions, the Panel shall
deliberate as to whether an anti-doping rule violation or other breach of the Anti-
Doping Rules has been committed and (if so) what the Consequences or other
sanctions for such violation should be. Where Rule 10 specifies a range of possible
sanctions for the anti-doping rule violation found to have been committed, the Panel
 shall also fix the sanction within that range for the case at hand, after considering
any submissions on the subject that the parties may wish to make.

8.12.2 The Panel shall not make any verbal announcement of the decision but instead shall
issue its reasoned decision in writing within 14 days of the conclusion of the hearing
(or within such shorter period as may be determined upon a party’s application
where the decision might impact the participation of the Athlete or other Person at
a World Championships or the Olympic Games). Where the 14-day deadline cannot
be met, the reasoned decision shall be issued as soon thereafter as possible.

8.12.3 The decision must not purport to be limited to a particular geographic area or the
sport of Athletics and shall address and explain the following:

(a) the jurisdictional basis and applicable rules;

(b) the detailed factual background of the case;

(c) with reasons, the Panel's findings as to whether any anti-doping rule
violation(s) has/have been committed;

(d) with reasons, the Panel's findings as to what the applicable

Consequences, if any, are (or are not) to be imposed, including (if
applicable) a justification for why the maximum potential sanction was
not imposed;

(e) with reasons, the date that such Consequences shall come into force and
effect pursuant to Rule 10.13; and

(f) the rights of appeal applicable and the relevant deadlines pursuant to
Rule 13.

8.12.4 The Disciplinary Tribunal has the power to make a costs order against any party,
where it is proportionate to do so. If it does not exercise that power, each party will
bear its own costs, legal, expert and otherwise. No recovery of costs may be
considered a basis for reducing the period of Ineligibility or other sanction that
would otherwise be applicable.

[Comment to Rule 8.12.4: For hearings conducted by the Disciplinary Tribunal pursuant to its jurisdiction
under Rule 8.2(b) and (c), the costs of the Disciplinary Tribunal shall be borne by the Member Federation,
Anti-Doping Organisation or other organisation concerned].

8.12.5 The reasoned hearing decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal, or in cases where the
hearing has been waived, a reasoned decision of the Integrity Unit explaining the
action taken, will be notified to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping
Organizations with a right to appeal under Rule 13.2.3 as provided in Rule 14 and
published in accordance with Rule 14.3 (and any such party may, within 15 days of
receipt, request a copy of the full case file pertaining to the decision). The decision
will promptly be reported into ADAMS.
 8.12.6 Where, further to notification of the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal or the
Integrity Unit, an Anti-Doping Organisation with a right of appeal requests a copy of
the full case file relating to the decision, it will be provided promptly by the Integrity
Unit.

8.13 Proceedings other than before the Disciplinary Tribunal

8.13.1 Where an anti-doping rule violation is asserted against an Athlete or other Person,
they shall be told at the same time of their right to request a hearing. The hearing
process shall provide at a minimum for a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a
hearing panel that is fair, impartial and Operationally Independent at all times. A
timely reasoned decision specifically including an explanation of the reason(s) for
any period of Ineligibility shall be Publicly Disclosed as provided in Rule 14 below.

8.13.2 If the Athlete or other Person fails to confirm in writing within 14 days of such notice
that they wish to have a hearing, they will be deemed to have waived their right to
a hearing and to have accepted that they committed the anti-doping rule violation
in question. That fact shall be confirmed in writing to the Integrity Unit by the
Member Federation or Anti-Doping Organisation within five working days.

8.13.3 If a hearing is requested by the Athlete or other Person, it shall be convened without
delay and the hearing completed within 60 days of the date of notification of the
Athlete or other Person’s request. Member Federations and Anti-Doping
Organisations shall keep the Integrity Unit fully informed as to the status of all cases
pending hearing and of all hearing dates as soon as they are fixed. World Athletics is
not a party to the case, but the Integrity Unit shall have the right to attend all
hearings as an observer. However, the Integrity Unit’s attendance at a hearing, or
any other involvement in a case, shall not affect World Athletics' right to appeal the
Member Federation or Anti-Doping Organisation's decision to CAS pursuant to Rule
13.

8.13.4 If the Member Federation fails to complete a hearing within 60 days, or, if, having
completed a hearing, fails to render a decision within a reasonable time period
thereafter, the Integrity Unit may impose a deadline for such event. If in either case
the deadline is not met, the Integrity Unit may elect to have the case referred
directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal for a hearing conducted in accordance with these
Anti-Doping Rules. The hearing shall proceed at the responsibility and expense of
the Member Federation and the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal shall be subject
to appeal to CAS in accordance with Rule 13. A failure by a Member Federation to
hold a hearing for an Athlete within 60 days may further result in the imposition of
a sanction under Rule 16.

8.13.5 The Member Federation shall notify the Integrity Unit of the relevant tribunal’s
decision in writing, within five working days of the decision being made (or within
such shorter period as may be directed by the Integrity Unit where the decision
might impact the participation of the Athlete or other Person at a World
Championships or the Olympic Games). The decision shall be sent to the Integrity
Unit in either English or French. The decision shall set out and explain, with reasons,
 the relevant tribunal's findings (i) as to whether any anti-doping rule violation has
been committed and (ii) what Consequences, if any, are to be imposed. The decision
shall provide (if applicable) a justification for why the maximum potential sanction
was not imposed. Upon request from the Integrity Unit, the Member Federation or
Anti-Doping Organisation shall provide a copy of the full case file within 15 days.

8.13.6 The Athlete or other Person may elect to forego a hearing by acknowledging in
writing a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules and accepting Consequences
consistent with Rule 10. Where an Athlete or other Person accepts Consequences
consistent with Rule 10 and no hearing occurs, the Member Federation shall
nevertheless ratify the Athlete or other Person’s acceptance of Consequences by a
decision of its relevant body and send a copy of such decision to the Integrity Unit
within five working days of the decision being made. A decision by a Member
Federation or Anti-Doping Organisation arising from an Athlete's acceptance of
Consequences under these Anti-Doping Rules may be appealed in accordance with
Rule 13.

9. Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results

An anti-doping rule violation in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to

Disqualification of the Athlete's individual results obtained in that Competition, with all
resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, awards, points and prize and
appearance money. In addition, further results obtained by the Athlete in other Competitions
may be Disqualified, in accordance with Rule 10.1 (same Event) and/or Rule 10.10 (subsequent
Competitions).

10. Further sanctions on Individuals

10.1 Disqualification of individual results in the Event during or in connection with which an Anti-
Doping Rule Violation occurs

10.1.1 Subject to Rule 10.1.2, an anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection
with an Event shall lead to Disqualification of all the Athlete's individual results
obtained in that Event, with all resulting consequences for the Athlete, including
forfeiture of any medals, titles, awards, points and prize and appearance money.

10.1.2 If the Athlete establishes that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping
rule violation, the Athlete's individual results obtained in other Competitions shall
not be Disqualified unless the Integrity Unit establishes that the Athlete's results in
the other Competition(s) were likely to have been affected by their anti-doping rule
violation.

10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method

The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Rule 2.1, Rule 2.2 or Rule 2.6 will be as follows,
subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Rules 10.5, 10.6 and/or
10.7:
10.2.1 Save where Rule 10.2.4 applies, the period of Ineligibility will be four years where:

(a) The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a
Specified Method, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the
anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

(b) The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance or a Specified

Method and the Integrity Unit can establish that the anti-doping rule violation
was intentional.

10.2.2 If Rule 10.2.1 does not apply, then (subject to Rule 10.2.4(a)) the period of
Ineligibility will be two years.

10.2.3 As used in Rule 10.2, the term 'intentional' is meant to identify those Athletes or
other Persons who engage in conduct that they knew constituted an anti-doping rule
violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute
or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. An
anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a
substance that is only prohibited In-Competition will be rebuttably presumed to be
not 'intentional' if the substance is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can
establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition. An anti-
doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance
that is only prohibited In-Competition will not be considered 'intentional' if the
substance is not a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the
Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport
performance.

[Comment to Rule 10.2.3: Rule 10.2.3 provides a special definition of 'intentional' that is to be applied
solely for purposes of Rule 10.2. Beyond Rule 10.2, the term 'intentional' as used in these Rules means
that the person intended to commit the act(s) based on which the Anti-Doping Rule Violation is asserted,
regardless of whether the person knew that such act(s) constituted an anti-doping rule violation.]

10.2.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in Rule 10.2, where the anti-doping rule
violation involves a Substance of Abuse:

(a) If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-
Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period
of Ineligibility will be three (3) months; provided that it may be further
reduced to one (1) month if the Athlete satisfactorily completes a
Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by the Integrity Unit
or other Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management
responsibility. The period of Ineligibility established in this Rule 10.2.4(a)
is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Rule 10.6.

[Comment to Rule 10.2.4(a): The determinations as to whether the treatment program

is approved and whether the Athlete or other Person has satisfactorily completed the
program will be made in the sole discretion of the Integrity Unit. This Rule is intended to
give the Integrity Unit the leeway to apply its own judgement to identify and approve
legitimate and reputable, as opposed to 'sham', treatment programmes. The
 characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widely and change over
time.]

(b) If the ingestion, Use or Possession occurred In-Competition, and the

Athlete can establish that the context of the ingestion, Use or Possession
was unrelated to sport performance, then the ingestion, Use or
Possession will not be considered intentional for purposes of Rule 10.2.1
and will not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances
under Rule 10.4.

10.3 Ineligibility for other anti-doping rule violations

The period of Ineligibility for anti-doping rule violations other than as provided in Rule 10.2 will
be as follows, unless Rules 10.6 or 10.7 are applicable:

10.3.1 For violations of Rule 2.3 or Rule 2.5, the period of Ineligibility will be four (4) years
except: (i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can
establish that the commission of the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional,
the period of Ineligibility will be two (2) years; (ii) in all other cases, if the Athlete or
other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the
period of Ineligibility, the period of Ineligibility will be in a range from two (2) years
to four (4) years depending on the Athlete's or other Person’s degree of Fault; or (iii)
in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete, the period of
Ineligibility will be in a range between a maximum of two (2) years and, at a
minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, depending on the Protected
Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault.

10.3.2 For violations of Rule 2.4, the period of Ineligibility will be two (2) years, subject to
reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of
Fault. The flexibility between two (2) years and one (1) year of Ineligibility in this Rule
is not available to Athletes where a pattern of last-minute whereabouts changes or
other conduct raises a serious suspicion that the Athlete was trying to avoid being
available for Testing.

10.3.3 For violations of Rule 2.7 or Rule 2.8, the period of Ineligibility will be a minimum of
four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the
violation. A Rule 2.7 or Rule 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person will be
considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Athlete Support
Person for violations other than those involving Specified Substances, will result in
lifetime Ineligibility for the Athlete Support Person. In addition, significant violations
of Rule 2.7 or Rule 2.8 that may also violate non-sporting laws and regulations will
be reported to the competent administrative, professional and/or judicial
authorities.

[Comment to Rule 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be
subject to sanctions that are more severe than the Athletes who test positive. Since the authority of
sport organisations is generally limited to Ineligibility for credentials, membership, and other sport
benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the
deterrence of doping.]
 10.3.4 For violations of Rule 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed will be a minimum of
two (2) years up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the
violation.

10.3.5 For violations of Rule 2.10, the period of Ineligibility will be two (2) years, subject to
reduction down to a minimum of one year, depending on the Athlete or other
Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.

10.3.6 For violations of Rule 2.11, the period of Ineligibility will be a minimum of two (2)
years up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation by the
Athlete or other Person.

[Comment to Rule 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Rule 2.5 (Tampering) and Rule 2.11 (Acts
by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) will be
sanctioned based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction.]

10.4 Aggravating Circumstances that may increase the period of Ineligibility

If the Integrity Unit or other prosecuting authority establishes in an individual case involving
an anti-doping rule violation other than violations under Rule 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted
Trafficking), Rule 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration), Rule 2.9 (Complicity or
Attempted Complicity) or Rule 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or other Person to discourage or
retaliate against reporting) that Aggravating Circumstances are present which justify the
imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of
Ineligibility otherwise applicable will be increased by an additional period of Ineligibility of up
to two (2) years depending on the seriousness of the violation and the nature of the
Aggravating Circumstances, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that they did not
knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation.

[Comment to Rule 10.4: Violations under Rules 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.11 are not included in the application of Rule 10.4
because the sanctions for these violations already build in sufficient discretion up to a lifetime ban to allow
consideration of any Aggravating Circumstance.]

10.5 Elimination of the period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence

If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that they bear No Fault or
Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against them, the otherwise applicable
period of Ineligibility will be eliminated.

[Comment to Rule 10.5: This Rule and Rule 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable
to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. They will only apply in exceptional
circumstances, for example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, they were sabotaged by a
competitor. Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test
resulting from a mislabelled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what
they ingest (Rule 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b) the
Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the
Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they
cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and (c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or
other Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the
conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink). However, depending on the unique
facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Rule 10.6 based
on No Significant Fault or Negligence.]
10.6 Reduction of the period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence

10.6.1 Reduction of sanctions in particular circumstances for violations of Rule 2.1, 2.2, or
2.6

All reductions under Rule 10.6.1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative.

(a) Specified Substances or Specified Methods

Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance (other

than a Substance of Abuse) or Specified Method, and the Athlete or other
Person can establish that they bear No Significant Fault or Negligence for the
anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against them, then the period of
Ineligibility will be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility,
and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or
other Person’s degree of Fault.

(b) Contaminated Products

In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant
Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against them
and that the Prohibited Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse) came
from a Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility will be, at a
minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two
years Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of
Fault.

[Comment to Rule 10.6.1(b): In order to receive the benefit of this Rule, the Athlete or other
Person must establish that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated
Product and must also separately establish No Significant Fault or Negligence. It should be
further noted that Athletes are on notice that they take nutritional supplements at their own
risk. The sanction reduction based on No Significant Fault or Negligence has rarely been applied
in Contaminated Product cases unless the Athlete has exercised a high level of caution before
taking the Contaminated Product. In assessing whether the Athlete can establish the source of
the Prohibited Substance, it would, for example, be significant for purposes of establishing
whether the Athlete actually Used the Contaminated Product, whether the Athlete had declared
the product that was subsequently determined to be contaminated on the Doping Control form.
This Rule should not be extended beyond products that have gone through some process of
manufacturing. Where an Adverse Analytical Finding results from environment contamination
of a 'non-product' such as tap water or lake water in circumstances where no reasonable person
would expect any risk of an anti-doping rule violation, typically there would be No Fault or
Negligence under Rule 10.5.]

