WADA code updated for 2015

[mrhender]

As per DirtyWorks suggestion -starting a thread on this.
More to come later.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The full version here..
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wada describing significant changes from the 2009-version here.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Article: Key changes to the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) revised the World Anti-Doping Code in conjunction with anti-doping organisations around the world. It was agreed to at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg in 2013.

More than 2,000 changes have been made to the Code which is designed to be tougher on intentional cheats. You can check out Drug Free Sport NZ’s factsheet on the revised Code here.

Below is a summary of key changes included in the new Code:
New rules

There are now ten Anti-Doping Rule Violations. The revised code introduces two new violations:

• Prohibited Association: associating with a person such as a coach, doctor, physiotherapist etc who has been found guilty of a doping offence

• Complicity: assisting, encouraging or helping to cover-up a doping offence.

In addition to these two new rules, there are seven key areas of change. These are:

1. Sanctions

Tougher penalties have been introduced, including:

• Four-year bans for those who intentionally dope
• Four-year bans for those who refuse to provide a sample.

The criteria which will be considered in determining the length of a ban includes:
• the substance or method involved
• the type of anti-doping rule breached
• whether it’s first or second offence
• the degree of fault.

Athletes who return a positive test after taking a contaminated substance such as a supplement and are able to demonstrate “no significant fault” may face lesser bans which could range from a reprimand to a two-year ban.

Changes to the whereabouts programme mean that athletes will only face sanctions if they accumulate three whereabouts failures in 12 months, rather than 18 month.

2. Investigations

There is recognition that testing alone cannot catch drug cheats and that investigative powers are required for anti-doping organisations to be more effective. This involves the greater use of intelligence gathering and risk analysis to determine the timing and frequency of testing.

The statute of limitations has been extended to ten years which means that an allegation of doping can be investigated up to ten years after it has been committed.

3. Athlete Support Personnel

Under the revised Code, athlete support personnel are now explicitly bound by the new anti-doping rules. In particular, athlete support personnel:

• will be investigated if an anti-doping violation involves a minor or if they have provided support to more than one athlete who has committed a violation
• should report any doping activity to Drug Free Sport NZ
• advise Drug Free Sport NZ and their National Sports Organisation or International Federation know if they have committed a doping offence in the past.
• may not associate with athletes if they are serving a ban.

4. Testing and Sample Analysis

The revised Code allows for a sport by sport approach to anti-doping with the recognition that identifying specific substances and methods associated with specific sports will enable a better testing regime.

5. Balancing the interests of International Federations and Anti-Doping Agencies

The revised Code seeks to balance the responsibilities of International Federations and National Anti-Doping organisations. Make sure you’re aware of the different requirements for “international” and “national” level athletes, especially if you need to take medication for health reasons.
Click here for more information on what defines a national or international level athlete.

6. Human Rights

The revised Code recognises the principles of human rights and includes changes around the public disclosure of Anti-Doping Rule Violations, particularly for minors or athletes not competing at national or international level.

7. A clearer, shorter code

The Code has been revised to try and eliminate loopholes. It is also shorter and less technical.


Find out more: For more details about the revised World Anti-Doping Code, check out this edition of WADA's Play True magazine.

 

[mrhender]

There are now ten Anti-Doping Rule Violations. The revised code introduces two new violations:

• Prohibited Association: associating with a person such as a coach, doctor, physiotherapist etc who has been found guilty of a doping offence

• Complicity: assisting, encouraging or helping to cover-up a doping offence.

These two changes are interesting particularly in relation to the potential CIRC findings... If those findings of previous ADRV's apply under the new code there could be plenty of potential for sanctions..

 

[Benotti69]

These two changes are interesting particularly in relation to the potential CIRC findings... If those findings of previous ADRV's apply under the new code there could be plenty of potential for sanctions..

• Prohibited Association: associating with a person such as a coach, doctor, physiotherapist etc who has been found guilty of a doping offence

This is nearly everyone in the sport..................

 

[Dazed and Confused]

These two changes are interesting particularly in relation to the potential CIRC findings... If those findings of previous ADRV's apply under the new code there could be plenty of potential for sanctions..

Powerful and positive changes.

This one however is going the wrong way:

Changes to the whereabouts programme mean that athletes will only face sanctions if they accumulate three whereabouts failures in 12 months, rather than 18 month.

