Anti-Doping Rules

ANTI-DOPING RULES

Compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code, the AFI Anti-Doping Rules are in force. Every individual listed in the Scope section of the AFI Anti-Doping Rules is bound by them.

The WADA List of Prohibited Substances and Methods – ‘Prohibited List’ – is a list of substances and methods prohibited to athletes in- and out-of-competition.

Under the AFI Regulations governing Anti-Doping, it is each player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body. It is therefore essential that all players and support personnel review carefully the Prohibited List, particularly in cases where they intend to use supplements.

Where Athletes need to use medication for therapeutic reasons, prior to its use they must consult the Prohibited List to ensure that it is permitted and, if not, they must apply for Therapeutic Use Exemption.

Key Links

Prohibited List of Substances and Methods:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list

The World Anti-Doping Code:

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL INTERNATIONAL

ANTI-DOPING RULES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITION OF DOPING
ARTICLE 2. ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS
ARTICLE 3. PROOF OF DOPING
ARTICLE 4. THE PROHIBITED LIST
ARTICLE 5. TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS
ARTICLE 6. ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES
ARTICLE 7. RESULTS MANAGEMENT: RESPONSIBILITY, INITIAL REVIEW, NOTICE AND PROVISIONAL SUSPENSIONS
ARTICLE 8. RESULTS MANAGEMENT: RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING DECISION
ARTICLE 9. AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
ARTICLE 10. SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS
ARTICLE 11. CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS
ARTICLE 12. SANCTIONS BY AFI AGAINST OTHER SPORTING BODIES
ARTICLE 13. RESULTS MANAGEMENT: APPEALS
ARTICLE 14. CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORTING
ARTICLE 15. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS
ARTICLE 16. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ARTICLE 17. EDUCATION
ARTICLE 18. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NATIONAL FEDERATIONS
ARTICLE 19. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AFI
ARTICLE 20. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ATHLETES
ARTICLE 21. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ATHLETE SUPPORT PERSONNEL
ARTICLE 22. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THESE ANTI-DOPING RULES
ARTICLE 23. INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE
ARTICLE 24. FINAL PROVISIONS
APPENDIX 1 DEFINITIONS

INTRODUCTION

Preface

These Anti-Doping Rules are adopted and implemented in accordance with AFI’s responsibilities under the Code, and in furtherance of AFI’s continuing efforts to eradicate doping in sport.

These Anti-Doping Rules are sport rules governing the conditions under which sport is played. Aimed at enforcing anti-doping rules in a global and harmonised manner, they are distinct in nature from criminal and civil laws. They are not intended to be subject to or limited by any national requirements and legal standards applicable to criminal or civil proceedings, although they are intended to be applied in a manner which respects the principles of proportionality and human rights. When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral tribunals and other adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of these Anti-Doping Rules, which implement the Code, and the fact that these rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world as to what is necessary to protect and ensure fair sport.

As provided in the Code, AFI shall be responsible for conducting all aspects of Doping Control. Any aspect of Doping Control or anti-doping Education may be delegated by AFI to a Delegated Third Party, such as the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport (CCES), however, AFI shall require the Delegated Third Party to perform such aspects in compliance with the Code, International Standards, and these Anti-Doping Rules. When AFI has delegated its responsibilities to implement part or all of Doping Control to the Delegated Third Party, any reference to AFI in these Rules should be intended as a reference to that Delegated Third Party, where applicable and within the context of the aforementioned delegation. AFI shall always remain fully responsible for ensuring that any delegated aspects are performed in compliance with the Code.

Unless otherwise specified, references to Articles are references to Articles of these Anti-Doping Rules.

Fundamental Rationale for the Code and AFI’s Anti-Doping Rules

Anti-doping programs are founded on the intrinsic value of sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as “the spirit of sport”: the ethical pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each Athlete’s natural talents.

Anti-doping programs seek to protect the health of Athletes and to provide the opportunity for Athletes to pursue human excellence without the Use of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods.

Anti-doping programs seek to maintain the integrity of sport in terms of respect for rules, other competitors, fair competition, a level playing field, and the value of clean sport to the world.

The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind. It is the essence of Olympism and is reflected in the values we find in and through sport, including:

• Health
• Ethics, fair play and honesty
• Athletes’ rights as set forth in the Code
• Excellence in performance
• Character and Education
• Fun and joy
• Teamwork
• Dedication and commitment
• Respect for rules and laws
• Respect for self and other Participants
• Courage
• Community and solidarity

The spirit of sport is expressed in how we play true.

Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport.

Scope of these Anti-Doping Rules

These Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to:

(a) AFI, including its board members, directors, officers and specified employees, and Delegated Third Parties and their employees, who are involved in any aspect of Doping Control;

(b) each of its National Federations, including their board members, directors, officers and specified employees, and Delegated Third Parties and their employees, who are involved in any aspect of Doping Control;

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

(i) all Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel who are members of AFI, or of any National Federation, or of any member or affiliate organization of any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations, or leagues);

(ii) all Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel who participate in such capacity in Events, Competitions and other activities organized, convened, authorised or recognized by AFI, or any National Federation, or by any member or affiliate organization of any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations, or leagues), wherever held;

(iii) any other Athlete or Athlete Support Personnel or other Person who, by virtue of an accreditation, a license or other contractual arrangement, or otherwise, is subject to the authority of AFI, or of any National Federation, or of any member or affiliate organization of any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations, or leagues), for purposes of anti-doping; and

(iv) Athletes who are not regular members of AFI or of one of its National Federations but who want to be eligible to compete in a particular International Event.

Each of the abovementioned Persons is deemed, as a condition of his or her participation or involvement in the sport, to have agreed to and be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, and to have submitted to the authority of AFI to enforce these Anti-Doping Rules, including any Consequences for the breach thereof, and to the jurisdiction of the hearing panels specified in Article 8 and Article 13 to hear and determine cases and appeals brought under these Anti-Doping Rules.

[Comment: Where the Code requires a Person other than an Athlete or Athlete Support Person to be bound by the Code, such Person would of course not be subject to Sample collection or Testing, and would not be charged with an anti-doping rule violation under the Code for Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. Rather, such Person would only be subject to discipline for a violation of Code Articles 2.5 (Tampering), 2.7 (Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration), 2.9 (Complicity), 2.10 (Prohibited Association) and 2.11 (Retaliation). Furthermore, such Person would be subject to the additional roles and responsibilities according to Code Article 21.3. Also, the obligation to require an employee to be bound by the Code is subject to applicable law.

AFI shall ensure that, as per Article 19 of these Anti-Doping Rules, any arrangements with their board members, directors, officers, and specified employees, as well as with the Delegated Third Parties and their employees – either employment, contractual or otherwise – have explicit provisions incorporated according to which such Persons are bound by, agree to comply with these Anti-Doping Rules, and agree on AFI’s authority to solve anti-doping cases.]

Within the overall pool of Athletes set out above who are bound by and required to comply with these Anti-Doping Rules, the following Athletes shall be considered to be International-Level Athletes for the purposesof 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) Athletes who are included in the AFI Registered Testing Pool, Testing Pool, or other Testing Pools, including the IFAF Team Whereabouts Pool, and,

(b) Athletes who are registered to compete in any of the following AFI World Championships, for 12 months from the date of registration into the relevant World Championship:

• Australian Football World Cup

ARTICLE 1. DEFINITION OF DOPING

Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of these Anti-Doping Rules.