(c) Protected Persons or Recreational Athletes

Where the anti-doping rule violation not involving a Substance of Abuse is

committed by a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete, and the Protected
Person or Recreational Athlete can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence
for the anti-doping rule violation(s) alleged against him or her, then the period
of Ineligibility will be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility,
 and at a maximum, two (2) years' Ineligibility, depending on the Protected
Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault.

10.6.2 Application of No Significant Fault or Negligence beyond the application of Rule

10.6.1

If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Rule 10.6.1 is

not applicable that they bear No Significant Fault or Negligence, then (subject to
further reduction or elimination as provided in Rule 10.7) the otherwise applicable
period of Ineligibility may be reduced based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree
of Fault, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the
period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Rule may be no less than eight
(8) years.

[Comment to Rule 10.6.2: Rule 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation except those
Rules where intent is an element of the anti-doping rule violation (e.g., Rule 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.11) or
an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Rule 10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provided for
in an Rule based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.]

10.7 Elimination, reduction, or suspension of period of Ineligibility or other Consequences for

Reasons other than Fault

10.7.1 Substantial Assistance in discovering or establishing violations

(a) Prior to an appellate decision under Rule 13 or the expiration of the time
to appeal, the Integrity Unit may suspend a part of the Consequences
(other than Disqualification and mandatory Public Disclosure) imposed
in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided
Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organisation, criminal
authority or professional disciplinary body that results in: (i) the Anti-
Doping Organisation discovering or bringing forward an anti-doping rule
violation by another Person; or (ii) a criminal or disciplinary body
discovering or bringing forward a criminal offence or the breach of
professional rules committed by another Person and the information
provided by the Person providing Substantial Assistance is made
available to the Integrity Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation with
Results Management responsibility; or (iii) WADA initiating a proceeding
against a Signatory, WADA-accredited laboratory, or Athlete passport
management unit (as defined in the International Standard for
Laboratories) for non-compliance with the Code, International
Standards or Technical Documents; or (iv) a criminal or disciplinary body
bringing forward a criminal offence or the breach of professional or
sport rules arising out of a sport integrity violation other than doping
(provided that, for this point (iv) to apply, the Integrity Unit must have
first obtained WADA's approval). After an appellate decision under Rule
13 or the expiration of time to appeal, the Integrity Unit may only
suspend a part of the otherwise applicable Consequences with the
approval of WADA.
 The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may
be suspended will be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule
violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance
of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to
the effort to eliminate doping in sport, non-compliance with the World
Anti-Doping Code, and/or sport integrity violations. No more than three-
quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be
suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime,
the non-suspended period under this Rule must be no less than eight
years. For purposes of this paragraph, the otherwise applicable period
of Ineligibility will not include any period of Ineligibility that could be
added under Rule 10.9.3(b).

If so requested by an Athlete or other Person seeking to provide

Substantial Assistance, the Integrity Unit will allow the Athlete or other
Person to provide the information to it subject to a Without Prejudice
Agreement.

If the Athlete or other Person fails to continue to cooperate and to

provide the complete and credible Substantial Assistance upon which a
suspension of Consequences was based, the Integrity Unit will reinstate
the original Consequences. If the Integrity Unit decides to reinstate
suspended Consequences, or decides not to reinstate suspended
Consequences, that decision may be appealed by any Person entitled to
appeal under Rule 13.

(b) To further encourage Athletes and other Persons to provide Substantial

Assistance, at the request of the Integrity Unit or at the request of the
Athlete or other Person who has or has been asserted to have
committed an anti-doping rule violation, or other violation of the Code,
WADA may agree at any stage of the Results Management process,
including after an appellate decision under Rule 13, to what it considers
to be an appropriate suspension of the otherwise-applicable period of
Ineligibility and other Consequences. In exceptional circumstances,
WADA may agree to suspensions of the period of Ineligibility and other
Consequences for Substantial Assistance greater than those otherwise
provided in this Rule, or even no period of Ineligibility, no mandatory
Public Disclosure, and/or no return of prize money or payment of fines
or costs. WADA’s approval will be subject to reinstatement of
Consequences, as otherwise provided in this Rule. Notwithstanding Rule
13, WADA’s decisions in the context of this Rule 10.7.1(b) may not be
appealed.

(c) If the Integrity Unit suspends any part of otherwise applicable

Consequences because of Substantial Assistance, notice providing
justification for the decision will be provided to the other Anti-Doping
Organisations with a right to appeal under Rule 13.2.3, as provided in
Rule 14. In unique circumstances where WADA determines that it would
 be in the best interest of anti-doping, WADA may authorise the Integrity
Unit to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements limiting or
delaying the disclosure of the Substantial Assistance agreement or the
nature of Substantial Assistance being provided.

[Comment to Rule 10.7.1: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and
other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti-doping
rule violations to light is important to clean sport. Where the Integrity Unit declines to
exercise the discretion conferred on it by Rule 10.7.1, and the matter comes before a
hearing panel under Rule 8 or an appeal panel under Rule 13, the hearing panel/appeal
panel (as applicable) may exercise such discretion if the conditions of Rule 10.7.1(a) are
satisfied and the panel sees fit. Alternatively, the hearing panel/appeal panel may
consider a submission that the Integrity Unit, in exercising its discretion under Rule
10.7.1, should have suspended a greater part of the Consequences].

10.7.2 Admission of an anti-doping rule violation in the absence of other evidence

Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-

doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample collection that could
establish an anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation
other than Rule 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant
to Rule 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time
of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half
of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.

[Comment to Rule 10.7.2: This Rule is intended to apply when an Athlete or other Person comes forward
and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where no Anti-Doping Organisation is
aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been committed. It is not intended to apply to
circumstances where the admission occurs after the Athlete or other Person believes they are about to
be caught. The amount by which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is reduced should be
based on the likelihood that the Athlete or other Person would have been caught had they not come
forward voluntarily.]

10.7.3 Application of multiple grounds for reduction of a sanction

Where an Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to reduction in sanction

under more than one provision of Rule 10.6 or 10.7, before applying any reduction
or suspension under Rule 10.7 the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be
determined in accordance with Rules 10.2, 10.3, and 10.6. If the Athlete or other
Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of
Ineligibility under Rule 10.7, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or
suspended, but not below one-fourth of the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility.

10.8 Results Management agreements

10.8.1 One year reduction for certain anti-doping rule violations based on early admission
and acceptance of sanction

Where the Integrity Unit notifies an Athlete or other Person of an anti-doping rule
violation charge that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of four (4) or more
 years (including any period of Ineligibility asserted under Rule 10.4), if the Athlete or
other Person admits the violation and accepts the asserted period of Ineligibility no
later than 20 days after receiving the Notice of Charge, the Athlete or other Person
may receive a one (1) year reduction in the period of Ineligibility asserted by the
Integrity Unit. Where the Athlete or other Person receives the one (1) year reduction
in the asserted period of Ineligibility under this Rule 10.8.1, no further reduction in
the asserted period of Ineligibility will be allowed under any other Rule.

[Comment to Rule 10.8.1: For example, if the Integrity Unit alleges that an Athlete has violated Rule 2.1
for Use of an anabolic steroid and asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four years, then the
Athlete may unilaterally reduce the period of Ineligibility to three years by admitting the violation and
accepting the three year period of Ineligibility within the time specified in this Rule, with no further
reduction allowed. This resolves the case without any need for a hearing.]

10.8.2 Case resolution agreements

Where the Athlete or other Person admits an anti-doping rule violation after being
confronted with it by the Integrity Unit and agrees to Consequences acceptable to
the Integrity Unit and WADA, at their sole discretion: (a) the Athlete or other Person
may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on an assessment by the
Integrity Unit and WADA of the application of Rules 10.1 to 10.7 to the asserted anti-
doping rule violation, the seriousness of the violation, the Athlete or other Person’s
degree of Fault, and how promptly the Athlete or other Person admitted the
violation; and (b) the period of Ineligibility may start as early as the date of Sample
collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. In
each case, however, where this Rule is applied, the Athlete or other Person must
serve at least one-half of the agreed-upon period of Ineligibility going forward from
the earlier of (i) the date the Athlete or other Person accepted the imposition of a
period of Ineligibility; and (ii) the date the Athlete or other Person accepted a
Provisional Suspension that was subsequently respected by the Athlete or other
Person. The decision by WADA and the Integrity Unit to enter or not enter into a
case resolution agreement, and the amount of the reduction to, and the starting
date of the period of Ineligibility, are not matters for determination or review by a
hearing body and are not subject to appeal under Rule 13.

If so requested by an Athlete or other Person seeking to enter into a case resolution

agreement under this Rule, the Integrity Unit will allow the Athlete or other Person
to discuss an admission of the anti-doping rule violation with it subject to a Without
Prejudice Agreement.

[Comment to Rule 10.8.2: Any mitigating or aggravating factors set forth in this Rule 10 must be
considered in arriving at the Consequences set forth in the case resolution agreement and will not be
applicable beyond the terms of that agreement.]

10.9 Multiple Violations

10.9.1 Second or third anti-doping rule violation:

(a) For an Athlete or other Person’s second anti-doping rule violation, the
period of Ineligibility will be the greater of:
 (i) a six month period of Ineligibility; or

(ii) a period of Ineligibility in the range between:

(aa) the sum of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the first
anti-doping rule violation plus the period of Ineligibility
otherwise applicable to the second anti-doping rule
violation treated as if it were a first violation; and

(bb) twice the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to

the second anti-doping rule violation treated as if it were
a first violation.

The period of Ineligibility within this range will be determined

based on the entirety of the circumstances and the Athlete or
other Person’s degree of Fault with respect to the second
violation.

(b) A third anti-doping rule violation will always result in a lifetime period of
Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfils the condition for reduction
of the period of Ineligibility under Rule 10.6, or involves a violation of
Rule 2.4. In these particular cases, the period of Ineligibility will range
from eight years to lifetime Ineligibility.

(c) The period of Ineligibility established in Rules 10.9.1(a) and 10.9.1(b)

may then be further reduced by the application of Rule 10.7.

10.9.2 An anti-doping rule violation for which an Athlete or other Person has established
No Fault or Negligence will not be considered a violation for the purposes of this
Rule 10.9. In addition, an anti-doping rule violation sanctioned under Rule 10.2.4(a)
will not be considered a violation for the purposes of Rule 10.9.

10.9.3 Additional rules for certain potential multiple violations

(a) For the purposes of imposing sanctions under Rule 10.9, except as
provided in Rules 10.9.3(b) and 10.9.3(c), an anti-doping rule violation
will only be considered a second (or third, as applicable) violation if the
Integrity Unit can establish that the Athlete or other Person committed
the additional anti-doping rule violation after the Athlete or other
Person received notice pursuant to Rule 7, or after the Integrity Unit
made reasonable efforts to give notice, of the first anti-doping rule
violation. If the Integrity Unit cannot establish this, the violations will be
considered together as one single first violation, and the sanction
imposed will be based on the violation that carries the more severe
sanction, including the application of Aggravating Circumstances.
Results in all Competitions dating back to the earlier anti-doping rule
violation will be Disqualified as provided in Rule 10.10.
 [Comment to Rule 10.9.3(a): The same rule applies where, after the imposition of a
sanction, the Integrity Unit discovers facts involving an anti-doping rule violation that
occurred prior to notification for a first anti-doping rule violation – e.g., the Integrity Unit
will impose a sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two
violations had been adjudicated at the same time, including the application of
Aggravating Circumstances.]

(b) If the Integrity Unit establishes that an Athlete or other Person

committed an additional anti-doping rule violation prior to notification,
and that the additional violation occurred 12 months or more before or
after the first-noticed violation, then the period of Ineligibility for the
additional violation will be calculated as if the additional violation were
a stand-alone first violation and this period of Ineligibility must be
served consecutively (rather than concurrently) with the period of
Ineligibility imposed for the first-noticed violation. Where this Rule
10.9.3(b) applies, the violations taken together will constitute a single
violation for purposes of Rule 10.9.1.

(c) If the Integrity Unit establishes that an Athlete or other Person

committed a violation of Rule 2.5 in connection with the Doping Control
process for an underlying asserted anti-doping rule violation, the
violation of Rule 2.5 will be treated as a stand-alone first violation and
the period of Ineligibility for such violation must be served consecutively
(rather than concurrently) with the period of Ineligibility, if any, imposed
for the underlying anti-doping rule violation. Where this Rule 10.9.3(c)
is applied, the violations taken together will constitute a single violation
for purposes of Rule 10.9.1.

(d) If the Integrity Unit establishes that an Athlete or other Person has
committed a second or third anti-doping rule violation during a period
of Ineligibility, the periods of Ineligibility for the multiple violations will
run consecutively (rather than concurrently).

10.9.4 Multiple anti-doping rule violations during ten-year period

For the purposes of Rule 10.9, each anti-doping rule violation must take place within
the same ten-year period in order to be considered multiple violations.

10.10 Disqualification of results in Competitions subsequent to Sample collection or commission

of an anti-doping rule violation

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition that produced
the positive Sample under Rule 9, all other competitive results obtained by the Athlete from
the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition) or
other anti-doping rule violation occurred through the commencement of any Provisional
Suspension or Ineligibility period, will, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with
all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money,
and prizes.
 [Comment to Rule 10.10: Nothing in these Anti-Doping Rules precludes clean Athletes or other Persons who have
been damaged by the actions of a Person who has committed an anti-doping rule violation from pursuing any right
that they would otherwise have to seek damages from such Person.]

10.11 Forfeited prize money

10.11.1 Where an Athlete’s results are Disqualified, the Athlete forfeits any prize money that
was awarded for the relevant Competition based on those results. In addition, where
those results have been combined with others to give the Athlete an overall ranking
at the end of the season, and the Athlete has received prize money based on that
ranking, the Athlete forfeits the portion of the prize money that they only received
because of the Disqualified results.

10.11.2 If World Athletics recovers prize money forfeited as a result of an anti-doping rule
violation, it will take reasonable measures to allocate and distribute such prize
money to the Athletes that would have been entitled to it had the forfeiting Athlete
not competed.

