Datasets:

timotheeplanes

/

doping

like 1

35 [Comment to Article 7.7: Conduct by an Athlete or other Person before the Athlete or other Person was subject to the authorit y of any Anti -Doping Organization would not constitute an anti -doping rule violation but could be a legitimate basis for denying th e Athlete or other Person membership in a sports organization.]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 28 subject to these Anti -Doping Rules, has committed an anti -doping rule violation and, if applicable, to impose relevant Consequences .

8.1.1.2 WT shall ensure that the WT Hearing Panel is free of conflict of interest and that its composition, term of office , professional experience, Operational Independence and adequate financing comply with the requirements of the International Standard for Results Management .

8.1.1.3 Board members, staff members, commission members, consultants and officials of WT or its affiliates (e.g.

MNA s or confederation), as well as any Person involved in the investigation and pre -adjudication of the matter, cannot be appointed as members and/or clerks (to the extent that such clerk is involved in the deliberation process and/or drafting of any decision) of the WT Hearing Panel .

In particular, no member shall have previously considered any TUE application, Results Management decision, or appeals in the same given case.

8.1.1.4 The WT Hearing Panel shall consist of an independent Chair and f our (4) other independent members.

8.1.1.5 Each member shall be appointed by taking into consideration their requisite anti -doping experience including their legal, sports, medical and/or scientific expertise.

Each member shall be appointed for a once renewabl e term of three (3) years.

8.1.1.

6 The WT Hearing Panel shall be in a position to conduct the hearing and decision -making process without interference from WT or any third party.

8.1.2 Hearing Process 8.1.2.1 When WT sends a notice to an Athlete or other Person notifying them of a potential anti -doping rule violation, and the Athlete or other Person does not waive a hearing in accordance with Article 8.3.1 or Article 8.3.2 , then the case shall be referred to the WT Hearing Panel for hearing and adjudication , whic h shall be conducted in accordance with the principles described in Article s 8 and 9 of the International Standard for Results Management .

8.1.2.2 The Chair shall appoint either three (3) members (which may include the Chair) or a single adjudicator , which can be the Chair, to hear a case , depending on the nature of the charge and the evidence put forward .

When three members are appointed to hear a case, one (1) panel member shall be a qualified lawyer , with no less than three (3) years of relevant legal experience , and one (1) panel member shall be a qualified medical practitioner , with no less than three (3) years of relevant medical experience.

If a single adj udicator is appointed, he/she shall have a legal background .

8.1.2.3 Upon appointment by the Chair as a member of the WT Hearing Panel , each member must also sign a declaration that there are no facts or circumstances known to him or her which might call into question their WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 29 impartiality in the eyes of any of the parties, other than those circumstances disclosed in the declaration.

8.1.2.4 Hearings held in connection with Event s in respect to Athletes and other Persons who are subject to these Anti -Doping Rules may be conducted by an expedited process where permitted by the WT Hearing Panel .36 8.1.2.5 WADA , the MNA and the National Anti -Doping Organization of the Athlete or other Person may attend the hearing as observers.

In any event, WT shall keep them fully apprised as to the status of pending cases and the result of all hearings.

8.2 Notice of Decisions 8.2.1 At the end of the hearing, or promptly thereafter, the WT Hearing Panel shall issue a written decision that conforms with Article 9 of the International Standard for Results Management and which i ncludes the full reasons for the decision , the period of Ineligibility imposed , the Disqualificati on of results under Article 10.10 and, if applicable , a justification for why the greatest potential Consequences were not imposed.

8.2.2 WT shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3 , and shall promptly report it into ADAMS .

The decision may be appealed as provided in Article 13.

8.3 Waiver of Hearing 8.3.1 An Athlete or other Person against whom an anti -doping rule violation is asserted may waive a hearing expressly and agree with the Consequences proposed by WT.

8.3.2 However , if the Athlete or other Person against whom an anti -doping rule violation is asserted fails to dispute that assertion within twenty ( 20) days or the deadline otherwise specified in the notice sent by the WT asserting the violation, then they shall be deemed to have waived a hearing, to have admitted the violation, and to have accepted the proposed Consequences .

