WADA - Athlete-Centered Consultation on 2027 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standards

Version 1.0 World Anti-Doping Agency 2027 Code and International Standards Update Process Athlete-Centered Consultation June 2025Page 1/217 Name – Version – Date Table of content

Message from Director of Athlete Engagement and Chair of WADA Athlete Council 1 Athlete-Centered Consultation – Outcomes 2 Introduction 2 General Information 3 Part One – Quantitative Feedback 5 The World Anti-Doping Code (Code) 5 International Standard for Results Management (ISRM) 13 International Standard for Testing (IST) 16 International Standard for Intelligence and Investigations (ISII) 21 International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE) 24 International Standard for Education (ISE) 26 International Standard for Data Protection (ISDP) 30 Part Two – Qualitative Feedback 31 The World Anti-Doping Code (Code) 31 International Standard for Results Management (ISRM) 97 International Standard for Testing (IST) 108 International Standard for Intelligence and Investigations (ISII) 147 International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE) 164 International Standard for Education (ISE) 169 International Standard for Data Protection (ISDP) 210WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 1/217

Message from Director of Athlete Engagement and Chair of WADA Athlete Council Dear athletes,

On 17 April 2025, WADA, in collaboration with its Athlete Council, launched an Athlete-Centered Consultation and called on all athletes and athlete commissions to participate by sharing feedback on some of the proposed changes to the Code and International Standards. We are thrilled to report that you answered this call, and we want to thank you! The unique input you shared with us, will help ensure that we continue to build a fair and harmonized anti-doping program for you; one that better reflects your realities and supports your needs. Your responses will play a crucial

want to thank you! The unique input you shared with us, will help ensure that we continue to build a fair and harmonized anti-doping program for you; one that better reflects your realities and supports your needs. Your responses will play a crucial role in shaping the future of, not only the Code and the International Standards, but also of additional supporting documentation such as guidelines and other resources. We are pleased to share the outcomes of this consultation , which you can find in this report. We also want to reiterate that your answers and feedback have been provided to WADA’s expert groups – those groups who are tasked with reviewing and updating the Code and the International Standards – to help them continue to focus on rules and process that are athlete centered. As the expert groups finalize those important documents, we will continue to keep you informed. Again, a huge thank you for your participation and for taking the time to share your insights and experiences. Yours in clean sport,

Karine Henrie Director, Athlete Engagement

Ryan Pini, MBE, OL, OLY Chair, WADA Athlete CouncilWADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 2/217

Athlete-Centered Consultation – Outcomes Introduction This report provides the results of the Athlete -Centered Consultation , which aimed to gather comprehensive feedback from athletes on some of the proposed changes in the second draft of the 2027 World Anti -Doping Code and the International Standards (or, in some cases, on current issues affecting athletes) . All questions were optional, and athletes were free to decide which ones they wanted to answer. The consultation was divided into the following sections:

1. World Anti-Doping Code

2. International Standard for Results Management

3. International Standard for Testing

4. International Standard for Intelligence and Investigations

5. International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions

6. International Standard for Education

7. International Standard for Data Protection

8. General Questions

1. World Anti-Doping Code

2. International Standard for Results Management

3. International Standard for Testing

4. International Standard for Intelligence and Investigations

5. International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions

6. International Standard for Education

7. International Standard for Data Protection

8. General Questions For privacy reasons, as noted at the outset of the consultation, WADA is only publishing answers related to the Code and the International Standards and not those provided in the ‘General Questions’ section. However, please know that all athlete feedback has been provided to the relevant expert groups to guide their work on the final versions of the 2027 Code and International Standards.

This report is organized into two main parts: in the first part, you will find a visual representation of the quantitative responses provided in each of the Code and International Standards sections and in the second part, you will find the qualitative responses to the ‘open -ended’ questions , again in each of the Code and International Standards sections. Please note that all comments provided in a language other than English or French have been translated to English. While we cannot guarantee the quality of the translation , the original language in which the comment was provided is also included in this report.