10.11.3 For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no reallocation of forfeited prize money
to other Athletes if the forfeited prize money has not been recovered from the
forfeiting Athlete.

[Comment to Rule 10.11: This Rule is not intended to impose an affirmative duty on World Athletics to take any
action to collect forfeited prize money. If World Athletics elects not to take any action to collect forfeited prize money,
it may assign its right to recover such money to the Athlete(s) who should have otherwise received the money.
'Reasonable measures to allocate and distribute this prize money' could include using collected forfeited prize money
as agreed upon by World Athletics and Athletes concerned.]

10.12 Financial Consequences

10.12.1 Where an Athlete or other Person is found to have committed an anti-doping rule
violation or other breach of these Anti-Doping Rules, the Disciplinary Tribunal or CAS
(or, in cases where Rule 8.5.6 applies, the Integrity Unit), taking into account the
proportionality principle, may require the Athlete or other Person to reimburse
World Athletics for the costs that it has incurred in bringing the case, irrespective of
any other Consequences that may or may not be imposed.

10.12.2 Any costs order pursuant to this Rule will not be considered a basis for reducing the
Ineligibility or other Consequences that would otherwise be applicable under these
Anti-Doping Rules.

10.12.3 Where fairness requires, World Athletics may establish an instalment plan for
repayment of any prize money forfeited pursuant to Rule 9 or 10 and/or for the
payment of any costs awarded pursuant to Rule 10.12.1. The schedule of payments
pursuant to such plan may extend beyond any period of Ineligibility imposed on the
Athlete or other Person.
10.13 Commencement of Ineligibility period

Where an Athlete is already serving a period of Ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation,
any new period of Ineligibility will commence on the first day after the current period of
Ineligibility has been served. Otherwise, except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility
will start on the date of the decision of the hearing panel providing for Ineligibility or, if the
hearing is waived or there is no hearing, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise
imposed.

10.13.1 Delays not attributable to the Athlete or other Person

Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of
Doping Control, and the Athlete or other Person can establish that such delays are
not attributable to him/her, the body imposing the sanction may start the period of
Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection
or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. All competitive
results achieved during the period of Ineligibility, including retroactive Ineligibility,
will be Disqualified.

[Comment to Rule 10.13.1: In cases of anti-doping rule violations other than under Rule 2.1, the time
required for an Anti-Doping Organisation to discover and develop facts sufficient to establish an anti-
doping rule violation may be lengthy, particularly where the Athlete or other Person has taken
affirmative action to avoid detection. In these circumstances, the flexibility provided in this Rule to start
the sanction at an earlier date should not be used.]

10.13.2 Credit for Provisional Suspension or period of Ineligibility served:

(a) If a Provisional Suspension is respected by the Athlete or other Person,

then the Athlete or other Person will receive a credit for such period of
Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility that may
ultimately be imposed. If the Athlete or other Person does not respect a
Provisional Suspension, they will receive no credit for any period of
Provisional Suspension served. If a period of Ineligibility is served
pursuant to a decision that is subsequently appealed, the Athlete or
other Person will receive a credit for such period of Ineligibility served
against any period of Ineligibility that may ultimately be imposed on
appeal.

(b) If an Athlete or other Person voluntarily accepts a Provisional

Suspension in writing from the Integrity Unit and thereafter respects the
Provisional Suspension, the Athlete or other Person will receive a credit
for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period
of Ineligibility that may ultimately be imposed. A copy of the Athlete or
other Person’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension will be
provided promptly to each party entitled to receive notice of an asserted
anti-doping rule violation under Rule 14.1.

[Comment to Rule 10.13.2(b): An Athlete’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional

Suspension is not an admission by the Athlete and may not be used in any way as to draw
an adverse inference against the Athlete.]
 (c) No credit against a period of Ineligibility will be given for any time period
before the effective date of the Provisional Suspension or voluntary
Provisional Suspension, regardless of whether the Athlete elected not to
compete or was suspended by a team.

10.14 Status during Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension

10.14.1 Prohibition against participation during Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension:

(a) No Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible or is subject to a
Provisional Suspension may, during a period of Ineligibility or Provisional
Suspension, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than
authorised anti-doping Education or rehabilitation programs) authorised or
organised by any Signatory, Signatory’s member organisation, or a club or
other member organisation of a Signatory’s member organisation, or in
Competitions authorised or organised by any professional league or any
international or national level event organisation or any elite or national-level
sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.

[Comment to Rule 10.14.1(a): For example, subject to Rule 10.14.2 below, Ineligible Athletes
cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organised by their Member or a club
that is a member of that Member or that is funded by a governmental agency. Further, an
Ineligible Athlete may not compete in a non-Signatory professional league, Competitions
organised by a non-Signatory International Event organisation or a non-Signatory national-level
Competition organisation without triggering the Consequences set forth in Rule 10.14.3. The
term 'activity' also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official,
director, officer, employee, or volunteer of the organisation described in this Rule. Ineligibility
imposed in one sport must also be recognised by other sports (see Rule 17.1, Automatic Binding
Effect of Decisions). An Athlete or other Person serving a period of Ineligibility is prohibited from
coaching or serving as an Athlete Support Person in any other capacity at any time during the
period of Ineligibility, and doing so could also result in a violation of Rule 2.10 by another Athlete.
Any performance standard accomplished during a period of Ineligibility shall not be recognised
by World Athletics or its Members for any purpose.]

(b) An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility longer than four
years may, after serving four years of the period of Ineligibility, participate as
an Athlete in local sport events not sanctioned or otherwise under authority
of a Code Signatory or member of a Code Signatory, but only so long as the
local sport event is not at a level that could otherwise qualify such Athlete or
other Person directly or indirectly to compete in (or accumulate points
toward) a national championship or International Event, and does not involve
the Athlete or other Person working in any capacity with Protected Persons.

(c) While serving a period of Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension, an Athlete or

other Person will remain subject to Testing and any requirement by the
Integrity Unit to provide whereabouts information.

10.14.2 Return to Training

As an exception to Rule 10.14.1, an Athlete may return to train with a team or to use
the facilities of a club or other member organisation of a Member or other
 Signatory's member organisation during the shorter of (i) the last two months, and
(ii) the last quarter of the period of Ineligibility imposed.

[Comment to Rule 10.14.2: During the training period described in this Rule, an Ineligible Athlete may
not compete or engage in any activity described in Rule 10.14.1 other than training.]

10.14.3 Violation of the Prohibition of Participation during Ineligibility or Provisional

Suspension

Where an Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible violates the
prohibition against participation during Ineligibility described in Rule 10.14.1, the
results of such participation will be Disqualified and a new period of Ineligibility
equal in length to the original period of Ineligibility will be added to the end of the
original period of Ineligibility. The new period of Ineligibility, including a reprimand
and no period of Ineligibility, may be adjusted based on the Athlete or other Person’s
degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case. The determination of whether
an Athlete or other Person has violated the prohibition against participation, and
whether an adjustment is appropriate, will be made by the Integrity Unit or a hearing
panel further to a charge brought by the Integrity Unit (or the Anti-Doping
Organisation whose Results Management led to the imposition of the initial period
of Ineligibility, if not the Integrity Unit). This decision may be appealed under Rule
13.

An Athlete or other Person who violates the prohibition against participation during
a Provisional Suspension described in Rule 10.14.1 will receive no credit for any
period of Provisional Suspension served and the results of such participation will be
Disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, titles,
points, prize money, and prizes.

Where an Athlete Support Person or other Person assists a Person in violating the
prohibition against participation during Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension, the
Integrity Unit will pursue the matter as a potential Rule 2.9 anti-doping rule violation.

10.14.4 Withholding of financial support during Ineligibility

In addition, for any anti-doping rule violation not involving a reduced sanction as
described in Rules 10.5 or 10.6, some or all sport-related financial support or other
sport-related benefits received by such Person will be withheld by World Athletics
and its Members.

10.15 Automatic Publication of Sanction

A mandatory part of each sanction will include automatic publication, as provided in Rule 14.3.

11. Consequences to Teams

11.1 Where the Athlete who has committed an anti-doping rule violation competed as a member
of a relay team, the relay team shall be automatically Disqualified from the Competition in
question, with all resulting consequences for the relay team, including the forfeiture of all
 titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money. If the Athlete who has
committed an anti-doping rule violation competes for a relay team in a subsequent
Competition in the Event, the relay team shall be Disqualified from the subsequent
Competition, with all the same resulting consequences for the relay team, including the
forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize money unless the Athlete establishes
that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the violation and that their participation in the relay
was not likely to have been affected by the anti-doping rule violation.

11.2 Where the Athlete who has committed an anti-doping rule violation competed as a member
of a team other than a relay team, in a Competition where a team ranking is based on the
addition of individual results, the team shall not be automatically disqualified from the
Competition in question but the result of the Athlete committing the violation will be
subtracted from the team result and replaced with the result of the next applicable team
member. If, by subtracting the Athlete's result from the team's result, the number of Athletes
counting for the team is less than the required number, the team shall be disqualified. This
same principle shall apply to the calculation of a team result if the Athlete who has committed
an anti-doping rule violation competes for a team in a subsequent Competition in the Event
unless the Athlete establishes that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the violation and that
their participation in the team was not likely to have been affected by the anti-doping rule
violation.

11.3 In addition to the Disqualification of the Athlete's individual results as determined in Rule
10.10:

11.3.1 the results of any relay team in which the Athlete competed shall be automatically
Disqualified, with all resulting consequences for the relay team, including the
forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize money; and

11.3.2 the results of any team other than a relay team in which the Athlete competed shall
not be automatically Disqualified but the result of the Athlete committing the anti-
doping rule violation will be subtracted from the team result and replaced with the
result of the next applicable team member. If, by subtracting the Athlete's result
from the team's result, the number of Athletes counting for the team is less than the
required number, the team shall be Disqualified.

11.4 Where more than one member of a relay or other team has been notified of an anti-doping
rule violation under Rule 2 in connection with a Competition, the ruling body for the Event
shall conduct appropriate Target Testing of the team during the Event Period.

12. Disciplinary Proceedings for Failure to Comply or Offensive Conduct

12.1 Where an Athlete or other Person (i) refuses or fails without compelling justification to comply
with any provision of these Anti-Doping Rules but such refusal or failure does not fall within
any of the anti-doping rule violations defined in Rule 2; or (ii) engages in offensive conduct
towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control that does not
otherwise constitute Tampering as defined in Rule 2.5, the Athlete or other Person shall not
be deemed to have committed an anti-doping rule violation and they shall not be subject to
any of the Consequences set out in Rules 9 and 10. However, disciplinary proceedings may be
 brought against the Athlete or other Person before the Disciplinary Tribunal and they may be
provisionally suspended (or may accept a voluntary suspension) pending the outcome of such
proceedings. Where an Athlete or other Person seeks to rely on the existence of ‘compelling
justification’ to justify or excuse conduct under these Anti-Doping Rules which might otherwise
amount to a violation (see, for example, Rule 5.7.3), the burden shall be on that Athlete or
other Person to adduce sufficient credible evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities,
that genuine and powerful reasons exist (or existed) to objectively justify their conduct taking
into account all the relevant circumstances. If after considering the matter the Disciplinary
Tribunal finds that there has been a refusal or failure without compelling justification to comply
with these Anti-Doping Rules, or that the Athlete or other Person has engaged in offensive
conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control, then it
will impose such sanctions and subject to such conditions as it sees fit (which may include,
without limitation, a period during which the Athlete or other Person shall not be eligible to
participate in the sport of Athletics and Disqualification of the Athlete's results, with all
resulting consequences including the forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, points and prize
money). The Athlete or other Person will receive credit for any period of provisional suspension
served provided it has been respected.

12.2 The Disciplinary Tribunal will ensure that the Athlete or other Person subject to any proceeding
is provided with a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally
Independent hearing panel.

12.3 The Disciplinary Tribunal, and any Panel of the Disciplinary Tribunal, will have all powers
necessary for, and incidental to, the discharge of its responsibilities in any proceeding brought
under Rule 12, including (without limitation) the power, whether on the application of a party
or of its own motion:

12.3.1 to rule on its own jurisdiction;

12.3.2 to determine whether any hearing or any part thereof should be oral or in writing;

12.3.3 to appoint an independent expert to assist or advise it on specific issues, with the costs
of such expert to be borne as directed by the Disciplinary Tribunal;

12.3.4 to expedite or to adjourn, postpone or suspend its proceedings, upon such terms as it
will determine;

12.3.5 to extend or abbreviate any time limit specified in any Rules or by the Disciplinary
Tribunal itself, save for any limitations period or appeal deadline;

12.3.6 to order any party to make any property, document or other thing in its possession
or under its control available for inspection by the Disciplinary Tribunal and/or any
other party;
 12.3.7 to order that certain preliminary and/or potentially dispositive questions (e.g. as to
jurisdiction, or as to whether a condition precedent has been met) be heard and
determined in advance of any other issues in the matter;

12.3.8 to award interim relief or other conservatory measures on a provisional basis and
subject to final determination;

12.3.9 to determine upon the manner in which it shall deliberate with a view to making any
determination in or connected with the proceeding;

12.3.10 to make any other procedural direction or take any other procedural steps which the
Disciplinary Tribunal considers to be appropriate in pursuit of the efficient and
proportionate management of any proceeding or matter pending before it; and

12.3.11 to impose costs orders.

In making any of the above orders or directions, the Disciplinary Tribunal shall be
guided by considerations of fairness.

12.4 If the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal is that a violation of Rule 12 has been committed,
save in exceptional circumstances (for example, where the Athlete or other Person is a Minor),
the decision will be Publicly Disclosed by the Integrity Unit no later than 10 days after its issue.
If the decision of Disciplinary Tribunal is that the Athlete or other Person has not committed a
violation of Rule 12, the decision may only be Publicly Disclosed by the Integrity Unit with the
consent of the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision, however the Integrity
Unit may Publicly Disclose the fact that the charge has been dismissed.

12.5 Decisions made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under Rule 12 above may be appealed exclusively
to the CAS Appeals Division by any party to the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal.
The time to file an appeal to the CAS will be thirty (30) days from the date of first receipt of the
reasoned decision by the appealing party. Where the appellant is a party other than World
Athletics, to be a valid filing under this Rule 12.5, a copy of the appeal must be filed on the
same day with World Athletics. The decision being appealed will remain in full force and effect
pending determination of the appeal unless CAS orders otherwise. The appeal procedure will
be governed by the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the applicable rules will be these
Anti-Doping Rules and the language of the proceedings will be English unless the parties agree
otherwise. The final decision of CAS will not be subject to any appeal, save to the Swiss Federal
Tribunal, and all parties waive irrevocably any rights they might otherwise have to any form of
review or other challenge in respect of such decision.

