2013 Anti-Doping Rule Violations Report

  1. What is an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV)?
  2. What are the different types of ADRV?
  3. What is the difference between an analytical ADRV and a non-analytical ADRV?
  4. What figures are included in this 2013 ADRV Report?
  5. How does this Report differ from the Annual Testing Figures Report?
  6. Where does the data for this Report come from?
  7. What period does this ADRV Report cover?
  8. How should this ADRV Report be interpreted?
  9. Why is this Report being published nearly one year after the Testing Figures Report?
  10. Will WADA update This Report in the future?
  11. Why are there still AAF cases pending from 2013?
  12. Who is responsible for the cases that are still pending?
  13. Is there a specific time frame in which cases should be finalized by the Results Management Authority?
  14. Why are the details of the sanctions (for example the periods of ineligibility) not included in this Report?
  15. Is there a requirement for ADOs to publish all ADRVs under their jurisdiction?
  16. Does WADA review every case decision it receives?
  17. In the non-analytical ADRV section, why is there a difference in the number of violations by cases and the number by type of violations?

1. What is an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV)? Up

When an athlete or athlete support person commits a doping offence, it is known as an ADRV.  Certain consequences (generally known as sanctions) apply to the athlete or athlete support person who commits an ADRV.  

2. What are the different types of ADRV? Up

There are a number of different types of ADRVs which are defined in Article 2 of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). The 2013 ADRVs Report is based on the types of ADRVs listed in the 2009 Code:

  • Article 2.1 – Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample
  • Article 2.2 – Use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method
  • Article 2.3 – Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection or evading
  • Article 2.4 – Whereabouts violation (including any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an 18-month period)
  • Article 2.5 – Tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control
  • Article 2.6 – Possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods
  • Article 2.7 – Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method
  • Article 2.8 – Administration or attempted administration of any prohibited method or prohibited substance or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up, etc. 

3. What is the difference between an analytical ADRV and a non-analytical ADRV? Up

An analytical ADRV refers to violation of Code Article 2.1 above and is based on an AAF (otherwise known as a positive result), which indicates the presence of a prohibited substance in a urine and/or blood sample collected from athletes and analysed by a WADA-accredited laboratory.

A non-analytical ADRV is where 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 in a urine or blood sample from athletes, as outlined in Code Articles 2.2 to 2.8 above.

4. What figures are included in this 2013 ADRV Report? Up

The ADRV Report consists of four sections.

Sections 1 and 2 present the results management outcomes (including ADRVs) of all AAFs detected by WADA-accredited laboratories for samples collected from athletes in- and out-of-competition in 2013 by sport and discipline (Section 1) and testing authority (Section 2).

Section 3 presents ADRVs that resulted from non-analytical findings by sport and nationality.   

Section 4 presents the total number of ADRVs in 2013, which includes AAFs that resulted in an ADRV plus all non-analytical ADRVs; and, presents the data by sport and nationality. It is further broken down into type of samples (urine or blood), type of test (in- or out-of-competition) and athlete gender.  

5. How does this Report differ from the Annual Testing Figures Report? Up

WADA’s Annual Testing Figures Report is a compilation of statistics on athlete urine and blood samples as reported by WADA-accredited laboratories.

Meanwhile, this new ADRV Report illustrates the outcomes (including ADRVs) of all AAFs detected by WADA-accredited laboratories, both in- and out-of-competition; and, also ADRVs that resulted from non-analytical findings.

6. Where does the data for this Report come from? Up

The statistics on urine and blood samples analysed and the resulting AAFs are taken from WADA’s 2013 Testing Figures Report (published in July 2014). The results for all samples were submitted by WADA-accredited laboratories directly into WADA's Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), the organisation’s centralised online database.

Aggregated data on the outcomes of AAFs, as well as all the data on the Non-Analytical Findings (case decisions) were compiled by WADA based on decisions provided by Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs).

Given that this is the first ADRV Report published by WADA, should stakeholders find any inconsistencies in the data they should advise WADA via statistics@wada-ama.org

7. What period does this ADRV Report cover? Up

The AAFs featured in this ADRV Report correspond to results of samples received by the WADA-accredited laboratories between 1 January and 31 December 2013.

The ADRVs that resulted from non-analytical findings refer to cases that concluded in 2013. These figures may include violations that were initially pursued before 2013.

The outcomes of AAF cases and the non-analytical ADRVs are based on the number of decisions received and reviewed by WADA when this Report was compiled on 15 May 2015.