[Reminder: The World Anti-Doping Program is comprised of a set of documents – the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and several International Standards – that harmonizes anti -doping policies, rules and regulations. It is the anti-doping framework that you, as an athlete, must operate in. The Code is reviewed every five to six years to ensure it remains fit for purpose and agile to the changing nature of anti -doping. We are currently in the process of reviewing and updating the Code and the International Standards. Since the process began in 2023, proposed changes have been circulated to stakeholders followed by consultation phases to receive stakeholder feedback. With the third consultation phase now closed, WADA is reviewing all feedback received to prepare final documents for adoption during the World Conference in December 2025.]WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 3/217

General Information

feedback. With the third consultation phase now closed, WADA is reviewing all feedback received to prepare final documents for adoption during the World Conference in December 2025.]WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 3/217

General Information The Athlete-Centered Consultation was open from 17 April to 30 May 2025. An impressive 611 athletes participated in the consultation. Please find below a breakdown of the continents represented, the sports and sport disciplines as well as the athlete commissions1. Global response rate

Sports represented American Football Boxing Field Hockey Ice Skating Para Armwrestling Rowing Strength Games Archery Cheerleading Figure Skating Judo Para Athletics Rugby Swimming Armwrestling Climbing Flag Football Jujitsu Para Badminton Sailing Table Tennis Athletics Cycling Flying Disc Karate Para Equestrian Sambo Taekwondo Badminton Dancing Football Kickboxing Para powerlifting Savate Tennis Basketball Darts Freediving Luge Para table tennis Shooting Triathlon Billiard Diving Futsal Mini golf Para Taekwondo Skate Volleyball Bobsled Equestrian Gymnastics Mountain Biking Paratriathlon Softball Water polo Bodybuilding esport Handball Muaythai Petanque Sport Climbing Weightlifting Bowling Fencing Ice Hockey Orienteering Powerlifting Squash Wrestling

1 While there may be more athlete commissions that provided feedback, the ones included in the report are those that self-identified.WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 4/217

Athlete Commissions (as identified/if identified)

Athlete Comission of Cbat Athlete committee of China Anti-Doping Agency Athleten Deutschland e.v. / DOSB Athletes Commission

Outcomes – June 2025 Page 4/217

Athlete Commissions (as identified/if identified)

Athlete Comission of Cbat Athlete committee of China Anti-Doping Agency Athleten Deutschland e.v. / DOSB Athletes Commission Botswana Athletes Commission Comission des athlètes Algérien et Africains Commission des athlètes centrafricain Commission des Athlètes du Burkina Faso Commission des Nageurs camerounais Danish Athletecomitee FIAS (Sambo) Athlete’s Commission FIL (Luge) Athlete Commission ICSD (Deaflympics) Athlete Commission IFMA (Muaythai) Athlete Commission International Weightlifting Federation Athlete Commission IPC Athlete Commission ISU Athletes Commission Myanmar Athletes Committee NZ NADO Athlete Commission PanAm Aquatics Athletes Committee Speed Skating Athletes' Commission (Iran) Swiss Olympic Athletes Commission Team USA Athletes' Commission United World Wrestling Athletes' Commission WADA Athletes Council WAKO IF Athletes Committee WDF(Darts) Athletes Commission WFDF (Flying Disc) Athlete Commisson WMF (World Minigolf Federation) Athlete Commission World Sailing Athletes’ CommitteeWADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 5/217

Part One – Quantitative Feedback The World Anti-Doping Code (Code) This section contains the questions and answers pertaining to updates to the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), including topics such as: • Sanction lengths • Periods of ineligibility for substances of abuse • Public disclosure • Activities during ineligibility period • Using samples for other purposes than anti-doping

1. Length of Sanctions: Under the current version of the Code, the basic sanctioning structure sets out either

• Sanction lengths • Periods of ineligibility for substances of abuse • Public disclosure • Activities during ineligibility period • Using samples for other purposes than anti-doping

1. Length of Sanctions: Under the current version of the Code, the basic sanctioning structure sets out either 2or 4-year periods of Ineligibility. A number of questions have been raised about the strict nature of this structure, particularly as it relates to the issues of unintentional doping and contamination.