12.6 If the decision of CAS is that a violation of Rule 12 has been committed, save in exceptional
circumstances (for example, where the Athlete or other Person is a Protected Person), the
decision will be Publicly Disclosed by the Integrity Unit no later than 10 days after its issue. If
the decision of CAS is that the Athlete or other Person has not committed a violation of Rule
12, the decision may only be Publicly Disclosed by the Integrity Unit with the consent of the
 Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision, however the Integrity Unit may
Publicly Disclose the fact that the appeal has been dismissed.

13. Results Management: Appeals

13.1 Decisions subject to appeal

Decisions made under these Anti-Doping Rules (save for those made under Rule 12) may be
appealed as set out in Rules 13.2 through 13.7 below, or as otherwise provided in these Anti-
Doping Rules, the Code, or the International Standards. Such decisions will remain in effect
while under appeal unless the appellate body orders otherwise.

13.1.1 Scope of review not limited

The scope of review on appeal includes all issues relevant to the matter and is
expressly not limited to the issues or scope of review before the initial decision
maker. Any party to the appeal may submit evidence, legal arguments, and claims
that were not raised in the first instance hearing so long as they arise from the same
cause of action or same general facts or circumstances raised or addressed in the
first instance hearing.

[Comment to Rule 13.1.1: The revised language is not intended to make a substantive change to the
previous edition of these Anti-Doping Rules, but rather for clarification. For example, where an Athlete
was charged in the first instance hearing only with Tampering but the same conduct could also
constitute Complicity, an appealing party could pursue both Tampering and Complicity charges against
the Athlete in the appeal.]

13.1.2 CAS will not defer to the findings being appealed

In making its decision, CAS will not give deference to the discretion exercised by the
body whose decision is being appealed.

[Comment to Rule 13.1.2: CAS proceedings are de novo. Prior proceedings do not limit the evidence or
carry weight in the hearing before CAS.]

13.1.3 WADA not required to exhaust internal remedies

Where WADA has a right to appeal under this Rule 13 and no other party has
appealed a final decision within the World Athletics/Integrity Unit or other Anti-
Doping Organisation's process, WADA may appeal such decision directly to CAS
without having to exhaust any other remedies in the World Athletics/Integrity Unit
or other Anti-Doping Organisation's process.

[Comment to Rule 13.1.3: Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of the World
Athletics/Integrity Unit or other Anti-Doping Organisation's process (for example, a first hearing) and
no party elects to appeal that decision to the next level of the World Athletics/Integrity Unit or other
Anti-Doping Organisation's process, then WADA may bypass the remaining steps in the respective
internal process and appeal directly to CAS.]
13.2 Appeals against decisions regarding Anti-Doping Rule Violations, Consequences, Provisional
Suspensions, Implementation of Decisions and Authority

The following decisions may be appealed exclusively as provided in Rules 13.2 to 13.7: a
decision that an anti-doping rule violation was committed; a decision imposing Consequences
or not imposing Consequences for an anti-doping rule violation; a decision that no anti-doping
rule violation was committed; a decision that an anti-doping rule violation proceeding cannot
go forward for procedural reasons (including, for example, prescription); a decision by WADA
not to grant an exception to the six-months’ notice requirement for a retired Athlete to return
to competition under Rule 5.6.1; a decision by WADA assigning Results Management under
Rule 7.1; a decision by the Integrity Unit not to bring forward an Adverse Analytical Finding or
an Atypical Finding as an anti-doping rule violation; a decision not to go forward with an anti-
doping rule violation after an investigation in accordance with the International Standard for
Results Management; a decision to impose (or lift) a Provisional Suspension as a result of a
Provisional Hearing; the Integrity Unit’s failure to comply with Rule 7.4; a decision that World
Athletics/the Integrity Unit lacks authority to rule on an alleged anti-doping rule violation or
its Consequences; a decision to suspend (or not suspend) Consequences or to reinstate (or not
reinstate) Consequences under Rule 10.7.1; failure to comply with Rule 7.1; failure to comply
with Rule 10.8.1; a decision under Rule 10.14.3; a decision by World Athletics not to implement
another Anti-Doping Organisation’s decision under Rule 17; and a decision under Article 27.3
of the Code.

13.2.1 Appeals involving International-Level Athletes or International Events

In cases involving International-Level Athletes or arising from Persons participating

in an International Event the decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS.

13.2.2 Appeals involving other Athletes or other Persons

In cases where Rule 13.2.1 is not applicable, the decision may be appealed to an
appellate body, in accordance with rules adopted by the National Anti-Doping
Organisation having authority over the Athlete or other Person. The rules for such
appeal must respect the following principles: a timely hearing; a fair, impartial,
Operationally Independent and Institutionally Independent hearing panel; the right
to be represented by counsel at the Person’s own expense; and a timely, written,
reasoned decision.

If no such body as described above is in place and available at the time of the appeal,
the decision may be appealed to the CAS Anti-Doping Division, which will appoint
one or more CAS arbitrators to sit as the panel that will hear and determine the case
in accordance with the Code-compliant anti-doping rules of the National Anti-Doping
Organisation, the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration, and the Arbitration Rules
for the CAS Anti-Doping Division.

13.2.3 Persons entitled to appeal

(a) In cases under Rule 13.2.1, the following parties will have the right to
appeal to CAS:
 (i) the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision
being appealed;

(ii) the other party to the case in which the decision was rendered;

(iii) the Integrity Unit on behalf of World Athletics;

(iv) the National Anti-Doping Organisation of the Person’s country

of residence or countries where the Person is a national or
license holder;

(v) the International Olympic Committee or International

Paralympic Committee, as applicable, where the decision may
have an effect in relation to the Olympic Games or Paralympic
Games, including decisions affecting eligibility for the Olympic
Games or Paralympic Games; and

(vi) WADA.

(b) In cases under Rule 13.2.2, the parties having the right to appeal will be
as provided in the National Anti-Doping Organisation’s rules but, at a
minimum, will include the following parties:

(i) the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision
being appealed;

(ii) the other party to the case in which the decision was rendered;

(iii) the Integrity Unit on behalf of World Athletics;

(iv) the National Anti-Doping Organisation of the Person’s country

of residence or countries where the Person is a national or
licence holder;

(v) the International Olympic Committee or International

Paralympic Committee, as applicable, where the decision may
have an effect in relation to the Olympic Games or Paralympic
Games, including decisions affecting eligibility for the Olympic
Games or Paralympic Games; and

(vi) WADA.

Further, for cases under Rule 13.2.2, WADA, the International Olympic
Committee, the International Paralympic Committee and the Integrity
Unit on behalf of World Athletics will also have the right to appeal to the
CAS Appeals Division with respect to the decision of the national-level
appeal body (or the CAS Anti-Doping Division, as applicable). Any party
filing an appeal will be entitled to assistance from CAS to obtain all
 relevant information from the Anti-Doping Organisation whose decision
is being appealed and the information will be provided if CAS so directs.

(c) Duty to notify

All parties to any CAS appeal must ensure that the Integrity Unit, WADA
and all other parties with a right to appeal have been given timely notice
of the appeal.

(d) Appeal from imposition of Provisional Suspension

Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the only Person who may
appeal from the imposition of a Provisional Suspension is the Athlete or
other Person upon whom the Provisional Suspension is imposed.

13.2.4 Cross-appeals and other subsequent appeals allowed

Cross-appeals and other subsequent appeals by any respondent named in cases

brought to CAS under these Anti-Doping Rules are specifically permitted. Any party
with a right to appeal under this Rule 13 must file a cross-appeal or subsequent
appeal at the latest with the party’s answer to the appeal.

[Comment to Rule 13.2.4: This provision is necessary because, since 2011, CAS rules no longer permit an
Athlete the right to cross-appeal when an Anti-Doping Organisation appeals a decision after the
Athlete’s time for appeal has expired. This provision permits a full hearing for all parties.]

13.3 Failure to render a timely decision

Where, in a particular case, a decision under these Anti-Doping Rules with respect to whether
an anti-doping rule violation was committed is not rendered within a reasonable deadline set
by WADA, WADA may elect to appeal directly to the CAS Appeals Division as if a decision
finding no anti-doping rule violation had been rendered. If the CAS panel determines that an
anti-doping rule violation was committed and that WADA acted reasonably in electing to
appeal directly to the CAS Appeals Division, then WADA’s costs and attorney fees in
prosecuting the appeal will be reimbursed to WADA by World Athletics.

[Comment to Rule 13.3: Given the different circumstances of each anti-doping rule violation investigation, Results
Management, and hearing process, it is not feasible to establish a fixed time period for a decision to be rendered
before WADA may intervene by appealing directly to the CAS Appeals Division. Before taking such action, however,
WADA will consult with the Integrity Unit and give the Integrity Unit an opportunity to explain why it has not yet
rendered a decision.]

13.4 Appeals relating to TUEs

TUE decisions may be appealed exclusively as provided in Rule 4.4.

13.5 Notification of appeal decisions

Any Anti-Doping Organization that is a party to an appeal shall promptly provide the appeal
decision to the Athlete or other Person and to the other Anti-Doping Organizations that would
have been entitled to appeal under Rule 13.2.3 as provided under Rule 14.

13.6 Time for filing appeals:

13.6.1 Appeals to CAS

(a) The time to file an appeal to the CAS will be thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of the reasoned decision by the appealing party. Where the appellant
is a party other than World Athletics or WADA, to be a valid filing under this
Rule 13.6.1, a copy of the appeal must be filed on the same day with World
Athletics.

(b) The above notwithstanding, the following will apply in connection with
appeals filed by a party that is entitled to appeal but that was not a party to
the proceedings that led to the decision being appealed:

(i) Within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the decision, such party/ies
will have the right to request a copy of the full case file from the Anti-
Doping Organisation that had Results Management responsibility.

(ii) If such a request is made within the fifteen (15) day period, then the
party making such request will have thirty (30) days from receipt of
the file to appeal to the CAS.

[Comment to Rule 13.6.1: In the case of an appeal against a decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal by an
Athlete or other Person, or by World Athletics, the 30-day time period in Rule 13.6.1 runs from the date
of first notice of the decision communicated to the parties by the secretariat of the Disciplinary Tribunal
(as opposed to the date of communication of the final decision following any request made by the
parties for redactions).]

13.6.2 Appeals under Rule 13.2.2

The time to file an appeal to an independent and impartial body in accordance with
rules established by the National Anti-Doping Organisation will be indicated by the
same rules of the National Anti-Doping Organisation.

The above notwithstanding, the filing deadline for an appeal or intervention by the
Integrity Unit on behalf of World Athletics shall be the later of:

(a) Twenty-one (21) days after the last day on which any other party having a right
to appeal (other than WADA) could have appealed, or

(b) Twenty-one (21) days after the Integrity Unit’s receipt of the complete file
relating to the decision in English or French.
 13.6.3 Appeals by WADA

The above notwithstanding, the filing deadline for an appeal filed by WADA shall be
the later of:

(a) Twenty-one (21) days after the last day on which any other party having a
right to appeal could have appealed, or

(b) Twenty-one (21) days after WADA’s receipt of the complete file relating to
the decision.

13.6.4 Decisions for World Athletics to appeal

The decision as to whether:

(a) World Athletics should appeal to CAS;

(b) World Athletics should participate in any appeal or other proceeding

before CAS, or before any other tribunal, to which World Athletics is not
a party;

(c) World Athletics should appeal to an appeal body at national level in

circumstances where no other party with a right to appeal has appealed;
or

(d) World Athletics shall suspend the Athlete or other Person pending the
CAS decision or the decision of the other tribunal

shall be taken by the Head of the Integrity Unit subject to the prior approval of the
Integrity Unit Board.

13.7 Appeal Procedure before CAS

13.7.1 The CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration, as modified or supplemented herein,

shall apply to all appeals filed before CAS and pursuant to this Rule 13.

13.7.2 A party with a right of appeal against a decision may, within 15 days of receipt of
the decision, request a copy of the full case file pertaining to the decision. Any
party filing an appeal shall be entitled to assistance from CAS to obtain all relevant
information from the parties to the decision being appealed, and the information
shall be provided if CAS so directs.

13.7.3 Where World Athletics is one of two or more respondents to an appeal before CAS, it
shall seek to agree on an arbitrator with the other respondent(s). If there is a
disagreement as to who the appointed arbitrator should be, World Athletics' choice
of arbitrator shall prevail.

13.7.4 In all CAS appeals involving World Athletics, the CAS Panel shall be bound by the
World Athletics Constitution, Rules and Regulations (including these Anti-Doping
 Rules). In the case of conflict between the CAS rules currently in force and the
World Athletics Constitution, Rules and Regulations, the Constitution, Rules and
Regulations shall take precedence.

13.7.5 In all CAS appeals involving World Athletics, the governing law shall be
Monegasque law and the appeal shall be conducted in English, unless the parties
agree otherwise.

13.7.6 The decision of CAS shall be final and binding on all parties, and no right of appeal
shall lie from the CAS decision, save in limited circumstances to the Swiss Federal
Tribunal. Subject to Rule 14.3.7, the CAS decision shall be Publicly Reported by World
Athletics within 20 days of receipt.

14. Confidentiality and Reporting

14.1 Information concerning Adverse Analytical Findings, Atypical Findings, and other asserted
Anti-Doping Rule Violations

14.1.1 Notice of anti-doping rule violations to Athletes and other Persons

Notice to Athletes or other Persons of anti-doping rule violations asserted against

them will occur as provided under Rules 7, 8 and 14. Notice by the Integrity Unit to
an Athlete or other Person who is a member of or affiliated to a Member Federation
may be accomplished by delivery of the notice to the Member Federation.

If at any point during Results Management up until the anti-doping rule violation
charge, the Integrity Unit decides not to move forward with a matter, it must notify
the Athlete or other Person (provided that the Athlete or other Person had already
been informed of the ongoing Results Management).

14.1.2 Notice of anti-doping rule violations to National Anti-Doping Organisations and

WADA

Notice of the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation to National Anti-Doping

Organisations and WADA will occur as provided under Rules 7, 8 and 14,
simultaneously with the notice to the Athlete or other Person.