ARTICLE 2. ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

The purpose of Article 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 which have been included on the Prohibited List.

The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:

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

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

[Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to an Athlete’s Fault. This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.]

2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: 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 analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and 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 where the Athlete’s A or B Sample is split into two (2) 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.

[Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B 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 shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.

2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 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

[Comment to Article 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 Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 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 which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 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 Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]

2.2.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substanceor Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substanceor Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed.

[Comment to Article 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 this particular anti-doping rule violation does not undermine the Strict Liability principle established for violations of Article 2.1 and violations of Article 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 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 is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that substance might have been administered.)]

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

Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorized Person.

[Comment to Article 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

Any combination of three (3) missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Results Management, within a twelve-month period by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool.

2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any Part of Doping Control by an Athleteor 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 Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-ofCompetition unless the Athlete establishes that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 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 an Athlete Support PersonOut-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which 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 Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.

[Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: 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.]

[Comment to Article 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.]

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 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 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, Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.14.1 by another Person.

[Comment to Article 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:

2.10.1.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or

2.10.1.2 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 which would have constituted a violation of anti-doping rules if Codecompliant rules had been applicable to such Person. The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six (6) years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or

2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2.

2.10.2 To establish a violation of Article 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Athlete or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status.

The burden shall be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association with an Athlete Support Person described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity and/or that such association could not have been reasonably avoided.

Anti-Doping Organisations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2, or 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information to WADA.

[Comment to Article 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 which 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 Article 2.10 does not require the Anti-Doping Organization 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.]

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 Article 2.5:

2.11.1 Any act which 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 the Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organisation, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation.

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

For purposes of Article 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 Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.] [Comment to Article 2.11.2: 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 purposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false.]

ARTICLE 3. PROOF OF DOPING

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

AFI shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFI has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof 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 Articles 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

[Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by AFI is comparable to the standard which 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 Article 3.2: For example, AFI may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 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 Article 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 Biological Passport.]

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

3.2.1 Analytical methods or Decision Limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community or which 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 shall, 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, on its own initiative, may also inform WADA of any such challenge. Within ten (10) days of WADA’s receipt of such notice and the case file related to such challenge, WADA shall 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 shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge.

[Comment to Article 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 shall not be subject to challenge. Further, the laboratory’s estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate. In no event shall the possibility that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may be below the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample.]

3.2.2 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 which 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 which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then AFI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.

[Comment to Article 3.2.2: 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 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 AFI to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.]

3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or these Anti-Doping Rules shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, and shall not
constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation; 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 AFI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the whereabouts failure:

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

(ii) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Passport Finding which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case AFI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the anti-doping rule violation;

(iii) a departure from the International Standard for Results Managementrelated to the requirement to provide notice to the Athlete of the B Sample opening which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, in which case AFI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding;

[Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): AFI 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.]

(iv) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to Athlete notification which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on a whereabouts failure, in which case AFI shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the whereabouts failure.

[Comment to Article 3.2.3: 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 defense 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, AFI’s violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 of the Code shall not constitute a defense to an 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’srefusal, 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 AFI.

ARTICLE 4. THE PROHIBITED LIST

4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List

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

Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions shall go into effect under these Anti-Doping Rules three (3) months after publication by WADA, without requiring any further action by AFI or its National Federations. All Athletes and other Persons shall be bound by the Prohibited List, and any revisions thereto, from the date they go into effect, without further formality. It is the responsibility of all Athletes and other Persons to familiarize themselves with the most up-to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto.

AFI shall provide its National Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List. Each National Federation shall in turn ensure that its members, and the constituents of its members, are also provided with the most recent version of the Prohibited List.

[Comment to Article 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

The Prohibited List shall identify those Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods which are prohibited as doping at all times (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 which are prohibited In-Competition only. The Prohibited List may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport. 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.

[Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance which 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 purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except as identified on the Prohibited List. No Prohibited Method shall be a Specified Method unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List.

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

4.2.3 Substances of Abuse

For purposes of applying Article 10, Substances of Abuse shall include those Prohibited Substances which are specifically identified as Substances of Abuse on the Prohibited Listbecause 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 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, the classification of a substance or method as a Specified Substance, Specified Method or Substance of Abuse is final and shall not be subject to any challenge by an Athlete or other Person including, but not limited to, any challenge based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did 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, and/or the Use or Attempted Use, Possession or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, shall 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

4.4.2.1 Athletes who are not International-Level Athletes shall 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 appellate body described in Article 13.2.2.

4.4.2.2 Athletes who are International-Level Athletes shall apply to AFI for their TUE by using the form posted on AFI’s website.

4.4.3 TUE Recognition

4.4.3.1 Where the Athlete already has a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organisation pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Code for the substance or method in question, and provided that such TUE has been reported in accordance with Article 5.5 of the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, AFI will automatically recognise it for purposes of international-level Competition without the need to review the relevant clinical information.

4.4.3.2 If AFI chooses to test an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete, AFI must recognise a TUE granted to that Athlete by their National Anti-Doping Organisation unless the Athlete is required to apply for recognition of the TUE pursuant to Articles 5.8 and 7.0 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

[Comment to Article 4.4.3: If AFI refuses to recognize 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 AFI.

AFI may agree with a National Anti-Doping Organisation that the National Anti-Doping Organisation will consider TUE applications on behalf of AFI.]

4.4.4 TUE Application Process

[Comment to Article 4.4.4: The submission of falsified documents to a TUEC or AFI offering or accepting a bribe to 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 shall result in a charge of Tampering or Attempted Tampering under Article 2.5.

An Athlete should not assume that their application for the 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.]

4.4.4.1 If the Athlete does not already have a TUE granted by their National Anti-Doping Organization for the substance or method in question, the Athlete must apply directly to AFI.

4.4.4.2 An application to AFI 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 apply. The application shall be made in accordance with Article 6 of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions as posted on AFI’s website.

4.4.4.3 AFI shall establish a panel (Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (“TUEC”)) to consider applications for the grant or recognition of TUEs. The TUEC shall consist of a Chair and four 4 other members with experience in the care and treatment of Athletes and sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine. Each appointed member shall serve a term of four (4) years.

(a) Before serving as a member of the TUEC, each member must sign a conflict of interest and confidentiality declaration. The appointed members shall not be employees of AFI.

(b) When an application to AFI for the grant or recognition of a TUE is made, the Chair of the TUEC shall appoint three (3) members (which may include the Chair) to consider the application.

(c) Before considering a TUE application, each member shall disclose to the Chair any circumstances likely to affect their
impartiality with respect to the Athlete making the application. If a member appointed by the Chair to consider an application is
unwilling or unable to assess the Athlete’s TUE application, for any reason, the Chair may appoint a replacement or appoint a new TUEC (e.g., from the pre-established pool of candidates). The Chair cannot serve as a member of the TUEC if there are any circumstances which are likely to affect the impartiality of the TUE decision.

4.4.4.4 The TUEC shall promptly evaluate and decide upon the application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions and usually (i.e., unless exceptional circumstances apply) within no more than twenty-one (21) days of receipt of a complete application. Where the application is made in a reasonable time prior to an Event, the TUEC must use its best endeavors to issue its decision before the start of the Event.