8. How should this ADRV Report be interpreted? Up

This Report offers the most comprehensive and accurate set of global statistics on doping incidence in 2013 by sport, testing authority and nationality. The Report provides the outcomes of those cases reported as AAFs including those that resulted in an ADRV (subject to those cases pending), and for the first time also includes the number of non-analytical ADRVs, which, when combined, provides a more accurate assessment of the number of doping cases that occurred/were reported during 2013.

The Report’s data is provided by Code signatories and reviewed by WADA in accordance with the requirements of the Code (i.e. Article 14.4).  WADA is mandated to report the data.  It should be noted that interpretation of the data should be undertaken with caution as there are many contributing factors that must be taken into account when attempting to interpret the data regarding sports, testing and result management authorities and nationalities. This applies to this Report; as well as the Testing Figures Report.

WADA is committed to further enhancing the statistical reports by providing the anti-doping community with more transparent and accurate data of the testing and investigation activities worldwide.

9. Why is this Report being published nearly one year after the Testing Figures Report? Up

The results management process can take a long time from the first signs of a potential analytical or non-analytical violation or an AAF being reported through to an investigation, decision, appeal and publication. A high number of cases must be resolved before the Report can be adequately prepared.  At the time of compiling the ADRV Report (15 May 2015), WADA had received 93% of the case decisions for the 2013 AAFs.

Future ADRVs Reports will be released on a similar time schedule prior to the Testing Figures Report on an annual basis.

10. Will WADA update This Report in the future? Up

This Report will be updated with those pending cases that are received and reviewed by WADA after its initial publication. The latest version of the Report will be made available on WADA’s website.

11. Why are there still AAF cases pending from 2013? Up

Cases classified as pending are those cases where the Results Management Authority (RMA) has not provided all the documentation necessary to allow WADA to validate the case decision. Examples of missing documentation could include:

  • The reasoned decision explaining the outcome of the case;
  • A copy of the relevant Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE); and
  • The athlete’s identification information or any other relevant information about the case.

A very small number of cases may also be pending due to the complexity of the case, which may mean the disciplinary procedure is still ongoing.

12. Who is responsible for the cases that are still pending? Up

It is the responsibility of the RMA to manage the results of testing and render a decision for AAF cases. In the majority of cases, the RMA is also the Testing Authority, which is the organization that authorized the collection of the sample. 

In a small number of cases, the Testing Authority is not the RMA, and therefore is not responsible for the outcome of a pending case. Another organization such as an International Federation, National Anti-Doping Organization or National Federation may be the RMA and therefore be responsible for rendering a decision in a particular case.

WADA continues to follow up with the relevant RMAs to remind them to complete their outstanding results management procedures as soon as possible and to notify WADA of the final decision. Any outstanding cases may result in compliance decisions being formed in the future.

13. Is there a specific time frame in which cases should be finalized by the Results Management Authority? Up

The Code requires that cases are dealt with in a timely, fair and impartial manner.  Sufficient time must be provided for each party to prepare and present their case to the appointed judicial body. As outlined in the Results Management, Hearings and Decisions Guidelines, “Irrespective of the type of ADRV involved, any ADO should be able to conclude the Results Management and hearing process within a maximum of six months of the date of the commission or of discovery of the ADRV.”

Some cases are more complex than others, and may be appealed after the first instance hearing, which then takes additional time for the case to be finalized and a written decision to be published and submitted to WADA. 

14. Why are the details of the sanctions (for example the periods of ineligibility) not included in this Report? Up

Every individual case is different and is assessed by the relevant RMA based on the specific facts and circumstances. Publishing the sanction details for every single case without the reasoning and context behind the decision could lead to misinterpretation of the information.

15. Is there a requirement for ADOs to publish all ADRVs under their jurisdiction? Up

Yes, ADOs are mandated under the Code to publish all ADRVs from their doping control activities (Article 10.13 and Article 14.3.2).  Furthermore, all ADOs must also notify WADA and the applicable IF or NADO of the decision of all cases, including non-analytical cases and any investigations conducted (Article 14.4). 

16. Does WADA review every case decision it receives? Up

Yes, WADA reviews every single case decision provided to its Legal Department by RMAs, and has the right to appeal those decisions that do not conform with the Code to, for example, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) or to national level review bodies.

17. In the non-analytical ADRV section, why is there a difference in the number of violations by cases and the number by type of violations? Up

A total of 266 athletes or athlete support personnel were reported to have committed one or more non-analytical ADRVs in 2013.  

In some cases the athlete or athlete support person may have been charged with more than one non-analytical ADRV. For example, an athlete can be charged with Article 2.6 (possession), Article 2.7 (trafficking) and Article 2.8 (Administration) ADRVs. Such cases are calculated as single occurrences for each type of violation but relate to only one athlete or athlete support person. Therefore, a total of 301 different types of non-analytical violations were committed in 2013.