To respond to these concerns, two new distinctions have been introduced in the lates t draft of the Code to account for: 1. whether the violation was reckless as opposed to intentional; 2. whether the Athlete can establish how the prohibited substance entered their system. Do you think the period of Ineligibility should be shorter if the athlete was reckless as opposed to knowingly committing a violation (intentional)? (Total number of responses: 528)WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 6/217

2. The table below lays out the new sanction structure, taking into account the abovementioned new distinctions (Reference: 2nd draft of the 2027 Code, Article 10.2).

Is there any part of the new sanction structure you would like to comment on?

Click here to view comments

3. Substances of Abuse: The 2021 Code’s treatment of substances of abuse has generally been well received, but several concerns have been raised, including: • the adequacy of the one-month period of ineligibility for case evaluation, • the practicality of completing a substance of abuse program for a reduced penalty, and • the appropriateness of requiring rehabilitation for first-time or inadvertent violations.

To address these concerns, changes have been made to the period of ineligibility as follows: 1. a flat two-month period of Ineligibility for a first violation with no requirement for rehabilitation, and 2. a four-month period for a second violation that can be reduced to two months with enrollment in a rehabilitation program.

To address these concerns, changes have been made to the period of ineligibility as follows: 1. a flat two-month period of Ineligibility for a first violation with no requirement for rehabilitation, and 2. a four-month period for a second violation that can be reduced to two months with enrollment in a rehabilitation program. (Reference: 2nd draft of 2027 Code, Article 10.2.4)WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 7/217

1. Do you believe these adjustments are appropriate? (Total number of responses: 560)

2. If you answered “no” or “not sure” to the question above, why?

Click here to view comments

3. Do you think it is WADA’s role (or the role of any other anti-doping organization) to support rehabilitation for athletes who repeatedly use substances of abuse (e.g., cannabis, cocaine)? (Total number of responses: 564)

4. Publishing results (public disclosure): A general requirement under the Code is that after a final decision in a case is made, the anti-doping organization (the “results management authority”) must publish the results, including the name of the athlete, the sport, the anti -doping rule violated, the prohibited substances or methods (if any) and the related consequences.

The latest draft of the Code proposes an exception to this requirement if an athlete is found to have “No Fault or Negligence” for the anti-doping rule violation. If that is the case, the result (i.e., name of the athlete, the sport, the anti -doping rule violat ed, the prohibited substances or methods (if any) and the related consequences) would not be published unless the athlete who is the subject of the decision gives their consent. (Reference: latest Code draft Article 14.3.3) When considering the questions below, we invite you to keep in mind that even if an athlete is found to have

consequences) would not be published unless the athlete who is the subject of the decision gives their consent. (Reference: latest Code draft Article 14.3.3) When considering the questions below, we invite you to keep in mind that even if an athlete is found to have “No Fault or Negligence ,” this still counts as an anti -doping rule violation (i.e., there was the presence of a prohibited substance that could have had an impact on the athlete’s performance). As such, if this was related to an in-competition test, the results would be disqualified.WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 8/217

The debate on this topic has been about balancing fairness and respect for athletes’ rights alongside transparency and credibility of the anti-doping system.