4.4.4.5 The TUEC decision shall be the final decision of AFI and may be appealed in accordance with Article 4.4.7. AFI TUEC decision shall be notified in writing to the Athlete, and to WADA and other Anti-Doping Organisations in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. It shall also promptly be reported into ADAMS.

4.4.4.6 If AFI (or the National Anti-Doping Organisation, where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of AFI) denies the Athlete’sapplication, it must notify the Athlete promptly, with reasons. If AFIgrants 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 AFI does not meet the criteria set out in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, it has twenty-one (21) days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for review in accordance with Article 4.4.7.

If the National Anti-Doping Organisation refers the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by AFI remains valid for international-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (but is not valid for national-level Competition) pending WADA’s decision. If the National Anti-Doping Organisation does not refer the matter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by AFI becomes valid for national-level Competition as well when the twenty-one (21) day review deadline expires.

4.4.5 Retroactive TUE Applications

If AFI chooses to collect a Sample from an Athlete who is not an International-Level Athlete or a National-Level Athlete, and that Athlete is Using a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons, AFI must permit that Athlete to apply for a retroactive TUE.

4.4.6 Expiration, Withdrawal or Reversal of a TUE

4.4.6.1 A TUE granted pursuant to these Anti-Doping Rules: (a) shall expire automatically at the end of any term for which it was granted, without the need for any further notice or other formality; (b) will be withdrawn if the Athlete does not promptly comply with any requirements or conditions imposed by the TUEC upon grant of the TUE; (c) may be withdrawn by the TUEC if it is subsequently determined that the criteria for grant of a TUE are not in fact met; or (d) may be reversed on review by WADA or on appeal.

4.4.6.2 In such event, the Athlete shall 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, 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, withdrawal or reversal, shall 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 shall be asserted.

4.4.7 Reviews and Appeals of TUE Decisions

4.4.7.1 WADA must review AFI’s decision not to recognize 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 AFI’s decision 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 Article 4.4.7.1: WADA shall be entitled to charge a fee to cover the costs of: (a) any review it is required to conduct in accordance with Article 4.4.7; and (b) any review it chooses to conduct, where the decision being reviewed is reversed.]

4.4.7.2 Any TUE decision by AFI (or by a National Anti-Doping Organisation where it has agreed to consider the application on behalf of AFI) 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 Article 4.4.7.2: In such cases, the decision being appealed is AFI’s TUE decision, not WADA’s decision not to
review the TUE decision or (having reviewed it) not to reverse the TUE decision. However, the time to appeal the TUE 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 shall be given notice of the appeal so that it may participate if it sees fit.]

4.4.7.3 A decision by WADA to reverse a TUE decision may be appealed by the Athlete, the National Anti-Doping Organisation and/or AFI, exclusively to CAS.

4.4.7.4 A failure to render a decision within a reasonable time on a properly submitted application for grant/recognition of a TUE or for review of a TUE decision shall be considered a denial of the application thus triggering the applicable rights of review/appeal.

ARTICLE 5. TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS

5.1 Purpose of Testing and Investigations

5.1.1 Testing and investigations may be undertaken for any anti-doping purpose. They shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

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

[Comment to Article 5.1: Where Testing is conducted for anti-doping purposes, the analytical results and data may be used for
other legitimate purposes under the Anti-Doping Organisation’s rules. See, e.g., Comment to Article 23.2.2 of the Code.]

5.2 Authority to Test

5.2.1 Subject to the limitations for Event Testing set out in Article 5.3, AFI shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing authority over all Athletes specified in the Introduction to these Anti-Doping Rules (Section “Scope of these Anti-Doping Rules”).

5.2.2 AFI 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 Article 5.2.2: AFI may obtain additional authority to conduct Testing by means of bilateral or multilateral agreements with other Signatories. Unless the Athlete has identified a sixty-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, AFI 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 AFI had sufficient suspicion for Testing during this time period shall not be a defense to an anti-doping rule violation based on such test or attempted test.]

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

5.2.4 If AFI delegates or contracts any part of Testing to a National Anti-Doping Organisation directly or through a National 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 analysis are performed, AFI shall be notified.

5.3 Event Testing

5.3.1 Except as otherwise provided below, only a single organisation shall have authority to conduct Testing at Event Venues during an Event Period. At International Events, AFI (or other international organisation which is the ruling body for an Event) shall have authority to conduct Testing. At National Events, the National Anti-Doping Organisation of that country shall have authority to conduct Testing. At the request of AFI (or other international organisation which is the ruling body for an Event), any Testing during the Event Period outside of the Event Venues shall be coordinated with AFI (or the relevant ruling body of the Event).

5.3.2 If an Anti-Doping Organisation, which 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 Venues during the Event Period, the Anti-Doping Organisation shall first confer with AFI (or other international organisation which 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 AFI (or other international organisation which is the ruling body of the Event), the Anti-Doping Organisation may, in accordance with the procedures described in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, ask WADA for permission to conduct Testing and to determine how to coordinate such Testing. WADA shall not grant approval for such Testingbefore consulting with and informing AFI (or other international organisation which is the ruling body for the Event). WADA’s decision shall be final and not subject to appeal. Unless otherwise provided in the authorisation to conduct Testing, such tests shall be considered Out-of-Competition tests. Results Management for any such test shall be the responsibility of the Anti-Doping Organisation initiating the test unless provided otherwise in the rules of the ruling body of the Event.

[Comment to Article 5.3.2: Before giving approval to a National Anti-Doping Organisation to initiate and conduct Testing at an
International Event, WADA shall consult with the international organisation which is the ruling body for the Event. Before giving
approval to an International Federation to initiate and conduct Testing at a National Event, WADA shall consult with the National
Anti-Doping Organisation of the country where the Event takes place. The Anti-Doping Organisation “initiating and directing
Testing” may, if it chooses, enter into agreements with a Delegated Third Party to which it delegates responsibility for Sample
collection or other aspects of the Doping Control process.]

5.4 Testing Requirements

5.4.1 AFI shall conduct test distribution planning and Testing as required by the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

5.4.2 Where reasonably feasible, Testing shall be coordinated through ADAMS in order to maximize the effectiveness of the combined Testing effort and to avoid unnecessary repetitive Testing.

5.5 Athlete Whereabouts Information

5.5.1 AFI will establish a Registered Testing Pool for those Athletes who will be required to provide whereabouts information in the manner specified in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and who shall be subject to Consequences for Article 2.4 violations as provided in Article 10.3.2. AFI shall coordinate with National Anti-Doping Organisations to identify such Athletes and to collect their whereabouts information.

5.5.2 AFI shall make available through ADAMS a list which identifies those Athletes included in its Registered Testing Pool by name. AFI shall regularly review and update as necessary its criteria for including Athletes in its Registered Testing Pool, and shall periodically review the list of Athletesin its Registered Testing Pool to ensure that each listed Athlete continues to meet the relevant criteria. Athletes shall be notified before they are included inthe Registered Testing Pool and when they are removed from that pool. The notification shall contain the information set out in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

5.5.3 Where an Athlete is included in an international Registered Testing Pool by AFI and in a national Registered Testing Pool by their National Anti-Doping Organisation, the National Anti-Doping Organisation and AFI shall agree between themselves which of them shall accept that Athlete’s whereabouts filings; in no case shall an Athlete be required to make whereabouts filings to more than one of them.