2 years would have been better.

 

[mrhender]

A study on the new code

Here is a study on the new code

Seems interesting and no pay wall...

 

[More Strides than Rides]

This is nearly everyone in the sport..................

I'm still digging through the full text, but here are the details:

2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration to any
Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted
Administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of any
Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is
prohibited Out-of-Competition
2.9 Complicity
Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring,
covering up or any other type of intentional complicity
involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted
anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.12.1 by
another Person.
2.10 Prohibited Association
Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the
authority of an Anti-Doping Organization in a professional
or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support Person
who:
2.10.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping
Organization, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or
2.10.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping
Organization, 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
which would have constituted a violation of
anti-doping rules if Code-compliant rules had
been applicable to such Person. The disqualifying
status of such Person shall be in force for the
longer of six years from the criminal, professional
or disciplinary decision or the duration of the
criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction
imposed; or
2.10.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an
individual described in Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2.
n order for this provision to apply, it is necessary
that the Athlete or other Person has previously
been advised in writing by an Anti-Doping
Organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete or
other Person, or by WADA , of the Athlete Support
Person’s disqualifying status and the potential
Consequence of prohibited association and that
the Athlete or other Person can reasonably avoid
the association. The Anti-Doping Organization
shall also use reasonable efforts to advise the
Athlete Support Person who is the subject of the
notice to the Athlete or other Person that the
Athlete Support Person may, within 15 days, come
forward to the Anti-Doping Organization to explain
that the criteria described in Articles 2.10.1 and
2.10.2 do not apply to him or her. (Notwithstanding
Article 17, this Article applies even when the
Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying conduct
occurred prior to the effective date provided in
Article 25.)
The burden shall be on the Athlete or other
Person to establish that any association with
Athlete Support Personnel described in Article
2.10.1 or 2.10.2 is not in a professional or sportrelated
capacity.
Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of
Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria
described in Article 2.10.1, 2.10.2, or 2.10.3 shall
submit that information to WADA .

and

3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard
or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the
Code or Anti-Doping Organization rules which did
not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding or other
anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate
such evidence or results. If the Athlete or other
Person establishes a departure from another
International Standard or other anti-doping rule
or policy which could reasonably have caused an
anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse
Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule
violation, then the Anti-Doping Organization shall
have the burden to establish that such departure
did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the
factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation.
3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or
professional disciplinary tribunal of competent
jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending
appeal shall be irrebuttable 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.
3.2.5 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 telephonically as directed by
the hearing panel) and to answer questions from
the hearing panel or the Anti-Doping Organization
asserting the anti-doping rule violation.

 

[Granville57]

I'll delete this post later, but shouldn't the title of this thread read:

"WADA code updated for 2015" ?

 

[mrhender]

I'll delete this post later, but shouldn't the title of this thread read:

"WADA code updated for 2015" ?

Yes... Poor title...
Forgot to review the thread title..

I'll ask a mod to change it..

Deleting this in 5.4.3.2.1

 

[Nick C.]

I read that as found guilty, which is not "admitted to doping", as in Riis, Andreu, Vaughters, Julich, DeJongh, etc. Is that how anyone else is reading it?

 

[jw1979]

I imagine the code doesn't mind riders associating with other riders that have been sanctioned in the past? This means nobody sanctioned as a rider can retire and act as a coach, doctor, PT, etc., yes?

 

[del1962]

I would think it means using a doctor or coach, during a coach or doctors sanction.

 

[mrhender]

I read that as found guilty, which is not "admitted to doping", as in Riis, Andreu, Vaughters, Julich, DeJongh, etc. Is that how anyone else is reading it?

Agreed...
(however, AFAIK some of them does not apply to only "admitted" criteria)

WADA can't base anything on a TV-admission...
But some coaches are former banned (Vino for example).
And the compliance part is imo interesting in regard to all the names you mention. And again,if i read correctly -the CIRC has authority to perform actions which boarderlines this new code...

I imagine the code doesn't mind riders associating with other riders that have been sanctioned in the past? This means nobody sanctioned as a rider can retire and act as a coach, doctor, PT, etc., yes?

I think your imagination is correct...
If you are a former sinner you have no place in running a team..

What I'am more interested to know is the level of retrospectiveness in this code... Haven't found answers to this yet... But still looking..

