IPC Anti-Doping Code. Article 15 - Doping control responsibilities

15.1 Results Management, Hearings and Sanctions

Except as provided in Article 15.1.1 below, results management and hearings shall be the responsibility of and shall be governed by the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed Sample collection (or, if no Sample collection is involved, the organization which discovered the violation). If that Anti-Doping Organization does not have the authority to conduct results management, then results management authority shall default to the IPC. Regardless of which organization conducts results management or hearings, the principles set forth in Articles 7 and 8 shall be respected.

[Comment to Article 15.1: In some cases, the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization which initiated and directed the Sample collection may specify that results management will be handled by another organization (e.g., the Athlete's National Federation). In such Event, it shall be the Anti-Doping Organization's responsibility to confirm that the other organization's rules are consistent with the
Code.

The Athlete's or other Person's International Federation, or the IPC, has been made the authority of last resort for results management to avoid the possibility that no Anti-Doping Organization would have authority to conduct results management. Of course, an International Federation is free to provide in its own Anti-Doping rules that the Athlete's or other Person's National Federation shall conduct results management.]

15.1.1 Results management and the conduct of hearings for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation arising from a test by, or discovered by, a National Anti-Doping Organization involving an Athlete who is not a national, resident, license-holder or member of a Sport organization of that country shall be administered by the International Federation. Results management and the conduct of hearings from a test by a Major Event Organization, shall be referred to the applicable International Federation or the IPC as far as sanctions beyond Disqualification from the Event or the results of the Event.

[Comment to Article 15.1.1: No absolute rule is established for managing results and conducting hearings where a National Anti-Doping Organization tests a foreign national Athlete over whom it would have had no jurisdiction but for the Athlete's presence in the National Anti-Doping Organization's country. Under this Article, the IPC leaves it to

the International Federation to determine under its own rules whether, for example, management of the case should be referred to the Athlete's National Anti-Doping Organization, remain with the Anti-Doping Organization that collected the Sample, or be taken over by the International Federation.]

15.2  Mutual Recognition

The IPC shall recognize and respect the Testing, TUEs and hearing results or other final adjudications of any Signatory to the WADC, and of any other bodies which have not accepted the WADC if the rules of those bodies are otherwise consistent with the WADC, provided they are consistent with the WADC and within that Signatory's authority.

[Comment to Article 15.2: There has in the past been some confusion in the interpretation of this Article with regard to Therapeutic use Exemptions. Unless authorized by the IPC, or provided for by the rules of an International Federation or an agreement with an International Federation, NPCs or National Anti-Doping Organizations do not have "authority" to grant Therapeutic use Exemptions to International-Level Athletes.

Where the decision of a body that has not accepted the WADC is in some respects WADC compliant and in other respects not WADC compliant, the IPC will attempt to apply the decision in harmony with the principles of the WADC. For example, if in a process consistent with the WADC a non-Signatory has found an Athlete 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 the WADC, then all Signatories should recognize the finding of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and the Athlete's National Anti-Doping Organization should conduct a hearing consistent with WADC Article 8 to determine whether the longer period of Ineligibility provided in the Code should be imposed.]