Simul with GM Ipatov live Monday at 19:00 CET
World Junior Chess Championship 2011
Participants boys
Participants girls
Live games
Official website
AAI videos and interviews
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 6
Commonwealth videos and interviews
Kamsky - Topalov
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Aronian - Grischuk
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Rapid 1
Rapid 2
Rapid 3
Rapid 4
Kramnik - Radjabov
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Rapid 1
Rapid 2
Rapid 3
Rapid 4
Blitz 1
Blitz 2
Blitz 3
Blitz 4
Discussions
Endorsements
Chessdom.com makes a real difference in the field of objective and reliable chess reporting.
George Mastrokoukos, CEO of ETCC 2007
Chessdom is setting new standards in organization and marketing of big chess events.
Milan Bozic
Gorenje Tournament Director
FIDE has published the new updated text of the anti doping rules to be applied to chess during the year 2010. This includes events such as the match Topalov - Anand and the Chess Olympiad 2010.
Here is the text of the document that can be found in pdf format here.
In furtherance of its role, Federation Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE), in close collaboration with the National Chess Federations (NCFs), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) dedicates its efforts to ensuring that in chess the spirit of Fair Play prevails, leads the fight against doping in sport and takes measures the goal of which is to prevent endangering the health of competitors. FIDE has accepted the World Anti Doping Code and its International Standards. For any matter that is not covered in these rules, the Code and the standards will prevail. Within FIDE the body responsible for the above is the Medical Commission.
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; it is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is characterized by the following values:
· 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.
These Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to FIDE, each NCF, and each Participant in the activities of FIDE or any of its NCF by virtue of the Participant's membership, accreditation, or participation in FIDE, its NCFs, or their activities or Events.
It is the responsibility of each NCF to ensure that all national-level Testing on the NCF's Players complies with these Anti-Doping Rules. In some countries, the NCF itself will be conducting the Doping Control described in these Anti-Doping Rules. In other countries, many of the Doping Control responsibilities of the NCF have been delegated or assigned by statute or agreement to a National Anti-Doping Organization. In those countries, references in these Anti-Doping Rules to the NCF shall apply, as appropriate, to the National Anti-Doping Organization.
Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.8 of these Anti-Doping Rules.
Players and 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:
[Comment to Article 2: 1The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute violations of anti-doping rules. Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules has been violated.]
2.1.1 It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Players 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 Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1.
[Comment to Article 2.1.1: For purposes of anti-doping violations involving the presence of a Prohibited Substance (or its Metabolites or Markers), these Anti-Doping Rules1 adopt the rule of strict liability which was found in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (“OMADC”) and the vast majority of pre-Code anti-doping rules. Under the strict liability principle, a Player is responsible, and an antidoping rule violation occurs, whenever a Prohibited Substance is found in a Player’s Sample. The violation occurs whether or not the Player intentionally or unintentionally used a Prohibited Substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. If the positive Sample came from an In-Competition test, then the results of that Competition are automatically invalidated (Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results)). However, the Player then has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if the Player can demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault (Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances)) or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance (Article 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances)). The strict liability rule for the finding of a Prohibited Substance in a Player’s Sample, with a possibility that sanctions may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all "clean" Players and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a Prohibited Substance entered a Player’s system through No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence on the Player’s part. It is important to emphasize that while the determination of whether the anti-doping rule violation has occurred is based on strict liability, the imposition of a fixed period of Ineligibility is not automatic. The strict liability principle set forth in these Anti-Doping Rules has been consistently upheld in the decisions of CAS.]
2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Player’s A Sample where the Player waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Player’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Player’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Player’s A Sample.
[Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility may in its discretion choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Player 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 a Player’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.
[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 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), 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 Player, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, 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 Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Player’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 requires proof of intent on the Player’s part. The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular antidoping 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.
A Player’s “Use” of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unless such substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Player’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 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers) regardless of when that substance might have been administered.)]
[Comment to Article 2.3: Failure or refusal to submit to Sample collection after notification was prohibited in almost all pre-Code anti-doping rules. This Article expands the typical pre-Code rule to include "otherwise evading Sample collection" as prohibited conduct. Thus, for example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation if it were established that a Player was hiding from a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of "refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Player, while "evading" Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Player.]
[Comment to Article 2.4: Separate whereabouts filing failures and missed tests declared under the rules of FIDE or any other Anti-Doping Organization with authority to declare whereabouts filing failures and missed tests in accordance with the International Standard for Testing shall be combined in applying this Article. In appropriate circumstances, missed tests or filing failures may also constitute an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.3 or Article 2.5.]
[Comment to Article 2.5: This Article prohibits conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. For example, altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B Bottle at the time of B Sample analysis or providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization.]
2.6.1 Possession by a Player In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by a Player Out-of- Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Player establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption (“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.
2.6.2 Possession by a Player Support Personnel In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by a Player Support Personnel Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance which is prohibited Out-of-Competition, in connection with a Player, Competition or training, unless the Player Support Personnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a TUE granted to a Player in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.
[Comment to Article 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.]
[Comment to Article 2: The Code does not make it an anti-doping rule violation for a Player or other Person to work or associate with Player Support Personnel who are serving a period of Ineligibility. However, FIDE may adopt its own specific policy which prohibit such conduct]
FIDE and its NCFs shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether FIDE or its NCF 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 Rules place the burden of proof upon the Player 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, except as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.6, where the Player must satisfy a higher burden of proof.