5.5.4 In accordance with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, each Athlete in the Registered Testing Pool shall do the following: (a) advise AFI of his/her whereabouts on a quarterly basis; (b) update that information as necessary so that it remains accurate and complete at all times; and (c) make himself or herself available for Testing at such whereabouts.

5.5.5 For purposes of Article 2.4, an Athlete’s failure to comply with the requirements of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations shall be deemed a filing failure or a missed test, as defined in Annex B of the International Standard for Results Management, where the conditions set forth in Annex B are met.

5.5.6 An Athlete in AFI’s Registered Testing Pool shall continue to be subject to the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirements set in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations unless and until (a) the Athlete gives written notice to AFI that he or she has retired or (b) AFI has informed him or her that he or she no longer satisfies the criteria for inclusion in AFI’s Registered Testing Pool.

5.5.7 Whereabouts information provided by an Athlete while in the Registered Testing Pool will be accessible through ADAMS to WADA and to other Anti-Doping Organisations having authority to test that Athlete as provided in Article 5.2. Whereabouts information shall be maintained in strict confidence at all times; it shall be used exclusively for purposes of planning, coordinating or conducting Doping Control, providing information relevant to the Athlete Biological Passport or other analytical results, to support an investigation into a potential anti-doping rule violation, or to support proceedings alleging an anti-doping rule violation; and shall be destroyed after it is no longer relevant for these purposes in accordance with the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information.

5.5.8 In accordance with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, AFI may establish a Testing Pool, which includes Athletes who are subject to less stringent whereabouts requirements than Athletes included in AFI’s Registered Testing Pool.

5.5.9 AFI shall notify Athletes before they are included in the Testing Pool and when they are removed. Such notification shall include the whereabouts requirements and the consequences that apply in case of non-compliance, as indicated in Articles 5.5.10 and 5.5.11.

5.5.10 Athletes included in the Testing Pool shall provide AFI with the following whereabouts information so that they may be located and subjected to Testing:

(a) An overnight address;
(b) Competition / Event schedule; and
(c) Regular training activities.

Such whereabouts information shall be filed in ADAMS to enable better Testing coordination with other Anti-Doping Organisations.

5.5.11 An Athlete’s failure to provide whereabouts information on or before the date required by AFI or the Athlete’s failure to provide accurate whereabouts information shall result in AFI elevating the Athlete to AFI’s Registered Testing Pool.

5.5.12 AFI may, in accordance with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, collect whereabouts information from Athletes who are not included within a Registered Testing Pool or Testing Pool. If it chooses to do so, an Athlete’s failure to provide requested whereabouts information on or before the date required by AFI or the Athlete’s failure to provide accurate whereabouts information shall result in AFI elevating the Athlete to AFI’s Registered Testing Pool.

5.5.13 In accordance with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, AFI will establish a Team Whereabouts Pool, which includes teams who are subject to less stringent whereabouts requirements than Athletes included in AFI’s Registered Testing Pool but who are nonetheless subject to whereabouts requirements and the applicable consequences for Team Whereabouts Pool violation.

5.5.14 AFI shall notify teams before they are included in the Team Whereabouts Pool and when they are removed. Notification of inclusion in the Team Whereabouts Pool will be by way of an AFI email correspondence. Such notification shall include the whereabouts requirements and the consequences that apply in case of non-compliance as outlined in Article 12.3.

5.5.15 Teams included in the Team Whereabouts Pool shall provide AFI with the whereabouts information required on the AFI Camp and Competition Form and must submit the fully filled out AFI Camp and Competition Form to IFAF no later than the first day of each quarter by way of email or other method designated on the AFI website and notification of inclusion email correspondence.

5.6 Retired Athletes Returning to Competition

5.6.1 If an International-Level Athlete or National-Level Athlete in AFI’s Registered Testing Pool retires and then wishes to return to active participation in sport, the Athlete shall not compete in International Events or National Events until the Athlete has made himself or herself available for Testing, by giving six-months prior written notice to AFI and their National Anti-Doping Organisation.

WADA, in consultation with AFI 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 the Athlete. This decision may be appealed under Article 13.

Any competitive results obtained in violation of this Article 5.6.1 shall be Disqualified unless the Athlete can establish that he or she could not have reasonably known that this was 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 Anti-Doping Organisation that imposed the period of Ineligibility in writing of such retirement. If the Athlete then wishes to return to active competition in sport, the Athlete shall not compete in International Events or National Events until the Athlete has made himself or herself available for Testing by giving 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 (6) months) to AFI and to their National Anti-Doping Organisation.

5.7 Independent Observer Program

AFI and the organizing committees for AFI’s Events, as well as the National Federations and the organising committees for National Events, shall authorise and facilitate the Independent Observer Program at such Events.

ARTICLE 6 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES

Samples shall be analyzed in accordance with the following principles:

6.1 Use of Accredited, Approved Laboratories and Other Laboratories

6.1.1 For purposes of directly establishing an Adverse Analytical Finding under Article 2.1, Samples shall be analyzed only in WADA accredited laboratories or laboratories otherwise approved by WADA. The choice of the WADA-accredited or WADA-approved laboratory used for the Sample analysis shall be determined exclusively by AFI.

[Comment to Article 6.1.1: Violations of Article 2.1 may be established only by Sample analysis performed by a WADA-accredited laboratory or another laboratory approved by WADA. Violations of other Articles may be established using analytical results from other laboratories so long as the results are reliable.]

6.1.2 As provided in Article 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.

6.2 Purpose of Analysis of Samples and Data

Samples and related analytical data or Doping Control information shall be analyzed 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 AFI 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 Article 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 Article 2.2, or both.]

6.3 Research on Samples and Data

Samples, related analytical data and Doping Control information may be used for anti-doping research purposes, although no Sample may be used for research without the Athlete’s written consent. Samples and related analytical data or Doping Control information used for research purposes shall 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 shall adhere to the principles set out in Article 19 of the Code.

[Comment to Article 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

In accordance with Article 6.4 of the Code, AFI shall ask laboratories to analyze Samples in conformity with the International Standard for Laboratories and Article 4.7 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

Laboratories at their own initiative and expense may analyze Samples for Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods not included on the standard Sample analysis menu, or as requested by AFI. Results from any such analysis shall be reported to AFI and have the same validity and Consequences as any other analytical result.

[Comment to Article 6.4: The objective of this Article is to extend the principle of “Intelligent Testing” to the Sample analysis menu so as to most effectively and efficiently detect doping. It is recognized 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 which can be analyzed.]

6.5 Further Analysis of a Sample Prior to or During Results Management

There shall be no limitation on the authority of a laboratory to conduct repeat or additional analysis on a Sample prior to the time AFI notifies an Athlete that the Sample is the basis for an Article 2.1 anti-doping rule violation charge. If after such notification AFI wishes to conduct additional analysis on that Sample, it may do so with the consent of the Athlete or approval from a hearing body.

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 Article 6.2 at any time exclusively at the direction of either the Anti-Doping Organisationthat initiated and directed Sample collection or WADA. Any other Anti-Doping Organisation with authority to test the Athlete that wishes to conduct further analysis on a stored Sample may do so with the permission of the Anti-Doping Organisation that initiated and directed Sample collection or WADA, and shall be responsible for any follow-up Results Management. Any Sample storage or further analysis initiated by WADA or another Anti-Doping Organisation shall be at WADA’s or that organisation’s expense. Further analysis of Samples shall conform with the requirements of the International Standard for Laboratories.

