UCI REGULATIONS FOR RESULTS MANAGEMENT

(“UCI RMR”)

Version entering into force in February 2023

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 1 of 52

UCI Results Management Regulations

The UCI Results Management Regulations (RMR) implement the provisions in the WADA International Standard for Results Management and supplement the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR).

The UC I RMR comes into effect on 1 January 2021.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 2 of 52

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 3 of 52

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION, UCI ANTI-DOPING RULES PROVISIONS, UCI ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

1.0 Introduction and Scope

The purpose of the UCI Results Management Regulations is to set out the core responsibilities of the UCI with respect to Results Management in implementation of the International Standard for Results Management. In addition to describing certain general principles of Results Management (section 4), the UCI Results Management Regulations also set out the core obligations applicable to the various phases of Results Management from the initial review and notification of potential anti-doping rule violations (section 5), through Provisional Suspensions (section 6), the assertion of anti-doping rule violations and proposal of Consequences (section 7), the Hearing Process (section 8) until the issuance and notification of the decision (section 9) and appeal (section 10).

Departures from these Regulations or the International Standard for Results Management shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation and shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation, except as expressly provided for under Article 3.2.3 and/or 3.2.4 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Terms used in these Regulations that are defined terms from the UCI Anti-Doping Rules are italicized. Terms that are defined in these Regulations or another regulation or International Standard are underlined.

2.0 UCI ADR Provisions

The following articles in the UCI ADR are directly relevant to the UCI Results Management Regulations; they can be obtained by referring to the UCI ADR itself:

• UCI ADR Article 2 Anti-Doping Rule Violations

• UCI ADR Article 3 Proof of Doping

• UCI ADR Article 5 Testing and Investigations

• UCI ADR Article 7 Results Management & Investigations

• UCI ADR Article 8 Results Management: Notice of Charge, Agreement, failure to challenge and hearing process

• UCI ADR Article 9 Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results

• UCI ADR Article 10 Sanctions on Individuals

• UCI ADR Article 11 Consequences to Teams

• UCI ADR Article 13 Results Management: Appeals

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 4 of 52

• UCI ADR Article 14 Confidentiality and Reporting

• UCI ADR Article 15 Implementation of Decisions

3.0 Definitions and Interpretation

3.1 Defined Terms from the UCI Anti-Doping Rules that are used in the UCI Results Management Regulations

ADAMS: The Anti-Doping Administration and Management System is a Web-based database management tool for data entry, storage, sharing, and reporting designed to assist stakeholders and WADA in their anti-doping operations in conjunction with data protection legislation.

Administration: Providing, supplying, supervising, facilitating, or otherwise participating in the Use or Attempted Use by another Person of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. However, this definition shall not include the actions of bona fide medical personnel involving a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method Used for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or other acceptable justification and shall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances which are not prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate that such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or are intended to enhance sport performance.

Adverse Analytical Finding: A report from a WADA -accredited laboratory or other WADA - approved laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories, establishes in a Sample the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Marker s or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method.

Adverse Passport Finding: A report identified as an Adverse Passport Finding as described in the applicable International Standards or UCI Regulations.

Anti-Doping Organization: WADA or a Signatory that is responsible for adopting rules for initiating, implementing or enforcing any part of the Doping Control process. This includes, for example, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, other Major Event Organizations that conduct Testing at their Event s, International Federations, and National Anti-Doping Organizations.

Athlete Biological Passport: The program and methods of gathering and collating data as described in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and International Standard for Laboratories and applicable UCI Regulations.

Attempt: Purposely engaging in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of an anti-doping rule violation. Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on an Attempt to commit a violation if the Person renounces the Attempt prior to it being discovered by a third party not involved in the Attempt.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 5 of 52

Atypical Finding: A report from a WADA -accredited laboratory or other WADA -approved laboratory which requires further investigation as provided by the International Standard for Laboratories or related Technical Documents prior to the determination of an Adverse Analytical Finding.

Atypical Passport Finding: A report described as an Atypical Passport Finding as described in the applicable International Standards or UCI Regulations.

CAS: The Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Code: The World Anti-Doping Code.

Competition: A single race organized separately (for example: each of the time trial and road race at the road World Championships; a stage in a stage race; a Cross-country Eliminator heat) or a series of races forming an organizational unit and producing a final winner and/or general classification (for example: a track sprint race tournament, a cyclo-ball tournament).

Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“ Consequences ”): A Rider's or other Person's violation of an anti-doping rule may result in one or more of the following: (a) Disqualification means the Rider’s results in a particular Competition or Event are invalidated, with all resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes; (b) Ineligibility means the Rider or other Person is barred on account of an anti-doping rule violation for a specified period of time from participating in any Competition or other activity or funding as provided in Article 10.14 UCI ADR; (c) Provisional Suspension means the Rider or other Person is barred temporarily from participating in any Competition or activity prior to the final decision at a hearing conducted under Article 8 UCI ADR; (d) Financial Consequences means a financial sanction imposed for an anti-doping rule violation or to recover costs associated with an anti-doping rule violation; and (e) Public Disclosure means the dissemination or distribution of information to the general public or Persons beyond those Persons entitled to earlier notification in accordance with Article 14 UCI ADR. Teams may also be subject to Consequences as provided in Article 11 UCI ADR.

Contaminated Product: A product that contains a Prohibited Substance that is not disclosed on the product label or in information available in a reasonable Internet search.

Delegated Third Parties: Any Person to which an Anti-Doping Organization delegates any aspect of Doping Control or anti-doping Education programs including, but not limited to, third parties or other Anti-Doping Organizations that conduct Sample collection or other Doping Control services or anti-doping educational programs for the Anti-Doping Organization, or individuals serving as independent contractors who perform Doping Control services for the Anti-Doping Organization (e.g., non-employee Doping Control Officers or chaperones). This definition does not include CAS.

Disqualification: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 6 of 52

Doping Control: All steps and processes from test distribution planning through to ultimate disposition of any appeal and the enforcement of Consequences, including all steps and processes in between, including but not limited to, Testing, investigations, whereabouts, TUEs, Sample collection and handling, laboratory analysis, Results Management and investigations or proceedings relating to violations of Article 10.14 UCI ADR (Status During Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension ).

Event: A single Competition organized separately (for example: a one-day road race) or a series of Competitions conducted together as a single organization (for example: road World Championships; a road stage race, a track World Cup Event ); a reference to Event includes reference to Competition, unless the context indicates otherwise.

Financial Consequences: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.

In-Competition: The Event Period. However, for the purpose of the Prohibited List, InCompetition is the period commencing at 11:59 p.m. on the day before a Competition in which the Rider is scheduled to participate through the end of such Competition and the Sample collection process related to such Competition.

[Comment to In-Competition: Having a universally accepted definition for In-Competition provides greater harmonization among Riders across all sports, eliminates or reduces confusion among Riders about the relevant timeframe for In-Competition Testing, avoids inadvertent Adverse Analytical Findings in between Competitions during an Event and assists in preventing any potential performance enhancement benefits from Substances prohibited Out-of-Competition being carried over to the Competition period.]

Ineligibility: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.

Institutional Independence: Hearing panels on appeal shall be fully Independent Institutionally from the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Results Management. They must therefore not in any way be administered by, connected or subject to the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Results Management.

International Event: An Event or Competition where the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, an International Federation, a Major Event Organization, or another international sport organization is the ruling body for the Event or appoints the technical officials for the Event.

For the purpose of Article 5.3 UCI ADR exclusively , International Events are Events for which the UCI has Testing responsibility and are referred to as “UCI International Events”. UCI International Events are defined annually by the UCI. The list of such UCI International Events is communicated to the relevant Anti-Doping Organizations before the start of the season and whenever required.

International-Level Rider: Rider s who compete in sport at the international level, as defined in the Introduction of these Anti-Doping Rules.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 7 of 52

International Standard: A standard adopted by WADA in support of the Code. 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. International Standards shall include any Technical Documents issued pursuant to the International Standard.

Major Event Organizations: The continental associations of National Olympic Committee s and other international multi-sport organizations that function as the ruling body for any continental, regional or other International Event.

Marker: A compound, group of compounds or biological variable(s) that indicates the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

Minor: A natural Person who has not reached the age of eighteen years.

National Anti-Doping Organization: The entity(ies) designated by each country as possessing the primary authority and responsibility to adopt and implement anti-doping rules, direct the collection of Samples, manage test results and conduct Results Management at the national level. If this designation has not been made by the competent public authority(ies), the entity shall be the country’s National Olympic Committee or its designee.

National-Level Rider: Riders who compete in sport at the national level, as defined by each National Anti-Doping Organization, consistent with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

Operational Independence: This means that (1) board members, staff members, commission members, consultants and officials of the Anti-Doping Organization with responsibility for Results Management or its affiliates (e.g., member federation or confederation), as well as any Person involved in the investigation and pre-adjudication of the matter cannot be appointed as members and/or clerks (to the extent that such clerk is involved in the deliberation process and/or drafting of any decision) of hearing panels of that Anti-Doping Organization with responsibility for Results Management and (2) hearing panels shall be in a position to conduct the hearing and decision-making process without interference from the Anti-Doping Organization or any third party. The objective is to ensure that members of the hearing panel or individuals otherwise involved in the decision of the hearing panel, are not involved in the investigation of, or decisions to proceed with, the case.

Out-of-Competition: Any period which is not In-Competition.

Person: A natural Person or an organization or other entity.

Possession: The actual, physical Possession, or the constructive Possession (which shall be found only if the Person has exclusive control or intends to exercise control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists); provided, however, that if the Person does not have exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists, constructive Possession shall only be found if the Person knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and intended to exercise control over it. Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 8 of 52

Possession if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the Person has committed an antidoping rule violation, the Person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the Person never intended to have Possession and has renounced Possession by explicitly declaring it to an Anti-Doping Organization. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the purchase (including by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method constitutes Possession by the Person who makes the purchase.

[Comment to Possession: Under this definition, anabolic steroids found in a Rider’s car would constitute a violation unless the Rider establishes that someone else used the car; in that event, the Anti-Doping Organization must establish that, even though the Rider did not have exclusive control over the car, the Rider knew about the anabolic steroids and intended to have control over them. Similarly, in the example of anabolic steroids found in a home medicine cabinet under the joint control of a Rider and spouse, the Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Rider knew the anabolic steroids were in the cabinet and that the Rider intended to exercise control over them. The act of purchasing a Prohibited Substance alone constitutes Possession, even where, for example, the product does not arrive, is received by someone else, or is sent to a third-party address.]

Prohibited List: The list identifying the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods.

Prohibited Method: Any method so described on the Prohibited List.

Prohibited Substance: Any substance, or class of substances, so described on the Prohibited List.

Provisional Hearing: For purposes of Article 7.5.3, an expedited abbreviated hearing occurring prior to a hearing under Article 8 that provides the Rider with notice and an opportunity to be heard in either written or oral form.

[Comment to Provisional Hearing: A Provisional Hearing is only a preliminary proceeding which may not involve a full review of the facts of the case. Following a Provisional Hearing, the Rider remains entitled to a subsequent full hearing on the merits of the case. By contrast, an “expedited hearing”, as that term is used in Article 7.5.3, is a full hearing on the merits conducted on an expedited time schedule.]