[Comment to Article 3.1: 1This standard of proof required to be met by FIDE or its NCFs is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. It has also been widely applied by courts and hearing panels in doping cases.]
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:
3.2.1 WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories. The Player or other Person may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.
[Comment to Article 3.2.1: 1The burden is on the Player or other Person to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. If the Player or other Person does so, the burden shifts to FIDE or its NCFs to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.]
If the Player or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then FIDE or its NCF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.
3.2.2 Departures from any other International Standard for Laboratories or other anti-doping rule or policy which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such results. If the Player or other Person establishes that a departure from another International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, then FIDE or its NCF shall have the burden to establish that such a departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation.
3.2.3 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Player or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Player or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.
3.2.4 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Player or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the Player’s or other Person’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions either from the hearing panel or from the Anti- Doping Organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation. [Comment to Article 3.2.4: Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances has been recognized in numerous CAS decisions.1]
These Anti-Doping Rules incorporate the Prohibited List which is published and revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the Code, and available on the WADA’s website at www.wada-ama.org.
4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List and/or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions shall go into effect under these Anti-Doping Rules three months after publication of the Prohibited List by WADA. As described in Article 4.2 of the Code, FIDE may request that WADA expand the Prohibited List for the sport of chess. FIDE may also request that WADA include additional substances or methods, which have the potential for abuse in the sport of chess, in the monitoring program described in Article 4.5 of the Code. As provided in the Code, WADA shall make the final decision on such requests by FIDE.
4.2.2 Specified Substances For purposes of the application of Article 10 (Sanctions on Individuals), all Prohibited Substances shall be “Specified Substances” except (a) substances in the classes of anabolic agents and hormones; and (b) those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List. Prohibited Methods shall not be Specified Substances.
[Comment to Article 4.2.2: In drafting the Code there was considerable debate among stakeholders over the appropriate balance between inflexible sanctions which promote harmonization in the application of the rules and more flexible sanctions which better take into consideration the circumstances of each individual case. This balance continued to be discussed in various CAS decisions interpreting the Code. After three years experience with the Code, the strong consensus of stakeholders is that while the occurrence of an anti-doping rule violation under Articles 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers) and 2.2 (Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) should still be based on the principle of strict liability, the Code sanctions should be made more flexible where the Player or other Person can clearly demonstrate that he or she did not intend to enhance sport performance. The change to Article 4.2 and related changes to Article 10 provide this additional flexibility for violations involving many Prohibited Substances. The rules set forth in Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances) would remain the only basis for eliminating or reducing a sanction involving anabolic steroids and hormones, as well as the stimulants and the hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List, or Prohibited Methods.]
Although WADA has recognized chess as a low risk sport, WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classification of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by a Player or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
[Comment to Article 4.3: The question of whether a substance meets the criteria in Article 4.3 (Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List) in a particular case cannot be raised as a defense to an anti-doping rule violation. For example, it cannot be argued that the Prohibited Substance detected would not have been performance enhancing in that particular sport. Rather, doping occurs when a substance on the Prohibited List is found in a Player’s Sample. Similarly, it cannot be argued that a substance listed in the class of anabolic agents does not belong in that class.]
4.4.1 Players with a documented medical condition requiring the use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method must first obtain a TUE. The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (Article 2.1), Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method (Article 2.2), Possession of Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods (Article 2.6) or Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (Article 2.8) consistent with the provisions of an applicable TUE issued pursuant to the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions shall not be considered an anti-doping rule violation. Players should check their medication with their NCF Medical Commission or their National Anti-Doping Organisation.
4.4.2 Players included by FIDE in its Registered Testing Pool and other Players participating in an International Event identified by FIDE must obtain a TUE from FIDE. However, for Players who have previously obtained a TUE from their National Anti-Doping Organisation, FIDE may recognize such a TUE and would not require a new TUE application at the FIDE level. The application for a TUE must be made as soon as possible (in the case of a Player in the Registered Testing Pool, this would be when he/she is first notified of his/her inclusion in the pool) and in any event (save in emergency situations) no later than 30 days before the Player’s participation in the Event. TUE granted by FIDE shall be reported to the Player's NCF, and to WADA through ADAMS.
4.4.3 Players outside the scope of Article 4.4.2 above must obtain a TUE from their National Anti-Doping Organization, by their NCF or other body designated by their NCF, as required under the rules of the National Anti-Doping Organization or the NCF. NCFs shall promptly report any such TUE to FIDE.
4.4.4 The Prohibited List can identify certain substances, methods or routes of administration that are not prohibited, but for which a Player is required to file a declaration of Use, in accordance with the specific procedures outlined in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. Any such Use should be declared on the Doping Control Form, and when available, through ADAMS. A Player’s failure to declare Use on the Doping Control Form and through ADAMS when available shall not be an anti-doping rules violation, but may be subject to a written warning notice from FIDE.
4.4.5 The FIDE Medical Commission shall appoint a panel to consider requests for TUE’s (the "TUE Panel") in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. For this purpose, FIDE may contract with an independent service provider. The TUE Panel member(s) shall promptly evaluate the request in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions and render a decision on such request, which shall be the final decision of FIDE.
4.4.6 WADA, at the request of a Player or on its own initiative, may review at any time the granting or denial of a TUE by FIDE. If WADA determines that such granting or denial of a TUE did not comply with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, WADA may reverse that decision. Decisions on TUE’s are subject to further appeal as provided in Article 13.