6.7 Split of A or B Sample

Where WADA, an Anti-Doping Organisation with Results Management authority, and/or a WADA-accredited laboratory (with approval from WADA or the 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 forth in the International Standard for Laboratories shall be followed.

6.8 WADA’s Right to Take Possession of Samples and Data

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 shall 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 shall 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. 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 dataif a potential anti-doping rule violation is discovered.

[Comment to Article 6.8: Resistance or refusal to WADA taking physical possession of Samples or data could constitute Tampering, Complicity or an act of non-compliance as provided in the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories, and could also constitute a violation of the International Standard for Laboratories. Where necessary, the laboratory and/or the Anti-Doping Organisation shall assist WADA in ensuring that the seized Sample or 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 shall not be subject to challenge. In particular, whether there is good cause or not shall not be a defense against an anti-doping rule violation or its Consequences.]

ARTICLE 7 RESULTS MANAGEMENT: RESPONSIBILITY, INITIAL REVIEW, NOTICE AND PROVISIONAL SUSPENSIONS

Results Management under these Anti-Doping Rules establishes a process designed to resolve anti-doping rule violation matters in a fair, expeditious and efficient manner.

7.1 Responsibility for Conducting Results Management

7.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in Articles 6.6, 6.8 and Code Article 7.1, Results Management shall be the responsibility of, and shall be governed by, the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organisation that initiated and directed Sample collection (or, if no Sample collection is involved, the Anti-Doping Organisation which first provides notice to an Athlete or other Person of a potential anti-doping rule violation and then diligently pursues that anti-doping rule violation).

7.1.2 In circumstances where the rules of a National Anti-Doping Organisation do not give the National Anti-Doping Organisation authority over an Athlete or other Person who is not a national, resident, license holder, or member of a sport organisation of that country, or the National Anti-Doping Organisation declines to exercise such authority, Results Management shall be conducted by the applicable International Federation or by a third party with authority over the Athlete or other Person as directed by the rules of the applicable International Federation.

7.1.3 In the event the Major Event Organisation assumes only limited Results Management responsibility relating to a Sample initiated and taken during an Event conducted by a Major Event Organisation, or an anti-doping rule violation occurring during such Event, the case shall be referred by the Major Event Organisation to the applicable International Federation for completion of Results Management.

7.1.4 Results Management in relation to a potential whereabouts failure (a filing failure or a missed test) shall be administered by AFI or the National Anti-Doping Organisation with whom the Athlete in question files whereabouts information, as provided in the International Standard for Results Management. If AFIdetermines a filing failure or a missed test, it shall submit that information to WADA through ADAMS, where it will be made available to other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations.

7.1.5 Other circumstances in which AFI shall take responsibility for conducting Results Management in respect of anti-doping rule violations involving Athletes and other Persons under its authority shall be determined by reference to and in accordance with Article 7 of the Code.

7.1.6 WADA may direct AFI to conduct Results Management in particular circumstances. If AFI 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 Organisation with authority over the Athlete or other Person, that is willing to do so, to take Results Management responsibility in place of AFI or, if there is no such Anti-Doping Organisation, any other Anti-Doping Organisation that is willing to do so. In such case, AFI shall reimburse the costs and attorney’s fees of conducting Results Management to the other Anti-Doping Organisation designated by WADA, and a failure to reimburse costs and attorney’s fees shall be considered an act of non-compliance.

7.2 Review and Notification Regarding Potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations

AFI shall carry out the review and notification with respect to any potential anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management.

7.3 Identification of Prior Anti-Doping Rule Violations

Before giving an Athlete or other Person notice of a potential anti-doping rule violation as provided above, AFI shall refer to ADAMS and contact WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping Organisationsto determine whether any prior anti-doping rule violation exists.

7.4 Provisional Suspensions

[Comment to Article 7.4: Before a Provisional Suspension can be unilaterally imposed by AFI, the internal review specified in these Anti-Doping Rules and the International Standard for Results Management must first be completed.]

7.4.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension after an Adverse Analytical Finding orAdverse Passport Finding

If AFI receives an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Adverse Passport Finding (upon completion of the Adverse Passport Finding review process) for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method that is not a Specified Substanceor a Specified Method, it shall impose a Provisional Suspension on the Athletepromptly upon or after the review and notification required by Article 7.2.

A mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Athlete demonstrates to a Sport Resolutions Hearing Panel that the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product, or (ii) the violation involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under Article 10.2.4.1.

The decision of a Sport Resolution Hearing Panel 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 Suspension Based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances, Specified Methods, Contaminated Products, or Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations

AFI may impose a Provisional Suspension for anti-doping rule violations not covered by Article 7.4.1 prior to the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample or final hearing as described in Article 8.

An optional Provisional Suspension may be lifted at the discretion of AFI at any time prior to the decision of a Sport Resolution Hearing Panel under Article 8, unless provided otherwise in the International Standard for Results Management.

7.4.3 Opportunity for Hearing or Appeal

Notwithstanding Articles 7.4.1 and 7.4.2, a Provisional Suspension may not be imposed unless the Athlete or other Person is given: (a) an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing, either before or on a timely basis after the imposition of the Provisional Suspension; or (b) an opportunity for an expedited hearing in accordance with Article 8 on a timely basis after the imposition of the Provisional Suspension.

The imposition of a Provisional Suspension, or the decision not to impose a Provisional Suspension, may be appealed in an expedited process in accordance with Article 13.2.

7.4.4 Voluntary Acceptance of Provisional Suspension

Athletes on their own initiative may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension if done so prior to the later of: (i) the expiration of ten (10) days from the report of the B Sample (or waiver of the B Sample) or ten (10) days from the notice of any other anti-doping rule violation, or (ii) the date on which the Athlete first competes after such report or notice.

Other Persons on their own initiative may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension if done so within ten (10) days from the notice of the anti-doping rule violation.

Upon such voluntary acceptance, the Provisional Suspension shall have the full effect and be treated in the same manner as if the Provisional Suspension had been imposed under Article 7.4.1 or 7.4.2; provided, however, at any time after voluntarily accepting a Provisional Suspension, the Athlete or other Person may withdraw such acceptance, in which event the Athlete or other Person shall not receive any credit for time previously served during the Provisional Suspension.

7.4.5 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent B Sample analysis (if requested by the Athlete or AFI) 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 Article 2.1. In circumstances where the Athlete (or the Athlete’s team has been removed from an Event based on a violation of Article 2.1 and the subsequent B Sample analysis does not confirm the A Sample finding, then, if it is still possible for the Athlete or team to be reinserted, without otherwise affecting the Event, the Athlete or team may continue to take part in the Event.

7.5 Results Management Decisions

Results Management decisions or adjudications by AFI must not purport to be limited to a particular geographic area or the AFI’s sport and shall 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 Articlesthat have been violated, and (ii) all Consequences flowing from the anti-doping rule violation(s), including applicable Disqualifications under Articles 9 and 10.10, any forfeiture of medals or prizes, any period of Ineligibility (and the date it begins to run) and any Financial Consequences.

[Comment to Article 7.5: Results Management decisions include Provisional Suspensions.
Each decision by AFI should address whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed and all Consequences flowing from the violation, including any Disqualifications other than Disqualification under Article 10.1 (which is left to the ruling body for an Event). Pursuant to Article 15, such decision and its imposition of Consequences shall 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 Article 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 are also Disqualified under Article 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 Article 10.1.]