Provisional Suspension: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.

Publicly Disclose: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.

Registered Testing Pool: The pool of highest-priority Rider established separately at the international level by International Federations and at the national level by National Anti-Doping Organizations, who are subject to focused In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing as part of that International Federation's or National Anti-Doping Organization's test distribution plan and therefore are required to provide whereabouts information as provided in Article 5.5 UCI ADR and the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 9 of 52

Rider: Any Person subject to these Anti-Doping Rules who competes in the sport of cycling at the international level (as defined by each International Federation) or the national level (as defined by each National Anti-Doping Organization ).

An Anti-Doping Organization has discretion to apply anti-doping rules to a Rider who is neither an International-Level Rider nor a National-Level Rider, and thus to bring them within the definition of “ Rider ”. In relation to Riders who are neither International - Level nor National-Level Riders, an Anti-Doping Organization may elect to: conduct limited Testing or no Testing at all; analyze Samples for less than the full menu of Prohibited Substances; require limited or no whereabouts information; or not require advance TUEs. However, if an Article 2.1, 2.3 or 2.5 UCI ADR anti-doping rule violation is committed by any Rider over whom an Anti-Doping Organization has elected to exercise its authority to test and who competes below the international or national level, then the Consequences set forth in the Code must be applied. For purposes of Article 2.8 and Article 2.9 UCI ADR and for purposes of anti-doping information and Education, any Person who participates in sport under the authority of any Signatory, government, or other sports organization accepting the Code is a Rider.

[Comment to Rider: Individuals who participate in sport may fall in one of five categories: 1) International-Level Rider, 2) National-Level Rider, 3) individuals who are not International- or National-Level Riders but over whom the International Federation or National Anti-Doping Organization has chosen to exercise authority, 4) Recreational Rider, and 5) individuals over whom no International Federation or National Anti-Doping Organization has, or has chosen to, exercise authority. All International- and National-Level Riders are subject to the anti-doping rules of the Code, with the precise definitions of international and national level sport to be set forth in the anti-doping rules of the International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations.]

Results Management: The process encompassing the timeframe between notification as per Article 5 of the International Standard for Results Management, or in certain cases (e.g., Atypical Finding, Athlete Biological Passport, Whereabouts Failure), such pre-notification steps expressly provided for in Article 5 of the International Standard for Results Management, through the charge until the final resolution of the matter, including the end of the hearing process at first instance or on appeal (if an appeal was lodged).

Sample or Specimen: Any biological material collected for the purposes of Doping Control.

[Comment to Sample or Specimen: It has sometimes been claimed that the collection of blood Samples violates the tenets of certain religious or cultural groups. It has been determined that there is no basis for any such claim.]

Signatories: Those entities accepting the Code and agreeing to implement the Code, as provided in Article 23.

Specified Method: See Article 4.2.2 UCI ADR.

Specified Substance: See Article 4.2.2 UCI ADR.

Substance of Abuse: See Article 4.2.3 UCI ADR.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 10 of 52

Substantial Assistance: For purposes of Article 10.7.1 UCI ADR, a Person providing Substantial Assistance must: (1) fully disclose in a signed written statement or recorded interview all information he or she possesses in relation to anti-doping rule violations or other proceeding described in Article 10.7.1.1 UCI ADR, and (2) fully cooperate with the investigation and adjudication of any case or matter related to that information, including, for example, presenting testimony at a hearing if requested to do so by an Anti-Doping Organization or hearing panel. Further, the information provided must be credible and must comprise an important part of any case or proceeding which is initiated or, if no case or proceeding is initiated, must have provided a sufficient basis on which a case or proceeding could have been brought.

Tampering: Intentional conduct which subverts 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 AntiDoping 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.

[Comment to Tampering: For example, this Article would prohibit altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B bottle at the time of “B” Sample analysis, altering a Sample by the addition of a foreign substance, or intimidating or attempting to intimidate a potential witness or a witness who has provided testimony or information in the Doping Control process. Tampering includes misconduct which occurs during the Results Management and hearing process. See Article 10.9.3.3. However, actions taken as part of a Person's legitimate defense to an anti-doping rule violation charge shall not be considered Tampering. Offensive conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control which does not otherwise constitute Tampering shall be addressed in the disciplinary rules of sport organizations.]

Target Testing: Selection of specific Riders for Testing based on criteria set forth in the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations.

Technical Document: A document adopted and published by WADA from time to time containing mandatory technical requirements on specific anti-doping topics as set forth in an International Standard.

Testing: The parts of the Doping Control process involving test distribution planning, Sample collection, Sample handling, and Sample transport to the laboratory.

Testing Pool: The tier below the Registered Testing Pool which includes Riders from whom some whereabouts information is required in order to locate and Test the Rider Out-ofCompetition.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 11 of 52

Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE): A Therapeutic Use Exemption allows a Rider with a medical condition to use a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, but only if the conditions set out in Article 4.4 UCI ADR and the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions are met.

Use: The utilization, application, ingestion, injection or consumption by any means whatsoever of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

WADA: The World Anti-Doping Agency.

3.2 Defined Terms from the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations

Doping Control Officer (or DCO): An official who has been trained and authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to carry out the responsibilities given to DCOs in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

Expert: The Expert(s) and/or Expert Panel, with knowledge in the concerned field, chosen by the Anti-Doping Organization and/or Athlete Passport Management Unit, are responsible for providing an evaluation of the Passport. The Expert must be external to the Anti-Doping Organization.

For the Haematological Module, the Expert panel should consist of at least three (3) Experts who have qualifications in one or more of the fields of clinical and Laboratory haematology, sports medicine or exercise physiology, as they apply to blood doping. For the Steroidal Module, the Expert panel should be composed of at least three (3) individuals with qualifications in the fields of Laboratory steroid analysis, steroid doping and metabolism and/or clinical endocrinology. For both modules, an Expert panel should consist of Experts with complementary knowledge such that all relevant fields are represented. The Expert panel may include a pool of at least three (3) appointed Experts and any additional ad hoc Expert(s) who may be required upon request of any of the appointed Experts or by the Athlete Passport Management Unit of the Anti-Doping Organization.

Sample Collection Authority: The organization that is responsible for the collection of Samples in compliance with the requirements of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, whether (1) the Testing Authority itself; or (2) a Delegated Third Party to whom the authority to conduct Testing has been granted or sub-contracted. The Testing Authority always remains ultimately responsible under the Code for compliance with the requirements of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations relating to collection of Samples.

Sample Collection Session: All of the sequential activities that directly involve the Rider from the point that initial contact is made until the Rider leaves the Doping Control Station after having provided their Sample(s).

Testing Authority: The Anti-Doping Organization that authorizes Testing on Riders it has authority over. It may authorize a Delegated Third Party to conduct Testing pursuant to the authority of and in accordance with the rules of the Anti-Doping Organization. Such authorization shall be documented. The Anti-Doping Organization authorizing Testing remains the Testing Authority and ultimately responsible under the Code to ensure the Delegated Third Party

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 12 of 52

conducting the Testing does so in compliance with the requirements of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.

Unsuccessful Attempt Report: A detailed report of an unsuccessful attempt to collect a Sample from a Rider in a Registered Testing Pool or Testing pool setting out the date of the attempt, the location visited, the exact arrival and departure times at the location, the steps taken at the location to try to find the Rider (including details of any contact made with third parties), and any other relevant details about the attempt.

Whereabouts Filing: Information provided by or on behalf of a Rider in a Registered Testing Pool (or Testing pool if applicable) that sets out the Rider’s whereabouts during the following quarter, in accordance with Article 4.8.

3.3 Defined Terms from the International Standard for Laboratories

Adaptive Model: A mathematical model designed to identify unusual longitudinal results from Riders. The model calculates the probability of a longitudinal profile of Marker values assuming that the Rider has a normal physiological condition.

Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU): A unit composed of a Person or Persons that is responsible for the timely management of Athlete Biological Passports in ADAMS on behalf of the Passport Custodian.

Confirmation Procedure (CP): An Analytical Testing Procedure that has the purpose of confirming the presence and/or, when applicable, confirming the concentration/ratio/score and/or establishing the origin (exogenous or endogenous) of one or more specific Prohibited Substances, Metabolite(s) of a Prohibited Substance, or Marker(s) of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in a Sample.

Independent Witness: A Person, invited by the Testing Authority, the Laboratory or WADA to witness parts of the Analytical Testing process. The Independent Witness shall be independent of the Rider and his/her representative(s), the Laboratory, the Sample Collection Authority, the Testing Authority / Results Management Authority or WADA, as applicable. The Independent Witness may be indemnified for his/her service.

Laboratory(ies): (A) WADA -accredited laboratory(ies) applying Test Methods and processes to provide evidentiary data for the detection and/or identification of Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods on the Prohibited List and, if applicable, quantification of a Threshold Substance in Samples of urine and other biological matrices in the context of Doping Control activities.

Laboratory Documentation Package: The material produced by the Laboratory to support.an analytical result such as an Adverse Analytical Finding as set forth in the WADA Technical Document for Laboratory Documentation Packages (TD LDOC).

Limit of Quantification (LOQ): Analytical parameter of assay technical performance. Lowest concentration of an Analyte in a Sample that can be quantitatively determined with acceptable precision and accuracy (i.e. acceptable Measurement Uncertainty) under the stated test conditions

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 13 of 52

Threshold Substance: An exogenous or endogenous Prohibited Substance, Metabolite or Marker of a Prohibited Substance for which the identification and quantitative determination ( e.g. concentration, ratio, score) in excess of a pre-determined Decision Limit, or, when applicable, the establishment of an exogenous origin, constitutes an Adverse Analytical Finding. Threshold Substances are identified as such in the Technical Document on Decision Limits (TD DL).

3.4 Defined Term from the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemptions Regulations

Therapeutic: Of or relating to the treatment of a medical condition by remedial agents or methods; or providing or assisting in a cure.

3.5 Defined Term from the International Standard for Protection of Privacy and Personal Information

Personal Information: Information, including without limitation Sensitive Personal Information, relating to an identified or identifiable Participant or relating to other Person whose information is Processed solely in the context of an Anti-Doping Organization’s Anti-Doping Activities.

[Comment to Personal Information: It is understood that Personal Information includes, but is not limited to, information relating to a Rider’s name, date of birth, contact details and sporting affiliations, whereabouts, designated TUEs (if any), anti-doping test results, and Results Management (including disciplinary hearings, appeals and sanctions). Personal Information also includes personal details and contact information relating to other Persons, such as medical professionals and other Persons working with, treating or assisting a Rider in the context of Anti-Doping Activities. Such information remains Personal Information and is regulated by this International Standard for the entire duration of its Processing, irrespective of whether the relevant individual remains involved in organized sport.]

3.6 Defined Terms Specific to the UCI Results Management Regulations

Adaptive Model : A mathematical model designed to identify unusual longitudinal results from Athletes. The model calculates the probability of a longitudinal profile of Marker values assuming that the Athlete has a normal physiological condition.

Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package: The material compiled by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to support an Adverse Passport Finding such as, but not limited to, analytical data, Expert Panel comments, evidence of confounding factors as well as other relevant supporting information.