All Players under the jurisdiction of a NCF shall be subject to Testing by FIDE, the Player's NCF, and any other Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Testing at a Competition or Event in which they participate. All Players under the jurisdiction of a NCF, including Players serving a period of ineligibility or a Provisional Suspension, shall be subject to Testing at any time or place, with or without advance notice, In-Competition or Out-of-Competition by FIDE, WADA, the Player's NCF, the National Anti-Doping Organization of any country where the Player is present or of which the Player is national, resident, licence-holder or member of a sport organization, and any other Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Testing at a Competition or Event in which they participate.
In coordination with other Anti-Doping Organizations conducting Testing on the same Players, and consistent with the International Standard for Testing, The FIDE Medical Commission shall:
5.2.1 Plan and conduct an effective number of In-Competition and Out-of-Competition tests on Players over whom they have jurisdiction, including but not limited to Players in their respective Registered Testing Pools.
5.2.2 Except in exceptional circumstances all Out-of-Competition Testing shall be No Advance Notice.
5.2.3 Make Target Testing a priority.
5.2.4 Conduct Testing on Players serving a period of Ineligibility or a Provisional Suspension. Tests may be conducted by the FIDE Medical Commission or by other qualified persons or agencies so authorized by FIDE.
Testing conducted by FIDE and its NCFs shall be in substantial conformity with the International Standard for Testing in force at the time of Testing.
5.4.1 Event Testing At International Events, the collection of Doping Control Samples shall be initiated and directed by the international organization which is the ruling body for the Event. At National Events, the collection of Doping Control Samples shall be initiated and directed by the designated National Anti- Doping Organization or NCF of that country.
5.4.2 Out-of-Competition Testing Out-of-Competition Testing shall be initiated and directed by both international and national organizations. Out-of-Competition Testing shall be coordinated through ADAMS where reasonably feasible in order to maximize the effectiveness of the combined Testing effort and to avoid unnecessary repetitive Testing of individual Players.
5.4.3 Report
FIDE and NCFs shall promptly report completed tests through the WADA clearinghouse in accordance with article 14.5 to avoid unnecessary duplication in Testing.
5.5.1 FIDE shall identify a Registered Testing Pool of those Players who are
required to comply with the whereabouts requirements of the International
Standard for Testing, and shall publish the criteria for Players to be included in this
Registered Testing Pool as well as a list of the Players meeting those criteria for the
period in question. FIDE shall review and update as necessary its criteria for
including Players in its Registered Testing Pool, and shall revise the membership of
its Registered Testing Pool annually in accordance with the set criteria. Each Player
in the Registered Testing Pool (a) shall advise FIDE of his/her whereabouts on a
quarterly basis, in the manner set out in Article 11.3 of the International Standard
for Testing; (b) shall update that information as necessary, in accordance with
Article 11.4.2 of the International Standard for Testing, so that it remains accurate
and complete at all times; and (c) shall make him/herself available for Testing at
such whereabouts, in accordance with Article 11.4 of the International Standard for
Testing. The ultimate responsibility for providing whereabouts information rests
with each Player, however, it shall be the responsibility of each Member Association
to use its best efforts to assist FIDE in obtaining whereabouts information as
requested by FIDE.
The following are Members of the FIDE Registered Testing Pool:
The top male Players with the ELO rating over 2650 to a maximum of
10 players
The top female Players with the ELO rating over 2450 with a maximum
of 5 players
Including the current male and female World Champions and the
current male and female winners of the World Cup
The FIDE Medical Commission can include any other Player
participating at an International Event, by written notice to the NCF
and the Player according to the provisions of the International
Standards for Testing.
5.5.2 A Player’s failure to advise FIDE of his/her whereabouts shall be deemed a filing failure for purposes of Article 2.4 where the conditions of Article 11.3.5 of the International Standard for Testing are met.
5.5.3 A Player’s failure to be available for Testing at his/her declared whereabouts shall be deemed a missed test for purposes of Article 2.4 where the conditions of Article 11.4.3 of the International Standard for Testing are met.
5.5.4 Each NCF shall also assist its National Anti-Doping Organization in establishing a national level Registered Testing Pool of top level national Players to whom the whereabouts requirements of the International Standard for Testing shall also apply. Where those Players are also in the FIDE’s Registered Testing Pool, the FIDE and the National Anti-Doping Organization will agree (with the assistance of WADA if required) on which of them will take responsibility for receiving whereabouts filings from the Player and sharing it with the other (and with other Anti-Doping Organizations) in accordance with Article 5.5.5.
5.5.5 Whereabouts information provided pursuant to Articles 5.5.1 and 5.5.4 shall be shared with WADA and other Anti-Doping Organizations having jurisdiction to test a Player in accordance with Articles 11.7.1(d) and 11.7.3(d) of the International Standard for Testing, including the strict condition that it be used only for Doping Control purposes.
5.6.1 A Player who has been identified by FIDE for inclusion in its Registered Testing Pool shall continue to be subject to these Anti- Doping Rules, including the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirements of the International Standard for Testing unless and until the Player gives written notice to FIDE that he or she has retired or until he or she no longer satisfies the criteria for inclusion in FIDE's Registered Testing Pool and has been so informed by FIDE.
5.6.2 A Player who has given notice of retirement to FIDE may not resume competing unless he or she notifies FIDE at least three months before he or she expects to return to competition and makes him/herself available for unannounced Out-of-Competition Testing, including (if requested) complying with the whereabouts requirements of the International Standard for Testing, at any time during the period before actual return to competition.