7.6 Notification of Results Management Decisions

AFI shall notify Athletes, other Persons, Signatories and WADA of Results Management decisions as provided in Article 14 and in the International Standard for Results Management.

7.7 Retirement from Sport

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

[Comment to Article 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.]

ARTICLE 8 RESULTS MANAGEMENT: RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING DECISION

For any Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, AFI shall provide a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally Independent hearing panel in compliance with the Code and the International Standard for Results Management.

8.1 Fair Hearings

8.1.1 AFI has delegated its Article 8 responsibilities (first instance hearings, waiver of hearings and decisions) to Sport Resolutions pertaining to the hearing of first instance shall apply. Sport Resolutions will always 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 the Code and the International Standard for Results Management.

8.3 Waiver of Hearing

8.3.1 An Athlete or other Person against whom an anti-doping rule violation is asserted may waive a hearing expressly and agree with the Consequences proposed by AFI.

8.3.2 However, if the Athlete or other Person against whom an anti-doping rule violation is asserted fails to dispute that assertion within 14 days or the deadline otherwise specified in the notice sent by AFI asserting the violation, then they shall be deemed to have waived a hearing, to have admitted the violation, and to have accepted the proposed Consequences.

8.3.3 In cases where Article 8.3.1 or 8.3.2 applies, a hearing before Sport Resolutions is not required. Instead, AFI shall promptly issue a written decision that conforms with Article 9 of the International Standard for Results Management and which includes the full reasons for the decision, the period of Ineligibility imposed, the Disqualification of results under Article 10.10 and, if applicable, a justification for why the greatest potential Consequences were not imposed.

8.3.4 AFI shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organisations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3, and shall promptly report it into ADAMS. AFI shall Publicly Disclose that decision in accordance with Article 14.3.2.

8.4 Single Hearing Before CAS

Anti-doping rule violations asserted against International-Level Athletes, National-Level Athletes or other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person, AFI (where it has Results Management responsibility in accordance with Article 7) and WADA, be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS.

[Comment to Article 8.4: In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international or national level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial. Where all of the parties identified in this Article are satisfied that their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need for the Athlete or Anti-Doping Organisations to incur the extra expense of two (2) hearings. An Anti-Doping Organisation may participate in the CAS hearing as an observer. Nothing set out in Article 8.4 precludes the Athlete or other Person and AFI (where it has Results Management responsibility) to waive their right to appeal by agreement. Such waiver, however, only binds the parties to such agreement and not any other entity with a right of appeal under the Code.]

ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS

An anti-doping rule violation in Individual Sports in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

[Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual players will be Disqualified. However, Disqualification of the team will be as provided in Article 11. In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams, Disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the International Federation.]

ARTICLE 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS

10.1 Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation Occurs

10.1.1 An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event, lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete’s individual results obtained in that Event with all Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.2.

Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might include, for example, the seriousness of the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Athlete tested negative in the other Competitions.

[Comment to Article 10.1.1: Whereas Article 9 Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Athlete tested positive (e.g., the 100 meter backstroke), this Article may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g., the swimming World Championships).]

10.1.2 If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Athlete’s individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified, unless the Athlete’s results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Athlete’s 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 Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7:

10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility, subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where:

10.2.1.1 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.

[Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional without showing how the Prohibited Substance entered one’s system, it is highly unlikely that in a doping case under Article 2.1 an Athlete will be successful in proving that the Athlete acted unintentionally without establishing the source of the Prohibited Substance.]

10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance or a Specified Method and AFI can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional.

10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, subject to Article 10.2.4.1, the period of
Ineligibility shall be two (2) years.

10.2.3 As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes
or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an antidoping 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 which is only prohibited In-Competition shall
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 which is only prohibited In-Competition shall
not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and
the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-ofCompetition in a context unrelated to sport performance.39

