Where an Athlete or Other Person Establishes Entitlement to Reduction in Sanction under More than One Provision of this Article

Before applying any reductions under Articles 5.10.5.2, 5.10.5.3 or 5.10.5.4, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined in accordance with Articles 5.10.2, 5.10.3, 5.10.4 and 5.10.6. If the Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under two or more of Articles 5.10.5.2, 5.10.5.3 or 5.10.5.4, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-quarter of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.

[Comment to Article 5.10.5.5: The appropriate sanction is determined in a sequence of four steps. First, the hearing panel determines which of the basic sanctions (Article 5.10.2, Article 5.10.3, Article 5.10.4 or Article 5.10.6) applies to the particular anti-doping rule violation. In a second step, the hearing panel establishes whether there is a basis for elimination or reduction of the sanction (Articles 5.10.5.1 through 5.10.5.4). Note, however, not all grounds for elimination or reduction may be combined with the provisions on basic sanctions. For example, Article 5.10.5.2 does not apply in cases involving Articles 5.10.3.3 or 5.10.4, since the hearing panel, under Articles 5.10.3.3 and 5.10.4, will already have determined the period of Ineligibility based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of fault. In a third step, the hearing panel determines under Article 5.10.5.5 whether the Athlete or other Person is entitled to a reduction under more than one provision of Article 5.10.5. Finally, the hearing panel decides on the commencement of the period of Ineligibility under Article 5.10.9. The following four examples demonstrate the proper sequence of analysis:

Handbook 2010-2011 Page 107 Example 1.

Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding involves the presence of an anabolic steroid; the Athlete promptly admits the anti-doping rule violation as alleged; the Athlete establishes No Significant Fault (Article 5.10.5.2); and the Athlete provides important Substantial Assistance (Article 5.10.5.3).

Application of Article 5.10:

1. The basic sanction would be two years under Article 5.10.2. (Aggravating circumstances (Article 5.10.6) would not be considered because the Athlete promptly admitted the violation. Article 5.10.4 would not apply because a steroid is not a Specified Substance.)

2. Based on No Significant Fault alone, the sanction could be reduced up to one-half of the two years.

Based on Substantial Assistance alone, the sanction could be reduced up to three-quarters of the two years.

3. Under Article 5.10.5.5, in considering the possible reduction for No Significant Fault and Substantial Assistance together, the most the sanction could be reduced is up to three-quarters of the two years. Thus, the minimum sanction would be a six-month period of Ineligibility.

4. Under Article 5.10.9.2, because the Athlete promptly admitted the anti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility could start as early as the date of Sample collection, but in any event the Athlete would have to serve at least one-half of the Ineligibility period (minimum three months) after the date of the hearing decision.

Example 2.

Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding involves the presence of an anabolic steroid; aggravating circumstances exist and the Athlete is unable to establish that he did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation; the Athlete does not promptly admit the anti-doping rule violation as alleged; but the Athlete does provide important Substantial Assistance (Article 5.10.5.3).

Application of Article 5.10:

1. The basic sanction would be between two and four years Ineligibility as provided in Article 5.10.6.

2. Based on Substantial Assistance, the sanction could be reduced up to three-quarters of the maximum four years.

3. Article 5.10.5.5 does not apply.

4. Under Article 5.10.9.2, the period of Ineligibility would start on the date of the hearing decision.

Example 3.

Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding involves the presence of a Specified Substance; the Athlete establishes how the Specified Substance entered his body and that he had no intent to enhance his sport

performance; the Athlete establishes that he had very little fault; and the Athlete provides important Substantial Assistance (Article 5.10.5.3).

Application of Article 5.10:

1. Because the Adverse Analytical Finding involved a Specified Substance and the Athlete has satisfied the other conditions of Article 5.10.4, the basic sanction would fall in the range between a reprimand and two years Ineligibility. The hearing panel would assess the Athlete’s fault in imposing a sanction within that range. (Assume for illustration in this example that the panel would otherwise impose a period of Ineligibility of eight months.)

2. Based on Substantial Assistance, the sanction could be reduced up to three-quarters of the eight months. (No less than two months.) [No Significant Fault (Article 5.10.2) would not be applicable because the Athlete’s degree of fault was already taken into consideration in establishing the eight-month period of Ineligibility in step 1.]

3. Article 5.10.5.5 does not apply.

4. Under Article 5.9.2, because the Athlete promptly admitted the anti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility could start as early as the date of Sample collection, but in any event, the Athlete would have to serve at least half of the Ineligibility period after the date of the hearing decision. (Minimum one month.) Example 4.

Facts: An Athlete who has never had an Adverse Analytical Finding or been confronted with an anti-doping rule violation spontaneously admits that he intentionally used multiple Prohibited Substances to enhance his performance. The Athlete also provides important Substantial Assistance (Article 5.10.5.3).

Application of Article 5.10:

1. While the intentional Use of multiple Prohibited Substances to enhance performance would normally warrant consideration of aggravating circumstances (Article 5.10.6), the Athlete’s spontaneous admission means that Article 5.10.6 would not apply. The fact that the Athlete’s Use of Prohibited Substances was intended to enhance performance would also eliminate the application of Article 5.10.4 regardless of whether the Prohibited Substances Used were Specified Substances. Thus, Article 5.10.2 would be applicable and the basic period of Ineligibility imposed would be two years.

2. Based on the Athlete’s spontaneous admissions (Article 5.10.5.4) alone, the period of Ineligibility could be reduced up to one-half of the two years. Based on the Athlete’s Substantial Assistance (Article 5.10.5.3) alone, the period of Ineligibility could be reduced up to three-quarters of the two years.

3. Under Article 5.10.5.5, in considering the spontaneous admission and Substantial Assistance together, the most the sanction could be reduced would be up to three-quarters of the two years. (The minimum period of Ineligibility would be six months.)

4. If Article 5.10.5.4 was considered by the hearing panel in arriving at the minimum six month period of Ineligibility at step 3, the period of Ineligibility would start on the date the hearing panel imposed the sanction. If, however, the hearing panel did not consider the application of Article 5.10.5.4 in reducing the

Handbook 2010-2011 Page 109 period of Ineligibility in step 3, then under Article 5.10.9.2, the commencement of the period of Ineligibility could be started as early as the date the anti-doping rule violation was committed, provided that at least half of that period (minimum of three months) would have to be served after the date of the hearing decision.]

5.10.6 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility