III. Sanctions on individuals
III. Sanctions on individuals
III. Sanctions on individuals
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
II. Proof of doping<br />
• The anti-doping organizati<strong>on</strong> shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping<br />
rule violati<strong>on</strong> has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the ADO has<br />
established an anti-doping rule violati<strong>on</strong> to the comfortable satisfacti<strong>on</strong> of the hearing<br />
panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegati<strong>on</strong> which is made. This standard<br />
of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof bey<strong>on</strong>d a<br />
reas<strong>on</strong>able doubt (Article 3.1)<br />
• Where the WADA Code places the burden of proof <strong>on</strong> the athlete alleged to have<br />
committed an anti-doping rule violati<strong>on</strong> to rebut a presumpti<strong>on</strong>, the standard of proof<br />
shall be by a balance of probability, except if provided otherwise (Article 3.1)<br />
• Facts related to anti-doping rule violati<strong>on</strong>s may be established by any reliable means,<br />
including admissi<strong>on</strong>s (Article 3.2)<br />
‣ Testim<strong>on</strong>ies (CAS 2004/O/645 USADA v. Tim M<strong>on</strong>tgomery, CAS 2004/O/649<br />
USADA v. Chryste Gaines)<br />
‣ Athlete’s biological passport (CAS 2010/A/2174 Francesco De B<strong>on</strong>is v. CONI &<br />
UCI, CAS 2010/A/2235 UCI v. Tadej Valjavec & OCS)<br />
‣ DNA analysis (TAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde c. CONI)