Changes to the Code and International Standard for Testing 2009

Major differences in the 2009 Code 

Sanctions
The 2009 Code provides for an increase of sanctions in doping cases, involving aggravating circumstances to extend the period of ineligibility in anti-doping rule violations. This includes an athlete having used multiple prohibited substances or a prohibited substance on multiple occasions or an Athlete engaging in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or ad justification of an anti-doping rule violation (Article 10.6).
The 2003 Code allowed for a 2-year ban for a first serious anti-doping rule violation excluding cases of trafficking or administration of a prohibited method or substance (4-year ban). The 2009 Code broadens the spectrum of anti-doping rule violations that can lead to a 4-year ban; as a matter of fact the 2009 Code provides that almost any anti-doping rule violation involving aggravating circumstances can lead to a 4-year ban.

Greater flexibility
Regardless of the ban period extension, the new 2009 Code also provides a greater flexibility related to sanctions in general. The following criteria will be crucial in imposing sanctions in doping cases: the presence or absence of aggravating, specific or exceptional circumstances, the degree of Athlete`s fault, voluntary admission of anti-doping rule violation etc. These factors may to a certain degree enhance or lessen sanctions imposed on Athletes.

Specified Substances
Furthermore the definition of “specified substances” changed with the use of the 2009 Code. (Articles 4.2.2 and 10.4).For the purpose of greater flexibility in regard to sanctions all prohibited substances, except anabolic agents, stimulants, beta-2 agonists and modulators shall be included in “specified substances” class. This means that where an athlete can establish how a specified substance entered his/her body and that such specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance, the sanctions may be reduced to a minimum and no period of ineligibility.

Greater Harmonization
The 2003 Code did not set requirements as to the number of missed tests that should lead to a potential anti-doping rule violation leaving it to ant- doping organizations. The 2009 Code now provides any combination of three missed tests or failures by an Athlete to provide accurate whereabouts information within an 18-month period shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.4). Also sanctions envisaged for such anti-doping rule violation have been enhanced. While the original Code allowed for sanctions ranging from three months to two years, the revised Code sets the period of ineligibility at a minimum of one year to a maximum of two years, based on the athlete`s degree of fault (Article 10.3.3).

Accelerated Management of Doping Cases
International Standard for Laboratories has also undergone some changes, now the period between analyses of the A- and B-samples has been reduced and constitutes 7 days at a maximum. In case of adverse analytical finding through analysis of the A-sample it shall immediately be followed by mandatory provisional suspension from competitions. 

Atypical Finding
The 2009 Code introduces the concept “atypical finding” (Article 7.3). Anti-doping laboratories are directed to report the presence of a prohibited substance, which may be produced endogenously, as an atypical finding, which is subject to further investigation. Following such finding an anti-doping organization shall conduct its own investigation and specify whether or not the atypical finding will be brought forward as an adverse analytical finding. 

WADA`s right of Appeal 
The revised Code also clarifies WADA`s right to appeal directly to CAS (the Court of Arbitration for Sport) any case in which an anti-doping organization fails to render a decision with respect to whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed within a reasonable deadline, as if the anti- doping organization had rendered a decision finding no anti-doping rule violation. Article 13.3) 

Financial Sanctions 
Financial Sanctions are officially acknowledged as a tool of fighting against doping in sport and in line with the 2009 Code may be imposed in addition to other sanctions. (Article 10.12).Furthermore the Code states that an athlete after being found to have commited an anti-doping rule violation must in a mandatory manner repay all prize money. No financial sanctions shall justify a reduction in the period of ineligibility.

Education Programs
The 2009 Code makes it mandatory for all anti-doping organizations to implement anti-doping education programs (Article 18.1). 

The right to public disclosure of any alleged statements or comments in relation to anti-doping issues.
Whereas the 2003 Code did not authorize anti-doping organizations to comment on any details of anti-doping case hearings until it has been over, the new clause allows WADA and other anti-doping organizations to react to erroneous or false information attributed to athletes, athletes’ representative or to other concerned individuals.