Athlete Passport Management Unit Report: A report maintained by the Athlete Passport Management Unit, available in the Athlete ’s Passport in ADAMS, that provides a comprehensive summary of the Expert(s) review(s) and recommendations for effective and appropriate follow-up Testing by the Passport Custodian.

Expert Panel: The Experts, with knowledge in the concerned field, chosen by the UCI and/or Athlete Passport Management Unit, who are responsible for providing an evaluation of the Passport. For the Haematological Module, Experts should have knowledge in one or more of

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 14 of 52

the fields of clinical haematology (diagnosis of blood pathological conditions), sports medicine or exercise physiology. For the Steroidal Module, the Experts should have knowledge in Laboratory analysis, steroid doping and/or endocrinology. For both modules, an Expert Panel should consist of Experts with complementary knowledge such that all relevant fields are represented. The Expert Panel may include a pool of at least three appointed Experts and any additional ad hoc Expert(s) who may be required upon request of any of the appointed Experts or by the Athlete Passport Management Unit of the UCI.

Failure to Comply: A term used to describe anti-doping rule violations under UCI ADR Articles 2.3 and/or 2.5.

Filing Failure: A failure by the Rider (or by a third party to whom the Rider has delegated the task) to make an accurate and complete Whereabouts Filing that enables the Rider to be located for Testing at the times and locations set out in the Whereabouts Filing or to update that Whereabouts Filing where necessary to ensure that it remains accurate and complete, all in accordance with Article 4.8 of the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations and Annex B.2 of the UCI Results Management Regulations.

Hearing Process: The process encompassing the timeframe between the referral of a matter to a hearing panel or tribunal until the issuance and notification of a decision by the hearing panel (whether at first instance or on appeal).

Missed Test: A failure by the Rider to be available for Testing at the location and time specified in the 60-minute time slot identified in their Whereabouts Filing for the day in question, in accordance with Article 4.8 of the UCI Testing and Investigations regulations and Annex B.2 of the UCI Results Management Regulations.

Passport: A collation of all relevant data unique to an individual Rider that may include longitudinal profiles of Markers, heterogeneous factors unique to that particular Rider and other relevant information that may help in the evaluation of Markers.

Passport Custodian: The Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Result Management of the Rider ’s Passport and for sharing any relevant information associated to that Rider’s Passport with other Anti-Doping Organization(s).

Results Management Authority: The Anti-Doping Organization responsible for conducting Results Management in a given case.

Whereabouts Failure: A Filing Failure or a Missed Test.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 15 of 52

3.7 Interpretation

• 3.7.1 The official text of the UCI Results Management Regulations shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.

• 3.7.2 Like the UCI ADR, the UCI Results Management Regulations have been drafted giving consideration to the principles of proportionality, human rights, and other applicable legal principles. They shall be interpreted and applied in that light.

• 3.7.3 The comments annotating various provisions of the UCI Results Management Regulations shall be used to guide their interpretation.

• 3.7.4 Unless otherwise specified, references to Sections and Articles are references to Sections and Articles of the UCI Results Management Regulations.

• 3.7.5 Where the term “days” is used in the UCI Results Management Regulations, it shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specified.

• 3.7.6 The Annexes to the UCI Results Management Regulations have the same mandatory status as the rest of the UCI Results Management Regulations.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 16 of 52

PART TWO: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

4.0 General Principles

4.1 The UCI Legal Anti-Doping Services

The UCI established the Legal Anti-Doping Services (LADS) to conduct Results Management in cases under the UCI’s jurisdiction. LADS is set up as a unit separate from the rest of the UCI and conducts results management independently from the UCI Management. LADS can conduct its activities in consultation with an external legal counsel.

Unless otherwise specified, references to the UCI under the UCI Results Management Regulations are references to LADS.

4.2 Confidentiality of Results Management

Save for disclosures, including Public Disclosure, that are required or permitted under UCI ADR Article 14 or these Regulations, all processes and procedures related to Results Management are confidential.

4.3 Timeliness

In the interest of fair and effective sport justice, anti-doping rule violations should be prosecuted in a timely manner. Irrespective of the type of anti-doping rule violation involved, and save for cases involving complex issues or delays outside of the UCI’s control (e.g. delays attributable to the Rider or other Person ), the UCI should be able to conclude Results Management (including the Hearing Process at first instance) within six (6) months from notification as per Article 5 below. Irrespective of the above, the UCI should ensure the right to be heard and the fairness of the process, taking into account all circumstances, including without limitation the procedural or scientific complexity of the case.

[Comment to Article 4.2: A failure by the UCI to conclude Results Management within six (6) months from notification shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an antidoping rule violation and shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation.]

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 17 of 52

PART THREE: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – PRE-ADJUDICATION

5.0 First Results Management Phase

This Article 5 sets out the procedures applicable for the first Results Management phase as follows:

• Adverse Analytical Findings (Article 5.1),

• Atypical Findings (Article 5.2), and

• • other matters (Article 5.3), which include potential Failures to Comply (Article 5.3.1.1), Whereabouts Failures (Article 5.3.1.2) and Athlete Biological Passport findings (Article 5.3.1.3). The notification requirements in respect of matters falling under the scope of Article 5.3 are described under Article 5.3.2.

5.1 Adverse Analytical Findings

5.1.1 Initial Review

Upon receipt of an Adverse Analytical Finding, the UCI shall conduct a review to determine whether (a) an applicable TUE has been granted or will be granted as provided in the UCI TUE Regulations (Article 5.1.1.1), (b) there is any apparent departure from the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations or International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding (Article 5.1.1.2) and/or (c) it is apparent that the Adverse Analytical Finding was caused by an ingestion of the relevant Prohibited Substance through a permitted route (Article 5.1.1.3).

5.1.1.1 Therapeutic Use Exemption

• 5.1.1.1.1 The UCI shall consult the Rider’s records in ADAMS and with other Anti-Doping Organizations that might have approved a TUE for the Rider (e.g., the National Anti-Doping Organization or another International Federation, if applicable) to determine whether a TUE exists.

[Comment to Article 5.1.1.1.1: As per the Prohibited List and the Technical Document for Decision Limits for the Confirmatory Quantification of Threshold Substances, the detection in a Rider’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of any quantity of certain Threshold Substances (identified in the Prohibited List), in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent, will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless the Rider has an approved TUE for that substance in addition to the one granted for the diuretic or masking agent. Therefore, in the event of such detection, the UCI shall also determine whether the Rider has an approved TUE for the detected Threshold Substance.]

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 18 of 52

• 5.1.1.1.2 If the initial review reveals that the Rider has an applicable TUE, then the UCI shall conduct such follow up review as necessary to determine if the specific requirements of the TUE have been complied with.

5.1.1.2 Apparent Departure from UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations and/or International Standard for Laboratories

The UCI must review the Adverse Analytical Finding to determine if there has been any departure from the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations and/or the International Standard for Laboratories. This may include a review of the Laboratory Documentation Package produced by the Laboratory to support the Adverse Analytical Finding (if available at the time of the review) and relevant Doping Control form(s) and Testing documents.

5.1.1.3 Apparent Ingestion through Permitted Route

If the Adverse Analytical Finding involves a Prohibited Substance permitted through (a) specific route(s) as per the Prohibited List, the UCI shall consult any relevant available documentation (e.g. Doping Control form) to determine whether the Prohibited Substance appears to have been administered through a permitted route and, if so, shall consult an expert to determine whether the Adverse Analytical Finding is compatible with the apparent route of ingestion.

If the UCI deems it efficient under the circumstances, the UCI may also contact the Rider to obtain his/her explanation in the context of its initial review.

[Comment to Article 5.1.1.3: For the sake of clarity, the outcome of the initial review shall not prevent a Rider from arguing that his/her Use of the Prohibited Substance came from a permitted route at a later stage of Results Management.]

5.1.2 Notification

• 5.1.2.1 If the review of the Adverse Analytical Finding does not reveal an applicable TUE or entitlement to the same as provided in the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemptions Regulations, a departure from the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding or that it is apparent that the Adverse Analytical Finding was caused by an ingestion of the relevant Prohibited Substance through an authorized route, the UCI shall promptly notify the Rider of:

• a) The Adverse Analytical Finding;

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 a): In the event that the Adverse Analytical Finding relates to salbutamol, formoterol, human chorionic gonadotrophin or another Prohibited Substance subject to specific

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 19 of 52

Results Management requirements in a Technical Document, the UCI shall in addition comply with Article 5.1.2.2. The Rider shall be provided with any relevant documentation, including a copy of the Doping Control form and the Laboratory results.]

• b) The fact that the Adverse Analytical Finding may result in an anti-doping rule violation of UCI ADR Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2 and the applicable Consequences;

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 b): The UCI should always refer to both UCI ADR Articles 2.1 and 2.2 in the notification and charge letter (Article 7) to a Rider if the matter relates to an Adverse Analytical Finding. The UCI shall refer to ADAMS and contact WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations to determine whether any prior anti-doping rule violation exists and take such information into account in determining the applicable Consequences.]

• c) The Rider’s right to request the analysis of the “B” Sample or, failing such request, that the “B” Sample analysis may be deemed irrevocably waived;

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 c): The UCI may still request the “B” Sample analysis even if the Rider does not request the “B” Sample analysis or expressly or impliedly waives their right to analysis of the “B” Sample. The UCI may request the Rider to advance the costs of the B Sample analysis.]

• d) The opportunity for the Rider and/or the Rider’s representative to attend the “B” Sample opening and analysis in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories;

• e) The Rider’s right to request copies of the “A” Sample Laboratory Documentation Package which includes information required by the International Standard for Laboratories;

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.1 e): This request shall be made to the UCI and not the Laboratory directly.

The costs relating to the issuance of the Laboratory Documentation Package(s) shall be covered by the Rider in advance.]

• f) The opportunity for the Rider to provide an explanation within a short deadline;

• g) The opportunity for the Rider to provide Substantial Assistance as set out under UCI ADR Article 10.7.1, to admit the anti-doping rule violation and potentially benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility under UCI ADR Article 10.8.1 (if applicable) or to seek to enter into a case

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 20 of 52

resolution agreement under UCI ADR Article 10.8.2 or an Acceptance of Consequences under UCI ADR 8.2; and

• h) Any matters relating to Provisional Suspension (including the possibility for the Rider to accept a voluntary Provisional Suspension ) as per Article 6 (if applicable).

• 5.1.2.2 In addition, in the event that the Adverse Analytical Finding relates to the Prohibited Substances set out below, the UCI shall:

• a) Salbutamol or Formoterol: draw the attention of the Rider in the notification letter that the Rider can prove, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the Adverse Analytical Finding was the consequence of a Therapeutic dose by inhalation up to the maximum dose indicated under class S3 of the Prohibited List. The Rider’s attention shall in addition be drawn to the key guiding principles for a controlled pharmacokinetic study and they shall be provided with a list of Laboratories, which could perform the controlled pharmacokinetic study. The Rider shall be granted a deadline of seven (7) days to indicate whether he/she intends to undertake a controlled pharmacokinetic study, failing which the UCI may proceed with the Results Management;

• b) Urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin: follow the procedures set out at Article 6 of the 2019 Technical Document for the Reporting & Management of Urinary Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Findings in Male Riders (TD2019CG/LH) or any subsequent version of the Technical Document;

• c) Other Prohibited Substance subject to specific Results Management requirements in a Technical Document or other document issued by WADA: follow the procedures set out in the relevant Technical Document or other document issued by WADA.

• 5.1.2.3 The UCI shall also indicate the scheduled date, time and place for the “B” Sample analysis for the eventuality that the Rider or the UCI chooses to request an analysis of the “B” Sample; it shall do so either in the notification letter described in Article 5.1.2.1 or in a subsequent letter promptly after the Rider (or the UCI ) has requested the “B” Sample analysis.

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.3: As per Article 5.3.6.2.3 of the International Standard for Laboratories, the “B” Sample confirmation should be performed as soon as possible, and no later than three (3) months, following the reporting of the “A” Sample Adverse Analytical Finding.

The timing of the “B” Sample confirmation analysis may be strictly fixed in the short term with no postponement possible, when circumstances so justify it. This can notably and without limitation be the case in the context of Testing during or immediately before or after Major Events, or when the further

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 21 of 52

postponement of the “B” Sample analysis could significantly increase the risk of Sample degradation.]

• 5.1.2.4 If the Rider requests the “B” Sample analysis but claims that they and/or their representative is not available on the scheduled date indicated by the UCI, the UCI shall liaise with the Laboratory and propose (at least) two (2) alternative dates.

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.4: The alternative dates should take into account: (1) the reasons for the Rider’s unavailability; and (2) the need to avoid any degradation of the Sample and ensure timely Results Management.]

• 5.1.2.5 If the Rider and their representative claim not to be available on the alternative dates proposed, the UCI may instruct the Laboratory to proceed regardless and appoint an Independent Witness to verify that the “B” Sample container shows no signs of Tampering and that the identifying numbers match that on the collection documentation.

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.5: An Independent Witness may be appointed even if the Rider has indicated that they will be present and/or represented.]

• 5.1.2.6 If the results of the “B” Sample analysis confirm the results of the “A” Sample analysis or if the “B” Sample analysis is waived by the Rider, the UCI shall promptly notify the Rider of such results, if applicable and shall grant the Rider a short deadline to provide or supplement their explanations. The Rider shall also be afforded the possibility to admit the anti-doping rule violation to potentially benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility under UCI ADR Article 10.8.1 , if applicable, and/or to voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension as per UCI ADR Article 7.4.4.

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.6: While the UCI may agree to grant the Rider or other Person an extension (on justified grounds) of the deadline to provide their explanation, no extension of the deadline to admit the ADRV and benefit from a one-year reduction can be afforded to the Rider or other Person.]

(text modified on 20.02.2023)

• 5.1.2.7 Upon receipt of any explanation from a Rider, the UCI may, without limitation, request further information and/or documents from the Rider within a set deadline or liaise with third parties in order to assess the validity of the explanation.

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.7: If the positive finding involves a Prohibited Substance subject to a permitted route (e.g. by inhalation, by transdermal or by ophthalmic Use) and the Rider alleged that the positive finding came from the permitted route, the UCI should assess the credibility of the explanation by contacting third parties (including scientific experts) before deciding not to move forward with Results Management].

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 22 of 52

• 5.1.2.8 Any communication provided to the Rider under this Article 5.1.2 shall simultaneously be provided by the UCI to the Rider’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s) and WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.

The Rider’ s National Federation and Team may also be informed of the same.

[Comment to Article 5.1.2.8: To the extent not already set out in the communication to the Rider, this notification shall include the following information (if applicable): the Rider’s name, country, sport and discipline within the sport, whether the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition, the date of Sample collection, the analytical result reported by the Laboratory and other information as required by the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations.]

5.2 Atypical Findings

• 5.2.1 Upon receipt of an Atypical Finding, the UCI shall conduct a review to determine whether: (a) an applicable TUE has been granted or will be granted as provided in the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemptions Regulations (see Article 5.1.1.1 by analogy); (b) there is any apparent departure from the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations or International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Atypical Finding (see Article 5.1.1.2 by analogy) and/or (c) it is apparent that the ingestion of the Prohibited Substance was through a permitted route (see Article 5.1.1.3 by analogy). If that review does not reveal an applicable TUE, an apparent departure that caused the Atypical Finding or an ingestion through an authorized route, the UCI shall conduct the required investigation.

[Comment to Article 5.2.1: If the Prohibited Substance involved is subject to specific Results Management requirements in a Technical Document, the UCI shall also follow the procedures set out therein.

In addition, the UCI may contact WADA to determine which investigative steps should be undertaken. These investigative steps may be provided for by WADA in a specific notice or other document.

If the UCI deems it efficient under the circumstances, the UCI may also contact the Rider as part of its investigation].

• 5.2.2 The UCI does not need to provide notice of an Atypical Finding until it has completed its investigation and decided whether it will bring the Atypical Finding forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless one of the following circumstances exists:

• a) If the UCI determines that the “B” Sample should be analyzed prior to the conclusion of its investigation, the UCI may conduct the “B” Sample analysis after notifying the Rider, with such notice to include a description of the Atypical Finding and the information described in Article 5.1.2.1 c) to e) and Article 5.1.2.3;

• b) If the UCI receives a request, either from a Major Event Organization shortly before one of its International Events or from a sport organization responsible for meeting

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 23 of 52

an imminent deadline for selecting team members for an International Event, to disclose whether any Rider identified on a list provided by the Major Event Organization or sport organization has a pending Atypical Finding, the UCI shall identify any Rider after first providing notice of the Atypical Finding to the Rider; or

• c) If the Atypical Finding is, in the opinion of qualified medical or expert personnel, likely to be connected to a serious pathology that requires urgent medical attention.

• 5.2.3 If after the investigation is completed, the UCI decides to pursue the Atypical Finding as an Adverse Analytical Finding, then the procedure shall follow the provisions of Article 5.1 mutatis mutandis.

5.3 Matters not Involving an Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding

5.3.1 Specific cases

5.3.1.1 Report of a potential Failure to Comply

The pre-adjudication phase of Results Management of a possible Failure to Comply shall take place as provided in Annex A – Review of a Possible Failure to Comply.

5.3.1.2 Whereabouts Failures

The pre-adjudication phase of Results Management of potential Whereabouts Failures shall take place as provided in Annex B – Results Management for Whereabouts Failures.

5.3.1.3 Athlete Biological Passport Findings

The pre-adjudication phase of Results Management of Atypical Passport Findings or Passports submitted to an Expert by the Athlete Passport Management Unit when there is no Atypical Passport Finding shall take place as provided in Annex C – Results Management Requirements and Procedures for the Athlete Biological Passport.

5.3.2 Notification for specific cases and other anti-doping rule violations under Article 5.3

• 5.3.2.1 At such time as the UCI considers that the Rider or other Person may have committed (an) anti-doping rule violation(s), the UCI shall promptly notify the Rider or other Person of:

• a) The relevant anti-doping rule violation(s) and the applicable Consequences;

• b) The relevant factual circumstances upon which the allegations are based;

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 24 of 52

• c) The relevant evidence in support of those facts that the UCI considers demonstrate that the Rider or other Person may have committed (an) antidoping rule violation(s);

• d) The Rider or other Person’s right to provide an explanation within a reasonable deadline;

• e) The opportunity for the Rider or other Person to provide Substantial Assistance as set out in UCI ADR Article 10.7.1 , to admit the anti-doping rule violation and potentially benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility in UCI ADR Article 10.8.1 (if applicable) or seek to enter into a case resolution agreement in UCI ADR Article 10.8.2 or an Acceptance of Consequences under UCI ADR 8.2; and

• f) Any matters relating to Provisional Suspension (including the possibility for the Rider or other Person to accept a voluntary Provisional Suspension ) as per Article 6 (if applicable).

• 5.3.2.2 Upon receipt of the Rider’s or other Person’s explanation, the UCI may, without limitation, request further information and/or documents from the Rider or other Person within a set deadline or liaise with third parties in order to assess the validity of the explanation.

• 5.3.2.3 The communication provided to the Rider or other Person shall simultaneously be provided by the UCI to the Rider’s or other Person’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s) and WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.

[Comment to Article 5.3.2.3: To the extent not already set out in the communication to the Rider or other Person, this notification shall include the following information (if applicable): the Rider’s or other Person’s name, country, sport and discipline within the sport.]

5.4 Decision Not to Move Forward

If at any point during Results Management up until the charge under Article 7 below, the UCI decides not to move forward with a matter, it must notify the Rider or other Person (provided that the Rider or other Person had been already informed of the ongoing Results Management ) and give notice (with reasons) to the Anti-Doping Organizations with a right of appeal under UCI ADR Article 13.2.3.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 25 of 52

6.0 Provisional Suspensions

6.1 Scope

• 6.1.1 In principle, a Provisional Suspension means that a Rider or other Person is barred temporarily from participating in any capacity in any Competition or activity as per UCI ADR Article 10.14.1 prior to the final decision at a hearing pursuant to Article 8.

• 6.1.2 Where the Results Management Authority is the ruling body of an Event or is responsible for team selection, the rules of such Results Management Authority shall provide that the Provisional Suspension is limited to the scope of the Event, respectively team selection. Upon notification under Article 5, the UCI shall be responsible for Provisional Suspension beyond the scope of the Event.

6.2 Imposition of a Provisional Suspension

6.2.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension after certain Adverse Analytical Findings or Adverse Passport Finding

If the UCI receives an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Adverse Passport Finding (upon completion of the Adverse Passport Finding review process) for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method that is not a Specified Substance or a Specified Method, the UCI shall impose a Provisional Suspension on the Rider following the review and notification required by Article 5 of the UCI Results Management Regulations.

6.2.2 Optional Provisional Suspension based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances, Specified Methods, Contaminated Products, or Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations

The UCI may impose a Provisional Suspension for potential anti-doping rule violations not covered by Article 6.2.1 above prior to the analysis of the Rider ’s B Sample (where applicable) or a final hearing as described in UCI ADR Article 8, following the review and notification required by Article 5 of the UCI Results Management Regulations.

[Comment to Article 6.2.2: Whether or not to impose an optional Provisional Suspension is a matter for the UCI to decide in its discretion, taking into account all the facts and evidence. The UCI should keep in mind that if a Rider continues to compete after being notified and/or charged in respect of an anti-doping rule violation and is subsequently found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, any results, prizes and titles achieved and awarded in that timeframe may be subject to Disqualification and forfeited.

Nothing in this provision prevents provisional measures (including a lifting of the Provisional Suspension upon request of the Rider or other Person) being ordered by a hearing panel.]

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 26 of 52

6.3 General Provisions

6.3.1 Notice and Effects of the Provisional Suspension

Notice of a Provisional Suspension may be included in the notification under Article 5 of the UCI Results Management Regulations or otherwise provided simultaneously with or upon notification of the asserted anti-doping rule violation by the UCI.

The Provisional Suspension shall start on the date on which it is notified (or deemed notified) by the UCI to the Rider or other Person.

6.3.2 Duration of the Provisional Suspension

The period of Provisional Suspension shall end with the final decision of the hearing panel under Article 8, unless lifted earlier in accordance with this Article 6. However, the period of Provisional Suspension shall not exceed the maximum length of the period of Ineligibility that may be imposed on the Rider or other Person based on the relevant anti-doping rule violation(s).

In circumstances where the Rider (or the Rider’s team as may be provided in the rules of the applicable Major Event Organization or the UCI ) has been removed from an Event based on a violation of UCI ADR Article 2.1 and the subsequent “B” Sample analysis does not confirm the “A” Sample finding, if, without otherwise affecting the Event, it is still possible for the Rider or team to be reinstated, the Rider or team may continue to take part in the Event.

[Comment to Article 6.3.2: The UCI may nonetheless decide to maintain and/or reimpose a Provisional Suspension on the Rider based on another anti-doping rule violation notified to the Rider, e.g. a violation of UCI ADR Article 2.2.]

6.4 Opportunity for Hearing or Appeal

• 6.4.1 With notice of the Provisional Suspension, the Rider or other Person shall be given: (a) an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing, either before or on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension; or (b) an opportunity for an expedited hearing in accordance with UCI ADR Article 8 on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension.

• 6.4.2 If an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing is given in the notice, the request shall be made in writing and shall be brought to the UCI Disciplinary Commission.

The request shall be examined, and the decision taken by one (1) or more members of the UCI Disciplinary Commission.

Unless the UCI Disciplinary Commission orders otherwise, the decision shall be based on written submissions only and no oral hearing shall be organized.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 27 of 52

A decision of the UCI Disciplinary Commission not to eliminate the Provisional Suspension may be appealed in accordance with UCI ADR Article 13.2. Notwithstanding the general provisions in UCI ADR Article 13, the only Person who may appeal from the imposition of a Provisional Suspension is the Rider or other Person upon whom the Provisional Suspension is imposed.

6.4.3 If the request for lifting the Provisional Suspension is denied and not appealed under UCI ADR Article 13.2, or if the denial is confirmed on appeal, a new request for lifting the Provisional Suspension may only be presented based on new facts or circumstances that were not known and could not reasonably have been known to the Rider or other Person at the time of the first request.

6.5 Grounds for Lifting of the Provisional Suspension

• 6.5.1 A mandatory or optional Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Rider demonstrates to the UCI Disciplinary Commission that the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product, or (ii) the violation involves a Substance of Abuse and the Rider establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under UCI ADR Article 10.2.4.1. The UCI Disciplinary Commission’s decision not to lift a Provisional Suspension on account of the Rider’s assertion regarding a Contaminated Product shall not be appealable.

• 6.5.2 A mandatory or optional Provisional Suspension may also be eliminated if the Rider or other Person establishes that (a) the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has no reasonable prospect of being upheld, or (b) there is a strong arguable case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the asserted anti-doping rule violation, or (c) some other facts or circumstances exist that, in the UCI Disciplinary Commission ’s opinion, make it clearly unfair to impose or maintain the Provisional Suspension. A decision of the UCI Disciplinary Commission not to eliminate the Provisional Suspension may be appealed in accordance with UCI ADR Article 13.2.

[Comment: The ground under (c) is to be construed narrowly and applied only in truly exceptional circumstances. For example, the fact that the Provisional Suspension would prevent the Rider or other Person from participating in a particular Competition or Event shall not qualify as a circumstance for these purposes]

(text modified on 20.02.2023)

6.5.3 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent B Sample analysis (if requested by the Rider or the UCI ) does not confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Rider shall not be subject to any further Provisional Suspension on account of a violation of Article 2.1.

[Comment to Article 6.5.3: the UCI may, however, decide to maintain the Provisional Suspension under Article 6.2.3, based on the assertion of another anti-

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 28 of 52

doping rule violation including under Article 2.2, subject to the possibility to ask for an elimination of the Provisional Suspension under Article 6.4.]

In circumstances where the Rider (or the Rider's team) has been removed from an Event based on a violation of Article 2.1 and the subsequent B Sample analysis does not confirm the A Sample finding, then, if it is still possible for the Rider or team to be reinserted, without otherwise affecting the Event, the Rider or team may continue to take part in the Event.

6.5.4 An optional Provisional Suspension may be lifted at the discretion of the UCI at any time prior to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal ’s decision under Article 8, unless provided otherwise in the UCI Results Management Regulations.

6.6 Voluntary Provisional Suspension

• Riders on their own initiative may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension if done so prior to the later of: (i) the expiration of ten (10) days from the notification of the B Sample (or waiver of the B Sample ) or ten (10) days from the notice of any other anti-doping rule violation, or

• (ii) the date on which the Rider first competes after such report or notice.

Other Persons on their own initiative may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension if done so within ten (10) days from the notice of the anti-doping rule violation.

Upon such voluntary acceptance, the Provisional Suspension shall have the full effect and be treated in the same manner as if the Provisional Suspension had been imposed under Article 6.2.1 or 6.2.2; provided, however, that at any time after voluntarily accepting a Provisional Suspension, the Rider or other Person may withdraw such acceptance, in which case the Rider or other Person shall not receive any credit for time previously served during the Provisional Suspension.

6.7 Notification

• 6.7.1 Unless already notified under another provision of these Regulations, any imposition of a Provisional Suspension notified to the Rider or other Person or voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension, or lifting of either, shall promptly be notified by the UCI to the Rider’s or other Person’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s), National Federation and WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.

[Comment to Article 6.7.1: To the extent not already set out in the communication to the Rider or other Person, this notification shall include the following information (if applicable): the Rider’s or other Person’s name, country, sport and discipline within the sport.]

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 29 of 52

7.0 Charge

• 7.1 If, after receipt of the Rider or other Person’s explanation or expiry of the deadline to provide such explanation, the UCI is (still) satisfied that the Rider or other Person has committed (an) anti-doping rule violation(s), the UCI shall promptly charge the Rider or other Person with the anti-doping rule violation(s) they are asserted to have breached.

In this letter of charge, the UCI:

• Shall set out the provision(s) of its anti-doping rules asserted to have been violated by the Rider or other Person;

[Comment: The UCI is not limited by the anti-doping rule violation(s) set out in the notification under Article 5. In its discretion, the UCI may decide to assert further anti-doping rule violation(s) in its notice of charge.

Notwithstanding the above, whereas it is the UCI’s duty to set out all and any asserted antidoping rule violation(s) against a Rider or other Person in the notice of charge, a failure to formally charge a Rider with an anti-doping rule violation that is, in principle, an integral part of a more specific (asserted) anti-doping rule violation (e.g. a Use violation (UCI ADR Article 2.2) as part of a Presence violation (UCI ADR Article 2.1), or a Possession violation (UCI ADR Article 2.6) as part of an asserted Administration violation (UCI ADR Article 2.8)) shall not prevent a hearing panel from finding that the Rider or other Person committed a violation of the subsidiary anti-doping rule violation in the event that they are not found to have committed the explicitly asserted anti-doping rule violation.]

• Shall provide a detailed summary of the relevant facts upon which the assertion is based, enclosing any additional underlying evidence not already provided in the notification under Article 5;

[Comment: The UCI shall, however, not be prevented from relying on other facts and/or adducing further evidence not contained in either the notification letter under Article 5 or the charge letter under Article 7 during the Hearing Process at first instance and/or on appeal.]

• Shall indicate the specific Consequences being sought in the event that the asserted antidoping rule violation(s) is/are upheld and that such Consequences shall have binding effect on all Signatories in all sports and countries as per UCI ADR Article 15;

[Comment: The Consequences of an anti-doping rule violation set out in the letter of charge shall include as a minimum the relevant period of Ineligibility and Disqualification. The UCI shall refer to ADAMS and contact WADA and other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations to determine whether any prior anti-doping rule violation exists and take such information into account in determining the relevant Consequences. The proposed Consequences shall in all circumstances be compatible with the provisions of the UCI ADR and shall be appropriate based on the explanations given by the Rider or other Person or the facts as established by the UCI. For these purposes, it is expected that the UCI will review the explanations given by the Rider or other Person and assess their credibility (for example, by checking the authenticity of documentary evidence and the plausibility of the explanation

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 30 of 52

from a scientific perspective) before proposing any Consequences. If the Results Management phase is substantially delayed by the review, the UCI shall inform WADA, setting out the reasons for the substantial delay.]

• Shall indicate that the Rider or other Person (i) must admit the anti-doping rule violation(s) within twenty (20) days from receipt of the letter of charge in order to potentially benefit from a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility under UCI ADR Article 10.8.1 (if applicable) and (ii) may seek to enter into a case resolution agreement by admitting the anti-doping rule violation(s) under UCI ADR Article 10.8.2 or an Acceptance of Consequences under UCI ADR Article 8.2;

• Shall grant a deadline of not more than twenty (20) days from receipt of the letter of charge (which may be extended only in exceptional cases) to the Rider or other Person to admit the anti-doping rule violation(s) asserted and to accept the proposed Consequences by signing, dating and returning an acceptance of Consequences form, which shall be enclosed with the letter;

• For the eventuality that the Rider or other Person does not accept the proposed Consequences, shall already grant to the Rider or other Person a deadline (which shall not be of more than twenty (20) days from receipt of the letter of charge and may be extended only in exceptional cases) to challenge in writing the UCI ’s assertion of an anti-doping rule violation and/or proposed Consequences, and/or make a written request for a hearing before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal;

• Shall indicate that if the Rider or other Person does not challenge the UCI ’s assertion of an anti-doping rule violation(s) or proposed Consequences nor request a hearing within the prescribed deadline, the UCI shall be entitled to deem that the Rider or other Person has waived their right to a hearing and admitted the anti-doping rule violation(s) as well as accepted the Consequences set out by the UCI in the letter of charge;

• Shall indicate that the Rider or other Person may be able to obtain a suspension of Consequences if they provide Substantial Assistance under UCI ADR Article 10.7.1; and

• Shall set out any matters relating to Provisional Suspension as per Article 6 (if applicable).

• 7.2 The notice of charge notified to the Rider or other Person shall simultaneously be notified by the UCI to the Rider’s National Anti-Doping Organization(s) and WADA and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS.

The Rider’s National Federation and Team may also be informed of the same.

[Comment to Article 7.2: To the extent not already set out in the notice of charge, this notification shall contain the following information (wherever applicable): Rider’s or other Person’s name, country, sport and discipline within the sport, and, for a violation of UCI ADR Article 2.1, whether the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition, the date of Sample collection, the analytical result reported by the Laboratory and other information as required by the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations, and, for any other anti-doping rule violation, the anti-doping rule(s) violated and the basis for the asserted violation(s).]

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 31 of 52

• 7.3 In the event that the Rider or other Person either (i) admits the anti-doping rule violation and accepts the proposed Consequences or (ii) is deemed to have admitted the violation and accepted the Consequences as per Article 7.1, the UCI shall promptly issue the decision and notify it in accordance with Article 9.

• 7.4 If, after the Rider or other Person has been charged, the UCI decides to withdraw the charge, it must notify the Rider or other Person and give notice (with reasons) to the Anti-Doping Organizations with a right of appeal under UCI ADR Article 13.2.3.