If at any point during Results Management up until the anti-doping rule violation
charge, the Integrity Unit decides not to move forward with a matter, it must give
notice (with reasons) to the Anti-Doping Organisations with a right of appeal under
Rule 13.2.3.

14.1.3 Content of an anti-doping rule violation notice

Notification of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 2.1 will include: the Athlete’s
or other Person's name, country, discipline, the Athlete’s competitive level, whether
the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition, the date of Sample collection,
the analytical result reported by the laboratory, and other information as required
by the International Standard for Results Management.
 Notification of anti-doping rule violations other than under Rule 2.1 will include the
Athlete’s or other Person's name, country, discipline, the Athlete’s competitive level,
the rule violated, and the basis of the asserted violation.

14.1.4 Status reports

Except with respect to investigations that have not resulted in a notice of an anti-
doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 14.1.1, the Athlete's or other Person's
National Anti-Doping Organisations and WADA will be regularly updated on the
status and findings of any review or proceedings conducted by the Integrity Unit
pursuant to Rule 7, Rule 8 or Rule 13 and will be provided with a prompt written
reasoned explanation or decision explaining the resolution of the matter.

14.1.5 Confidentiality

The recipient organisations shall not disclose information provided to it pursuant to

this Rule beyond those Persons with a need to know (which would include the
appropriate personnel at the applicable National Olympic Committee and Member
Federation) until the Integrity Unit has made Public Disclosure as permitted by Rule
14.3.

14.1.6 Protection of confidential information by an employee or agent

The Integrity Unit will ensure that information concerning Adverse Analytical
Findings, Atypical Findings, and other asserted anti-doping rule violations remains
confidential until such information is Publicly Disclosed in accordance with Rule 14.3.
World Athletics/the Integrity Unit will ensure that its employees (whether
permanent or otherwise), contractors, agents, consultants, and Delegated Third
Parties are subject to a fully enforceable contractual duty of confidentiality and to
fully enforceable procedures for the investigation and disciplining of improper
and/or unauthorised disclosure of such confidential information.

14.2 Notice of Anti-Doping Rule Violation or violations of Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension

decisions and request for files

14.2.1 Anti-doping rule violation decisions or decisions related to violations of Ineligibility

or Provisional Suspension rendered pursuant to Rules 7.6, 8.12.5, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7,
10.14.3 or 13.5 will include the full reasons for the decision, including, if applicable,
a justification for why the maximum potential sanction was not imposed. Where the
decision is not in English, the Integrity Unit will provide an English summary of the
decision and the supporting reasons.

14.2.2 An Anti-Doping Organisation having a right to appeal a decision received pursuant

to Rule 14.2.1 may, within fifteen (15) days of receipt, request a copy of the full case
file pertaining to the decision.
14.3 Public Disclosure

14.3.1 After notice has been provided to the Athlete or other Person in accordance with
the International Standard for Results Management, and to the applicable Anti-
Doping Organisations in accordance with Rule 14.1.2, the Integrity Unit may Publicly
Disclose the identity of the Athlete or other Person who is notified of a potential
anti-doping rule violation, the nature of the violation involved (including any
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method involved), and whether the Athlete or
other Person is subject to a Provisional Suspension.

14.3.2 No later than 20 days after it has been determined in an appellate decision under
Rule 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has been waived, or a hearing in accordance
with Rule 8 has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not
otherwise been timely challenged, or the matter has been resolved under Rule 10.8,
or a new period of Ineligibility, or reprimand, has been imposed under Rule 10.14.3,
the Integrity Unit must Publicly Disclose the disposition of the anti-doping matter,
including the anti-doping rule violated, the name of the Athlete or other Person
committing the violation, the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method involved
(if any) and the Consequences imposed. The Integrity Unit must also Publicly
Disclose within 20 days the results of appellate decisions concerning anti-doping rule
violations, including the information described above.

[Comment to Rule 14.3.2: Where Public Disclosure as required by Rule 14.3.2 would result in a breach
of other applicable laws, the Integrity Unit's failure to make the Public Disclosure will not result in a
determination of non-compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code, as set forth in Article 4.1 of the
International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information.]

14.3.3 After an anti-doping rule violation has been determined to have been committed in
an appellate decision under Rule 13.2.1 or 13.2.2 or such appeal has been waived,
or in a hearing in accordance with Rule 8 or where such hearing has been waived, or
the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not otherwise been timely
challenged, or the matter has been resolved under Rule 10.8, the Integrity Unit may
make public such determination or decision and may comment publicly on the
matter.

14.3.4 In any case where it is determined, after a hearing or appeal, that the Athlete or
other Person did not commit an anti-doping rule violation, the fact that the decision
has been appealed may be Publicly Disclosed. However, the decision itself and the
underlying facts may not be Publicly Disclosed except with the consent of the Athlete
or other Person who is the subject of the decision. The Integrity Unit will use
reasonable efforts to obtain such consent and if consent is obtained, the Integrity
Unit will publicly disclose the decision in its entirety or in such redacted form as the
Athlete or other Person may approve.

14.3.5 Publication will be accomplished at a minimum by placing the required information

on the World Athletics and/or the Integrity Unit’s website or publishing it through
other means and leaving the information up for the longer of one (1) month or the
duration of any period of Ineligibility.
 14.3.6 Except as provided in Rules 14.3.1 and 14.3.3, neither World Athletics/the Integrity
Unit, nor any Member Federation or Area Association, nor any Anti-Doping
Organisation, nor any WADA-accredited laboratory, nor any official of any such
body, will publicly comment on the specific facts of any pending case (as opposed to
general description of process and science) except in response to public comments
attributed to, or based on information provided by, the Athlete, other Person, or
their entourage or other representatives.

14.3.7 The mandatory Public Disclosure required in Rule 14.3.2 will not be required where
the Athlete or other Person who has been found to have committed an anti-doping
rule violation is a Minor, Protected Person or Recreational Athlete. Any optional
Public Disclosure in a case involving a Minor, Protected Person or Recreational
Athlete will be proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case.

14.4 Statistical reporting

The Integrity Unit will, at least annually, publish publicly a general statistical report of its
Doping Control activities, with a copy provided to WADA. The Integrity Unit may also publish
reports showing the name of each Athlete tested and the date of each Testing.

14.5 Doping Control information database and monitoring of compliance

14.5.1 To enable WADA to perform its compliance monitoring role and to ensure the
effective use of resources and sharing of applicable Doping Control information
among Anti-Doping Organisations, the Integrity Unit will report to WADA through
ADAMS Doping Control-related information as required under the applicable
International Standard(s), including, in particular:

(a) Athlete Biological Passport data for International-Level Athletes;

(b) whereabouts information for Athletes, including those in the

International Registered Testing Pool;

(c) TUE decisions; and

(d) Results Management decisions.

14.5.2 To facilitate coordinated test distribution planning, avoid unnecessary duplication in

Testing by various Anti-Doping Organisations, and to ensure that Athlete Biological
Passport profiles are updated, the Integrity Unit will report all In-Competition and
Out-of-Competition tests to WADA by entering the Doping Control forms into
ADAMS in accordance with the requirements and timelines contained in the
International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

14.5.3 To facilitate WADA’s oversight and appeal rights for TUEs, the Integrity Unit will
report all TUE applications, decisions, and supporting documentation using ADAMS
in accordance with the requirements and timelines contained in the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.
 14.5.4 To facilitate WADA’s oversight and appeal rights for Results Management, the
Integrity Unit will report the following information into ADAMS in accordance with
the requirements and timelines outlined in the International Standard for Results
Management: (a) notifications of anti-doping rule violations and related decisions
for Adverse Analytical Findings; (b) notifications and related decisions for other anti-
doping rule violations that are not Adverse Analytical Findings; (c) whereabouts
failures; and (d) any decision imposing, lifting or reinstating a Provisional Suspension.

14.5.5 The information described in this Rule will be made accessible, where appropriate
and in accordance with the applicable rules, to the Athlete, the Athlete’s National
Anti-Doping Organisation, and any other Anti-Doping Organisations with Testing
authority over the Athlete.

[Comment to Rule 14.5: ADAMS is operated, administered and managed by WADA, and is designed to be consistent
with data privacy laws and norms applicable to WADA and other organisations using such system. Personal
information regarding Athletes or other Persons maintained in ADAMS is and will be treated in strict confidence and
in accordance with the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information.]

14.6 Data privacy

14.6.1 World Athletics/the Integrity Unit may collect, store, process or disclose personal
information relating to Athletes and other Persons where necessary and appropriate
to conduct its Anti-Doping Activities under the Code, the International Standards
(including specifically the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and
Personal Information), these Anti-Doping Rules, and in compliance with applicable
law.

14.6.2 Without limiting the foregoing, the Integrity Unit will:

(a) only process personal information in accordance with a valid legal

ground;

(b) notify any Athlete or other Person subject to these Anti-Doping Rules, in
a manner and form that complies with applicable laws and the
International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal
Information, that their personal information may be processed by the
World Athletics/the Integrity Unit and other Persons for the purpose of
the implementation of these Anti-Doping Rules;

(c) ensure that any third-party agents (including any Delegated Third Party)
with whom the Integrity Unit shares the personal information of any
Athlete or other Person is subject to appropriate technical and
contractual controls to protect the confidentiality and privacy of such
information.

15. Member Federation Anti-Doping Obligations

15.1 Introduction
 15.1.1 This Rule 15 establishes a framework of Member Federation anti-doping obligations
that is designed to ensure that Member Federations have rules and policies that are
compliant with the Code and the International Standards but also that Member
Federations take ultimate responsibility for the delivery of strong and effective anti-
doping programmes in Athletics in their respective jurisdictions.

15.1.2 World Athletics has a responsibility under the Code to require that the policies, rules
and programmes of its Member Federations are in compliance with the Code and
the International Standards and to take appropriate action to discourage non-
compliance. The Integrity Unit shall monitor the compliance of Member Federations
with their obligations under this Rule and shall either work with non-compliant
Member Federations to ensure that they become compliant or shall refer non-
compliant Member Federations to the Council for sanction. The ultimate objective
is to ensure that strong, compliant anti-doping programmes are being applied and
enforced in Athletics consistently and effectively so that clean Athletes can have
confidence that there is a fair competition on a level playing field and that public
confidence in the integrity of Athletics can be maintained.

15.2 General

15.2.1 It is a condition of membership of World Athletics that each Member Federation

shall comply with these Anti-Doping Rules (and the Code and the International
Standards that are integral parts of these Anti-Doping Rules). The obligation to
comply is an absolute one such that it is not necessary to prove fault or intent on the
part of a Member Federation to establish a breach of these Anti-Doping Rules.

15.2.2 Member Federations shall take all necessary measures within their powers to
implement and comply with these Anti-Doping Rules.

15.2.3 Without limitation to the above, it is acknowledged that, in some jurisdictions,

Member Federations may delegate or assign anti-doping functions under these Anti-
Doping Rules to the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation or that such functions are
under the authority of the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation as a matter of
applicable national legislation or regulation. In such cases, a Member Federation
may achieve compliance with these Anti-Doping Rules through the actions of the
Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation but, if the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation
fails to meet the requirements under these Anti-Doping Rules, the Member
Federation will be held to be in breach.

15.2.4 For the avoidance of doubt, where a Member Federation is held to be in breach of
these Rules, it shall be no defence that:

(a) its obligations have been delegated or assigned to a Relevant Anti-

Doping Organisation;

(b) its obligations are under the authority of a Relevant Anti-Doping

Organisation as a matter of applicable national legislation or regulation;
 (c) the breach has been caused by interference by, and/or a failure to
provide support or other act or omission by, any governmental or
other public authorities.

15.2.5 For the purposes of these Rules, a Member Federation shall be liable and deemed
responsible for the acts and omissions of its servants, agents, employees, directors
or officials (and for the acts and omissions of any servants, agents, employees,
directors or officials of the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation to which its
obligations under these Anti-Doping Rules have been delegated or assigned or under
whose authority they fall as a matter of applicable national legislation or regulation).

15.3 Categorisation of Member Federations

15.3.1 For the purposes of this Rule 15, Member Federations shall be categorized according
to their doping risk to the sport in descending order, categories A, B and C (category
A Member Federations having the highest doping risk to the sport and category 'C'
Member Federations having the lowest doping risk to the sport).

15.3.2 The specific obligations of a Member Federation as set out in this Rule 15 will be
determined by its assigned category. Certain obligations will apply to all Member
Federations whilst others will apply depending on the category in which the Member
Federation is placed.

15.3.3 Prior to the commencement of each year, the Integrity Unit Board shall determine
in its absolute discretion the category of each Member Federation by taking into
account the following factors:

(a) the doping history of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons
under the jurisdiction of the Member Federation;

(b) confidential intelligence or other information provided by the Integrity Unit;

(c) the success of the Member Federation in International Events or in

particular International Events, whether as a whole or in particular disciplines;

(d) any significant improvement in the performance of the Member Federation’s

Athletes at any level of competition;

(e) the number of Athletes representing the Member Federation in International

Events or in particular International Events

(f) compliance by the Member Federation with this Rule 15;

(g) any other matter the Integrity Unit in its absolute discretion thinks fit.

15.3.4 In respect of a determination of the Integrity Unit Board under Rule 15.3.3:

(a) the Integrity Unit Board may adopt such process for making a determination
as it deems fit;
 (b) the Integrity Unit Board is not required to give reasons for its determination;

(c) the Integrity Unit Board is not required to disclose any confidential
intelligence or other information that formed part of its decision making;

(d) the determination is not subject to appeal or review.

15.3.5 In the event that a Member Federation’s category is changed from one year to the
next taking into consideration the factors in Rule 15.3.3, the Integrity Unit Board
may, in its absolute discretion, stay the effect of its determination, or any part of it,
for such period and upon such conditions as it deems appropriate to permit the
orderly transition of the Member Federation to compliance with the new
requirements.

15.3.6 In exceptional cases (including without limitation new intelligence or information

becoming available), the Integrity Unit Board may change a Member Federation's
assigned category from Category 'B' to Category 'A' during the course of the year. In
such cases, the Integrity Unit Board shall impose on the Member Federation for that
year such of the specific obligations for Category 'A' Member Federations in Rule
15.5 as it deems to be appropriate (in the same or modified form) and upon such
notice as it considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.