5.6.3 NCFs/National Anti-Doping Organizations may establish similar requirements for retirement and returning to competition for Players in the national Registered Testing Pool.
5.7.1 At International Events, (as defined in Appendix 1) the FIDE Medical Commission shall determine the number of finishing placement tests, random tests and target tests to be performed. All individual winners at the top 3 places shall be tested, and one other Player in the Event selected at random. In team competitions, one Player from each team at the top 3 places shall be randomly selected to be tested, and one other player selected at random from one other randomly chosen team in the Event.
5.7.2 At National Events, each NCF shall determine the number of Players selected for Testing in each Competition and the procedures for selecting the Players for Testing.
5.7.3 In addition to the selection procedures set forth in Articles 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 above, FIDE at International Events, and the NCF at National Events, may also select Players or teams for Target Testing so long as such Target Testing is not used for any purpose other than legitimate Doping Control purposes.
5.7.4 Players shall be selected for Out-of-Competition Testing by the IF and by NCFs through a process that substantially complies with the International Standard for Testing in force at the time of selection.
5.8 FIDE and the organizing committees for FIDE Events, as well as the NCFs and the organizing committees for NCF Events, shall provide access to independent observers at Events in accordance with the Independent Observers Program.
5.9 A Player who is not regular member of FIDE or one of its NCFs will not be permitted to compete unless he or she is available for Sample collection and where applicable, he/she provides accurate and up-to-date whereabouts information as part of the FIDE Registered Testing Pool at least three months before he or she expects to compete.
Doping Control Samples collected under these Anti-Doping Rules shall be analyzed in accordance with the following principles:
6.1 Use of Approved Laboratories
For purposes of Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), FIDE or its NCFs shall send Samples for analysis only to WADA-accredited laboratories or as otherwise approved by WADA. The choice of the WADA-accredited laboratory (or other laboratory or method approved by WADA) used for the Sample analysis shall be determined exclusively by FIDE or its NCFs.
6.2 Purpose of Collection and Analysis of Samples
Samples shall be analyzed to detect Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods identified on the Prohibited List and other substances as may be directed by WADA pursuant to the Monitoring Program described in Article 4.5 of the Code or to assist FIDE or its NCFs in profiling relevant parameters in a Player’s urine, blood or other matrix, including DNA or genomic profiling, for anti-doping purposes.
6.3 Research on Samples
No Sample may be used for any purpose other than as described in Article 6.2 without the Player's written consent. Samples used (with the Player’s consent) for purposes other than Article 6.2 shall have any means of identification removed such that they cannot be traced back to a particular Player.
Laboratories shall analyze Doping Control Samples and report results in conformity with the International Standard for Laboratories.
A Sample may be reanalyzed for the purposes described in Article 6.2 at any time exclusively at the direction of the Anti-Doping Organization that collected the Sample or WADA. The circumstances and conditions for retesting Samples shall conform with the requirements of the International Standard for Laboratories.
Results management for tests initiated by FIDE (including tests performed by WADA pursuant to agreement with FIDE) shall proceed as set forth below:
7.1.1 The results from all analyses must be sent to FIDE in encoded form, in a report signed by an authorised representative of the laboratory. All communication must be conducted in confidentiality and in conformity with ADAMS, a database management tool developed by WADA. ADAMS is consistent with data privacy statutes and norms applicable to WADA and other organizations using it.
7.1.2 Upon receipt of an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding, the FIDE Medical Commission professionals shall conduct an initial review to determine whether: (a) an applicable TUE has been granted or will be granted as provided in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, or (b) there is any apparent departure from the International Standard for Testing or International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.
7.1.3 When the Adverse Analytical Finding is for substances and/or routes of administration for which the Prohibited List requires a declaration of Use, FIDE shall check whether that a declaration of use is in place, in accordance with article 4.4.4
7.1.4 If the initial review of an Adverse Analytical Finding under Article 7.1.2 does not reveal an applicable TUE or entitlement to a TUE as provided in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, or departure that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, FIDE shall promptly notify the Player, in the manner set out in Article 19, of: (a) the Adverse Analytical Finding; (b) the anti-doping rule violated; (c) the Player's right to promptly request the analysis of the B Sample or, failing such request, that the B Sample analysis may be deemed waived; (d) the scheduled date, time and place for the B Sample analysis if the Player or FIDE chooses to request an analysis of the B Sample; (e) the opportunity for the Player and/or the Player's representative to attend the B Sample opening and analysis within the time period specified in the International Standard for Laboratories if such analysis is requested; and (f) the Player's right to request copies of the A and B Sample laboratory documentation package which includes information as required by the International Standard for Laboratories. FIDE shall also notify the Player’s National Anti-Doping Organization and WADA. If FIDE decides not to bring forward the Adverse Analytical Finding as an antidoping rule violation, it shall so notify the Player, the Player’s National Anti-Doping Organization and WADA.
7.1.5 Where requested by the Player or FIDE, arrangements shall be made for Testing the B Sample within the time period specified in the International Standard for Laboratories. A Player may accept the A Sample analytical results by waiving the requirement for B Sample analysis.
7.1.6 The Player and/or his representative shall be allowed to be present at the analysis of the B Sample within the time period specified in the International Standard for Laboratories. Also a representative of the Player's NCF as well as a representative of FIDE shall be allowed to be present.
7.1.7 If the B Sample proves negative, then (unless FIDE takes the case forward as an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2) the entire test shall be considered negative and the Player, his NCF, and FIDE shall be so informed.
