ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

3.1.1 The BCCI shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the BCCI has established the commission of the alleged anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Anti-Doping Tribunal, 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 Rules places the burden of proof upon the Cricketer or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except where the Rules specifically provides (in Articles 10.4.2 and 10.6) that the Cricketer or other Person must satisfy a higher burden of proof.

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions

The Anti-Doping Tribunal 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 Compliance with an International Standard (as opposed to another alternative standard, practice or procedure) shall be sufficient to conclude that the procedures addressed by the International Standard were performed properly.

3.2.2 WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories. The Cricketer 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 BCCI 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 that did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such results. If the Cricketer or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation establishes that a departure from an International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy occurred that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation charged, then the BCCI shall have the burden to establish that such a departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or other factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation asserted.

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 Cricketer or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts, unless the Cricketer or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.

3.2.5 The Anti-Doping Tribunal may draw an inference adverse to the Cricketer 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 or telephonically as directed by the Anti-Doping Tribunal) and to answer questions from the BCCI or the members of the Anti-Doping Tribunal.  

Title Sponsor Official Partners Umpires Sponsor Official Broadcasters