Koodeks 2021

Maailma antidopingu koodeks on raamiks kogu puhast sporti kaitsvale süsteemile. Selle on heaks kiitnud kogu olümpialiikumine, samuti paljud maailma spordiorganid ja riiklikud dopinguvastased organisatsioonid. UNESCO spordis dopingu kasutamise vastase konventsiooni kaudu on seda tunnustanud enam kui 170 riiki. Eesti valitsus on juunis 2003. aastal allkirjastanud Kopenhaageni deklaratsiooni, millega riik tunnustab Maailma Antidopingu Agentuuri (WADA) põhimõtteid ning kohustub järgima WADA koodeksit.

 

Koodeks jõustus esimest korda 2004. aasta juulis. Esimesed muudatused hakkasid kehtima 1. jaanuaril 2009. Teine muudatuste kogum jõustus 1. jaanuaril 2015.
Dopinguvastastel organisatsioonidel on taas käes aeg koodeksile kriitiliselt otsa vaadata ning hinnata, millised osad toimivad, millised võiks olla tõhusamad. WADA on alustanud koodeksi konsultatsiooniga, esimene etapp lõppeb 31. märtsil. WADA on teinud ettepaneku mitte avada kõiki koodeksi peatükke, vaid täiendada teatud osi koodeksist, ettepanekud on 2021 World Anti-Doping Code Review: Questions to Discuss and Consider.

 

Allpool on toodud Eesti Antidopingu esialgsed kommentaarid, mis on saadud erinevatelt kohtumistelt ja allikatest – kommentaaride aluseks on võetud uut kehtima hakkavat andmekaitseregulatsiooni, Euroopa Liidu spordi töörühma dokumente, CAHAMA-grupis arutatut ning Euroopa Nõukogu antidopingu haridusekspertide rühma mõtteid. Nagu ka uue rahvusvahelise standardi konsultatsioonis, on EAD kommentaarid inglise keeles, et neid otse WADA-le edastada.

 

Esimene konsultatsioonietapp on lõppenud.

Vaata lõplikult esitatud kommentaare, suur tänu kõigile kaasamõtlejatele.

 

WADA kommentaarid koodeksi peatükkidele/teemadele EAD kommentaar
Article 2 – Fraudulent Conduct

Fraudulent Conduct Which Does Not Involve “Doping Control”. Address the problem of Athletes or Athlete Support Personnel lying or submitting fraudulent documents during an investigation or during the results management process. Perhaps this could be addressed in the definition of Tampering.

EADA fully supports the updating the definition of Tampering, involving the Fraudulent Conduct.
Article 2 – other suggestion EADA suggests to review the article 2.10 prohibited association and make it more efficient or explain better, why is this a valid anti-doping rule violation.
Article 5 – Whereabouts Information from Lower Level Athletes

Clarification that Anti-Doping Organizations may require whereabouts information from lower level Athletes. (Article 5.6 and definition of Athlete).

EADA fully supports the proposal. Furthermore, the definition of the Athlete should be elaborated and recreational-level athletes should be specified.

Also, the exception of the public disclosure Art 14.3.2 for the recreational-level athletes is only mentioned in the section of „definitions“. It could be noted also in the named Article, if reasonable.

Article 7 – Authority to Conduct Results Management

Authority to Conduct Results Management. Although the general principles of Results Management (Article 7) are well accepted, there is continuing debate involving which organizations have the right to conduct results management in different circumstances.

EADA disagrees there is a „continuing debate“. EADA has had examples, where the Results Management authority has been „transferred“ to another organisation fluently, based on strong arguments. EADA would appreciate if WADA can elaborate the type of debate in this matter.
Article 10 – Contaminated Products

Contaminated Products and Food Contamination (meat). The possibility to reduce the otherwise applicable sanction when an Adverse Analytical Finding has resulted from a contaminated product (10.5.1.2) continues to be a major focus of litigation under the 2015 Code. In particular, CAS Panels have not been consistent in explaining the evidence, which an Athlete must bring forward in order to establish the cause of contamination.

EADA agrees that if possible, the principles of sanctioning should be cleared. The process of standardisation in Europe could be followed to make the necessary changes (however, the standardisation process would take another 2-3 years)
Article 10 – No Significant Fault

Further Clarification of the Application of No Significant Fault. There have been some CAS Panels which have attempted to classify how the principle of No Significant Fault should be applied in different types of cases. We expect considerable debate about whether these classifications should be codified in a Code amendment or whether No Significant Fault should be left as a more general principle as is the case in the current Code.