7.1.8 If a Prohibited Substance or the Use of a Prohibited Method is identified, the findings shall be reported to the Player, his NCF, FIDE, and to WADA.
7.1.9 FIDE shall conduct any follow-up investigation into a possible antidoping rule violation not covered by Articles 7.1.1 to 7.1.8. At such time as FIDE is satisfied that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, it shall promptly give the Player or other Person subject to sanction notice, in the manner set out in Article 19, of the anti-doping rule violated, and the basis of the violation. FIDE shall also notify the Player’s National Anti-Doping Organization and WADA.
7.2.1 As provided in the International Standards, in some circumstances laboratories are directed to report the presence of Prohibited Substances, which may also be produced endogenously as Atypical Findings subject to further investigation.
7.2.2 Upon receipt of an A Sample Atypical Finding, FIDE shall conduct an initial review to determine whether: (a) an applicable TUE has been granted, or (b) there is any apparent departure from the International Standard for Testing or International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding.
7.2.3 If the initial review of an Atypical Finding under Article 7.2.2 reveals an applicable TUE or departure from the International Standard for Testing or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding, the entire test shall be considered negative and the Player, the Player’s National Anti-Doping Organization, and WADA shall be so informed.
7.2.4 If that initial review does not reveal an applicable TUE or departure that caused the Atypical Finding, FIDE shall conduct the required investigation. After the investigation is completed, the Player, WADA and the Player’s National Anti-Doping Organization shall be notified whether or not the Atypical Finding will be brought forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding. The Player shall be notified as provided in Article 7.1.4.
7.2.5 FIDE will not provide notice of an Atypical Finding until it has completed its investigation and has decided whether it will bring the Atypical Finding forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless one of the following circumstances exists: (a) If FIDE determines the B Sample should be analyzed prior to the conclusion of its follow-up investigation, it may conduct the B Sample analysis after notifying the Player, with such notice to include a description of the Atypical Finding and the information described in Article 7.1.4(b) to (f). (b) If FIDE receives a request, either from a Major Event Organization shortly before one of its International Events or a request from a sport organization responsible for meeting an imminent deadline for selecting team members for an International Event, to disclose whether any Player identified on a list provided by the Major Event Organization or sport organization has a pending Atypical Finding, FIDE shall so identify any such Player after first providing notice of the Atypical Finding to the Player.
Results management and the conduct of hearings from a test by a Major Event Organization, shall be managed, as far as sanctions beyond Disqualification from the Event or the results of the Event, by FIDE.
Results management conducted by NCFs shall be consistent with the general principles for effective and fair results management which are underlined in the detailed provisions set forth in this Article 7. Adverse Analytical findings, Atypical Findings and other asserted violations of anti-doping rules shall be reported by NCFs in accordance with the principles outlined in this Article 7 to the Player’s National Anti-Doping Organization, FIDE and WADA no later than the completion of the NCF's results management process. Any apparent antidoping rule violation by a Player who is a member of that NCF shall be promptly referred to an appropriate hearing panel established pursuant to the rules of the NCF, National Anti-Doping Organization or national law. Apparent anti-doping rule violations by Players who are members of another NCF shall be referred to the Player's NCF for hearing.
7.5.1 Results management in respect of an apparent Filing Failure by a Player in FIDE’s Registered Testing Pool shall be conducted by FIDE in accordance with Article 11.6.2 of the International Standard for Testing (unless it has been agreed in accordance with Article 5.5.4 that the NCF or National Anti-Doping Organization shall take such responsibility).
7.5.2 Results management in respect of an apparent Missed Test by a Player in FIDE’s Registered Testing Pool as a result of an attempt to test the Player by or on behalf of FIDE shall be conducted by FIDE in accordance with Article 11.6.3 of the International Standard for Testing. Results management in respect of an apparent Missed Test by such Player as a result of an attempt to test the Player by or on behalf of another Anti-Doping Organization shall be conducted by that other Anti- Doping Organization in accordance with Article 11.7.6(c) of the International Standard for Testing.
7.5.3 Where, in any eighteen-month period, a Player in FIDE’s Registered Testing Pool is declared to have three Filing Failures, or three Missed Tests, or any combination of Filing Failures or Missed Tests adding up to three in total, whether under these Anti-Doping Rules or under the rules of any other Anti-Doping Organization, FIDE shall bring them forward as an apparent anti-doping rule violation.
7.6.1 If analysis of an A Sample has resulted in an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Prohibited Substance that is not a Specified Substance, and a review in accordance with Article 7.1.2 does not reveal an applicable TUE or departure from the International Standard for Testing or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, a Provisional Suspension shall be imposed promptly after the review and notification described in Article 7.1.
7.6.2 However, a Provisional Suspension may not be imposed, unless the Player or other Person is given either (a) an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing either before imposition of the Provisional Suspension or on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension; or (b) an opportunity for an expedited hearing in accordance with Article 8 (Right to a Fair Hearing) on a timely basis after imposition of a Provisional Suspension. NCFs shall impose Provisional Suspensions in accordance with the principles set forth in this Article 7.5. Players shall receive credit for a Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which is ultimately imposed as provided in Article 10.9.3.
7.6.3 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent B Sample analysis (if requested by the Player or Anti-Doping Organization) does not confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Player shall not be subject to any further Provisional Suspension on account of a violation of Article 2.1 of the Code (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers). In circumstances where the Player (or the Player's team) has been removed from a Competition based on a violation of Article 2.1 and the subsequent B Sample analysis does not confirm the A Sample finding, if, without otherwise affecting the Competition, it is still possible for the Player or team to be reinserted, the Player or team may continue to take part in the Competition.
