IFMA INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MUAYTHAI AMATEUR Anti-Doping Rules are based on Wada’s Models of Best Practice for International Federations and the World Anti-Doping Code. Valid from 1.1.2015 IFMA Anti-Doping Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE FOR THE CODE AND IFMA'S ANTI-DOPING RULES .............................................. 2 SCOPE OF THESE ANTI-DOPING RULES ............................................................................................................. 3 ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING .................................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS ...................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING ........................................................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST ...................................................................................................................... 11 ARTICLE 5 TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 15 ARTICLE 6 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES ................................................................................................................... 26 ARTICLE 7 RESULTS MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................. 28 ARTICLE 8 RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING ............................................................................................................. 36 ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS............................................................. 38 ARTICLE 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS ......................................................................................................... 38 ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS ............................................................................................................ 51 ARTICLE 12 SANCTIONS AND COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST SPORTING BODIES .................................................... 51 ARTICLE 13 APPEALS .......................................................................................................................................... 53 ARTICLE 14 CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORTING ............................................................................................... 57 ARTICLE 15 APPLICATION AND RECOGNITION OF DECISIONS ........................................................................... 61 ARTICLE 16 INCORPORATION OF IFMA ANTI-DOPING RULES AND OBLIGATIONS OF NATIONAL FEDERATIONS 62 ARTICLE 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................. 63 ARTICLE 18 IFMA COMPLIANCE REPORTS TO WADA ......................................................................................... 63 ARTICLE 19 EDUCATION..................................................................................................................................... 63 ARTICLE 20 AMENDMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF ANTI-DOPING RULES ...................................................... 63 ARTICLE 21 INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE ...................................................................................................... 65 ARTICLE 22 ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ATHLETES AND OTHER PERSONS .......................... 65 APPENDIX 1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 68 APPENDIX 2 EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 10 ............................................................................ 77 APPENDIX 3 CONSENT FORM ............................................................................................................................. 83 IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 1 IFMA ANTI-DOPING RULES INTRODUCTION Preface At its Executive Board meeting held in Bangkok, IFMA accepted the revised (2015) World Anti-Doping Code (the "Code"). The IFMA Anti-Doping Rules are adopted and implemented in accordance with IFMA's responsibilities under the Code, and in furtherance of IFMA's continuing efforts to eradicate doping in sport. These Anti-Doping Rules are sport rules governing the conditions under which sport is played. Aimed at enforcing anti-doping principles in a global and harmonized manner, they are distinct in nature from criminal and civil laws, and are not intended to be subject to or limited by any national requirements and legal standards applicable to criminal or civil proceedings. When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral tribunals and other adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of these Anti-Doping Rules implementing the Code and the fact that these rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world as to what is necessary to protect and ensure fair sport. Fundamental Rationale for the Code and IFMA's Anti-Doping Rules Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as "the spirit of sport". It is the essence of Olympism, the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents. It is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:  Ethics, fair play and honesty  Health  Excellence in performance  Character and education  Fun and joy  Teamwork  Dedication and commitment  Respect for rules and laws  Respect for self and other Participants  Courage  Community and solidarity Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport. IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 2 Scope of these Anti-Doping Rules These Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to IFMA and to each of its National Federations. They also apply to the following Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons, each of whom is deemed, as a condition of his/her membership, accreditation and/or participation in the sport, to have agreed to be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, and to have submitted to the authority of IFMA to enforce these Anti-Doping Rules and to the jurisdiction of the hearing panels specified in Article 8 and Article 13 to hear and determine cases and appeals brought under these Anti- Doping Rules: a. all Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel who are members of IFMA, or of any National Federation, or of any member or affiliate organization of any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues); b. all Athletes and Athlete Support Personnel participating in such capacity in Events, Competitions and other activities organized, convened, authorized or recognized by IFMA, or any National Federation, or any member or affiliate organization of any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues), wherever held; c. any other Athlete or Athlete Support Personnel or other Person who, by virtue of an accreditation, a licence or other contractual arrangement, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of IFMA, or of any National Federation, or of any member or affiliate organization of any National Federation (including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues), for purposes of anti-doping; To be eligible for participation in International Events, a competitor must have an IFMA licence issued by IFMA. The IFMA licence will only be issued to competitors who have signed the Consent Form in Appendix 3 of these Rules. All Minors must complete a physical form which must be counter-signed by their legal guardians and d. Athletes who are not regular members of IFMA or of one of its National Federations but who want to be eligible to compete in a particular International Event. IFMA may include such Athletes in its Registered Testing Pool so that they are required to provide information about their whereabouts for purposes of Testing under these Anti-Doping Rules for at least one month prior to the International Event in question. Within the overall pool of Athletes set out above who are bound by and required to comply with these Anti-Doping Rules, the following Athletes shall be considered to be International-Level Athletes for purposes of these Anti-Doping Rules, and therefore the specific provisions in these Anti-Doping Rules applicable to International-Level Athletes (as regards Testing but also as regards TUEs, whereabouts information, results management, and appeals) shall apply to such Athletes: a. Athletes who participate in IFMA International Events indicated by IFMA on its website (such as Continental and World Championships) IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 3 ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.10 of these Anti-Doping Rules. ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti-doping rule violations. Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules have been violated. Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti- doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List. The following constitute anti-doping rule violations: 2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample 2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1. [Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to an Athlete’s Fault. This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.] 2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is split into two bottles and the analysis of the second bottle confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first bottle. IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 4 [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.] 2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a quantitative threshold is specifically identified in the Prohibited List, the presence of any quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. 2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, the Prohibited List or International Standards may establish special criteria for the evaluation of Prohibited Substances that can also be produced endogenously. 2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method [Comment to Article 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 Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of the Athlete Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. 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 Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.] 2.2.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti- doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method. 2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed. [Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Athlete’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 Article 2.1 and violations of Article 2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 5 An Athlete’s “Use” of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Athlete’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 Article 2.1 regardless of when that substance might have been administered).] 2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection Evading Sample collection, or without compelling justification refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorized in these Anti-Doping Rules or other applicable anti-doping rules. [Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that an Athlete 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 Athlete, while "evading" or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Athlete.] 2.4 Whereabouts Failures Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, within a twelve-month period by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool. 2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control Conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting to interfere with a Doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an Anti- Doping Organization, or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness. [Comment to Article 2.5: For example, this Article 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 involved in Doping Control which does not otherwise constitute Tampering shall be addressed in the disciplinary rules of sport organizations.] 2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Out- of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Athlete establishes IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 6 that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification. 2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification. [Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would not include, for example, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’s prescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child.] [Comment to Article 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would include, for example, a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances for dealing with acute and emergency situations.] 2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method 2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete In- Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete Out-of- Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is prohibited Out-of-Competition 2.9 Complicity Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.12.1 by another Person. 2.10 Prohibited Association Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti- Doping Organization in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Athlete Support Person who: 2.10.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization, is serving a period of Ineligibility; or 2.10.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization and where Ineligibility has not been addressed in a results management process pursuant to the Code, has been convicted or found in a criminal, IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 7 disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which would have constituted a violation of anti-doping rules if Code-compliant rules had been applicable to such Person. The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or 2.10.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2. In order for this provision to apply, it is necessary that the Athlete or other Person has previously been advised in writing by an Anti-Doping Organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete or other Person, or by WADA, of the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status and the potential Consequence of prohibited association and that the Athlete or other Person can reasonably avoid the association. The Anti-Doping Organization shall also use reasonable efforts to advise the Athlete Support Person who is the subject of the notice to the Athlete or other Person that the Athlete Support Person may, within 15 days, come forward to the Anti-Doping Organization to explain that the criteria described in Articles 2.10.1 and 2.10.2 do not apply to him or her. (Notwithstanding Article 17, this Article applies even when the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying conduct occurred prior to the effective date provided in Article 20.7.) The burden shall be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association with Athlete Support Personnel described in Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2 is not in a professional or sport-related capacity. Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1, 2.10.2, or 2.10.3 shall submit that information to WADA. [Comment to Article 2.10: Athletes and other Persons must not work with coaches, trainers, physicians or other Athlete Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of an anti-doping rule violation or who have been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined in relation to doping. Some examples of the types of association which are prohibited include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodily products for analysis; or allowing the Athlete Support Person to serve as an agent or representative. Prohibited association need not involve any form of compensation.] IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 8 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof IFMA shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether IFMA has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability. [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by IFMA is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.] 3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. The following rules of proof shall be applicable in doping cases: [Comment to Article 3.2: For example, IFMA may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the Comments to Article 2.2, or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Athlete’s blood or urine Samples, such as data from the Athlete Biological Passport.] 3.2.1 Analytical methods or decision limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. Any Athlete or other Person seeking to rebut this presumption of scientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. CAS on its own initiative may also inform WADA of any such challenge. At WADA’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge. Within 10 days of WADA’s receipt of such notice, and WADA’s receipt of the CAS file, WADA shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear amicus curiae, or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding. 3.2.2 WADA-accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved by WADA, are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories. The Athlete or other Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for IFMA Anti-Doping Rules 9