15.4 General Obligations Applying to All Member Federations

15.4.1 General Conduct of Member Federations

A Member Federation shall be held to be in breach of the Anti-Doping Rules if either

it or the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation:

(a) engages in conduct in relation to or associated with doping in Athletics or the

implementation or administration of these Anti-Doping Rules that is likely to
prejudice the interests of World Athletics or bring the sport of Athletics into
disrepute;

(b) engages in any dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper act or practice in

relation to doping in Athletics, or the administration or implementation of
these Anti-Doping Rules;

(c) conducts itself negligently or recklessly in response to any risk of doping in

Athletics in its jurisdiction;

(d) obstructs or frustrates anti-doping processes in Athletics from occurring;

(e) obstructs, hinders or delays an investigation conducted by the Integrity Unit

pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules (e.g., by providing false, misleading or
incomplete information or documentation, by tampering with or destroying
any documentation or other information that may be relevant to the
investigation, or by interfering with or taking reprisals against any witness to
an investigation).
15.4.2 Adoption of compliant rules and regulations

(a) Member Federations shall incorporate these Anti-Doping Rules either

directly or by reference into their governance documents, constitution
and/or rules, or shall establish rules the same as these Anti-Doping Rules, so
that the Member Federation may enforce these Anti-Doping Rules directly
against all Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons under its
jurisdiction.

(b) Without limitation to the above, Member Federations shall specifically adopt
a policy or rule implementing Rule 2.11 of these Anti-Doping Rules (Acts by
an Athlete or Other Person to discourage or retaliate against reporting to
authorities).

(c) Member Federations shall require in their rules that all Athletes preparing for
or participating in an Event or activity authorised or organised by a Member
Federation or one of its member organisations, and all Athlete Support
Personnel associated with such Athletes, agree to be bound by these Anti-
Doping Rules and to submit to the Results Management authority of the Anti-
Doping Organisation responsible under these Anti-Doping Rules as a condition
of such participation.

(d) Member Federations shall have disciplinary rules in place to prevent Athlete
Support Personnel who are Using Prohibited Substances or Prohibited
Methods without valid justification from providing support to Athletes under
their jurisdiction.

(e) Member Federations shall include in their rules specific provisions to ensure
that World Athletics may through the Integrity Unit apply these Anti-Doping
Rules directly as against all Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other
Persons under their jurisdiction, including the servants, agents, employees,
directors and officials of the Member Federation.

15.4.3 Mechanism for Reporting Doping

A Member Federation shall be held to be in breach of the Anti-Doping Rules if either

it or the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation for its jurisdiction fails to:

(a) take reasonable steps to promote actively an open environment that

encourages Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other whistle-blowers
to report on doping and other non-compliant situations (including the
intimidation of or threats to Athletes or DCOs by Athlete Support Personnel);

(b) put in place effective mechanisms (e.g., hotlines, email addresses for the
provision of tip-offs) to enable doping and other non-compliant situations to
be reported directly to a designated individual or entity at national or
regional level whose function is to assist the Person reporting the
information and/or to the Integrity Unit and/or to WADA.
15.4.4 Obligation to pursue and report all apparent Anti-Doping Rule Violations

A Member Federation shall be held to be in breach of the Anti-Doping Rules if either

the Member Federation (acting as a Delegated Third Party) or the Relevant Anti-
Doping Organisation for its jurisdiction fails to:

(a) pursue in a proper and timely fashion (including the timely notification of all
such cases to the Integrity Unit) all apparent anti-doping rule violations
committed by their Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons;

(b) report to the Integrity Unit on a timely basis any information in its
possession, suggesting or relating in any way to an apparent anti-doping
rule violation by an Athlete, Athlete Support Person or other Person under
its jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Member Federation or Relevant National
Anti-Doping Organisation must cooperate and assist fully with the Integrity
Unit in the investigation of that information, including (without limitation)
reporting any further information received on the same or any related
subject;

(c) investigate a possible violation of these Anti-Doping Rules by one or more

Athlete, Athlete Support Person or other Person under the Member
Federation's jurisdiction (where appropriate, acting in conjunction with any
other relevant national authority or body) when requested by the Integrity
Unit to do so and provide a written report on such investigation within a
reasonable time period as stipulated by the Integrity Unit.

15.4.5 Reporting and Results Management obligations

A Member Federation shall be held to be in breach of these Anti-Doping Rules if

either the Member Federation (acting as a Delegated Third Party) or the Relevant
National Anti-Doping Organisation for its jurisdiction fails:

(a) to notify the Integrity Unit in writing of all relevant Results Management
activities in accordance with these Anti-Doping Rules;

(b) to notify the Integrity Unit promptly, and in all circumstances, within 14 days,
of any Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding obtained in the course
of Testing, together with the name of the Athlete concerned and all
documents relevant to the Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding in
question;

(c) to notify the Integrity Unit promptly of any other anti-doping rule violation
asserted against an Athlete, Athlete Support Person or other Person;

(d) in the case of proceedings other than before the Disciplinary Tribunal, to
conduct a hearing process in accordance with Rule 8.13 for any Person who is
asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation. The hearing process
shall provide at a minimum for: a fair hearing within a reasonable time; before
a fair and impartial hearing panel; with a timely, written reasoned decision;
 and (for cases other than those under Rule 13.2.1) a right of appeal to an
institutionally independent body in accordance with rules established by the
Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation;

(e) to notify the Integrity Unit in writing within 5 working days of any decision
taken under these Anti-Doping Rules that is subject to an appeal in
accordance with Rule 13 (and to provide the Integrity Unit with a copy of the
written reasons for the decision in English or French and a copy of the
complete file upon request);

(f) to notify the Integrity Unit within 5 days of the commencement of any
appeal (including to CAS) to which the Member Federation and/or an
Athlete, Athlete Support Person or other Person is a party that arises from a
decision taken within its jurisdiction. At the time of notification, the Member
Federation or Relevant National Anti-Doping Organisation shall ensure that
the Integrity Unit receives a copy of the statement of appeal in the case;

(g) to respect fully decisions taken under these Anti-Doping Rules in respect of
Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons and to give assistance
to the Integrity Unit to enforce such decisions where necessary;

(h) to ensure that any medals forfeited by Athletes due to the Disqualification of
their results are delivered to World Athletics within 30 days of receipt of the
final appellate decision on Disqualification or the expiry of the time limit to
appeal.

15.4.6 Member Federation Personnel

(a) Each Member Federation shall take all reasonable measures when engaging
or funding Athlete Support Personnel or other Persons to work with Athletes
to ensure that such persons are of good character and repute and that the
risk of doping in relation to their engagement is minimised.

(b) No Member Federation shall (i) elect, appoint, employ, or propose for
accreditation to a World Athletics Series Event, a Person who is Provisionally
Suspended or is serving a period of Ineligibility under the Anti-Doping Rules,
or (ii) knowingly elect, appoint, employ or propose for accreditation to a World
Athletics Series Event, a Person, if the Person was not subject to the Code, who
has directly and intentionally engaged in conduct within the previous six (6)
years that would have constituted a violation of the Code.

(c) Member Federations shall keep and maintain a complete, accurate and up to
date register of Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons that they
engage or fund to work with Athletes. The register shall be
maintained in such form and shall contain such details as required by the
Integrity Unit from time to time. The register must be made available for
inspection by the Integrity Unit upon request.
 (d) Where any person contracted to a Member Federation (whether as an
employee or a consultant, agent or adviser), holding an office or directorship
with a Member Federation or sitting on a Member Federation committee or
commission is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the
Member Federation shall terminate its relationship with that person
immediately, unless otherwise required by law or agreed with the Integrity
Unit.

15.4.7 Medical treatment and supplementation

(a) Member Federations shall keep and maintain complete, accurate and up to
date records of all relevant treatments (as defined in Rule 15.4.7(b)) that
have been administered or dispensed to Athletes under the jurisdiction of
the Member Federation either by:

(i) the Member Federation itself, or by one of the Member

Federation’s office-holders, employees, servants, agents,
consultants or advisers; or

(ii) another person on behalf of the Member Federation; or

(iii) a person authorised by the Member Federation to do so; or

(iv) a person funded (in cash or in kind) by the Member

Federation to do so.

(b) For the purposes of Rule 15.4.7(a), relevant treatments are all medications,
drugs, therapeutic substances and performance supplements administered
or dispensed to Athletes.

(c) The records referred to in Rule 15.4.7(a) shall include full and proper details
of any relevant treatment administered or dispensed to an Athlete including
without limitation:

(i) the reason for treatment of the Athlete and the dates, places
and times the treatment was administered or dispensed;

(ii) the names of Person(s) administering or dispensing the

treatment;

(iii) the names of the Athlete who was treated;

(iv) the method of administration to the Athlete;

(v) the dosages administered or dispensed to the Athlete;

(vi) the instructions provided when dispensing the treatment.

 (d) Without limiting any other part of these Rules, upon request of the Integrity
Unit for good cause made in accordance with these Rules, a Member
Federation shall produce the records required to be maintained under this
Rule 15.4.7 for inspection.

(e) For the avoidance of doubt, it is the responsibility of the Member Federation
to ensure that its employees, service providers and consultants maintain and
provide the records necessary for compliance with this Rule 15.4.7.

(f) In addition to the other requirements of this Rule 15.4.7, Member Federations
shall provide the Integrity Unit upon request with a complete, accurate and
up to date list of all medications, drugs, therapeutic substances and
performance supplements that they intend to import into a country for the
purposes of treating their National Team at any World Athletics Series Event
and shall explain, if requested, the reason for such medications or
supplements and for which Athletes they are intended.

(g) Compliance with this Rule is subject to any Personal Information being
processed in accordance with the International Standard for the Protection
of Privacy and Personal Information and in accordance with applicable data
protection laws.

15.4.8 Therapeutic Use Exemptions

A Member Federation shall be held to be in breach of these Anti-Doping Rules if the

Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation for its jurisdiction fails:

(a) to put in place a TUE Committee and a documented process for national-
level Athletes to apply for the grant of a TUE in accordance with the
requirements of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions;

(b) to report promptly to World Athletics and WADA any TUEs that are granted
to national-level Athletes (and to ensure the timely entry of TUE decisions on
ADAMS).

15.5 Specific Obligations for Category ‘A’ Member Federations

15.5.1 Testing

(a) A Category ‘A’ Member Federation shall be held to be in breach of these

Anti-Doping Rules if there is not an effective, intelligent and proportionate
annual Testing plan maintained and implemented in Athletics within its
jurisdiction that complies with the International Standard for Testing and
Investigations and the requirements of Rule 15.5.1(b) (”Testing Plan”).

(b) The Testing Plan must:

(i) have the objective of ensuring that all Athletes who compete as part
of a National Team in any World Athletics World Championships or
 Olympic Games, and who are not already on the International
Registered Testing Pool, have been adequately tested in accordance
with the requirements of this Rule;

(ii) be in place, properly documented (including the names of all the

Athletes concerned and applicable test distribution details) and
notified to the Integrity Unit by a date to be determined by the
Integrity Unit, and thereafter kept up-to-date;

(iii) include in-competition testing, no notice out-of-competition testing

and pre-competition blood testing for screening purposes (Athlete
Biological Passport) and analyses as prescribed under WADA’s
Technical Document on Sport-Specific Analyses (TDSSA);

(iv) provide for all Samples to be collected by the Relevant Anti-Doping

Organisation or other Sample collection authority in compliance with
the International Standard for Testing and Investigations;

(v) provide for all samples to be analysed by WADA-accredited (or WADA-

approved) laboratories for full menu analysis (or, in the case of ABP
samples, for full ABP analysis) and the results must be reported
continuously to the Integrity Unit and WADA in accordance with the
requirements of the International Standard for Laboratories. Relevant
doping control forms must be recorded on ADAMS and copies made
available to the Integrity Unit upon request;

(vi) provide for co-operation and co-ordination between any Relevant

National Anti-Doping Organisation and the Integrity Unit in
accordance with the International Standard for Testing and
Investigations to further the objective set out in Rule 15.5.1(b)(i);

(vii) provide for reporting against the performance of the Testing Plan on
the request of the Integrity Unit, in a form and manner as required by
the Integrity Unit.

(c) Unless otherwise approved in its absolute discretion by the Integrity Unit in
truly exceptional circumstances, no Athlete may participate as part of a
National Team of a Category ‘A’ Member Federation in the World Athletics
Championships or Olympic Games unless, in the 10 months prior to the
deadline set by the Integrity Unit for the relevant Event (which shall be notified
to Member Federations by 1 January in each relevant year) , they have
undergone at least three no notice Out-of-Competition tests as follows:

(i) the three no notice Out-of-Competition Tests must have been

conducted with at least 21 full days between each test;
 (ii) the first of the three no notice Out-of-Competition Tests must have
been conducted no later than 16 weeks prior to the start of the
relevant Event i.e., prior to the first day of the World Athletics
Championships or the Olympic Games, as the case may be;

(iii) for Athletes competing in any of (a) a middle or long-distance

discipline from 800m upwards, (b) a combined event discipline or (c)
a race walk discipline, the three Out-of-Competition Tests must
include at least one Athlete Biological Passport test (blood) and one
EPO test (blood or urine);

(iv) for Athletes competing in all other disciplines, the three Out-of-
Competition Tests may be blood or urine; and

(v) all three no notice Out-of-Competition Tests must have been

conducted under the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation and the
results recorded by the relevant entity in ADAMS.

[Comment to Rule 15.5.1 (c): an exemption based on truly exceptional circumstances will only
apply where the requirements of this Rule could not be satisfied for an extraordinary objective
reason, such as where Testing was objectively prevented by an event of force majeure (e.g. war
or natural disaster), or the Athlete returned to competition early as a result of a wholly
unforeseeable event (e.g. a suspension of part of the period of Ineligibility following the provision
of Substantial Assistance or a reduction of the period of Ineligibility in application of lex mitior).
In particular, the fact that an Athlete has unexpectedly qualified for a World Championships or
Olympic Games, or was resident abroad during the relevant period prior to the Event, or is not
aware of this eligibility requirement, shall not under any circumstances be considered as truly
exceptional. The application for an exemption based on truly exceptional circumstances shall be
addressed by the Category ‘A’ Member Federation to the Integrity Unit, and the relevant Athlete
will only be consulted if the Integrity Unit considers it appropriate.]