1. Do you think the proposed change to remove the requirement to publish results if an athlete is found to have “No Fault or Negligence” for the anti-doping rule violation is a good balance of these issues? (Total number of responses: 553)

2. If you answered “no” or “not sure” to the question above, why?

Click here to view comments

3. Do you believe that results of athletes who are found to have committed a “No Fault or Negligence” antidoping rule violation should be published as any other anti -doping rule violation ? (Total number of responses: 557)

4. Please explain why or why not.

Click here to view comments

Yes 78% No 10% Not sure 12% Yes 57%No 27% Not sure 16%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 9/217

5. Do you believe there should be a different approach if the test was conducted in-competition versus outof-competition? Please consider the following when thinking about your response:

1. If this is the result of a test conducted in-competition, results must be disqualified, and medals

Page 9/217

5. Do you believe there should be a different approach if the test was conducted in-competition versus outof-competition? Please consider the following when thinking about your response:

1. If this is the result of a test conducted in-competition, results must be disqualified, and medals might need to be reallocated. Indirectly, the public or media are likely to become aware of the Athlete’s ADRV. ii. If this is the result of a test conducted out-of-competition, there would be no result to disqualify and likely less or no impact on other athletes.

(Total number of responses: 548)

Publishing results should be mandatory only if it relates to an incompetition test 32% Publishing results should be mandatory only if it relates to an out-ofcompetition test 6% Publishing results should be mandatory for both incompetition and out-ofcompetition tests for the sake of transparency and credibility of the anti-doping system 43% Results should not be published for in-competition or out-of-competition tests unless the athlete gives their consent 16% Other 3%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 10/217

5. Activities during ineligibility period: The current version of the Code outlines the activities a person can and cannot do while serving a provisional suspension or period of ineligibility. Multiple stakeholders have asked that the language in this Article be expanded, and examples provided. That has been done in this draft

[see below]. (Reference: latest Code draft Article 10.14.1 and Comment 92)WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 11/217

1. Are the additional examples provided clear and helpful? (Total number of responses: 539)

2. If you answered “no” to the question above, why?

Click here to view comments

Outcomes – June 2025 Page 11/217

1. Are the additional examples provided clear and helpful? (Total number of responses: 539)

2. If you answered “no” to the question above, why?

Click here to view comments

3. In general, if an athlete is banned from competition, what do you think they should or should not be allowed to do during that time?

Click here to view comments

4. More broadly, what support would be helpful for an athlete returning to sport after serving a period of ineligibility?

Click here to view comments

6. Using samples for other purposes than anti -doping: The current version of the Code states th at signatories may use samples or doping control information for purposes beyond doping regulation, such as safety, medical, eligibility rules (related to gender), or code of conduct policies. However, they must ensure that such use is explicitly covered by their rules and complies with applicable laws, including obtaining necessary consent. (Reference: 2nd draft of the 2027 Code, Articles 23.2.2 and Comment 141)

1. Were you aware that it was possible for samples collected for anti-doping purposes to be used by National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) or International Federations (IFs) for purposes unrelated to doping, such as enforcing safety, code of conduct policies and eligibility rules (related to gender) (with appropriate consent measures in place)? (Total number of responses: 542)

Yes 94% No 6% Yes 62% No 38%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 12/217

2. Do you agree that samples collected for anti -doping purposes (under the World Anti -Doping Program) should be used by National Anti -Doping Organizations (NADOs) or International Federations (IFs) for purposes unrelated to doping, such as enforcing safety , Code of Conduct policies and eligibility rules

(related to gender)? (Total number of responses: 546)

should be used by National Anti -Doping Organizations (NADOs) or International Federations (IFs) for purposes unrelated to doping, such as enforcing safety , Code of Conduct policies and eligibility rules (related to gender)? (Total number of responses: 546)

3. Why or why not?

Click here to view comments

Yes 66% No 16% Not sure 18%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 13/217

International Standard for Results Management (ISRM) This section contains questions pertaining to updates to the International Standard for Results Management (ISRM), including topics such as: • Opportunity for athletes to accept anti-doping rule violation and receive reduction in sanction • Cases subject to review by the Independent Review Expert when deviating from ‘normal’ Results Management process • Removal of administrative review process for Whereabouts failures

It should be noted that several changes to the ISRM are a direct result of proposed changes to the latest draft of the Code.