• 7.5 Subject to Article 7.6, in the event that the Rider or other Person requests a hearing, the matter shall be referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal and be dealt with pursuant to Article 8.

[Comment to Article 7.5: Where UCI has delegated the adjudication part of Results Management to a Delegated Third Party, the matter shall be referred to the Delegated Third Party.]

• 7.6 Single hearing before CAS

• 7.6.1 Pursuant to UCI ADR Article 8.4, anti-doping rule violations asserted by the UCI may, with the consent of the Rider or other Person, the UCI and WADA, be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS under CAS appellate procedures, with no requirement for a prior hearing, or as otherwise agreed by the parties.

• 7.6.2 If the Rider or other Person and the UCI agree to proceed with a single hearing before CAS, it shall be the responsibility of the UCI to liaise in writing with WADA to determine whether it agrees to the proposal. Should WADA not agree (in its entire discretion), then the case shall be heard by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal at first instance.

[Comment to Article 7.6.2: In the event that all relevant parties agree to refer the case to the CAS as a single instance, the UCI shall promptly notify any other Anti-Doping Organization with a right of appeal upon initiating the proceedings so that the latter may seek to intervene in the proceedings (if they wish to). The final decision rendered by the CAS shall not be subject to any appeal, save to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.]

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 32 of 52

PART FOUR: RESULTS MANAGEMENT – ADJUDICATION

8.0 Hearing Process

• 8.1 As provided under UCI ADR Article 8.3, the UCI shall establish a UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal to hear anti-doping rule violations asserted under the UCI ADR. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal shall be Operationally Independent.

The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal, its composition and its procedures shall be determined in specific procedural rules established by the UCI and made available on its website.

9.0 Decisions

• 9.1 Decisions shall be promptly notified by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal to the Rider or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right of appeal under UCI ADR Article 13.2.3 and shall promptly be reported into ADAMS. Where the decision is not in English or French, the UCI shall provide an English or French summary of the decision and of the supporting reasons as well as a searchable version of the decision.

• 9.2 A Rider or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall be made aware by the UCI of their status during Ineligibility, including the Consequences of a violation of the prohibition of participation during Ineligibility, pursuant to UCI ADR Article 10.14. The UCI shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the period of Ineligibility is duly respected within its sphere of competence. The Rider or other Person should also be made aware that they may still provide Substantial Assistance.

• 9.3 A Rider subject to a period of Ineligibility should also be made aware by the UCI that they remain subject to the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, including but not limited to Testing and any requirement to provide whereabouts information.

• 9.4 Where, further to the notification of the decision, an Anti-Doping Organization with a right of appeal requests a copy of the full case file pertaining to the decision, it shall be provided promptly by the UCI.

[Comment to Article 9.4: The case file shall contain all documents relating to the case. For an analytical case, it shall include at a minimum the Doping Control form, Laboratory results and/or Laboratory Documentation Package(s) (if issued), any submissions and exhibits and/or correspondence of the parties and all other documents relied upon by the hearing body. The case file should be sent by email in an organized manner with a table of contents.]

• 9.5 If the decision concerns an Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding, and after any deadline to appeal has elapsed and no appeal has been filed against the decision, the UCI shall promptly notify the relevant Laboratory that the matter has been finally disposed of.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 33 of 52

10.0 Appeals

• 10.1 The rules governing appeal rights are set out in UCI ADR Article 13 .

• 10.2 With respect to appeals before CAS:

• a) The appeal procedure shall be governed by the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration unless specifically provided otherwise under the UCI ADR or Regulations;

• b) All parties to any CAS appeal must ensure that WADA and any other party, which would have had a right of appeal and is not a party to the CAS appeal, has been given timely notice of the appeal;

• c) No settlement embodied in an arbitral award rendered by consent of the parties as per Article R56 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration shall be entered into by the UCI without WADA ’s written approval. Where the parties to the CAS proceedings are envisaging settling the matter by way of a settlement embodied in an arbitral award rendered by consent of the parties, the UCI shall immediately notify WADA and provide it with all necessary information in this respect; and

• d) If applicable, where the UCI is a party to an appeal before CAS, it shall promptly provide the CAS award to the other Anti-Doping Organizations that would have been entitled to appeal under UCI ADR Article 13.2.3.

11.0 Violation of the Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility

• 11.1 In the event that a Rider or other Person is suspected to have violated the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility pursuant to UCI ADR Article 10.14, the Results Management relating to this potential violation shall comply with the principles of these Regulations.

[Comment to Article 11.1: In particular, the Rider or other Person shall receive a notification letter in accordance with Article 5.3.2, a letter of charge in accordance with Article 7 and be afforded the right to a hearing.]

• 11.2 In the event that the UCI is competent, the decision shall be made by the UCI Disciplinary Commission, unless the Rider or other Person agrees with the UCI on the Consequences of the relevant violation. Such agreement shall be considered as a decision by the UCI which replaces a decision of the UCI and put an end to the proceedings. The agreement may be appealed to CAS by the Anti-Doping Organizations having a right to appeal under UCI ADR Article 13. The Rider or other Person and the UCI shall have no right to appeal.

The decision of the UCI Disciplinary Commission may be appealed under UCI ADR Article 13.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 34 of 52

ANNEX A – REVIEW OF A POSSIBLE FAILURE TO COMPLY

A.1 Responsibility

• A.1.1 The UCI or Testing Authority (as applicable) is responsible for ensuring that:

• a) When the possible Failure to Comply comes to its attention, it notifies WADA, and instigates review of the possible Failure to Comply based on all relevant information and documentation;

• b) If the relevant information and documentation show a prima facie case of possible Failure to Comply, the Rider is informed in writing and has the opportunity to respond in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the UCI Results Management Regulations.

• c) The review is conducted without unnecessary delay and the evaluation process is documented; and

• d) If it decides not to move forward with the matter, its decision is notified in accordance with Article 5.4 of the UCI Results Management Regulations .

• A.1.2 The DCO is responsible for providing a detailed written report of any possible Failure to Comply.

A.2 Requirements

• A.2.1 Any potential Failure to Comply shall be reported by the DCO to the UCI (or Testing Authority as applicable) and/or followed up by the Testing Authority and reported to the Results Management Authority as soon as practicable.

• A.2.2 If the UCI determines that there has been a potential Failure to Comply, the Rider or other Person shall be promptly notified in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the UCI Results Management Regulations and further Results Management shall be conducted as per Article 5 et seq. of the UCI Results Management Regulations .

• A.2.3 Any additional necessary information about the potential Failure to Comply shall be obtained from all relevant sources (including the Rider or other Person ) as soon as possible and recorded.

• A.2.4 The UCI (and Testing Authority as applicable) shall establish a system for ensuring that the outcomes of its reviews into potential Failures to Comply are considered for Results Management action and, if applicable, for further planning and Target Testing.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 35 of 52

ANNEX B – RESULTS MANAGEMENT FOR WHEREABOUTS FAILURES

B.1 Determining a Potential Whereabouts Failure

• B.1.1 Three (3) Whereabouts Failures by a Rider within any 12-month period amount to an antidoping rule violation under UCI ADR Article 2.4. The Whereabouts Failures may be any combination of Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests declared in accordance with Article B.3 and adding up to three (3) in total.

[Comment to Article B.1.1: While a single Whereabouts Failure will not amount to an anti- doping rule violation under UCI ADR Article 2.4, depending on the facts, it could amount to an anti-doping rule violation under UCI ADR Article 2.3 (Evading Sample Collection) and/or UCI ADR Article 2.5 (Tampering or Attempted Tampering with Doping Control).

Furthermore, a Whereabouts Failure declared by another Anti-Doping Organisation shall be recognized by the UCI provided it has been declared in compliance with the applicable requirements of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. Such whereabouts failure(s) shall be taken into account for the number of Whereabouts Failures recorded against a Rider in a twelve (12) month period.]

• B.1.2 The 12-month period referred to in UCI ADR Article 2.4 starts to run on the date that a Rider commits the first Whereabouts Failure being relied upon in support of the allegation of a violation of UCI ADR Article 2.4. If two (2) more Whereabouts Failures occur during the ensuing 12-month period, then UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation is committed, irrespective of any Samples successfully collected from the Rider during that 12-month period. However, if a Rider who has committed one (1) Whereabouts Failure does not go on to commit a further two (2) Whereabouts Failures within the 12-months, at the end of that 12month period, the first Whereabouts Failure “expires” for purposes of UCI ADR Article 2.4, and a new 12-month period begins to run from the date of their next Whereabouts Failure.

• B.1.3 For purposes of determining whether a Whereabouts Failure has occurred within the 12- month period referred to in UCI ADR Article 2.4:

• a) A Filing Failure will be deemed to have occurred (i) where the Rider fails to provide complete information in due time in advance of an upcoming quarter, on the first day of that quarter, and (ii) where any information provided by the Rider (whether in advance of the quarter or by way of update) transpires to be inaccurate, on the (first) date on which such information can be shown to be inaccurate; and

• b) A Missed Test will be deemed to have occurred on the date that the Sample collection was unsuccessfully attempted.

• B.1.4 Whereabouts Failures committed by the Rider prior to retirement as defined in Article 4.8.7.2 of the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations may be combined, for the purposes of UCI ADR Article 2.4, with Whereabouts Failures committed by the Rider after the Rider again becomes available for Out-of-Competition Testing.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 36 of 52

[Comment to Article B.1.4: For example, if a Rider committed two (2) Whereabouts Failures in the six (6) months prior to their retirement, then if they commit another Whereabouts Failure in the first six (6) months in which they are again available for Out-of-Competition Testing, that amounts to a UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation.]

B.2 Requirements for a Potential Filing Failure or Missed Test

• B.2.1 A Rider may only be declared to have committed a Filing Failure where the Results Management Authority establishes each of the following:

• a) That the Rider was duly notified: (i) that they had been designated for inclusion in a Registered Testing Pool; (ii) of the consequent requirement to make Whereabouts Filings; and (iii) of the Consequences of any Failure to Comply with that requirement;

• b) That the Rider failed to comply with that requirement by the applicable deadline;

[Comment to Article B.2.1(b): A Rider fails to comply with the requirement to make a Whereabouts Filing(s) (i) where they do not make any such filing, or where they fail to update the filing as required by Article 4.8 of the UCI Testing and Investigations Regulations; or (ii) where they make the filing or update but do not include all of the required information in that filing or update (e.g. they do not include the place where they will be staying overnight for each day in the following quarter, or for each day covered by the update, or omit to declare a regular activity that they will be pursuing during the quarter, or during the period covered by the update); or (iii) where they include information in the original filing or the update that is inaccurate (e.g., an address that does not exist) or is insufficient to enable the Anti-Doping Organization to locate them for Testing (e.g., “riding in the Black Forest”).]

• c) In the case of a second or third Filing Failure, that they were given notice, in accordance with Article B.3.2(d), of the previous Filing Failure, and (if that Filing Failure revealed deficiencies in the Whereabouts Filing that would lead to further Filing Failures if not rectified) was advised in the notice that in order to avoid a further Filing Failure they must file the required Whereabouts Filing (or update) by the deadline specified in the notice (which must be within 48 hours after receipt of the notice) and yet failed to rectify that Filing Failure by the deadline specified in the notice; and

[Comment to Article B.2.1(c): All that is required is to give the Rider notice of the first Filing Failure and an opportunity to avoid a subsequent one, before a subsequent Filing Failure may be pursued against them. In particular, it is not necessary to complete the Results Management process with respect to the first Filing Failure before pursuing a second Filing Failure against the Rider.]