8.3.3 In cases where Article 8.3.1 or 8.3.2 applies, a hearing before the WT Hearing Panel shall not be required.

Instead WT shall promptly issue a written decision that conforms with Article 9 of the International Standard for Results Management and which includes the full reasons for the decision, the period of Ineligibility imposed, the Disqualification of results under Arti cle 10.10 and, if applicable, a justification for why the greatest potential Consequences were not imposed.

8.3.4 WT shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3 , and shall promptly report it into ADAMS .

WT shall Publicly Disclose that decision in accordance with Article 14.3.2.

36 [Comment to Article 8.1.2.4: For example, a hearing could be expedited on the eve of a major Event where the resolution of th e anti-doping rule violation is necessary to determine the Ath lete's eligibility to participate in the Event, or during an Event where the resolution of the case will affect the validity of the Athlete 's results or continued participation in the Event.]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 30 8.4 Single Hearing Before CAS Anti-doping rule violations asserted against International -Level Athletes , National -Level Athletes or other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person , WT (where it has Results Management responsibility in accordance with Article 7) and WADA , be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS.37 ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS An anti -doping rule violation in Individual Sports in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition with all resulting Consequences , including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.38 ARTICLE 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS 10.1 Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an Anti -Doping Rule Violation Occurs 10.1.1 An anti -doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event , lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete's individual results obtained in that Event with all Consequences , including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.

2.

Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might include, for example, the seriousness of the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Athlete tested negative in the other Competitions .39 10.1.

2 If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Athlete's individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified , unless the Athlete's results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti -doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affe cted by the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation.

37 [Comment to Article 8.4: In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international or national level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial.

Where all of the parties identified in this Articl e are satisfied that t heir interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need for the Athlete or Anti -Doping Organizations to incur the extra expense of two (2) hearings.

An Anti -Doping Organization may participate in the CAS hearing as an observer.

Nothing set out in Article 8.4 precludes the Athlete or other Person and WT (where it has Results Management responsibility) to waive their right to appeal by agreement.

Such waiver, however, only binds the parties to such agreement a nd not any other entity with a right of appeal under the Code.]

38 [Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual players will be Disqualified.

However, Disqualifica tion of the team will be as provided in Article 11.

In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams, Disqua lification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti -doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the International Federation.]

39 [Comment to Article 10.1.1: Whereas Artic le 9 Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Athlete tested positive (e.g., the 100 meter backstroke), this Article may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g ., the swimming World Championships).]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 31 10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use , or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7: 10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility , subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where: 10.2.1.1 The anti -doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method , unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional.40 10.2.1.2 The anti -doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance or a Specified Method and WT can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was intentional.

10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, subject to Article 10.2.4.1, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years.

10.2.3 As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti -doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti -doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.

An anti -doping rule violation resulting f rom an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably presumed to be not “intentional ” if the substance is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition .

An anti -doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional ” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the Athlete can est ablish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.41 10.2.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in Article 10.2, where the anti -doping rule violation involves a Substance of Abuse : 10.2.4.1 If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period of Ineligibility shall be three (3) months Ineligibility .

In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the Athlete or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by WT.

The period of Ineligibility established in this 40 [Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional without showing how the Prohibited Substance entered one’s system, it is highly unlikely that in a doping case under Article 2.1 an Athlete will be successful in proving that the Athlete acted unintentionally without establi shing the source of the Prohibited Substance.]

41 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definitio n of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 32 Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Article 10.6.42 10.2.4.2 If the ingestion, Use or Possession occurred In-Competition , and the Athlete can establish that the context of the ingestion, Use or Possession was unrelated to sport performance, then the ingestion, Use or Possession shall not be considered intentional for purposes of Article 10.2.1 and shall not pr ovide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumstances under Article 10.4.

10.3 Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations The period of Ineligibility for anti -doping rule violations other than as provided in Article 10.2 shall be as follows, unless Article 10.

6 or 10.

7 are applicable: 10.3.1 For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four (4) years except: (i) in the c ase of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can establish that the commission of the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years; (ii) in all other cases, if the Athlete or other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a red uction of the period of Ineligibility , the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range from two (2) years to four (4) years depending on the Athlete or other Person ’s degree of Fault ; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete , the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range between a maximum of two (2) years and, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete ’s degree of Fault .