 

[mrhender]

I would think it means using a doctor or coach, during a coach or doctors sanction.

Huh?

Can you explain this further?

Sincere question... Maybe you have read something I haven't?

 

[python]

i am still to go through the changes...

the one i found slightly surprising was that noble gases (xenon and such) were passed from questionable to clearly banned (iirc, we had a thread discussing the technicals)

what makes this decision interesting is that a host nation in the most recent winter olympics was almost certainly using them.

at least, THAT's what a finnish sports medicine professor (of russian lineage) called 'russian know-how'.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

What I'am more interested to know is the level of retrospectiveness in this code... Haven't found answers to this yet... But still looking..

I am not able to now, but it may be in the comments in the full text version. If not, maybe a separate document dealing with those transitional things.

The "found guilty" may be to encourage more confessions: Confess and you can stay in the sport. I'm not exactly sure if there is a benefit to that other than ease of mind, as a rider can stay mum about everyone else when they confess.

Or, it may include confessions, and be phrased that way to include those that are implicated in the proceedings of another case.

 

[del1962]

Huh?

Can you explain this further?

Sincere question... Maybe you have read something I haven't?

My thoughts are it relates to those who administered drugs (doctors, coaches) and not those who where caught taking drugs, those administering them would have to be sanctioned by the relevant body to have an effect and only for the length of the sanction (hopefully lifetime). This may also apply to athletes during a ban, (see Cookson's warning to JTL about being involved in coaching).

I just don't see how they can prevent anyone who doped in the past and served their sanction from having some role in the future, but perhaps it does, if that is the case you would have to include confessed dopers not sanctioned.

 

[neineinei]

My thoughts are it relates to those who administered drugs (doctors, coaches) and not those who where caught taking drugs, those administering them would have to be sanctioned by the relevant body to have an effect and only for the length of the sanction (hopefully lifetime). This may also apply to athletes during a ban, (see Cookson's warning to JTL about being involved in coaching).

I just don't see how they can prevent anyone who doped in the past and served their sanction from having some role in the future, but perhaps it does, if that is the case you would have to include confessed dopers not sanctioned.

It is for current sanctions. Using Michele Ferrari or JTL as your coach is an anti doping rule violation (but you might get to keep them as family friends).

2.10 Prohibited Association
Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the
authority of an Anti-Doping Organization in a professional
or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support Person
who:
2.10.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping
Organization, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or

 

[Catwhoorg]

Agreed...
What I'am more interested to know is the level of retrospectiveness in this code... Haven't found answers to this yet... But still looking..

Basically zero. Cases are brought under the code for the time of the event, or the current code whichever is more lenient.

We will be under the 2009 code effectively for a little while longer than Jan 1st.

 

[Bluenote]

As per DirtyWorks suggestion -starting a thread on this.
More to come later.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The full version here..
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wada describing significant changes from the 2009-version here.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Article: Key changes to the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) revised the World Anti-Doping Code in conjunction with anti-doping organisations around the world. It was agreed to at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg in 2013.

More than 2,000 changes have been made to the Code which is designed to be tougher on intentional cheats. You can check out Drug Free Sport NZ’s factsheet on the revised Code here.

Below is a summary of key changes included in the new Code:
New rules

There are now ten Anti-Doping Rule Violations. The revised code introduces two new violations:

• Prohibited Association: associating with a person such as a coach, doctor, physiotherapist etc who has been found guilty of a doping offence

• Complicity: assisting, encouraging or helping to cover-up a doping offence.

In addition to these two new rules, there are seven key areas of change. These are:

1. Sanctions

Tougher penalties have been introduced, including:

• Four-year bans for those who intentionally dope
• Four-year bans for those who refuse to provide a sample.

The criteria which will be considered in determining the length of a ban includes:
• the substance or method involved
• the type of anti-doping rule breached
• whether it’s first or second offence
• the degree of fault.

Athletes who return a positive test after taking a contaminated substance such as a supplement and are able to demonstrate “no significant fault” may face lesser bans which could range from a reprimand to a two-year ban.

Changes to the whereabouts programme mean that athletes will only face sanctions if they accumulate three whereabouts failures in 12 months, rather than 18 month.

2. Investigations

There is recognition that testing alone cannot catch drug cheats and that investigative powers are required for anti-doping organisations to be more effective. This involves the greater use of intelligence gathering and risk analysis to determine the timing and frequency of testing.