EADA supports reviewing and clearing the principles of No Significant Fault.

If applicable, attention should be paid to the issue of education – if it is favourable when the athlete has had no education (CAS A2/2011 Foggo v National Rugby League) or if it is adverse when the athlete had the education (case at IAAF or at BWF).

Article 10 – Minors

Areas Where Minors Bear the Burden of Proof to Reduce a Sanction. Concern has been expressed that minors should not have the burden to establish that their use of a non-Specified Substance was not intentional to avoid a 4-year period of ineligibility (Article 10.2.1). Similarly, there is concern that minors should not bear the burden of establishing the source of a Prohibited Substance in their urine in order to mitigate a sanction.

EADA agrees that minors should not bear the burden of proof to reduce the sanction. However, there should be process in place, where all measures will be taken to find out, how the athlete got the access to the Prohibited Substances (also supplements).
Article 10 – Multiple Violations

Minor changes to the Multiple Violations article (Article 10.7) may be needed to address the situation where an Athlete commits another Anti-Doping Rule Violation while serving a period of ineligibility. Broadening the ability to consider prior unknown Anti-Doping Rule Violations might also be a good idea.

EADA asks to elaborate, what is meant by „Broadening the ability to consider prior unknown Anti-Doping Rule Violations might also be a good idea.“
Article 14 – Inconsistency within the Public Disclosure

There is an apparent inconsistency between Article 14.3.1 which says that an Anti-Doping Organization may publicly disclose the identity of an Athlete who has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Article 14.3.5 which says that no Anti-Doping Organization may comment on the specific facts of a pending case except in response to statements by the Athlete.

EADA strongly suggests to review the principles of the public disclosure, taking into account the athlete’s level and age, size of a country and a sports community etc.

Also, the exception of the public disclosure Art 14.3.2 for the recreational-level athletes is only mentioned in the section of „definitions“. It could be noted also in the named Article, if reasonable.

Article 18 – Education EADA, knowing the draft of the International Standard on Education, strongly supports the idea that the whole WADC (code) has to serve as the basis for clean sport culture, so the prevention and education have to be more emphasised as earlier.

WADA could consider if Art 18.4 (Coordination and Cooperation) should be updated with the procedure of the annual statistical reports about the educational activities and target groups reached (as is stated for testing in Art 14.4)

Article 20 – Responsibility of Officials

Responsibility of Officials to be Bound by the Code. Roles and Responsibilities of the different Anti-Doping Organizations (Articles 20.1-20.4) should require that all officials agree to be bound by the provisions of the Code. Consider requiring better tracking of Athlete Support Personnel. Also, consider imposing duty on Anti-Doping Organizations to investigate a matter when requested to do so by WADA.

EADA fully supports the need for better tracking of Athlete Support Personnel and overall improvement in the investigation procedures.
Article 20 – other suggestion It is suggested to add to the roles and responsibilities the following of the good governance principles, such as accountability, transparency, democracy and participation (or involvement of significant target groups).
Compliance – WADA’s Own Code Compliance EADA agrees that WADA’s own code compliance is of great importance and all measures should be taken asap to restore the WADA’s strong position within the sports community.
Compliance – Monitoring Compliance of Signatories’ Members

What precisely is expected of Signatories in terms of monitoring and enforcing Code compliance by their members/recognized bodies (in particular, clarification of the respective roles of IFs and NOCs/NPCs in monitoring and enforcing Code compliance by National Federations)?

EADA supports that International Federations should monitor and enforce code compliance by National Federations, especially in prevention and education.
Compliance – Good Governance Standards

Whether certain minimum good governance standards impacting anti-doping activities should be made a Code requirement for all Signatories.

(see the comment in „Other“) It is suggested to add to the roles and responsibilities (Art 20) the following of the good governance principles, such as accountability, transparency, democracy and participation (or involvement of significant target groups).
Compliance – Complicity

Whether individuals who are responsible for, or complicit in, non-compliance by a Signatory should be subject to sanction under the Code.

EADA proposes to look this idea together with revising the principle of Prohibited Association (Art 2.10)
Whistleblower Protection EADA fully support the objective of protecting whistleblowers against realiation and encourages any efforts in that direction.
Other suggestions 1) Part 1 – doping control should be rephrased into more general part, taking into account intelligence gathering, investigation and sacntioning.

2) In Definitions it should be defined, what is meant by Testing Pool (not just RTP), as the term is widely used in the draft International Standard of Education.