If a Player or other Person retires while a results management process is underway, FIDE or its NCFs conducting the results management process retains jurisdiction to complete its results management process. If a Player or other Person retires before any results management process has begun and FIDE or its NCFs would have had results management jurisdiction over the Player or other Person at the time the Player or other Person committed an anti-doping rule violation, FIDE or its NCFs have jurisdiction to conduct results management.
[Comment to Article 7.7: Conduct by a Player or other Person before the Player or other Person was subject to the jurisdiction of any Anti-Doping Organization would not constitute an anti-doping rule violation but could be a legitimate basis for denying the Player or other Person membership in a sports organization.]
8.1.1 When it appears, following the Results Management process performed by FIDE in accordance with Article 7, that these Anti-Doping Rules have been violated then the case shall be assigned to the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel for adjudication, consisting of a Chair being a lawyer and four other experts.
8.1.2 Hearings pursuant to this Article shall be completed expeditiously following the completion of the results management process described in Article 7. Hearings held in connection with Events may be conducted on an expedited basis. If the Player has been imposed a Provisional Suspension as per Article 7.6, the Player has the right to request that the hearing be conducted on an expedited basis.
8.1.3 The NCF of the Player or other Person alleged to have violated these Anti-Doping Rules may attend the hearing as an observer.
8.1.4 FIDE shall keep WADA fully apprised as to the status of pending cases and the result of all hearings.
8.1.5 A Player or other Person may forego a hearing by acknowledging the Anti-Doping Rule violation and accepting Consequences consistent with Articles 9 and 10 as proposed by FIDE. The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Player’s or other Person’s failure to challenge FIDE’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within two weeks. Where no hearing occurs, FIDE shall submit to the Persons described in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
8.1.6 Decisions of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport as provided in Article 13.
8.2.1 When it appears, following the Results Management process performed by NCFs in accordance with Article 7, that these Anti- Doping Rules have been violated in connection, the Player or other Person involved shall be brought before a disciplinary panel of the Player or other Person's NCF or National Anti-Doping Organization in accordance with the rules of the NCF or the National Anti-Doping Organization for a hearing to adjudicate whether a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules occurred and if so what Consequences should be imposed.
8.2.2 Hearings pursuant to this Article 8.2 shall be completed expeditiously and in all cases within three months of the completion of the Results Management process described in Article 7. Hearings held in connection with Events may be conducted by an expedited process. If the Player has been imposed a Provisional Suspension as per Article 7.6, the Player has the right to request that the hearing be conducted on an expedited basis. If the completion of the hearing is delayed beyond three months, FIDE may elect to bring the case directly before the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel at the responsibility and at the expense of the NCF.
8.2.3 NCFs shall keep FIDE and WADA fully apprised as to the status of pending cases and the results of all hearings.
8.2.4 FIDE and WADA shall have the right to attend hearings as an observer.
8.2.5 The Player or other Person may forego a hearing by acknowledging the violation of these Anti-Doping Rules and accepting Consequences consistent with Articles 9 and 10 as proposed by the NCF. The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Player’s or other Person’s failure to challenge the NCF’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within two weeks. Where no hearing occurs, the NCF shall submit to the Persons described in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
8.2.6 Decisions by NCFs or National Anti-Doping Organizations, whether as the result of a hearing or the Player or other Person's acceptance of Consequences, may be appealed as provided in Article 13.
All hearings pursuant to either Article 8.1 or 8.2 shall respect the following principles:
· a timely hearing;
· fair and impartial hearing panel;
· the right to be represented by counsel at the Person's own expense;
· the right to be informed in a fair and timely manner of the asserted
anti-doping rule violation;
· the right to respond to the asserted anti-doping rule violation and
resulting Consequences;
· the right of each party to present evidence, including the right to call
and question witnesses (subject to the hearing panel’s dicretion to accept
testimony by telephone or written submission);
· the Person's right to an interpreter at the hearing, with the hearing
panel to determine the identity, and responsibility for the cost of the
interpreter; and
· a timely, written, reasoned decision, specifically including an
explanation of the reason(s) for any period of Ineligibility.
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.
[Comment to Article 9: When a Player wins a gold medal with a Prohibited Substance in his or her system, that is unfair to the other Players in that Competition regardless of whether the gold medalist was at fault in any way. Only a "clean" Player should be allowed to benefit from his or her competitive results. For Teams, see Article 11 (Consequences to Teams).]
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 Player's individual results obtained in that Event with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.1.
[Comment to Article 10.1: Whereas Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results) Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Player tested positive, this Article may lead to Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event. Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might include, for example, the severity of the Player’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Player tested negative in the other Competitions.]
10.1.1 If the Player establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Player's individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified unless the Player's results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Player's anti-doping rule violation.
10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) or Article 2.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods) shall be as follows, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.5, or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Article 10.6, are met: First violation: Two (2) years' Ineligibility.