(d) The Integrity Unit has responsibility to ensure that the testing requirements
of Rule 15.5.1(c) are fulfilled for Category ‘A’ Athletes in the International
Registered Testing Pool and it is the responsibility of Category ‘A’ Member
Federations (or a Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation on behalf of the
Member Federation) to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled for all
other Athletes.

(e) Category ‘A’ Member Federations shall ensure that all their Athletes are aware
of the eligibility requirements of Rule 15.5.1(c).

15.5.2 Whereabouts

(a) Without limiting any other Rule, and in particular the personal obligations of
Athletes under Rule 5.5, Category ‘A’ Member Federations must take all
necessary steps to ensure that Athletes in the International Registered
Testing Pool maintain detailed, complete, accurate and up-to-date
whereabouts information as required by these Anti-Doping Rules.

(b) In determining whether a Category ‘A’ Member Federation has complied

with Rule 15.5.2, it is deemed to be the responsibility of Category ‘A’
 Member Federations to ensure and monitor that its Athletes in the
International Registered Testing Pool are properly educated about,
aware of and compliant with the whereabouts requirements set out in the
World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.

15.5.3 Anti-Doping Education

(a) A Category ‘A’ Member Federation shall ensure that every Athlete in a
National Team for a World Athletics Series Event or the Olympic Games, and
all Athlete Support Personnel under its jurisdiction participating in such
Events, are subject to mandatory anti-doping Education programmes that
provide updated and accurate information on at least the following issues:
substances and methods on the Prohibited List, Anti-Doping Rule Violations,
Consequences of doping, including sanctions, health and social consequences,
doping control procedures, Athletes and Athletes Support Personnel’s rights
and responsibilities, TUEs, managing the risks of nutritional supplements,
harm of doping to the spirit of sport and whereabouts requirements.

(b) Category ‘A’ Member Federations shall be required to co-operate with the
Integrity Unit with regards to the development and implementation of anti-
doping Education programmes.

15.5.4 Anti-Doping Monitoring Committee

(a) Each Category ‘A’ Member Federation shall establish a suitably qualified and
experienced Anti-Doping Monitoring Committee to oversee and ensure the
organisation’s compliance with the requirements of this Rule 15. The
composition of the Anti-Doping Monitoring Committee is at the discretion of
the Member Federation and may include both internal and independent
members.

(b) Each Category ‘A’ Member Federation shall, upon request, provide the
Integrity Unit with details of the names, backgrounds and responsibilities of
each person sitting on the Anti-Doping Monitoring Committee, the terms of
reference of such committee and keep such information up-to-date.

(c) Each Category 'A' Member Federation shall appoint a dedicated employee to
act as the point of contact between the Integrity Unit and the Member
Federation's Anti-Doping Monitoring Committee and it shall notify the name
and contact details of the appointed person to the Integrity Unit.

15.5.5 Other Specific Obligations

In addition to the specific obligations set out in Rule 15.5 above, the Council, upon
recommendation of the Integrity Unit Board, may impose such other obligations on
a Category 'A' Member Federation as it deems fit and for such period as it deems
to be reasonable and appropriate having regard to the specific circumstances of the
 Member Federation or Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation's anti-doping
programme and/or the anti-doping situation in the Member Federation's country.

15.6 Specific Obligations for Category ‘B’ Member Federations

15.6.1 Testing

(a) Category ‘B’ Member Federations shall ensure that, in relation to their
Athletes who participate as part of the National Team in any World
Championships or Olympic Games, there is an effective, intelligent and
proportionate Testing plan maintained and implemented at national level that
complies with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and
the requirements of Rule 15.6.1(b) ("Testing Plan").

(b) The Testing Plan must:

(i) have the objective of ensuring that athletes who compete as part of
the Member Federation’s National Team in any World Championships
or Olympic Games, and who are not already on the International
Registered Testing Pool, have been adequately tested prior to the
relevant Event in accordance with the requirements of this Rule;

(ii) be in place, properly documented (including the names of all the

Athletes concerned and applicable test distribution details) and
notified to the Integrity Unit by a date to be determined by the
Integrity Unit, and thereafter kept up-to-date;

(iii) include In-Competition Testing, no notice Out-of-Competition

Testing and Pre-Competition blood Testing for detection and
profiling analyses as prescribed under WADA’s Technical
Document on Sport-Specific Analyses (TDSSA);

(iv) provide for all Samples to be collected by the Relevant Anti-Doping

Organisation or other Sample collection authority in compliance with
the International Standard for Testing and Investigations;

(v) provide for all samples to be analysed by WADA-accredited (or WADA-

approved) laboratories for full menu analysis (or, in the case of ABP
samples, for full ABP analysis);

(vi) provide for the results of tests to be recorded by the Relevant Anti-
Doping Organisation in a timely manner on ADAMS or otherwise to
be notified in a form agreed by the Integrity Unit;

(vii) provide for co-operation and co-ordination between any Relevant

Anti-Doping Organisation and the Integrity Unit in accordance with
the International Standard for Testing and Investigations to further
the objective set out in Rule 15.6.1(b)(i);
 (viii) provide for reporting against the performance of the Testing Plan on
the request of the Integrity Unit.

(c) For the purposes of Rule 15.6.1 (a), each Member Federation shall ensure as
a minimum that it:

(i) communicates with the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation about the

Member Federation’s obligations under this Rule 15.6.1;

(ii) requests and advocates for the support of the Relevant Anti-Doping
Organisation to maintain and implement the Testing Plan;

(iii) if required, requests and advocates for funding to maintain and

implement the Testing Plan;

(iv) engages with any Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation and the

Integrity Unit from the earliest practicable time to provide
information about the pool of athletes from which the National Team
for any World Championships or Olympic Games may be selected in
order to develop an appropriate Testing Plan;

(v) keeps up to date the information referred to in Rule 15.6.1(c)(iv)

throughout the duration of the Testing Plan;

(vi) facilitates, requests and advocates for co-operation and co-

ordination between any Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation and the
Integrity Unit.

15.6.2 Anti-Doping Oversight Function

(a) Each Category 'B' Member Federation shall have sufficient resources within
its governance and/or management structure to oversee and ensure the
organisation’s compliance with the requirements of this Rule 15. Each
Category ‘B’ Member Federation shall appoint one person as the primary
contact for the Integrity Unit who shall have the requisite authority to
represent the Member Federation.

(b) Each Category ‘B’ Member Federation shall, upon request, provide the
Integrity Unit with details of the names, backgrounds and responsibilities of
each person appointed to oversee and ensure the organisation’s compliance
with the requirements of this Rule 15 and shall keep such information up-to-
date.

15.6.3 Anti-Doping Education

(a) A Category ‘B’ Member Federation shall use its best endeavours to ensure that
every Athlete in a National Team for a World Athletics Series Event or the
Olympic Games, and all Athlete Support Personnel under its jurisdiction
participating in such Events, are subject to mandatory anti-doping Education
 programmes that provide updated and accurate information on at least the
following issues: substances and methods on the Prohibited List, Anti-Doping
Rule Violations, Consequences of doping, including sanctions, health and
social consequences, doping control procedures, Athletes and Athletes
Support Personnel’s rights and responsibilities, TUEs, managing the risks of
nutritional supplements, harm of doping to the spirit of sport and
whereabouts requirements.

(b) Category ‘B’ Member Federations shall co-operate with the Integrity Unit
with regards to the development and implementation of anti-doping
Education programmes.

15.6.4 Other Specific Obligations

In addition to the specific obligations set out in Rule 15.6 above, the Council, upon
recommendation of the Integrity Unit Board, may impose such other obligations
on a Category 'B' Member Federation as it deems fit and for such period as it deems
to be reasonable and appropriate having regard to the specific circumstances of
the Member Federation's anti-doping programme and/or the anti-doping situation
in the Member Federation's jurisdiction.

15.7 Specific Obligations for Category ‘C’ Member Federations

15.7.1 Testing

(a) Category ‘C’ Member Federations shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that
Athletes who compete as part of their National Team in any World
Championships or Olympic Games are subject to Testing prior to the Event and
that the samples are collected by the Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation or
other Sample collection authority in compliance with the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations;

(b) Each Category ‘C’ Member Federation shall report on an annual basis in a
form and manner as determined by the Integrity Unit, all Testing conducted
at national level. The annual report shall include relevant details as
determined by the Integrity Unit from time to time.

15.7.2 Anti-Doping Education

(a) A Category ‘C’ Member Federation shall use its best endeavours to ensure that
every Athlete in a National Team for a World Athletics Series Event or the
Olympic Games, and all Athlete Support Personnel under its jurisdiction
participating in such Events, are subject to mandatory anti-doping Education
programmes that provide updated and accurate information about the
substances and methods on the Prohibited List, anti-doping rule violations and
the Consequences of doping, including sanctions.
 (b) Category ‘C’ Member Federations shall co-operate with the Integrity Unit
with regards to the development and implementation of anti-doping
Education programmes.

15.8 Investigations by the Integrity Unit

15.8.1 The Integrity Unit shall have the power to conduct investigations into matters that
it believes may evidence or lead to the discovery of evidence of an Anti-Doping Rule
Violation or a breach of this Rule 15 by a Member Federation. Such investigations
may be conducted in conjunction with, and/or information obtained in such
investigations may be shared with, other Signatories and/or relevant authorities or
other bodies. The Integrity Unit will have discretion, where it deems it appropriate,
to stay its own investigation pending the outcome of investigations being conducted
by other Signatories and/or relevant authorities or other bodies. The mere existence
of another investigation does not entitle the subject of an investigation to seek a
stay of the investigation being carried out by the Integrity Unit.

15.8.2 All Member Federations must co-operate and assist fully with any investigation
conducted by the Integrity Unit pursuant to Rule 15.8.1 or any other of these Anti-
Doping Rules, including without limitation providing accurate and complete
information and/or documentation as may be requested by the Integrity Unit
(whether as part of a formal Demand or otherwise), and a refusal or failure to co-
operate without compelling justification shall be considered a serious breach of their
obligations under these Rules.

15.8.3 The Integrity Unit may make a written demand (Demand) to a Member Federation
to provide the Integrity Unit with any information, record, article, or thing in its
possession or control that the Head of the Integrity Unit reasonably believes may be
relevant to an investigation under Rule 15.8.1.

15.8.4 Without limiting the foregoing, pursuant to Rule 15.8.3, the Integrity Unit may
require a Member Federation to:

(a) procure the attendance and co-operation of any of its office holders,
employees, servants or agents before the Integrity Unit for an interview, or
to answer any question, or to provide a written statement setting out their
knowledge of any relevant facts and circumstances;

(b) provide (or procure to the best of its ability the provision by any third party)
for inspection, extraction, copying and/or downloading any Electronic Devices
and/or Electronic Services in or on which the Head of the Integrity Unit
reasonably believes may contain relevant information (such as itemised
telephone bills, bank statements, ledgers, notes, files, correspondence,
emails, messages, servers, cloud data, cloud services);

(c) provide (or procure to the best of its ability the provision by any third party)
for inspection, extraction, copying and/or downloading any Electronic Devices
 and/or Electronic Services in or on which the Head of the Integrity Unit
reasonably believes relevant information may be stored;

(d) provide full and unlimited access to the Member Federation's premises for
the purpose of securing information, records, articles or things the subject of
a Demand;

(e) provide passwords, login credentials, multi/two-factor authentication and

other information required to access electronically stored data that is the
subject of a Demand;

(f) procure the full co-operation of its office holders, employees, servants,
agents, consultants and contractors in responding to the Demand.

15.8.5 Subject to Rule 15.8.6, a Member Federation must comply with a Demand in such
reasonable period of time as determined by the Integrity Unit and set out in the
Demand. Each Member Federation (and each of its office-holders, employees,
servants, agents, consultants or advisers) waives and forfeits any rights, defences
and privileges provided by any law in any jurisdiction to withhold any information,
record, article, or thing requested in a Demand, or otherwise not to co-operate with
an investigation.

15.8.6 Where a Demand relates to any information, record, article or thing that in the
opinion of the Head of the Integrity Unit is capable of being damaged, altered,
destroyed or hidden (any Electronic Device or Electronic Service shall be deemed to
meet this criteria), then for the purposes of evidence preservation, the Integrity Unit
may require a Member Federation to comply immediately with the Demand. In such
a case:

(a) the Member Federation must immediately comply with the Demand and
permit the Integrity Unit to take immediate possession of, copy, extract and/or
download the information, record, article or thing, however, the Integrity
Unit may not immediately inspect, analyse or use the same other than as
provided in Rule 15.8.6(c) below;

(b) notwithstanding a Member Federation’s obligation to comply immediately

with the Demand, the Member Federation has 7 days from receipt of the
Demand to file an objection to the Demand by requesting a review by the
chairperson of the Disciplinary Tribunal (or their delegate) in accordance with
Rule 15.8.7;

(c) if a Member Federation does not file an objection within 7 days of receipt of
the Demand (or files an objection and the chairperson of the Disciplinary
Tribunal or their delegate subsequently finds there is a reasonable belief basis
to the Demand and dismisses the objection), or notifies the Integrity Unit that
it does not object to the Demand, or the Disciplinary Tribunal rules that the
Demand is valid, the Integrity Unit may forthwith inspect and analyse the
 information, record, article or thing and otherwise make use of it in accordance
with these Rules;

(d) if the Disciplinary Tribunal rules the Demand to be invalid, the information,
record, article or thing and any copy or download of same shall either be
immediately returned or destroyed as the case requires;

(e) in all cases under this Rule, the requirement of Rule 15.8.6(a) for a Member
Federation to immediately comply with a Demand is paramount and a failure
to do so shall be deemed to be a serious breach of Rule 15.8.2 incapable of
remedy.

15.8.7 A Member Federation may object to a Demand on the basis that it does not comply
with the requirements of Rule 15.8.3 or 15.8.4 by application to the chairperson of
the Disciplinary Tribunal within 7 days of receiving the Demand. Where such an
application is made, subject always to Rule 15.8.6(a), the time for complying with a
Demand shall be stayed pending the outcome of the objection. The chairperson of
the Disciplinary Tribunal or their delegate shall hear such an objection with as much
expediency as the justice of the case permits and, unless exceptional circumstances
apply, such hearing shall be by way of written evidence and submissions. The ruling
of the Disciplinary Tribunal as to the validity of the Demand shall not be subject to
appeal. If a Demand is set aside, it shall not preclude the making of any other valid
Demand in relation to the same investigation.