• d) That the Rider’s failure to file was at least negligent. For these purposes, the Rider will be presumed to have committed the failure negligently upon proof that they were notified of the requirements yet did not comply with them. That presumption may only be rebutted by the Rider establishing that no negligent behavior on their part caused or contributed to the failure.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 37 of 52

• B.2.2 While UCI ADR Article 5.2 specifies that every Rider must submit to Testing at any time and place upon request by an Anti-Doping Organization with Testing Authority over them, in addition, a Rider in a Registered Testing Pool must specifically be present and available for Testing on any given day during the 60-minute time slot specified for that day in their Whereabouts Filing, at the location that the Rider has specified for that time slot in such filing. Where this requirement is not met by the Rider, it shall be pursued as an apparent Missed Test. If the Rider is tested during such a time slot, the Rider must remain with the DCO until the Sample collection has been completed, even if this takes longer than the 60-minute time slot. A failure to do so shall be pursued as an apparent violation of UCI ADR Article 2.3 (refusal or failure to submit to Sample collection).

• B.2.3 To ensure fairness to the Rider, where an unsuccessful attempt has been made to test a Rider during one of the 60-minute time slots specified in their Whereabouts Filing, any subsequent unsuccessful attempt to test that Rider (by the same or any other Anti-Doping Organization ) during one of the 60-minute time slots specified in their Whereabouts Filing may only be counted as a Missed Test (or, if the unsuccessful attempt was because the information filed was insufficient to find the Rider during the time slot, as a Filing Failure) against that Rider if that subsequent attempt takes place after the Rider has received notice, in accordance with Article B.3.2(d), of the original unsuccessful attempt.

[Comment to Article B.2.3: All that is required is to give the Rider notice of one Missed Test or Filing Failure before a subsequent Missed Test or Filing Failure may be pursued against them. In particular, it is not necessary to complete the Results Management process with respect to the first Missed Test or Filing Failure before pursuing a second Missed Test or Filing Failure against the Rider.]

• B.2.4 A Rider may only be declared to have committed a Missed Test where the Results Management Authority can establish each of the following:

• a) That when the Rider was given notice that they had been designated for inclusion in a Registered Testing Pool, they were advised that they would be liable for a Missed Test if they were unavailable for Testing during the 60-minute time slot specified in their Whereabouts Filing at the location specified for that time slot;

• b) That a DCO attempted to test the Rider on a given day in the quarter, during the 60minute time slot specified in the Rider’s Whereabouts Filing for that day, by visiting the location specified for that time slot;

• c) That during that specified 60-minute time slot, the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances (i.e. given the nature of the specified location) to try to locate the Rider, short of giving the Rider any advance notice of the test;

  • [Comment to Article B.2.4(c): Due to the fact that the making of a telephone call is discretionary rather than mandatory, and is left entirely to the absolute discretion of the Sample Collection Authority, proof that a telephone call was made is not a requisite element of a Missed Test, and the lack of a telephone call does not give the Rider a defense to the assertion of a Missed Test.]

• d) That Article B.2.3 does not apply or (if it applies) was complied with; and

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 38 of 52

• e) That the Rider’s non-availability for Testing at the specified location during the specified 60-minute time slot was at least negligent. For these purposes, the Rider will be presumed to have been negligent upon proof of the matters set out at sub-Articles B.2.4 (a) to (d). That presumption may only be rebutted by the Rider establishing that no negligent behavior on their part caused or contributed to their failure (i) to be available for Testing at such location during such time slot, and (ii) to update their most recent Whereabouts Filing to give notice of a different location where they would instead be available for Testing during a specified 60-minute time slot on the relevant day.

B.3 Results Management for a Potential Whereabouts Failure

• B.3.1 In accordance with UCI ADR Articles 7.1.3.1, the Results Management Authority in relation to potential Whereabouts Failures shall be the UCI or the National Anti-Doping Organization with whom the Rider in question files their whereabouts information.

[Comment to Article B.3.1: If an Anti-Doping Organization that receives a Rider's Whereabouts Filing (and so is their Results Management Authority for whereabouts purposes) removes the Rider from its Registered Testing Pool after recording one (1) or two (2) Whereabouts Failures against them, then if the Rider is put in another Anti-Doping Organization's Registered Testing Pool, and that other Anti-Doping Organization starts receiving their Whereabouts Filing, then, that other Anti-Doping Organization becomes the Results Management Authority in respect of all Whereabouts Failures by that Rider, including those recorded by the first Anti-Doping Organization. In that case, the first Anti-Doping Organization shall provide the second Anti-Doping Organization with full information about the Whereabouts Failure(s) recorded by the first Anti-Doping Organization in the relevant period, so that if the second Anti-Doping Organization records any further Whereabouts Failure(s) against that Rider, it has all the information it needs to bring proceedings against them, in accordance with Article B.3.4, for violation of Code Article 2.4.]

• B.3.2 When a Whereabouts Failure appears to have occurred, Results Management shall proceed as follows:

• a) If the apparent Whereabouts Failure has been uncovered by an attempt to test the Rider, the Testing Authority shall timely obtain an Unsuccessful Attempt Report from the DCO. If the Testing Authority is different from the Results Management Authority, it shall provide the Unsuccessful Attempt Report to the Results Management Authority without delay, and thereafter it shall assist the Results Management Authority as necessary in obtaining information from the DCO in relation to the apparent Whereabouts Failure.

• b) The Results Management Authority shall timely review the file (including any Unsuccessful Attempt Report filed by the DCO) to determine whether all of the Article B.2.1 requirements (in the case of a Filing Failure) or all of the Article B.2.4 requirements (in the case of a Missed Test) are met. It shall gather information as necessary from third parties (e.g., the DCO whose test attempt uncovered the Filing Failure or triggered the Missed Test) to assist it in this task.

• c) If the Results Management Authority concludes that any of the relevant requirements have not been met (so that no Whereabouts Failure should be declared), it shall so advise WADA, the National Anti-Doping Organization, and the Anti-Doping Organization that

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 39 of 52

uncovered the Whereabouts Failure, giving reasons for its decision. Each of them shall have a right of appeal against that decision in accordance with UCI ADR Article 13.

• d) If the Results Management Authority concludes that all of the relevant requirements as set out in B.2.1 (Filing Failure) and B.2.4 (Missed Test) have been met, it should notify the Rider within fourteen (14) days of the date of the apparent Whereabouts Failure. The notice shall include sufficient details of the apparent Whereabouts Failure to enable the Rider to respond meaningfully and shall give the Rider a reasonable deadline to respond, advising whether they admit the Whereabouts Failure and, if they do not admit to the Whereabouts Failure, then an explanation as to why not. The notice should also advise the Rider that three (3) Whereabouts Failures in any 12-month period is a UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation and should note whether they had any other Whereabouts Failures recorded against them in the previous twelve (12) months. In the case of a Filing Failure, the notice must also advise the Rider that in order to avoid a further Filing Failure they must file the missing whereabouts information by the deadline specified in the notice, which must be within 48 hours after receipt of the notice.

[Comment: A failure by the UCI to notify a Rider of an apparent Whereabouts Failure within fourteen (14) days of the date of the apparent Whereabouts failure does not constitute a defense to the apparent Whereabouts Failure.]

• e) If the Rider does not respond within the specified deadline, the Results Management Authority shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them.

If the Rider does respond within the deadline, the Results Management Authority shall consider whether their response changes its original decision that all of the requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure have been met.

• i. If so, it shall so advise the Rider, WADA, the relevant National Anti-Doping Organization and the Anti-Doping Organization that uncovered the Whereabouts Failure (if applicable), giving reasons for its decision. Each of them shall have a right of appeal against that decision in accordance with UCI ADR Article 13.

• ii. If not, it shall so advise the Rider (with reasons) and specify a reasonable deadline by which they may request an administrative review of its decision. The Unsuccessful Attempt Report shall be provided to the Rider at this point if it has not been provided to them earlier in the process.

• f) If the Rider does not request an administrative review by the specified deadline, the Results Management Authority shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them. If the Rider does request an administrative review before the deadline, it shall be carried out, based on the papers only, by one or more persons not previously involved in the assessment of the apparent Whereabouts Failure. The purpose of the administrative review shall be to determine anew whether or not all of the relevant requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure are met.

• g) If the conclusion following administrative review is that all of the requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure are not met, the Results Management Authority shall so advise the Rider, WADA, the relevant National Anti-Doping Organization, and the

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 40 of 52

Anti-Doping Organization that uncovered the Whereabouts Failure (if applicable), giving reasons for its decision. Each of them shall have a right of appeal against that decision in accordance with UCI ADR Article 13. On the other hand, if the conclusion is that all of the requirements for recording a Whereabouts Failure are met, it shall notify the Rider and shall record the notified Whereabouts Failure against them.

• B.3.3 The Results Management Authority shall promptly report a decision to record a Whereabouts Failure against a Rider to WADA and all other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations, on a confidential basis, via ADAMS.

[Comment to Article B.3.3: For the avoidance of doubt, the Results Management Authority is entitled to notify other relevant Anti-Doping Organizations (on a strictly confidential basis) of the apparent Whereabouts Failure at an earlier stage of the Results Management process, where it considers it appropriate (for test planning purposes or otherwise). In addition, an Anti-Doping Organization may publish a general statistical report of its activities that discloses in general terms the number of Whereabouts Failures that have been recorded in respect of Riders under its jurisdiction during a particular period, provided that it does not publish any information that might reveal the identity of the Riders involved. Prior to any proceedings under UCI ADR Article 2.4, an Anti-Doping Organization should not Publicly Disclose that a particular Rider does (or does not) have any Whereabouts Failures recorded against them (or that a particular sport does, or does not, have Athletes with Whereabouts Failures recorded against them).]

• B.3.4 Where three (3) Whereabouts Failures are recorded against a Rider within any 12-month period, the Results Management Authority shall notify the Rider and other Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with Article 5.3.2 of the UCI Results Management Regulations alleging a violation of UCI ADR Article 2.4 and proceed with Results Management in accordance with Article 5 et seq. of the International Standard for Results Management. If the Results Management Authority fails to bring such proceedings against a Rider within 30days of WADA receiving notice of the recording of that Rider’s third Whereabouts Failure in any 12-month period, then the Results Management Authority shall be deemed to have decided that no anti-doping rule violation was committed, for purposes of triggering the appeal rights set out at Code Article 13.2.

