Page 408

World Rugby Handbook

APPENDIX 2 REGULATION 21 Comment 42 (Regulation 21.11.3): For example, the International Olympic Committee could establish rules which would require Disqualification of a team from the Olympic Games based on a lesser number of anti-doping rule violations during the period of the Games. Comment 43 (Regulation 21.13.1.2): CAS proceedings are de novo. Prior proceedings do not limit the evidence or carry weight in the hearing before CAS. Comment 44 (Regulation 21.13.1.3): Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of World Rugby’s process (for example, a first hearing) and no party elects to submit that decision to a post-hearing review, then WADA may bypass the remaining steps in World Rugby’s internal process and appeal directly to CAS. Comment 45 (Regulation 21.13.2.1): CAS decisions are final and binding except for any review required by law applicable to the annulment or enforcement of arbitral awards. Comment 46 (Regulation 21.13.2.4): This provision is necessary because since 2011, CAS rules no longer permit a Player the right to cross appeal when an Anti- Doping Organisation appeals a decision after the Player’s time for appeal has expired. This provision permits a full hearing for all parties. Comment 47 (Regulation 21.13.3): Given the different circumstances of each antidoping rule violation investigation and results management process, it is not feasible to establish a fixed time period for World Rugby to render a decision before WADA may intervene by appealing directly to CAS. Before taking such action, however, WADA will consult with World Rugby and give World Rugby an opportunity to explain why it has not yet rendered a decision. Comment 48 (Regulation 21.15.1): The extent of recognition of TUE decisions of other Anti-Doping Organisations shall be determined by Regulation 21.4.4 and the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. Comment 49 (Regulation 21.15.2): Where the decision of a body that has not accepted the Code is in some respects Code compliant and in other respects not Code compliant, World Rugby and its Member Unions shall attempt to apply the decision in harmony with the principles of the Code. For example, if in a process consistent with the Code a non-Signatory has found a Player to have committed an anti-doping rule violation on account of the presence of a Prohibited Substance in his body but the period of Ineligibility applied is shorter than the period provided for in these Anti-Doping Rules, then World Rugby shall recognise the finding of an antidoping rule violation and may conduct a hearing consistent with Regulation 21.8 to determine whether the longer period of Ineligibility provided in these Anti-Doping Rules should be imposed. Comment 50 (Regulation 21.22.1.2): With due regard to a Player’s human rights and privacy, legitimate anti-doping considerations sometimes require Sample collection late at night or early in the morning. For example, it is known that some Players use low doses of EPO during these hours so that it will be undetectable in the morning. Comment 51 (Definition of Fault): The criteria for assessing a Player’s degree of Fault is the same under all Regulations where Fault is to be considered. However, under Regulation 21.10.5.2, no reduction of sanction is appropriate unless, when the Last update: 14 January, 2015 408


World Rugby Handbook
To see the actual publication please follow the link above