The National Anti-Doping Act, 2022

1[THE SCHEDULE

(See section 2A)

PROVISIONS OF THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE, WHICH SHALL HAVE FORCE OF LAW

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 the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies.

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 2.1.7

7 [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 A or B Sample is split into two parts and the

analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited

Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first part of the split Sample or the Athlete

waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample.8

8 [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 Decision Limit is specifically identified in the

Prohibited List or a Technical Document, the presence of any reported 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, International Standards,

or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain

Prohibited Substances.

1. Ins. by Act 26 of 2025, s. 22 (w.e.f. 16.07.2026).

2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 9

9 [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 the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies 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.10

10 [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. 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 by an Athlete

Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without

compelling justification after notification by a duly authorized Person.11

11 [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 by an Athlete

Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International

Standard for Results Management, 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 by an Athlete or Other

Person

2.6   Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete

Support Person

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 that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”)

granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.12

12 [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.]

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.13

13[Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example,

(a) an Athlete or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for

dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine auto-injector), or (b) an

Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons

shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE.]

2.7     Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by

an Athlete or Other Person

2.8     Administration or Attempted Administration by an Athlete or Other Person 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 or Attempted Complicity by an Athlete or Other Person

 Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional

complicity or Attempted complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted

anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article10.14.1 by another Person.14

14 [Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or

psychological assistance.]

 2.10 Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person

2.10.1 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:

2.10.1.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization, is serving a period of

Ineligibility; or

2.10.1.2 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, 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 (6) years from the criminal,

professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or

professional sanction imposed; or

2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Article 2.10.1.1 or

2.10.1.2.

2.10.2 To establish a violation of Article 2.10, an Anti-Doping Organization must establish that

the Athlete or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status.

The burden shall be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association with

an Athlete Support Person described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2 is not in a professional

or sport-related capacity and/or that such association could not have been reasonably

avoided.

Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the

criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2, or 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information

to WADA. 15

15 [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. This also prohibits association with any other Athlete

who is acting as a coach or Athlete Support Person while serving a period of Ineligibility.

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.

While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti-Doping Organization to notify the Athlete or

other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice, if

provided, would be important evidence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew

about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Support Person.].

2.11     Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to

Authorities

Where such conduct does not otherwise constitute a violation of Article 2.5:

2.11.1 Any act which threatens or seeks to intimidate another Person with the intent of

discouraging the Person from the good-faith reporting of information that relates to an

alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the Code to WADA,

an Anti-Doping Organization, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary

body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping

Organization.

2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who, in good faith, has provided evidence or information

that relates to an alleged anti-doping rule violation or alleged non-compliance with the

Code to WADA, an Anti-Doping Organization, law enforcement, regulatory or

professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for

WADA or an Anti-Doping Organization. 16

16 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make

good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly make false reports.]

For purposes of Article 2.11, retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act

taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a

disproportionate response.17

17 [Comment to Article 2.11.2: Retaliation would include, for example, actions that

threaten the physical or mental well-being or economic interests of the reporting

Persons, their families or associates. Retaliation would not include an Anti-Doping

Organization asserting in good faith an anti-doping rule violation against the reporting

Person. For purposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the

Person making the report knows the report to be false.]]