Key changes in International Standard for Testing (2009 IST)
The information is taken from Play True Magazine published by WADA. The revised or new Standards will come into force at the same time as the revised Code on January 1, 2009 
The IST provides structure and guidance for the planning of effective testing, and maintenance of the integrity and identity of samples, from athlete notification to the delivery of samples to the laboratory for the analysis.
The revision of the IST was done over four phases of consultation, with the final version being approved by WADA`s Executive Committee on May 10, 2008.
The 2009 IST includes new clauses addressing:
- establishing a registered testing pool
- management of athletes’ whereabouts information, which is essential to no-advance notice out-of-competition testing.
The 2009 IST requires athletes who are included into NADO`s RTP to:
1 Provide whereabouts information and be subject to testing 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year
2 Provide residential, training and competition information, as well as an overview of regular activities, and plans to travel
3 Submit quarterly whereabouts information, and regular updates
4 Specify one hour each day (between 6 a. m. and 11 p.m.) during which they can be located at a specified location for testing. This does not limit the time in which an athlete may be tested. He or she may still be tested at any time, 24 hours a day. (But, to mitigate the difficulty in accounting for one`s whereabouts 24 hours a day one quarter in advance, the athlete`s exposure to the risk of a missed test is limited to the 60-minute time-slot each day.
Under Articles 2.4 (Whereabouts information), Article 2.3 (Evading sample collection) and 2.5 (Tampering with any part of the doping control, including providing fraudulent information to an ADO) of the revised Code sanctions may be applied to pursue athletes seeking to evade the system outside the 60-minute time-slot.

Registered Testing Pool (RTP)
Only those athletes identified in their ADO`s RTP are subject to whereabouts provision set out in the revised IST. Provisions regarding whereabouts responsibilities and missed tests accountability identified in the IST apply only to those athletes who are at the highest risk for out-of-competition doping. International Federations (IFs) are afforded discretion as to who should be subject to these provisions based on a risk assessment they have made in the sport. National Anti-Doping Organizations are afforded discretion to create a RTP that will support an effective out-of-competition testing program at the national level. 

Mutual Recognition
Under the 2009 IST, Code signatories must inform WADA and other relevant ADOs of missed tests and whereabouts failures they have declared against athletes, preferably through ADAMS. The other ADOs with jurisdiction over the athlete must recognize those decisions. If they fail to do so, WADA can intervene by way of appeal.

Team Sports
A number of team sports suggested that there are inherent differences between team sports and individual sports that lead to creation of Article 11.5 which confirms the following:
1. RTPs in team sports can be defined by reference to teams (so that it is some or all of the players on a particular team or teams who are in the RTP)
2. Much of the whereabouts information filed for players on those teams will be collective “team activity” information
3. Point 2 shows that fillings will be made by team officials on a collective basis rather than on an individual basis.
However, to maintain equal treatment for all athletes, players in team sports are not exempt from the standard whereabouts requirements and shall follow them. An athlete in a team sport will be notified of a missed test if he or she is not where the team official said he or she would be during the 60-minute time-slot. The liability ultimately resides with the athlete and therefore will not be excused of his or her responsibilities by blaming the team for filling inaccurate information about his or her whereabouts.

Volume of Urine Required
While the original IST required that at least 75 ml of urine, the minimum volume required under the 2009 IST became 90 ml (pouring 60 ml in the A sample bottle and 30 ml in the B sample bottle).
The increase in volume required specifically responds to requests made by laboratories to ensure that enough urine is available to analyze for the growing number of prohibited substances and where longitudinal follow-up requires a greater volume. 

Urine Acid value
The revised IST does not require to measure urine acid value. It requires to measure the volume of urine (suitable specific gravity for analysis)- minimum 1,005 with refractometer, 1,010 –with strips (the same as in the previous IST).