15.8.8 If a Member Federation or Area Association fails to comply with a Demand that has
not been ruled invalid under Rule 15.8.7, it shall constitute a serious breach of Rule
15.8.2 and be sanctioned with the highest degree of fault.

15.8.9 Any information, record, article or thing provided to the Integrity Unit under this
Rule will be kept confidential except where it is disclosed for the purpose of
furthering the investigation or as part of proceedings relating to a possible Anti-
Doping Rule Violation or breach of any of the Rules, or when such information,
record, article or thing is reported to administrative, professional or judicial
authorities pursuant to an investigation or prosecution of non-sporting laws or
regulations, or is otherwise required by law.

15.8.10 If a Member Federation obstructs or delays an investigation (e.g., by providing false,

misleading or incomplete information or documentation and/or by tampering or
destroying any documentation or other information that may be relevant to the
investigation), this may itself constitute an independent serious breach of these
Anti-Doping Rules.

15.9 Monitoring and Referral to Council by the Integrity Unit

15.9.1 The Integrity Unit shall have the power to monitor the anti-doping processes,
practices and activities (Anti-Doping Programmes) of Member Federations to assist
in the proper categorisation of Member Federations under Rule 15.3 and to ensure
the compliance of Member Federations with their obligations under this Rule 15
 (and the Code and the International Standards). For the avoidance of doubt,
compliance with the Code and the International Standards shall include but not be
limited to Member Federations:

(a) conducting Testing only under the documented authority of World

Athletics/the Integrity Unit or their Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation
and using their National Anti-Doping Organisation or other Sample
collection authority to collect Samples in compliance with the
International Standard for Testing and Investigations;

(b) recognising the authority of the National Anti-Doping Organisation in

their country in accordance with Article 5.2.1 of the Code and assisting
as appropriate with the National Anti-Doping Organisation’s
implementation of the national Testing programme for their sport;

(c) analysing all Samples collected using a WADA-accredited or WADA-

approved laboratory in accordance with Rule 6.1; and

(d) ensuring that any anti-doping rule violation cases they discover or are
required to process under these Anti-Doping Rules are adjudicated by
an Operationally Independent hearing panel in accordance with Rule 8
and the International Standard for Results Management.

15.9.2 In furtherance of its power under Rule 15.8.3, the Integrity Unit may require a
Member Federation to produce any record, supply any information, compile any
report or data and answer any questions as the Integrity Unit considers to be
necessary from time to time and to do so within a reasonable time. The Integrity
Unit may prioritise its compliance monitoring in particular areas and/or in particular
countries.

15.9.3 If the Integrity Unit Board considers that a Member Federation is in breach of this
Rule 15, it may:

(a) give the Member Federation the opportunity to address the non-compliance
within a specified timeframe and so achieve compliance; or

(b) issue the Member Federation with a notice of charge in relation to an alleged
breach of these Anti-Doping Rules and give the Member Federation a
reasonable period of time in which to respond to the notice. After
consideration of any response, the Integrity Unit Board may refer the matter
to Council to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 16, together with such
recommendation(s) as the Integrity Unit Board sees fit.

15.9.4 If a Member Federation fails to address its non-compliance when given the
opportunity to do so in accordance with Rule 15.9.3(a), the Integrity Unit Board may
refer the matter to the Council in accordance with Rule 16.
 15.9.5 In the interests of transparency and accountability, the Integrity Unit may publish as
much detail as it considers appropriate about its general compliance monitoring
programme.

16. Sanctions Against Member Federations

16.1 Where any of the following circumstances apply, the Council shall have authority to impose
one or more of the sanctions referred to in Rule 16.2 on any Member Federation and to do so
subject to any conditions it sees fit:

16.1.1 the Integrity Unit Board refers a Member Federation's breach of its
obligations to the Council under Rule 15.9.3;

16.1.2 three or more Anti-Doping Rule Violations have been committed by

International-Level Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel or other Persons
from a Member Federation within a period of 1 year starting from the date
of the first Anti-Doping Rule Violation and, having regard to the number and
seriousness of the violations, the number of Athletes competing
internationally from the Member Federation and the relevant time frame
concerned, the Council is of the opinion, in its entire discretion, that the
Member Federation has thereby brought World Athletics into disrepute.

16.2 In accordance with Rule 16.1, the Council may impose the following sanctions:

16.2.1 provisionally suspend the Member Federation:

(a) for a fixed period provided that the period is no longer than the period
to the next Ordinary Congress meeting; or

(b) an indefinite period dependent on the satisfaction of terms and

conditions imposed by Council, provided that the period is no longer
than the period to the next Ordinary Congress meeting;

16.2.2 set specific terms or conditions to be met or steps to be undertaken to the

satisfaction of Council;

16.2.3 caution or censure the Member Federation;

16.2.4 impose a fine against the Member Federation;

16.2.5 withhold grants or subsidies from the Member Federation;

16.2.6 exclude the Member Federation’s Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel

and/or Officials and Member Federation Officials from any International
Eventor any World Athletics position or body;

16.2.7 remove or deny accreditation of, or other benefits to, Athletes, Athlete
Support Personnel and/or Officials (who are Citizens of the Member
 Federation Country) and Member Federation Officials, for any International
Eventsand other World Athletics events and activities;

16.2.8 limit the number of the Member Federation’s Athletes, Athlete Support
Personnel and other Persons permitted to compete in any one or more
International Event

16.2.9 require the Member Federation to reimburse World Athletics/the Integrity

Unit for all costs incurred in pursuing the matter;

16.2.10 impose any other sanction it may deem to be appropriate.

16.3 In determining the appropriate sanctions in accordance with Rule 16.2 above, the Council shall
have regard to the nature and seriousness of the Member Federation's non-compliance taking
into account both the degree of fault of the Member Federation and the potential impact of
its non-compliance on clean sport in Athletics. In terms of degree of fault, the obligation of a
Member Federation to comply under these Rules is absolute, and so any alleged lack of intent
or other fault is not relevant in establishing breach, but the level of fault or negligence on the
part of the Member Federation may be taken into consideration in determining the sanction
imposed. In particular, if a Member Federation’s obligations have been delegated or assigned
to a Relevant Anti-Doping Organisation, it shall be a relevant consideration whether the
Member Federation has actively and continuously monitored the Relevant Anti-Doping
Organisation's activities and where necessary, taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance
with these Anti-Doping Rules. Above all else, the sanction imposed should be sufficient to
maintain the confidence of all Athletes, and the public at large, in the commitment of World
Athletics and the Integrity Unit to do what is necessary to defend the integrity of the sport of
Athletics against the scourge of doping.

16.4 When the Council sends notice to the Member Federation that it intends to apply this Rule 16,
if the Member Federation disputes its liability under Rule 15 and/or challenges the sanctions
determined by Council under this Rule within any deadline specified in that notice, World
Athletics will submit the matter to arbitration before the CAS in accordance with Article 84.1(b)
of the World Athletics Constitution, and CAS will resolve the dispute definitively in accordance
with these Anti-Doping Rules and the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration. If the Member
Federation does not dispute its liability under Rule 15 and/or does not challenge the sanctions
determined by Council within the specified deadline specified, the alleged breach(s) will be
deemed to be admitted and the sanctions deemed to be accepted, and the notice will become
a final decision enforceable with immediate effect. The outcome will be publicly reported by
World Athletics.

16.5 All fines and reimbursement of costs under Rule 16.2.9 shall be paid within a time to be
determined by the Council, failing which the Member Federation's Athletes, Athlete Support
Personnel and other Persons may be excluded from International Events until the fine is settled
in full.

16.6 This Rule does not limit or prejudice in any way any right arising under the World Athletics
Constitution or other World Athletics Rules to sanction a Member Federation for breach of the
obligations that it owes to World Athletics.
17. Implementation of Decisions

17.1 Automatic binding effect of decisions by Signatories

17.1.1 A decision of an anti-doping rule violation made by a Signatory, an appellate body

(Rule 13.2.2 of these Rules) or CAS will, after the parties to the proceeding are
notified, automatically be binding beyond the parties to the proceeding upon World
Athletics, the Integrity Unit, and Member Federations, as well as every Signatory in
every sport with the effects described below:

(a) A decision by any of the above-described bodies imposing a Provisional

Suspension (after a Provisional Hearing has occurred or the Athlete or
other Person has either accepted the Provisional Suspension or has
waived the right to a Provisional Hearing, expedited hearing or
expedited appeal offered in accordance with Rule 7.4.5) automatically
prohibits the Athlete or other Person from participation (as described in
Rule 10.14.1) in all sports within the authority of any Signatory during
the Provisional Suspension.

(b) A decision by any of the above-described bodies imposing a period of

Ineligibility (after a hearing has occurred or been waived) automatically
prohibits the Athlete or other Person from participation (as described in
Rule 10.14.1) in all sports within the authority of any Signatory for the
period of Ineligibility.

(c) A decision by any of the above-described bodies accepting an anti-

doping rule violation automatically binds all Signatories.

(d) A decision by any of the above-described bodies to Disqualify results

under Rule 10.10 for a specified period automatically Disqualifies all
results obtained within the authority of any Signatory during the
specified period.

17.1.2 World Athletics, the Integrity Unit and Member Federations must recognise and
implement a decision and its effects as required by Rule 17.1.1, without any further
action required, on the earlier of the date the World Athletics/the Integrity Unit
receives actual notice of the decision or the date the decision is placed into ADAMS.

17.1.3 A decision by an Anti-Doping Organisation, a national appellate body or CAS to

suspend (or lift) Consequences will be binding upon World Athletics, the Integrity
Unit and Member Federations without any further action required, on the earlier of
(i) the date the Integrity Unit receives actual notice of the decision or (ii) the date
the decision is placed into ADAMS.

17.1.4 Notwithstanding any provision in Rule 17.1.1, a decision of an anti-doping rule

violation by a Major Event Organisation made in an expedited process during an
Event will not be binding on World Athletics, the Integrity Unit and Member
 Federations unless the rules of the Major Event Organisation provide the Athlete or
other Person with an opportunity to appeal under a non-expedited procedure.

[Comment to Rule 17.1.4: By way of example, where the rules of the Major Event Organisation give the
Athlete or other Person the option of choosing an expedited CAS appeal or a CAS appeal under normal
CAS procedure, the final decision or adjudication by the Major Event Organisation is binding on other
Signatories regardless of whether the Athlete or other Person chooses the expedited appeal option.]

17.2 Implementation of other decisions by Anti-Doping Organisations

The Integrity Unit (on behalf of World Athletics) and Members may decide to implement other
anti-doping decisions rendered by Anti-Doping Organisations not described in Rule 17.1.1
above, such as a Provisional Suspension prior to a Provisional Hearing or acceptance by the
Athlete or other Person.

[Comment to Rules 17.1 and 17.2: Anti-Doping Organisation decisions under Rule 17.1 are implemented
automatically by other Signatories without the requirement of any decision or further action on the Signatories’ part.
For example, when a National Anti-Doping Organisation decides to Provisionally Suspend an Athlete, that decision
is given automatic effect at the International Federation level. To be clear, the 'decision' is the one made by the
National Anti-Doping Organisation, there is not a separate decision to be made by the International Federation.
Thus, any claim by the Athlete that the Provisional Suspension was improperly imposed can only be asserted against
the National Anti-Doping Organisation. Implementation of Anti-Doping Organisations’ decisions under Rule 17.2 is
subject to each Signatory’s discretion. A Signatory’s implementation of a decision under Rule 17.1 or Rule 17.2 is not
appealable separately from any appeal of the underlying decision. The extent of recognition of TUE decisions of
other Anti-Doping Organisations shall be determined by Rule 4.4 and the International Standard for Therapeutic Use
Exemptions.]

17.3 Implementation of decisions by body that is not a Signatory

An anti-doping decision by a body that is not a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code must
be implemented by World Athletics, the Integrity Unit and Members, if the Integrity Unit finds
that the decision purports to be within the authority of that body and the anti-doping rules of
that body are otherwise consistent with the Code.

[Comment to Rule 17.3: Where the decision of a body that has not accepted the Code is in some respects Code
compliant and in other respects not Code compliant, World Athletics, the Integrity Unit and Member Federations
should attempt to apply the decision in harmony with the principles of the Code. For example, if in a process
consistent with the Code, a non-Signatory has found an Athlete to have committed an anti-doping rule violation on
account of the presence of a Prohibited Substance in the Athlete’s body but the period of Ineligibility applied is
shorter than the period provided for in the Code, then World Athletics, the Integrity Unit and Member Federations
should recognise the finding of an anti-doping rule violation and the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation
should conduct a hearing consistent with Rule 8 to determine whether the longer period of Ineligibility provided in
the Code should be imposed. World Athletics' or other Signatory’s implementation of a decision, or their decision
not to implement a decision under Rule 17.3, is appealable under Rule 13.]

18. Statute of Limitations

No anti-doping rule violation proceeding may be commenced against an Athlete or other

Person unless they have been notified of the anti-doping rule violation as provided in Rule 7,
or notification has been reasonably attempted, within ten years from the date the violation is
asserted to have occurred.
19. Compliance Reports

The Integrity Unit will report to WADA on World Athletics’ compliance with the Code in
accordance with Article 24 of the Code and the International Standard for Code Compliance by
Signatories.

20. Education

The Integrity Unit on behalf of World Athletics will plan, implement, evaluate, and promote
Education in line with the requirements of Article 18.2 of the Code and the International
Standard for Education.

21. Interpretation of the World Anti-Doping Code

21.1 The official text of the Code will be maintained by WADA and published in English and French.
In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version will
prevail.

21.2 The comments annotating various provisions of the Code will be used to interpret the Code.

21.3 The Code must be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not by reference
to the existing law or statutes of the Signatories or governments.

21.4 The headings used for the various Parts and Articles of the Code are for convenience only and
shall not be deemed part of the substance of the Code or to affect in any way the language of
the provisions to which they refer.

21.5 Where the term 'days' is used in the Code, an International Standard or these Anti-Doping
Rules, it means calendar days unless otherwise specified.

21.6 The Code will not apply retroactively to matters pending before the date the Code is accepted
by a Signatory and implemented in its rules. However, pre-Code anti-doping rule violations
would continue to count as ‘First violations' or 'Second violations' for purposes of determining
sanctions under Rule 10 for subsequent post-Code violations.

21.7 The Purpose, Scope and Organisation of the World Anti-Doping Program and the Code and
Appendix 1, Definitions, are integral parts of the Code.