Anti-Doping Alphabet Soup: Anti-Doping Rule Violations

Analytical ADRV

WADA defines an analytical ADRV as the “presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample,” or, in simpler terms, a positive test. However, not every positive test results in an ADRV. For example, an athlete with an approved Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for a medication containing a prohibited substance (such as insulin or certain stimulants) would not be in violation if they test positive for that substance.

Non-Analytical ADRVs

Non-analytical ADRVs encompass a broader range of conduct. According to WADA, “a non-analytical ADRV is a case in which an athlete or athlete support person (coach, trainer, manager, agent, medical staff, parent, etc.) commits another type of ADRV that does not involve the detection of a prohibited substance or prohibited method in a urine or blood sample from athletes.”

Below are some of the most common types of non-analytical ADRVs.

Tampering

The Code defines tampering as “intentional conduct which subverts the doping control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of prohibited methods.” In practical terms, this can include falsifying documents, procuring false witness testimony, offering or accepting bribes, interfering with sample analysis, or otherwise attempting to disrupt the testing or results management process.

A well-known example of tampering involved Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, whose 2018 confrontation with a Doping Control Officer (DCO) led to the destruction of a blood sample.

Complicity

Complicity includes “assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, or covering up” an ADRV committed by another person, whether actual or attempted. In the Alberto Salazar case, for instance, arbitrators found Dr. Jeffrey Brown complicit in Salazar’s possession of testosterone in connection with a testosterone experiment, among other violations.

Trafficking

Trafficking refers to “selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering or distributing a prohibited substance or prohibited method,” excluding legitimate medical use and permitted out-of-competition uses. High-profile investigations, including the USPS Pro Cycling Team case, have involved trafficking allegations. It was also a central issue in findings related to the state-sponsored doping scandal in Russia.

Evasion or Refusal

Evading sample collection, or refusing or failing to submit to testing without compelling justification, is treated as seriously as a positive test. This conduct constitutes an ADRV under the Code. In addition to tampering, refusal to provide a sample was a key component of the Sun Yang case.

Athletes are also expected to treat DCOs appropriately. Verbal abuse, threats, or other misconduct may be reviewed to determine whether it constitutes a failure to comply ADRV and may also be referred to a National Governing Body for disciplinary action. 

These obligations extend to athlete support personnel. Interfering with the doping control process, or encouraging an athlete to evade or refuse testing, can expose both the athlete and the support personnel to violations.

Administration

Administration involves “providing, supplying, supervising, facilitating, or otherwise participating in the use or attempted use” of a prohibited substance or method by another person. This provision most often applies to athlete support personnel, although it can apply to athletes as well. As with trafficking, it does not apply to legitimate medical treatment or permitted uses.

One example is the case involving Dr. Jeffrey Brown and the Nike Oregon Project, where an L-carnitine infusion given to an athlete exceeded the permitted volume limits.

Prohibited Association

The Code recognizes that athletes who cheat typically do not do so alone and that doping often involves networks of support personnel. To address this, athletes are prohibited from knowingly associating in a professional or sport-related capacity with individuals who are sanctioned and/or criminally convicted of doping. This disqualifying status remains in effect for six years from the criminal, professional, or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary, or professional sanction imposed. Examples of prohibited association include obtaining training, nutrition, or medical advice, and/or allowing the individual to serve as an agent or representative.

There are three types of prohibited association:

1. Associating in a professional or sport-related capacity with someone who is serving a sanction for an anti-doping rule violation.
2. Associating in a professional or sport-related capacity with someone who has been convicted or found in a criminal, disciplinary, or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which would have constituted an ADRV under the Code.
3. Associating in a professional or sport-related capacity with a person who is serving as a front or intermediary for such individuals.

To establish a violation, the anti-doping organization must show that the athlete knew of the individual’s disqualifying status. While organizations may provide notice of an individual’s disqualifying status, they are not required to do so before initiating a case.

Learn more about prohibited association here.

Whereabouts Failure

Athletes in USADA’s Registered Testing Pool (RTP) and Clean Athlete Program (CAP) must provide accurate and timely Whereabouts information. RTP athletes are subject to two types of Whereabouts Failures: Filing Failures and Missed Tests. Any combination of three Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests within a 12-month period may result in an ADRV, with a potential period of ineligibility of up to two years for a first violation.

Learn more about Whereabouts Failures here.