3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

3.1.1 The ICC shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the ICC has established the commission of the alleged anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Hearing Panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that 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.

3.1.2 Where the ICC Code places 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, except as provided in Articles 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions

The Hearing Panel shall not be bound by judicial rules governing the admissibility of evidence. Instead, facts relating to an anti-doping rule violation may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. The following rules of proof shall be applicable at the hearing:

3.2.1 Analytical methods or Decision Limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community or which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. Any Player or other Person seeking to challenge whether the conditions for such presumption have been met or to rebut this presumption of a scientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. The Anti-Doping Tribunal or CAS, on its own initiative, may also inform WADA of any such challenge. Within 10 days of WADA’s receipt of such notice, and WADA’s receipt of the case file, WADA shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding. In cases before CAS, at WADA’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge.
 
3.2.2 WADA-accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved by WADA, are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories. The Player or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. In such an event, the ICC shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding

3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or the ICC Code shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation and shall not constitute a defence to an anti-doping rule violation; provided, however, if the Player or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the specific International Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or Whereabouts Failure, then the ICC shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the Whereabouts Failure:

(i)    a departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to Sample collection or Sample handling which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, in which case the ICC shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding;

(ii)    a departure from the International Standard for Results Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Passport Finding which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case the ICC shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the anti-doping rule violation;

(iii)    a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to the requirement to provide notice to the Player of the B Sample opening which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, in which case the ICC shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding;

(iv)    a departure from the International Standard for Results Management related to Player notification which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on a Whereabouts Failure, in which case the ICC shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Whereabouts Failure.

3.2.4 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.

3.2.5 The Hearing Panel considering an alleged 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 his/her refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person, virtually or telephonically as directed by the Hearing Panel) and to answer questions from the ICC or the members of the Hearing Panel.