The statute of limitations has been extended to ten years which means that an allegation of doping can be investigated up to ten years after it has been committed.

3. Athlete Support Personnel

Under the revised Code, athlete support personnel are now explicitly bound by the new anti-doping rules. In particular, athlete support personnel:

• will be investigated if an anti-doping violation involves a minor or if they have provided support to more than one athlete who has committed a violation
• should report any doping activity to Drug Free Sport NZ
• advise Drug Free Sport NZ and their National Sports Organisation or International Federation know if they have committed a doping offence in the past.
• may not associate with athletes if they are serving a ban.

4. Testing and Sample Analysis

The revised Code allows for a sport by sport approach to anti-doping with the recognition that identifying specific substances and methods associated with specific sports will enable a better testing regime.

5. Balancing the interests of International Federations and Anti-Doping Agencies

The revised Code seeks to balance the responsibilities of International Federations and National Anti-Doping organisations. Make sure you’re aware of the different requirements for “international” and “national” level athletes, especially if you need to take medication for health reasons.
Click here for more information on what defines a national or international level athlete.

6. Human Rights

The revised Code recognises the principles of human rights and includes changes around the public disclosure of Anti-Doping Rule Violations, particularly for minors or athletes not competing at national or international level.

7. A clearer, shorter code

The Code has been revised to try and eliminate loopholes. It is also shorter and less technical.


Find out more: For more details about the revised World Anti-Doping Code, check out this edition of WADA's Play True magazine.

The bit about banned Doctors and coaches is interesting. I wonder how it is meant to be enforced? I'm assuming riders can't associate with Doctors, etc... who are currently banned. So if a coach has a 2 year ban, they can go back to coaching when their ban is up.

I feel mixed about this provision.

On the one hand, it feels like acknowledgment that you can't really ban Doctors (i.e. Ferrari) from the sport. They'll just set up front companies and "treat" riders anyhow.

On the other hand, this could actually be a useful tool for anti-doping. Would it have caught Armstrong in 2001? Would it have sanctioned Indurain for his involvement with Conconi, etc...

 

[neineinei]

http://www.insidethegames.biz/news/...ber-of-tests-in-the-netherlands-and-elsewhere

The Dutch national anti-doping organisation (NADO), the Doping Autoriteit, is facing the prospect of further reducing the number of tests it is able to conduct after the new World Anti-Doping Code comes into effect on January 1.

This is because of stipulations in the new code that require additional analyses and will hence almost certainly increase the cost of some tests.

Herman Ram, director of the Autoriteit, told insidethegames in a telephone interview that the new code would require NADOs to conduct mandatory testing for erythropoietin (EPO) and human growth hormone (hGH) in a number of sports.

Ram estimated that this might increase the cost of testing by approximately 10 per cent, or some €70,000 (£55,400/$87,000).

http://www.swimvortex.com/dutch-ant...r-new-code-dr-libardoni-says-no-need-use-hts/

Ram tells Inside The Games that he estimates a rise in costs of approximately 10 per cent, or some €70,000 (£55,400/$87,000) as a result of the changes. Not a sum, as ITG notes, that would cause a flicker in state-funded programs but the Dutch anti-doping agency, among many others in the world, have no state funding, the public’s contribution entirely through lottery revenue.

“If my budget for testing doesn’t grow, I have to make choices,” Ram told insidethegames. “The most simple solution is decreasing the number of tests, but that is not the most sensible approach.”

Last weekend brought news that WADA is to receive a 3 per cent budget increase from next year. The Montreal-based agency is also expected to have access to a new fund, totalling around $20 million for new anti-doping research.

As Dr Libardoni has suggested, they need not spend that kind of money on new research in the short-term: HTS is out there, is working and could reduce the costs of testing around the world dramatically overnight, simply by removing the need for deep analysis of samples that show no reason for concern.

That is particularly pertinent in the scenario discussed by the Dutch director: there is no point in testing for certain substances if the initial HTS screen shows readings that indicate no reason to delve deeper. Where EPO and such substances might been used, abnormality would show up in a cheap frontline test – and the matter could then be sent for deeper analysis at the higher costs. The bulk of test samples would not get beyond the cheap-test phase.

The question to WADA is: why has there been no further inquiry into HTS and its efficacy?

