ECB Anti-Doping Rules 2013 - Ecb - England and Wales Cricket ...

ule violation under Article 2.1; nor is the Cricketer's lack of intent, fault,
negligence or knowledge a valid defence to a charge that an anti-doping rule
violation has been committed under Article 2.1.
2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established
by either of the following (unless the Cricketer establishes that such presence
is consistent with a therapeutic use exemption granted in accordance with
Article 4.4): (a) the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or
Markers in the Cricketer's A Sample, where the Cricketer waives analysis of
the B Sample and the B Sample is not analysed; or (b) where the Cricketer's
B Sample is analysed and the analysis of the Cricketer's B Sample confirms
the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found
in the Cricketer’s A Sample.
2.1.3 Except in the case of those substances for which a quantitative reporting
threshold is specifically identified in the Prohibited List, and subject to the
special criteria established in the Prohibited List (and/or other International
Standards) to distinguish between endogenous and exogenous production of
certain substances, the presence of any quantity of a Prohibited Substance
or its Metabolites or Markers in a Cricketer’s Sample shall constitute an antidoping
rule violation under Article 2.1.
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by a Cricketer of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited
Method, unless the Cricketer establishes that such Use or Attempted Use is
consistent with a therapeutic use exemption granted in accordance with Article
4.4.
2.2.1 It is each Cricketer’s personal duty to ensure that he/she does not Use any
Prohibited Substance. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Cricketer’s part be demonstrated in order
to establish an anti-doping rule violation of Use under Article 2.2; nor is the
Cricketer's lack of intent, fault, negligence or knowledge a valid defence to a
charge that an anti-doping rule violation of Use has been committed under
Article 2.2.
2.2.2 Without prejudice to Article 2.2.1, it is necessary that intent on the Cricketer’s
part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation of
Attempted Use under Article 2.2.
2.2.3 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. For an anti-doping rule
violation to be committed under Article 2.2, it is sufficient that the Cricketer
Used or Attempted to Use a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
2.2.4 Notwithstanding Article 2.2.3, however, a Cricketer’s Use of a substance Out-
Of-Competition that is not prohibited Out-of-Competition shall not constitute
an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2. 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 Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to Sample
collection after notification as authorised in the Rules or under the World Anti-
Doping Code, or otherwise evading Sample collection.
2.4 For a Cricketer in the National Registered Testing Pool, failure to comply with
the requirements regarding Cricketer availability for Out-of-Competition Testing
set out in the International Standard for Testing.
2.4.1 Such non-compliance includes a failure to file whereabouts information in
7
- 6 -