Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Articles 2.1 through 2.11 of the ICC Code. 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.

Players 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 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Player’s Sample.

2.1.1 It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his/her body. A Player is responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in his/her Sample. 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 under Article 2.1.

NOTE: It is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowledge on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Consequently, lack of intent, Fault, Negligence or knowledge shall not be a defence to a charge that an anti-doping rule violation has been committed under Article 2.1.

2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following (unless the Player establishes that such presence is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted in accordance with Article 4.4): (a) the 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 analysed; (b) where the Player’s B Sample is analysed 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; or (c) where the Player’s A or B Sample is split into two bottles 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 Player waives analysis of the confirmation part of the split Sample.

2.1.3 Except in the case of 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 a Player’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.

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.

2.2 Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, unless the Player establishes that such Use or Attempted Use is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted in accordance with Article 4.4.

2.2.1 It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his/her body and that he/she does not Use any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. 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 of Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method under Article 2.2.

NOTE: It is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowledge on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2, Consequently, lack of intent, Fault, Negligence or knowledge shall not be a defence to a charge that an anti-doping rule violation of Use has been committed under Article 2.2.

2.2.2 Without prejudice to Article 2.2.1, it is necessary that intent on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Use under Article 2.2.

2.2.3 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. For an anti-doping rule violation to be committed under Article 2.2, 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.

2.2.4 Notwithstanding Article 2.2.3, however, a Player’s Use of a substance Out-of- Competition shall not constitute an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 where the Use of that substance is not prohibited 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 Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorised Person.

NOTE: For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that a Player 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 Player, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Player.

2.4 Whereabouts Failures by a Player

For a Player in the International Registered Testing Pool, any combination of three Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests (as such terms are defined in the International Standard for Results Management) committed within a twelve-month period, whether declared by the ICC or any other Anti-Doping Organisation with authority over the Player (a “Whereabouts Failure”), shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation under this Article 2.4.

NOTE: A Filing Failure amounts to a failure to file whereabouts information in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management. A Missed Test constitutes a failure to be available for Testing at the declared whereabouts in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management.

2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control by a Player or other Person

This Article prohibits intentional conduct that subverts or Attempts to subvert the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering shall include, without limitation, offering or accepting a bribe to perform or fail to perform an act, preventing the collection of a Sample, affecting or making impossible the analysis of a Sample, falsifying documents submitted to an Anti-Doping Organization or TUE committee or hearing panel, procuring false testimony from witnesses, committing any other fraudulent act upon the Anti-Doping Organization or hearing body to affect Results Management or the imposition of Consequences, and any other similar intentional interference or Attempted interference with any aspect of Doping Control.

2.6 Possession of Prohibited Substances and/or Prohibited Methods.

2.6.1 Possession by a Player In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by a Player Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of- Competition, unless the Player establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.

2.6.2 Possession by a Player Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by a Player Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition, in connection with a Player, International Match or training, unless the Player Support Person establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted to a Player in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.

2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by a Player or other Person.

2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration by a Player or other Person to any Player In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Player Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, unless it is established that the Administration or Attempted Administration was consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted in accordance with Article 4.4.

2.9 Complicity or Attempted Complicity by a Player 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 or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.14.1 by another Person.

2.10 Prohibited Association by a Player or other Person

2.10.1 Association by a Player or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Player Support Person who:

2.10.1.1 (if subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation) is serving a period of Ineligibility; or

2.10.1.2 (if not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organisation, 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 years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, professional or disciplinary 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 Organisation must establish that the Player or other Person knew of the Player Support Person’s disqualifying status.

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

2.10.4 If the ICC or other Anti-Doping Organisation with authority over the Player or other Person becomes aware of any Player Support Person who meets the criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2 or 2.10.1.3 it shall submit that information to WADA and, where applicable, the ICC. 

2.11 Acts by a Player 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 ICC Code or the Code to the ICC, WADA, an Anti-Doping Organisation, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for the ICC, WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation.

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 ICC Code or the Code to the ICC, WADA, an Anti-Doping Organisation, law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for the ICC, WADA or an Anti-Doping Organisation.

For the purposes of this 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.