10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault .

The flexibility between two (2) years and one (1) year of Ineligibility in this Article is not available to Athletes where a pattern of last -minute whereabouts changes or other conduct raises a serious suspicion that the Athlete was trying to avoid being available for Testing .

10.3.3 For violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation.

An Article 2.7 or Article 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person shall be considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Athlete Support Personnel for violations other than for Specified Substances , shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Athlete Support Personnel .

In addition, significant violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non -sporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.43 42 [Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the treatment program is approved and whether the Athlete or other Person has satisfactorily completed the pro gram shall be made in the sole discretion of WT.

This Article is intended to give WT the leeway to apply their own judgment to identify and approve legitimate and reputable, as opposed to “sham”, treatment programs.

It is anticipated, however, that the characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widely and change ov er time s uch that it would not be practical for WADA to develop mandatory criteria for acceptable treatment programs.]

43 [Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions wh ich are more sever e than the Athletes who test positive.

Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited to Ineligibility for accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important ste p in the deterrence of doping.]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 33 10.3.4 For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation.

10.3.5 For violations of Article 2.10, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum o f one (1) year, depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.44 10.3.6 For violations of Article 2.11, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation by the Athlete or other Person .45 10.4 Aggravating Circumstances which may Increase the Period of Ineligibility If WT establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations under Article 2.7 ( Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking ), 2.8 ( Administration or Attempted Administration ), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity ) or 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting) that Aggravating Circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be increased by an addition al period of Ineligibility of up to two (2) years depending on the seriousness of the violation and the nature of the Aggravating Circumstances , unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti -doping rule v iolation.46 10.5 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence , then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.47 10.6 Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence 44 [Comment to Article 10.3.5: Where the “other Person” referenced in Article 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that enti ty may be disciplined as provided in Article 12.]

45 [Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities ) shall be sanctioned based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction .]

46 [Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration or Attemp ted Administration), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) and 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or R etaliate Against Reporting to Authorities ) are not included in the application of Article 10.4 because the sanctions for these violations already build in sufficient discretion up to a lifetime ban to allow consideration of any Aggravating Circumstance.]

47 [Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti -doping rule violation has occurred.

They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.

Co nversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vi tamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been wa rned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and (c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or ot her Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).

However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No S ignificant Fault or Negligence. ]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 34 10.6.1 Reduction of Sanctions in Particular Circumstances for Violations of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6.

All reductions under Article 10.6 .1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative.

10.6.1.1 Specified Substances or Specified Methods Where the anti -doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse ) or Specified Method , and the Athlete or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a min imum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility , depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault .

10.6.1.2 Contaminated Products In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse ) came from a Contaminated Product , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility , depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault .48 10.6.1.3 Protected Persons or Recreational Athletes Where the anti -doping rule violation not involving a Substance of Abuse is committed by a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete , and the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence , then the period of Inelig ibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility , depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete ’s degree of Fault .

10.6.2 Application of No Significant Fault or Negligence beyond the Application of Article 10.6.1 If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Article 10.6.1 is not applicable that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence , then, subject to fu rther reduction or elimination as provided in Article 10.

7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced based on the Athlete or other Perso n’s degree of Fault , but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one -half of the period of Ineligibility 48 [Comment to Article 10.6.1.2: In order to receive the benefit of this Article, the Athlete or other Person must establish not only that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, but must also s eparately establish No Significant Fault or Negligence.

It should be further noted that Athletes are on notice that they take nutritional supplements at their own risk.

The sanction reduction based on No Significant Fault or Negligence has rarely been appl ied in Contaminated Product cases unless the Athlete has exercised a high level of caution before taking the Contaminated Product.

In assessing whether the Athlete ca n establish the source of the Prohibited Substance, it would, for example, be significant for purposes of establishing whether the Athlete actually Used the Contaminated Product, whether the Athlete had declared the product which was subsequently determined to be contaminated on the Doping Control form.