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

10.2.4.1 If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-ofCompetition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period
of Ineligibility shall be three (3) months Ineligibility.
In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article
10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the Athlete or other
Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment
program approved by IFAF. The period of Ineligibility established in
this Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any
provision in Article 10.6.40
10.2.4.2 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 shall not be considered intentional for purposes of
Article 10.2.1 and shall not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating
Circumstances under Article 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 Article 10.2 shall
be as follows, unless Article 10.6 or 10.7 are applicable:
10.3.1 For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four (4) years
except: (i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can
39 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of
Article 10.2.] 40 [Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the treatment program is approved and whether the Athlete or
other Person has satisfactorily completed the program shall be made at IFAF’s sole discretion. This Article is intended to give
IFAF the leeway to apply their own judgment to identify and approve legitimate and reputable, as opposed to “sham”, treatment
programs. It is anticipated, however, that the characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widely and change over
time such that it would not be practical for WADA to develop mandatory criteria for acceptable treatment programs.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 28 of 60
establish that the commission of the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional,
the period of Ineligibility shall 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 shall be in a range from two
(2) years to four (4) years depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of
Fault; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete, the
period of Ineligibility shall 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 Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall 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 Article is not available to Athletes where a pattern of lastminute 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 Article 2.7 or 2.8, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum
of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the
violation. An Article 2.7 or Article 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person shall
be considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Athlete
Support Personnel for violations other than for Specified Substances, shall result
in lifetime Ineligibility for Athlete Support Personnel. In addition, significant
violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non-sporting laws and
regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or
judicial authorities.41
10.3.4 For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum
of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the
violation.
10.3.5 For violations of Article 2.10, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years,
subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the
Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.42
10.3.6 For violations of Article 2.11, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of two
(2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation
by the Athlete or other Person.
43
10.4 Aggravating Circumstances which may Increase the Period of Ineligibility
If IFAF establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations
under Article 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration or Attempted
Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) or 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other
Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting) that Aggravating Circumstances are present
41 [Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions which
are more severe than the Athletes who test positive. Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited to Ineligibility
for accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an
important step in the deterrence of doping.] 42 [Comment to Article 10.3.5: Where the “other Person” referenced in Article 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that entity may
be disciplined as provided in Article 12.] 43 [Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or
Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) shall be sanctioned based on the violation that carries
the more severe sanction.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 29 of 60
which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the
period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall 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 he or she did not
knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation.44
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 he or she bears No Fault or
Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.45
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 Article 2.1,
2.2 or 2.6.
All reductions under Article 10.6.1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative.
10.6.1.1 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 No Significant Fault or
Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall 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.
10.6.1.2 Contaminated Products
In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No
Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited
Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse) came from a
Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a
minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a
maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete or other
Person’s degree of Fault.
46
44 [Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration or Attempted
Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) and 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate
Against Reporting to Authorities) are not included in the application of Article 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.] 45 [Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 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, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, No Fault or
Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin
or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 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 Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.] 46 [Comment to Article 10.6.1.2: In order to receive the benefit of this Article, the Athlete or other Person must establish not only that
the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, but 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
IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 30 of 60
10.6.1.3 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,
then the period of Ineligibility shall 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
Article 10.6.1
If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Article 10.6.1 is not
applicable that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then, subject to further
reduction or elimination as provided in Article 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 Article may be no less than eight (8) years.47
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 Code Violations48
10.7.1.1 IFAF may, prior to an appellate decision under Article 13 or the
expiration of the time to appeal, 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 Organization,
criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in: (i)
the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or bringing forward an antidoping rule violation by another Person; or (ii) which results in a
criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal
offense or the breach of professional rules committed by another
Person and the information provided by the Person providing
Substantial Assistance is made available to IFAF or other Anti-Doping
Organization with Results Management responsibility; or (iii) which
results in WADA initiating a proceeding against a Signatory, WADAaccredited laboratory, or Athlete passport management unit (as
defined in the International Standard for Laboratories) for noncompliance with the Code, International Standard or Technical
Document; or (iv) with the approval by WADA, which results in a
criminal or disciplinary body bringing forward a criminal offense or the
Athlete actually Used the Contaminated Product, whether the Athlete had declared the product which was subsequently
determined to be contaminated on the Doping Control form.
This Article 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 Article 10.5.] 47 [Comment to Article 10.6.2: Article 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation except those Articles where intent is an
element of the anti-doping rule violation (e.g., Article 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.11) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Article
10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provided in an Article based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.] 48 [Comment to Article 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.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 31 of 60
breach of professional or sport rules arising out of a sport integrity
violation other than doping. After an appellate decision under Article
13 or the expiration of time to appeal, IFAF 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 shall 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 Code and/or sport integrity violations. No more than threequarters 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 Article must be no less
than eight (8) years. For purposes of this paragraph, the otherwise
applicable period of Ineligibility shall not include any period of
Ineligibility that could be added under Article 10.9.3.2 of these AntiDoping Rules.
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to provide
Substantial Assistance, IFAF shall 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, IFAF shall reinstate the
original Consequences. If IFAF decides to reinstate suspended
Consequences or decides not to reinstate suspended Consequences,
that decision may be appealed by any Person entitled to appeal under
Article 13.
10.7.1.2 To further encourage Athletes and other Persons to provide
Substantial Assistance to Anti-Doping Organizations, at the request of
IFAF 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 Article 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
Article, 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 shall be subject to reinstatement of
Consequences, as otherwise provided in this Article. Notwithstanding
Article 13, WADA’s decisions in the context of this Article 10.7.1.2 may
not be appealed.
10.7.1.3 If IFAF suspends any part of an otherwise applicable sanction
because of Substantial Assistance, then notice providing justification
for the decision shall be provided to the other Anti-Doping
Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3 as provided
in Article 14.2. In unique circumstances where WADA determines that
it would be in the best interest of anti-doping, WADA may authorize
IFAF to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements limiting or
IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 32 of 60
delaying the disclosure of the Substantial Assistance agreement or the
nature of Substantial Assistance being provided.
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 which could establish an
anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation other than Article
2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 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.49
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 Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7, before applying any reduction or
suspension under Article 10.7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be
determined in accordance with Articles 10.2, 10.3, 10.5, and 10.6. If the Athlete or other
Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility
under Article 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 an Athlete or other Person, after being notified by IFAF of a potential anti-doping
rule violation that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of four (4) or more years
(including any period of Ineligibility asserted under Article 10.4), admits the violation and
accepts the asserted period of Ineligibility no later than twenty (20) days after receiving
notice of an anti-doping rule violation charge, the Athlete or other Person may receive a
one (1) year reduction in the period of Ineligibility asserted by IFAF. Where the Athlete or
other Person receives the one-year reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility under
this Article 10.8.1, no further reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility shall be allowed
under any other Article.50
10.8.2 Case Resolution Agreement
Where the Athlete or other Person admits an anti-doping rule violation after being
confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by IFAF and agrees to Consequences
acceptable to IFAF and WADA, at their sole discretion, then: (a) the Athlete or other Person
may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on an assessment by IFAF and
WADA of the application of Articles 10.1 through 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
49 [Comment to Article 10.7.2: This Article 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 Organization 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 he or she is about to be caught. The amount by which Ineligibility is reduced should be based on the likelihood that the
Athlete or other Person would have been caught had he or she not come forward voluntarily.] 50 [Comment to Article 10.8.1: For example, if IFAF alleges that an Athlete has violated Article 2.1 for Use of an anabolic steroid and
asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four (4) years, then the Athlete may unilaterally reduce the period of Ineligibility to
three (3) years by admitting the violation and accepting the three-year period of Ineligibility within the time specified in this Article,
with no further reduction allowed. This resolves the case without any need for a hearing.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 33 of 60
anti-doping rule violation last occurred. In each case, however, where this Article is applied,