[Comment to Article 10.2: 1Harmonization of sanctions has been one of the most discussed and debated areas of anti-doping. Harmonization means that the same rules and criteria are applied to assess the unique facts of each case. Arguments against requiring harmonization of sanctions are based on differences between sports including, for example, the following: in some sports the Athletes are professionals making a sizable income from the sport and in others the Athletes are true amateurs; in those sports where an Athlete's career is short a two year Disqualification has a much more significant effect on the Athlete than in sports where careers are traditionally much longer; in Individual Sports, the Athlete is better able to maintain competitive skills through solitary practice during Disqualification than in other sports where practice as part of a team is more important. A primary argument in favor of harmonization is that it is simply not right that two Athletes from the same country who test positive for the same Prohibited Substance under similar circumstances should receive different sanctions only because they participate in different sports. In addition, flexibility in sanctioning has often been viewed as an unacceptable opportunity for some sporting organizations to be more lenient with dopers. The lack of harmonization of sanctions has also frequently been the source of jurisdictional conflicts between IFs and National Anti-Doping Organizations.]
The period of Ineligibility for violations of these Anti-Doping Rules other than as provided in Article 10.2 shall be as follows:
10.3.1 For violations of Article 2.3 (Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample collection) or Article 2.5 (Tampering with Doping Control), the Ineligibility period shall be two (2) years unless the conditions provided in Article 10.5, or the conditions provided in Article 10.6, are met.
10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.7 (Trafficking) or Article 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method), the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility unless the conditions provided in Article 10.5 are met. An anti-doping rule violation involving a Minor shall be considered a particularly serious violation, and, if committed by Player Support Personnel for violations other than Specified Substances referenced in Article 4.2.2 shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Player Support Personnel. In addition, significant violations of Articles 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate nonsporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.
[Comment to Article 10.3.2: 1Those who are involved in doping Players or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions which are more severe than the Players who test positive. Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited to Ineligibility for credentials, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Player Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.]
10.3.3 For violations of Article 2.4 (Whereabouts Filing Failures and/ or Missed Tests), the period of Ineligibility shall be at a minimum one (1) year and at a maximum two (2) years based on the Player’s degree of fault.
[Comment to Article 10.3.3: The sanction under Article 10.3.3 shall be two years where all three filing failures or missed tests are inexcusable. Otherwise, the sanction shall be assessed in the range of two years to one year, based on the circumstances of the case.1]
10.4 Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances
Where a Player or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his or her body or came into his or her Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Player’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Article 10.2 shall be replaced with the following: First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility from future Events, and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility. To justify any elimination or reduction, the Player or other Person must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his or her word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance enhancing substance. The Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility.
[Comment to Article 10.4: Specified Substances as now defined in Article 4.2.2 are not necessarily less serious agents for purposes of sports doping than other Prohibited Substances (for example, a stimulant that is listed as a Specified Substance could be very effective to a Player in competition); for that reason, a Player who does not meet the criteria under this Article would receive a two-year period of Ineligibility and could receive up to a four-year period of Ineligibility under Article 10.6. However, there is a greater likelihood that Specified Substances, as opposed to other Prohibited Substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non-doping explanation. This Article applies only in those cases where the hearing panel is comfortably satisfied by the objective circumstances of the case that the Player in taking or Possessing a Prohibited Substance did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance. Examples of the type of objective circumstances which in combination might lead a hearing panel to be comfortably satisfied of no performanceenhancing intent would include: the fact that the nature of the Specified Substance or the timing of its ingestion would not have been beneficial to the Player; the Player’s open Use or disclosure of his or her Use of the Specified Substance; and a contemporaneous medical records file substantiating the non-sport-related prescription for the Specified Substance. Generally, the greater the potential performance-enhancing benefit, the higher the burden on the Player to prove lack of an intent to enhance sport performance. While the absence of intent to enhance sport performance must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, the Player may establish how the Specified Substance entered the body by a balance of probability. In assessing the Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault, the circumstances considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Player’s or other Person’s departure from the expected standard of behavior. Thus, for example, the fact that a Player would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility or the fact that the Player only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under this Article. It is anticipated that the period of Ineligibility will be eliminated entirely in only the most exceptional cases.]
10.5.1 No Fault or Negligence
If a Player establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Player's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance), the Player must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this Article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under Article 10.7.
10.5.2 No Significant Fault or Negligence
If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility 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. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Player's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), the Player must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced.
[Comment to Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2: FIDE’s Anti-Doping Rules provide for the possible reduction or elimination of the period of Ineligibility in the unique circumstance where the Player can establish that he or she had No Fault or Negligence, or No Significant Fault or Negligence, in connection with the violation. This approach is consistent with basic principles of human rights and provides a balance between those Anti-Doping Organizations that argue for a much narrower exception, or none at all, and those that would reduce a two year suspension based on a range of other factors even when the Player was admittedly at fault. These Articles apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. Article 10.5.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation even though it will be especially difficult to meet the criteria for a reduction for those anti-doping rule violations where knowledge is an element of the violation. Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 are meant to have an impact only in cases where the circumstances are truly exceptional and not in the vast majority of cases. To illustrate the operation of Article 10.5.1, an example where No Fault or Negligence would result in the total elimination of a sanction is where a Player could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, a sanction could not be completely eliminated on the basis of No Fault or Negligence in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Players are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b) the administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Player’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Player (Players 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 Player’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Player’s circle of associates (Players 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 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence. (For example, reduction may well be appropriate in illustration (a) if the Player clearly establishes that the cause of the positive test was contamination in a common multiple vitamin purchased from a source with no connection to Prohibited Substances and the Player exercised care in not taking other nutritional supplements.) For purposes of assessing the Player’s or other Person’s fault under Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2, the evidence considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Player’s or other Person’s departure from the expected standard of behavior. Thus, for example the fact that a Player would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility or the fact that the Player only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under this Article. While Minors are not given special treatment per se in determining the applicable sanction, certainly youth and lack of experience are relevant factors to be assessed in determining the Player’s or other Person’s fault under Article 10.5.2, as well as Articles 10.3.3, 10.4 and 10.5.1. Article 10.5.2 should not be applied in cases where Articles 10.3.3 or 10.4 apply, as those Articles already take into consideration the Player or other Person’s degree of fault for purposes of establishing the applicable period of Ineligibility.]