1. Opportunity for athletes to accept anti-doping rule violation and receive a 25% reduction in sanction: Given proposed changes to the latest draft of the Code (see Article 10.8.1), the latest draft of the ISRM proposes to reduce the period of ineligibility based on early acceptance of the violation and the related proposed consequences. (Reference: 2nd draft of the 2027 ISRM, Articles 5.1.2.1, f and 7.1d)

a. Do you agree that accepting the violation and the related consequences warrants a reduction in sanction? (Total number of responses: 528)

b. If you answered “no” to the question above, why? Click here to view comments

2. Cases subject to review by the Independent Review Expert: This is a new concept which has been added to the latest draft of the Code (see Code Article 10.7.2) as a result of learnings from the Cottier Report. As

Click here to view comments

2. Cases subject to review by the Independent Review Expert: This is a new concept which has been added to the latest draft of the Code (see Code Article 10.7.2) as a result of learnings from the Cottier Report. As such, this change is reproduced in the latest draft of the ISRM , with additional procedural details. This new addition describes the process that an anti-doping organization (or the “results management authority”) must follow in rare cases where it considers closing a case or not proceeding with the ‘normal’ Results Management processes after it receives notice of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from a laboratory.

(Reference: 2nd draft of the 2027 ISRM, Article 5.5) Yes 78% No 12% Not sure 10%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 14/217

[Rare cases: one example of such a ‘rare case’ could be when the anti-doping organization determines it is likely that adverse analytical finding s (“positive test s”) for multiple athletes resulted from a contaminated source and that the athletes have a reasonable likelihood of establishing “No Fault or Negligence”.] a. Do you think this will achieve the goal of ensuring consistency and transparency for athletes? (Total number of responses: 525)

b. If you answered “no” to the question above, why? Click here to view comments

3. Removal of a dministrative review process for individual Whereabouts failures : The administrative review process for individual whereabouts failures has been removed to simplify the procedure and improve timeliness. Despite this removal, athletes retain the ability to challenge individual whereabouts failures after notification and within the context of a potential asserted violation of Code Article 2.4. (Reference : 2nd draft of the 2027 ISRM, Annex B, B.3.2)

a. Do you believe this change will streamline the process without negatively impacting your rights as an athlete? (Total number of responses: 528)

of the 2027 ISRM, Annex B, B.3.2) a. Do you believe this change will streamline the process without negatively impacting your rights as an athlete? (Total number of responses: 528)

b. If you answered “no” to the question above, why?

Click here to view comments

Yes 81% No 6% Not sure 13% Yes 80% No 5% Not sure 15%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 15/217

c. Do you have any additional thoughts regarding the removal of the administrative review process for individual whereabouts failures in the updated ISRM Annex B.

Click here to view commentsWADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 16/217

International Standard for Testing (IST) This section contains questions pertaining to updates to the International Standard for Testing (IST), including topics such as: • Whereabouts deadlines • Removal of requirement to submit training locations when filing Whereabouts • Phone calls to athletes • Sample collection procedures for athletes whose sport gender is not specified as male or female under the applicable sport rules

1. Whereabouts Deadlines: The latest draft of the IST proposes that athletes in a Registered Testing Pool

(RTP) are required to file their whereabouts by the 15th of each month preceding the start of a calendar quarter (i.e., 15 December, 15 March, 15 June, and 15 September) instead of by the first day of the quarter.

Please keep in mind: failure to submit a Whereabouts Filing by the deadline (now the 15th of December, March, June, and September) will be pursued as a Filing Failure.

This proposed change is meant to enable testing to be conducted from the first day of the quarter, thereby reducing the window of opportunity for potential doping that could exist if limited testing is occurring in the first few days of a quarter.

March, June, and September) will be pursued as a Filing Failure.

This proposed change is meant to enable testing to be conducted from the first day of the quarter, thereby reducing the window of opportunity for potential doping that could exist if limited testing is occurring in the first few days of a quarter.