the Athlete or other Person shall serve at least one-half of the agreed-upon period of
Ineligibility going forward from the earlier of the date the Athlete or other Person accepted
the imposition of a sanction or a Provisional Suspension which was subsequently
respected by the Athlete or other Person. The decision by WADA and IFAF 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 Article 13.
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to enter into a case resolution
agreement under this Article, IFAF shall allow the Athlete or other Person to discuss an
admission of the anti-doping rule violation with it subject to a Without Prejudice
Agreement.
51
10.9 Multiple Violations
10.9.1 Second or Third Anti-Doping Rule Violation
10.9.1.1 For an Athlete or other Person’s second anti-doping rule violation, the
period of Ineligibility shall be the greater of:
(a) A six-month period of Ineligibility; or
(b) A period of Ineligibility in the range between:
(i) the sum of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the first antidoping 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
(ii) 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 shall 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.
10.9.1.2 A third anti-doping rule violation will always result in a lifetime period
of Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfills the condition for
elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.5
or 10.6, or involves a violation of Article 2.4. In these particular cases,
the period of Ineligibility shall be from eight (8) years to lifetime
Ineligibility.
10.9.1.3 The period of Ineligibility established in Articles 10.9.1.1 and 10.9.1.2
may then be further reduced by the application of Article 10.7.
10.9.2 An anti-doping rule violation for which an Athlete or other Person has established
No Fault or Negligence shall not be considered a violation for purposes of this
Article 10.9. In addition, an anti-doping rule violation sanctioned under Article
10.2.4.1 shall not be considered a violation for purposes of Article 10.9.
10.9.3 Additional Rules for Certain Potential Multiple Violations
51 [Comment to Article 10.8: Any mitigating or aggravating factors set forth in this Article 10 shall be considered in arriving at the
Consequences set forth in the case resolution agreement, and shall not be applicable beyond the terms of that agreement.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 34 of 60
10.9.3.1 For purposes of imposing sanctions under Article 10.9, except as
provided in Articles 10.9.3.2 and 10.9.3.3, an anti-doping rule violation
will only be considered a second violation if IFAF 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
Article 7, or after IFAF made reasonable efforts to give notice of the
first anti-doping rule violation. If IFAF cannot establish this, the
violations shall be considered together as one single first violation, and
the sanction imposed shall 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 Article
10.10.52
10.9.3.2 If IFAF establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed an
additional anti-doping rule violation prior to notification, and that the
additional violation occurred twelve (12) months or more before or
after the first-noticed violation, then the period of Ineligibility for the
additional violation shall be calculated as if the additional violation
were a stand-alone first violation and this period of Ineligibility is
served consecutively, rather than concurrently, with the period of
Ineligibility imposed for the earlier-noticed violation. Where this Article
10.9.3.2 applies, the violations taken together shall constitute a single
violation for purposes of Article 10.9.1.
10.9.3.3 If IFAF establishes that an Athlete or other Person committed a
violation of Article 2.5 in connection with the Doping Control process
for an underlying asserted anti-doping rule violation, the violation of
Article 2.5 shall be treated as a stand-alone first violation and the
period of Ineligibility for such violation shall be served consecutively,
rather than concurrently, with the period of Ineligibility, if any, imposed
for the underlying anti-doping rule violation. Where this Article 10.9.3.3
is applied, the violations taken together shall constitute a single
violation for purposes of Article 10.9.1.
10.9.3.4 If IFAF 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 shall run
consecutively, rather than concurrently.
10.9.4 Multiple Anti-Doping Rule Violations during Ten-Year Period
For purposes of Article 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 which produced the
positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date
a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti52 [Comment to Article 10.9.3.1: The same rule applies where, after the imposition of a sanction, IFAF discovers facts involving an
anti-doping rule violation that occurred prior to notification for a first anti-doping rule violation – e.g., IFAF shall impose a sanction
based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two (2) violations had been adjudicated at the same time, including the
application of Aggravating Circumstances.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 35 of 60
doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or
Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting
Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
53
10.11 Forfeited Prize Money
If IFAF recovers prize money forfeited as a result of an anti-doping rule violation, it shall take
reasonable measures to allocate and distribute this prize money to the Athletes who would have
been entitled to it had the forfeiting Athlete not competed.54
10.12 Financial Consequences
10.12.1 Where an Athlete or other Person commits an anti-doping rule violation, IFAF
may, in its discretion and subject to the principle of proportionality, elect to (a)
recover from the Athlete or other Person costs associated with the anti-doping
rule violation, regardless of the period of Ineligibility imposed and/or (b) fine the
Athlete or other Person in an amount up to 1000 Euros, only in cases where the
maximum period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable has already been imposed.
10.12.2 The imposition of a financial sanction or the IFAF’s recovery of costs shall not
be considered a basis for reducing the Ineligibility or other sanction which would
otherwise be applicable under these Anti-Doping Rules.
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 shall commence on the first day after the current period of Ineligibility has been
served. Otherwise, except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the
final hearing decision 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 the Athlete or other Person, IFAF or a Sport Resolutions Hearing Panel, if
applicable, 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, shall be Disqualified.
55
10.13.2 Credit for Provisional Suspension or Period of Ineligibility Served
10.13.2.1 If a Provisional Suspension is respected by the Athlete or other
Person, then the Athlete or other Person shall receive a credit for
such period of Provisional Suspension against any period of
53 [Comment to Article 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 which they would otherwise
have to seek damages from such Person.] 54 [Comment to Article 10.11: This Article is not intended to impose an affirmative duty on IFAF to take any action to collect forfeited
prize money. If IFAF 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 IFAF and its Athletes.] 55 [Comment to Article 10.13.1: In cases of anti-doping rule violations other than under Article 2.1, the time required for an AntiDoping Organization 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 Article to start the sanction at an earlier date should not be used.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 36 of 60
Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed. If the Athlete or other
Person does not respect a Provisional Suspension, then the Athlete
or other Person shall 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, then the Athlete or other
Person shall receive a credit for such period of Ineligibility served
against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed
on appeal.
10.13.2.2 If an Athlete or other Person voluntarily accepts a Provisional
Suspension in writing from IFAF and thereafter respects the
Provisional Suspension, the Athlete or other Person shall receive a
credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against
any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed. A copy
of the Athlete or other Person’s voluntary acceptance of a
Provisional Suspension shall be provided promptly to each party
entitled to receive notice of an asserted anti-doping rule violation
under Article 14.1.56
10.13.2.3 No credit against a period of Ineligibility shall 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.
10.13.2.4 In Team Sports, where a period of Ineligibility is imposed upon a
team, unless fairness requires otherwise, the period of Ineligibility
shall start on the date of the final hearing decision providing for
Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is
accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period of team Provisional
Suspension (whether imposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be
credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served.
10.14 Status During Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension
10.14.1 Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension
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 authorized anti-doping Education or
rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by any Signatory, Signatory’s member
organization, or a club or other member organization of a Signatory’s member organization,
or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any internationalor national-level Event organization or any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by
a governmental agency.
An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility longer than four (4) years may,
after completing four (4) years of the period of Ineligibility, participate as an Athlete in local
sport events not sanctioned or otherwise under the 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.
56 [Comment to Article 10.13.2.2: An Athlete’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension is not an admission by the Athlete
and shall not be used in any way to draw an adverse inference against the Athlete.] IFAF Anti-Doping Rules 2021 Page 37 of 60
An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall remain subject to Testing
and any requirement by IFAF to provide whereabouts information.57
10.14.2 Return to Training
As an exception to Article 10.14.1, an Athlete may return to train with a team or to use the
facilities of a club or other member organization of IFAF’s or other Signatory’s member
organization during the shorter of: (1) the last two months of the Athlete’s period of
Ineligibility, or (2) the last one-quarter of the period of Ineligibility imposed.58
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 Article 10.14.1, the results of such
participation shall be Disqualified and a new period of Ineligibility equal in length to the original
period of Ineligibility shall 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, shall be made by the Anti-Doping
Organization whose Results Management led to the imposition of the initial period of
Ineligibility. This decision may be appealed under Article 13.
An Athlete or other Person who violates the prohibition against participation during a
Provisional Suspension described in Article 10.14.1 shall receive no credit for any period
of Provisional Suspension served and the results of such participation shall be
Disqualified.
Where an Athlete Support Person or other Person assists a Person in violating the
prohibition against participation during Ineligibility or a Provisional Suspension, IFAF shall
impose sanctions for a violation of Article 2.9 for such assistance.
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
Article 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 IFAF and its National Federations.
10.15 Automatic Publication of Sanction
A mandatory part of each sanction shall include automatic publication, as provided in Article 14.3.
57 [Comment to Article 10.14.1: For example, subject to Article 10.14.2 below, Ineligible Athletes cannot participate in a training
camp, exhibition or practice organized by their National Federation or a club which is a member of that National Federation or
which is funded by a governmental agency. Further, an Ineligible Athlete may not compete in a non-Signatory professional league
(e.g., the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, etc.), Events organized by a non-Signatory International
Event organization or a non-Signatory national-level Event organization without triggering the Consequences set forth in
Article 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 organization described in this Article. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be
recognized by other sports (see Article 15.1, 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 Article 2.10 by another Athlete. Any performance standard
accomplished during a period of Ineligibility shall not be recognized by IFAF or its National Federations for any purpose.] 58 [Comment to Article 10.14.2: In many Team Sports and some individual sports (e.g., ski jumping and gymnastics), Athletes cannot
effectively train on their own so as to be ready to compete at the end of the Athlete’s period of Ineligibility. During the training
period described in this Article, an Ineligible Athlete may not compete or engage in any activity described in Article 10.14.1 other
than training.]

ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS

11.1 Testing of Team Sports
Where more than one (1) member of a team in a Team Sport has been notified of an anti-doping
rule violation under Article 7 in connection with an Event, the ruling body for the Event shall conduct
appropriate Target Testing of the team during the Event Period.
11.2 Consequences for Team Sports
If more than two (2) members of a team in a Team Sport are found to have committed an antidoping rule violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall impose an
appropriate sanction on the team (e.g., loss of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event,
or other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed upon the individual Athletes
committing the anti-doping rule violation.
ARTICLE 12 SANCTIONS BY IFAF AGAINST OTHER SPORTING BODIES
When IFAF becomes aware that a National Federation or any other sporting body over which it