This Article should not be extended bey ond products that have gone through some process of manufacturing.

Where an Adverse Analytical Finding results from environment contamination of a “non -product” such as tap water or lake water in circumstances where no reasonable person would expect any ri sk of an anti -doping rule violation, typically there would be No Fault or Negligence under Article 10.5.]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 35 otherwise applicable.

If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years.49 10.7 Elimination, Reduction, or Suspension of Period of Ineligibility or Other Consequences for Reasons Other than Fault 10.7.1 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Code Violations50 10.7.1.1 WT may, prior to an appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the Consequences (other than Disqualification and mandatory Public Disclosure ) imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organization , criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in: (i) the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or bringing forward an anti -doping rule violation by another Person ; or (ii) which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules committed by another Person and the information provided by the Person providing Substantial Assistance is made available to WT or other Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility ; or (iii) which results in WADA initiating a proceeding against a Signatory , WADA -accredited laboratory, or Athlete passport management unit (as defined in the International Standard for Laboratories ) for non -compliance with the Code , International Standard or Technical Document ; or (iv) with the approval by WADA , which results in a criminal or disciplinary body bringing forward a criminal offense or the breach of professional or sport rules arising out of a sport integrity violation other than doping .

After an appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, WT may only suspend a part of the otherwise applic able Consequences with the approval of WADA .

The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti -doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the signif icance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport, non -compliance with the Code and/or sport integrity violations.

No more than three -quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.

If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non -suspended period under this Article must be no less than eight (8) years.

For purposes of this paragraph, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall not include any period of Ineligibility that could be added under Article 10.9.3.2 of the se Anti -Doping Rules .

49 [Comment to Article 10.6.2: Article 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti -doping rule violation except those Articles where intent is an element of the anti -doping rule violation (e.g., Article 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.11) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Article 10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provided in an Article based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree o f Fault. ]

50 [Comment to Article 10.7.1: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti -doping rule violations to light is important to clean sport.]

WT 2021 Anti-Doping Rules 36 If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to provide Substantial Assistance , WT shall allow the Athlete or other Person to provide the information to it subject to a Without Prejudice Agreement .

If the Athlete or other Person fails to continue to cooperate and to provide the complete and credible Substantial Assistance upon which a suspension of Consequen ces was based, WT shall reinstate the original Consequences .

If WT decides to reinstate suspended Consequences or decides not to reinstate suspended Consequences , that decision may be appealed by any Person entitled to appeal under Article 13.

10.7.1.2 To further encourage Athlete s and other Person s to provide Substantial Assistance to Anti-Doping Organization s, at the request of WT or at the request of the Athlete or other Person who has , or has been asserted to have , committed an anti -doping rule viola tion, or other violation of the Code , WADA may agree at any stage of the Results Management process, including after an appellate decision under Article 13, to what it considers to be an appropriate suspension of the otherwise -applicable period of Ineligib ility and other Consequences .

In exceptional circumstances, WADA may agree to suspensions of the period of Ineligibility and other Consequences for Substantial Assistance greater than those otherwise provided in this Article, or even no period of Ineligibility , no mandatory Public Disclosure and/or no return of prize money or payment of fines or costs.

WADA ’s approval shall be subject to reinstatement of Consequences , as o therwise provided in this Article.

Notwithstanding Article 13, WADA ’s decisions in the context of this Article 10.7.1.2 may not be appealed.

10.7.1.3 If WT suspends any part of an otherwise applicable sanction because of Substantial Assistance , then notice providing justification for the decision shall be provided to the other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3 as provided in Article 14.

In unique circumstances where WADA determines that it would be in the best interest of anti -doping, WADA may authorize WT to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements limiting or delaying the disclosure of the Substantial Assistance agreement or the nature of Substantial Assistance being provided.

10.7.2 Admission of an Anti -Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti -doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample collection which could establish an anti-doping ru le violation (or, in the case of an anti -doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time of admission , then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one -half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.51 51 [Comment to Article 10.7.2: This Article is intended to apply when an Athlete or other Person comes forward and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where no Anti -Doping Organization is aware that an anti -doping rule violation might have been committed.