(Reference: 2nd draft 2027 IST, Article 4.10.6.1)

a. Do you believe this timeline is reasonable and manageable? (Total number of responses: 499)

b. What (if anything) about this new timeline feels challenging or concerning? Click here to view comments

2. Removal of requirement to submit training locations when filing whereabouts: In the current International Standard for Testing and Investi gations, RTP athletes must submit the following information

(generally speaking): Yes 74% No 8% Not sure 18%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 17/217

• One 60-minute timeslot for each day of the quarter; • Overnight address/accommodation; • Competition schedule and related information; and • Location(s) where the athlete will train, work or conduct any other regular activity for each day of the quarter.

In the latest draft of the International Standard for Testing (IST), t he requirement to submit training information or any other regular activities has been removed due to many athletes either not having regularly scheduled activities or not having a fixed location where they train (for example, cyclists or long-distance runners). While the requirement would be removed, athletes would still be encouraged to provide their training location(s), or other locations where they can be located for testing. Athletes would need to keep in mind that not providing this type of whereabouts would likely result in any out-of-competition testing outside of the 60-minute timeslot being conducted at the overnight address provided. This proposed change aims to reduce the burden on athletes while maintaining essential whereabouts requirements to ensure intelligent and effective out-of-competition testing.

this type of whereabouts would likely result in any out-of-competition testing outside of the 60-minute timeslot being conducted at the overnight address provided. This proposed change aims to reduce the burden on athletes while maintaining essential whereabouts requirements to ensure intelligent and effective out-of-competition testing. (Reference: 2nd draft 2027 IST, Article 4.10.6.2) a. Will this change make it easier for you to ensure your information is accurate and up -to-date? (Total number of responses: 501)

b. Do you have any comments on this proposed change? Click here to view comments

c. If you currently use or have ever used the “Athlete Central” App to provide whereabouts information, what are 2 things you would like to see improved and what are 2 things that you are happy with?

Click here to view comments

3. Phone calls to athletes: Currently, phone calls to athletes are only permitted for athletes in a Registered Testing Pool (RTP) during the last 5 minutes of their 60-minute timeframe. While phones calls outside of this

Yes 75% No 7% Not sure 18%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 18/217

scenario should not be used, WADA has become aware that athletes are being called for testing outside of this permitted scenario.

To harmonize and restrict the use of phone calls (outside of the last 5 minutes of the 60-minute timeslot for RTP athletes and only under exception circumstances), a new article has been drafted in the IST that outlines a limited number of exceptional circumstances for which the use of a phone call to contact an athlete will be permitted. Broadly speaking the exceptional circumstances are limited to:

• if the Doping Control Officer (DCO) , during an attempt to test an athlete , receives reliable information regarding an athlete ’s location (that is not part of the athlete’s whereabouts submission), and the DCO attempts to locate the athlete at such location but is unable to access

• if the Doping Control Officer (DCO) , during an attempt to test an athlete , receives reliable information regarding an athlete ’s location (that is not part of the athlete’s whereabouts submission), and the DCO attempts to locate the athlete at such location but is unable to access the location due to restrictions (e.g., security does not permit access to the location), or • when a follow-up test or target test is recommended by a laboratory and is time sensitive.

(Reference: 2nd draft 2027 IST, Article 5.3.2)

a. Do you agree that DCOs should be able to call athletes outside of their 60-minute time slot and under those two circumstances? (Total number of responses: 523)

b. If you answered “no” or “not sure” to the question above, why? Click here to view comments

c. What pieces of information would you expect to receive from a DCO during such a call to validate their identity and the request to provide a sample at a specified location?

Click here to view comments

d. Do you think there are other situations in which it would be appropriate to call an athlete for testing outside of their 60-minute time slot (please provide examples)?

Click here to view comments

Yes 81% No 5% Not sure 14%WADA Athlete-Centered Consultation Outcomes – June 2025 Page 19/217

e. Do you believe that the use of a phone call to contact athletes for testing, even under exceptional circumstances, comp