10.5.3 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti- Doping Rule Violations
FIDE or its NCFs may, prior to a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the Player or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another Person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person. After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, FIDE may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA. After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, NCFs may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of FIDE and 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 Player or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Player or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. 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 nonsuspended period under this Article must be no less than eight (8) years. If FIDE or its NCFs suspend any part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility under this Article, they shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decision. If FIDE or its NCFs subsequently reinstate any part of the suspended period of Ineligibility because the Player or other Person has failed to provide the Substantial Assistance which was anticipated, the Player or other Person may appeal the reinstatement pursuant to Article 13.2.
[Comment to Article 10.5.3: The cooperation of Players, Player 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. Factors to be considered in assessing the importance of the Substantial Assistance would include, for example, the number of individuals implicated, the status of those individuals in the sport, whether a scheme involving Trafficking under Article 2.7 or administration under Article 2.8 is involved and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in Testing. The maximum suspension of the Ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases. An additional factor to be considered in connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation is any performance-enhancing benefit which the Person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the Player or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility under this Article in connection with the Player or other Person’s waiver of a hearing under Article 8.3 (Waiver of Hearing), FIDE or its NCFs shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article. If the Player or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility before the conclusion of a hearing under Article 8 on the anti-doping rule violation, the hearing panel shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article at the same time the hearing panel decides whether the Player or other Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation. If a portion of the period of Ineligibility is suspended, the decision shall explain the basis for concluding the information provided was credible and was important to discovering or proving the anti-doping rule violation or other offense. If the Player or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility after a final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered and is not subject to appeal under Article 13, but the Player or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility, the Player or other Person may apply to IF or its NCFs to consider a suspension in the period of Ineligibility under this Article. Any such suspension of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall require the approval of WADA (and FIDE if the suspension of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is decided by a NCF). If any condition upon which the suspension of a period of Ineligibility is based is not fulfilled, FIDE or its NCFs shall reinstate the period of Ineligibility which would otherwise be applicable. Decisions rendered by FIDE or its NCFs under this Article may be appealed pursuant to Article 13.2. This is the only circumstance under these Anti-Doping Rules where the suspension of an otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is authorized.]
10.5.4 Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence
Where a Player 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 rule 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.
[Comment to Article 10.5.4: This Article is intended to apply when a Player 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. It is not intended to apply to circumstances where the admission occurs after the Player or other Person believes he or she is about to be caught.]
10.5.5 Where a Player or Other Person Establishes Entitlement to Reduction in Sanction under More than One Provision of this Article Before applying any reduction or suspension under Articles 10.5.2, 10.5.3 or 10.5.4, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined in accordance with Articles 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6. If the Player or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under two or more of Articles 10.5.2, 10.5.3 or 10.5.4, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-fourth of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.
[Comment to Article 10.5.5: The appropriate sanction is determined in a sequence of four steps. First, the hearing panel determines which of the basic sanctions (Article 10.2, Article 10.3, Article 10.4 or Article 10.6) applies to the particular anti-doping rule violation. In a second step, the hearing panel establishes whether there is a basis for suspension, elimination or reduction of the sanction (Articles 10.5.1 through 10.5.4). Note, however, not all grounds for suspension, elimination or reduction may be combined with the provisions on basic sanctions. For example, Article 10.5.2 does not apply in cases involving Articles 10.3.3 or 10.4, since the hearing panel, under Articles 10.3.3 and 10.4, will already have determined the period of Ineligibility based on the Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault. In a third step, the hearing panel determines under Article 10.5.5 whether the Player or other Person is entitled to elimination, reduction or suspension under more than one provision of Article 10.5. Finally, the hearing panel decides on the commencement of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.9.]
10.6 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility
If FIDE or its NCFs establishes in an individual case involving an antidoping rule violation other than violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) 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 up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the Player or other Person can prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that he did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation.
A Player or other Person can avoid the application of this Article by admitting the anti-doping rule violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by FIDE or its NCFs.
[Comment to Article 10.6: Examples of aggravating circumstances which may justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction are: the Player or other Person committed the anti-doping rule violation as part of a doping plan or scheme, either individually or involving a conspiracy or common enterprise to commit anti-doping rule violations; the Athlete or other Person Used or Possessed multiple Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods or Used or Possessed a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method on multiple occasions; a normal individual would be likely to enjoy the performance-enhancing effects of the anti-doping rule violation(s) beyond the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility; the Athlete or Person engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation. For the avoidance of doubt, the examples of aggravating circumstances described in this Comment to Article 10.6 are not exclusive and other aggravating factors may also justify the imposition of a longer period of Ineligibility. Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) are not included in the application of Article 10.6 because the sanctions for these violations (from four years to lifetime Ineligibility) already build in sufficient discretion to allow consideration of any aggravating circumstance.]
Full text of the new rules here.
More games
Top 10 chess players
Copyright © 2007 - 2011 Chessdom. All rights reserved.