In answer to questions from SwimVortex.com, a spokesman for WADA noted that the agency has not received a formal “presentation from Dr. Libardoni, nor has it received a request for a grant”. Dr. Libardoni, did, however, present HTS to a panel including WADA experts.

 

[sniper]

good comments from german doping researcher on why WADA stinks

Ich würde den Blick gerne auf die WADA wenden, denn die Frage, die sich mir aufdrängt, ist: Was wusste die WADA eigentlich und warum hat sie nicht früher reagiert? Die WADA setzt sich in ihrem obersten Kontrollausschuss überwiegend aus Verbandsfunktionären zusammen, was wiederum die Frage nach deren Unabhängigkeit aufwirft. Das dortige "Stakeholder"-Modell muss überdacht werden, denn sonst ist die WADA nicht unabhängig genug.

and about the troublesome tendency among virtually all sports governing bodies to be corrupt as hell.

Q: Was geht in Ihnen vor, wenn Sie hören, dass dieitalienische Staatsanwaltschaft seit längerer Zeit wegen angeblicher Dopingverstrickungen gegen den italienischen IBU-Vizepräsident Gottlieb Taschler und dessen Sohn Daniel ermittelt?

A: Das erstaunt mich nicht. Ich würde schätzen, dass das in ähnlicher Form bei den meisten Sportverbänden weltweit vorkommt. Alleine schon aufgrund der angesprochenen Struktur der mangelnden Selbstkontrolle fördert man genau diese Leute, die den Betrug suchen, denn sie sind genau in so einem System erfolgreich.

also questions the tendency to scapegoat Russian and Ukrainian athletes (such as the recent IBU/biathlon positives). sees it as a hyopcritical PR move viz. as an attempt by sports bodies to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Ich würde das eher als "Anti-Anti-Doping-Offensive" bezeichnen, denn ich halte es für eine Maßnahme, die zur Beruhigung der Öffentlichkeit dient. Man hat bei der IBU offensichtlich festgestellt, dass man Dreck am Stecken hat und diesen beseitigen muss. Dort wussten die Verantwortlichen wohl schon länger, dass bestimmte Athleten nicht sauber sind. Deshalb hat man diese wohl noch einmal gezielt getestet. Nun hat der Verband für die Öffentlichkeit vier Dopingsünder, verweist stolz auf diese Alibi-Maßnahmen und kann sagen: "Seht her, wir tun etwas gegen Doping."

http://www.t-online.de/sport/id_726...on-im-spitzensport-traum-fuer-kriminelle.html

 

[Dear Wiggo]

good comments from german doping researcher on why WADA stinks


and about the troublesome tendency among virtually all sports governing bodies to be corrupt as hell.


also questions the tendency to scapegoat Russian and Ukrainian athletes (such as the recent IBU/biathlon positives). sees it as a hyopcritical PR move viz. as an attempt by sports bodies to be seen to be doing the right thing.

http://www.t-online.de/sport/id_726...on-im-spitzensport-traum-fuer-kriminelle.html

no offense, but quoting a bunch of german is close to useless. at least, if you speak it natively, provide some sort of summary yeah?

 

[mrhender]

WADA unlikely to impose penalties on players charged with cocaine offences

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ed-with-cocaine-offences-20150303-13tm9p.html

The change to the WADA code, effective from January 1, does not prohibit supply of a prohibited substance, out of competition, when it is not "intended to enhance sport performance".

Clearly, WADA has accommodated the view that a four-year sanction should not apply to athletes using the drug outside of competition for partying. This appears to be the case alleged against the Titans and Hunt.

Seems like Cocaine and other party-drugs are partly allowed under the new WADA-code...

So Party on Boyz

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ed-with-cocaine-offences-20150303-13tm9p.html



Seems like Cocaine and other party-drugs are partly allowed under the new WADA-code...

So Party on Boyz

There have always been a range of substances that are not prohibited under WADA code when out of competition.

They are however not permitted by law and I don't see this as a doping matter, but a civil or criminal one, and it's certainly a matter for the club and NRL's administrations as it pertains to breaches of code of conduct and player's contracts.

It would only be a doping matter if it was a breach of the WADA code.

The WADA code angle is a big fat red herring. Unless of course it was shown in evidence that players were using, and supplying for use, in-competition.