APPENDIX 2 REGULATION 21 APPENDIX 2. COMMENTS Comment 1 (Regulation 21.2.1.1): An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Regulation without regard to a Player’s Fault. This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. A Player’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Regulation 21.10. This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS. Comment 2 (Regulation 21.2.1.2): The Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analysed even if the Player does not request the analysis of the B Sample. Comment 3 (Regulation 21.2.2): 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 Regulation 21.3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Regulation 21.2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Player, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of the Player Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Regulation 21.2.1 (Presence). 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 Organisation provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample. Comment 4 (Regulation 21.2.2.2): Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Player’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 Regulation 21.2.1 (Presence) and violations of Regulation 21.2.2 (Use or Attempted Use) in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. A Player’s “Use” of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Player’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 Regulation 21.2.1 (Presence) regardless of when that substance might have been administered). Comment 5 (Regulation 21.2.3): For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that a Player 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 Player, while "evading" or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Player. Comment 6 (Regulation 21.2.5): For example, this Regulation would prohibit altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B bottle at the time of B Sample analysis, or altering a Sample by the addition of a foreign substance. Offensive conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person Last update: 14 January, 2015 402
World Rugby Handbook
To see the actual publication please follow the link above