• B.3.5 A Rider asserted to have committed a UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation shall have the right to have such assertion determined at a full evidentiary hearing in accordance with UCI ADR Article 8 and Articles 8 and 10 of the UCI Results Management Regulations. The hearing panel shall not be bound by any determination made during the Results Management process, whether as to the adequacy of any explanation offered for a Whereabouts Failure or otherwise. Instead, the burden shall be on the UCI bringing the proceedings to establish all of the requisite elements of each alleged Whereabouts Failure to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel. If the hearing panel decides that one (or two) Whereabouts Failure(s) have been established to the required standard, but that the other alleged Whereabouts Failure(s) has/have not, then no UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation shall be found to have occurred. However, if the Rider then commits one (or two, as applicable) further Whereabouts Failure(s) within the relevant 12-month period, new proceedings may be brought based on a combination of the Whereabouts Failure(s) established to the satisfaction of the hearing panel in the previous proceedings (in

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 41 of 52

accordance with UCI ADR Article 3.2.3) and the Whereabouts Failure(s) subsequently committed by the Rider.

[Comment to Article B.3.5: Nothing in Article B.3.5 is intended to prevent the Anti-Doping Organization challenging an argument raised on the Rider’s behalf at the hearing on the basis that it could have been but was not raised at an earlier stage of the Results Management process.]

• B.3.6 A finding that a Rider has committed a UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation has the following Consequences: (a) imposition of a period of Ineligibility in accordance with UCI ADR Article 10.3.2 (first violation) or UCI ADR Article 10.9 (subsequent violation(s)); and (b) in accordance with UCI ADR Article 10.10 ( Disqualification, unless fairness requires otherwise) of all individual results obtained by the Rider from the date of the UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation through to the date of commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, with all of the resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes. For these purposes, the anti-doping rule violation shall be deemed to have occurred on the date of the third Whereabouts Failure found by the hearing panel to have occurred. The impact of any UCI ADR Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation by an individual Rider on the results of any team for which that Rider has ridden during the relevant period shall be determined in accordance with UCI ADR Article 11.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 42 of 52

ANNEX C – RESULTS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ATHLETE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT

C.1 Administrative Management

• C.1.1 The requirements and procedures described in this Annex apply to all modules of the Athlete Biological Passport except where expressly stated or implied by the context.

• C.1.2 These processes shall be administered and managed by an Athlete Passport Management Unit on behalf of the Passport Custodian. The Athlete Passport Management Unit will initially review profiles to facilitate targeting recommendations for the Passport Custodian when appropriate or refer to the Experts as required. Management and communication of the biological data, Athlete Passport Management Unit reporting and Expert reviews shall be recorded in ADAMS and be shared by the Passport Custodian with other Anti-Doping Organizations with Testing Authority over the Rider to coordinate further Passport Testing as appropriate. A key element for Athlete Biological Passport management and communication is the Athlete Passport Management Unit report in ADAMS, which provides an overview of the current status of the Rider’s Passport including the latest targeting recommendations and a summary of the Expert reviews.

• C.1.3 This Annex describes a step-by-step approach to the review of a Rider’s Passport:

• a) The review begins with the application of the Adaptive Model.

• b) In case of an Atypical Passport Finding or when the Athlete Passport Management Unit considers that a review is otherwise justified, an Expert conducts an initial review and returns an evaluation based on the information available at that time.

• c) In case of a “Likely doping” initial review, the Passport is then subjected to a review by three (3) Experts including the Expert who conducted the initial review.

• d) In case of a “Likely doping” consensus of the three (3) Experts, the process continues with the creation of an Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package.

• e) An Adverse Passport Finding is reported by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to the Passport Custodian if the Experts’ opinion is maintained after review of all information available at that stage, including the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package.

• f) The Rider is notified of the Adverse Passport Finding and offered the opportunity to provide explanations.

• g) If after review of the explanations provided by the Rider, the Experts maintain their unanimous conclusion that it is highly likely that the Rider Used a Prohibited Substanc e or a Prohibited Method, an anti-doping rule violation is asserted against the Rider by the Passport Custodian.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 43 of 52

C.2 Initial Review Phase

C.2.1 Review by the Adaptive Model

• C.2.1.1. In ADAMS, the Adaptive Model automatically processes data on the biological Markers of the Athlete Biological Passport. These Markers include primary Markers that are defined as the most specific to doping and secondary Markers that provide supporting evidence of doping in isolation or in combination with other Markers. The Adaptive Model predicts for an individual an expected range within which a series of Marker values falls assuming a normal physiological condition. Outliers correspond to those values outside of the 99%-range, from a lower limit corresponding to the 0.5^th percentile to an upper limit corresponding to the 99.5^th percentile (1:100 chance or less that this result is due to normal physiological variation). A specificity of 99% is used to identify both haematological and steroidal Atypical Passport Findings. In the case of sequence deviations (sequence Atypical Passport Findings ), the applied specificity is 99.9% (1:1000 chance or less that this is due to normal physiological variation).

• C.2.1.2. An Atypical Passport Finding is a result generated by the Adaptive Model in ADAMS which identifies either a primary Marker(s) value(s) as being outside the Rider’s intra-individual range or a longitudinal profile of a primary Marker values (sequence deviations) as being outside expected ranges, assuming a normal physiological condition. An Atypical Passport Finding requires further attention and review.

• C.2.1.3. The Athlete Passport Management Unit may also submit a Passport to the Expert when there is no Atypical Passport Finding (see C.2.2.4 below).

• C.2.1.4. Atypical Passport Finding – Haematological Module

• C.2.1.4.1. For the Haematological Module, the Adaptive Model automatically processes in ADAMS two primary Markers, haemoglobin concentration (HGB) and stimulation index OFF-score (OFFS), and two secondary Markers, the reticulocyte percentage (RET%) and the Abnormal Blood Profile Score (ABPS). An Atypical Passport Finding is generated when an HGB and/or OFFS value of the last test falls outside the expected intra-individual ranges. Furthermore, the longitudinal profile composed of (up to) the last five valid HGB and/or OFFS values is also considered as an Atypical Passport Finding when deviating from the expected ranges, as determined by the Adaptive Model (sequence Atypical Passport Finding ). An Atypical Passport Finding is only generated by the Adaptive Model based on values of the primary Markers HGB and OFFS or the sequence thereof.

• C.2.1.4.2. In case of an Atypical Passport Finding the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall advise the Results Management A uthority (or Testing Authority as applicable) in the Athlete Passport Management Unit report, or via the Passport Custodian where appropriate, on whether the Sample, or any accompanying urine Sample, should be

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 44 of 52

subjected to analysis for Agents Affecting Erythropoiesis. The Athlete Passport Management Unit should also provide recommendations for Agents Affecting Erythropoiesis analysis when the Adaptive Model detects an abnormality in the secondary Markers RET% and/or ABPS.

• C.2.1.5. Atypical Passport Finding – Steroidal Module

• C.2.1.5.1 For the Steroidal Module, the Adaptive Model automatically processes in ADAMS one primary Marker, the T/E ratio, and four (4) secondary Markers, the ratios A/T, A/Etio, 5αAdiol/5βAdiol and 5βAdiol/E.

• C.2.1.5.2 Ratios coming from a Sample that showed signs of heavy microbial degradation, and ratios for which one or both of the concentrations were not measured accurately by the Laboratory as established in the Technical Document for Endogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (TDEAAS), shall not be processed by the Adaptive Model. In the case where the Laboratory reports a confounding factor that may otherwise cause an alteration in the steroid profile, such as the presence of ethanol glucuronide in the Sample, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall evaluate whether the steroid profile can still be considered as valid and processed by the Adaptive Model and the Sample be subjected to a Confirmation Procedure (see TDEAAS).

• C.2.1.5.3 An Atypical Passport Finding is generated when a value of the T/E ratio falls outside the expected intra-individual ranges. In addition, the “ longitudinal steroid profile ” composed of (up to) the last five (5) valid values of the T/E ratio is also considered as atypical when deviating from the expected ranges, as determined by the Adaptive Model (sequence Atypical Passport Finding ).

• C.2.1.5.4 In the case of a “ longitudinal steroidal profile ”, an Atypical Passport Finding caused by an atypically high T/E value will trigger an Atypical Passport Finding Confirmation Procedure Request notification through ADAMS as established in the TDEAAS. When the Adaptive Model determines an abnormality in any of the other ratios of the “ steroid profile ” (A/T, A/Etio, 5αAdiol/5βAdiol and 5βAdiol/E), the Athlete Passport Management Unit should advise the Results Management Authority (or Testing Authority as applicable) in the Athlete Passport Management Unit report, or via the Passport Custodian where appropriate, on whether the Sample should be subjected to a Confirmation Procedure.

• C.2.1.5.5 A Sample may also be subjected to a Confirmation Procedure in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding where the Passport includes other elements otherwise justifying further analyses. The Athlete Passport Management Unit should advise the Results Management Authority (or Testing Authority as applicable) in the Athlete Passport Management Unit report, or via the Passport Custodian where

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 45 of 52

appropriate, on whether the Sample should be subjected to a Confirmation Procedure.

(text modified on 20.02.2023)

• C.2.1.6. Departure from WADA Athlete Biological Passport requirements

• C.2.1.6.1 If there is a departure from WADA Athlete Biological Passport requirements for Sample collection, transport and analysis, the biological Marker result obtained from this Sample affected by the nonconformity shall not be considered in the Adaptive Model calculations (for example, RET% can be affected but not HGB under certain transportation conditions).

• C.2.1.6.2 A Marker result which is not affected by the non-conformity can still be considered in the Adaptive Model calculations. In such case, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall provide the specific explanations supporting the inclusion of the result(s). In all cases, the Sample shall remain recorded in the Rider’s Passport. The Experts may include all results in their review provided that their conclusions may be validly supported when taking into account the effects of the non-conformity.

C.2.2 The Initial Expert Review

• C.2.2.1 A Passport generating an Atypical Passport Finding, or for which a review is otherwise justified, shall be sent by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to an Expert for review in ADAMS. This should take place within seven (7) days following the generation of the Atypical Passport Finding in ADAMS. The review of the Passport shall be conducted based on the Passport and other basic information (e.g. Competition schedules), which may be available, such that the Expert is blinded to the identity of the Rider.

[Comment to Article C.2.2.1: If a result rendered by a Laboratory represents an Atypical Passport Finding caused by an atypically high T/E value, the Sample will undergo a Confirmation Procedure, including GC/C/IRMS analysis. If the result of the GC/C/IRMS Confirmation Procedure is negative or inconclusive then the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall seek an Expert review. An Athlete Passport Management Unit or Expert review is not required when the GC/C/IRMS Confirmation Procedure renders an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF).]

• C.2.2.2 If a Passport has been recently reviewed by an Expert and the Passport Custodian is in the process of executing a specific multi- Sample Testing strategy on the Rider, the Athlete Passport Management Unit may delay the review of a Passport generating an Atypical Passport Finding triggered by one of the Samples collected in this context until completion of the planned series of tests. In such situations, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall clearly indicate the reason for

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 46 of 52

delaying the review of the Passport in the Athlete Passport Management Unit report.

• C.2.2.3 If the first and unique result in a Passport is flagged as an Atypical Passport Finding by the Adaptive Model, the Athlete Passport Management Unit may recommend the collection of an additional Sample before initiating the initial Expert review.

• C.2.2.4 Review in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding

• C.2.2.4.1 A Passport may also be sent for Expert review in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding where the Passport includes other elements otherwise justifying a review.

These elements may include, without limitation:

• a) Data not considered in the Adaptive Model;

• b) Any abnormal levels and/or variations of Marker(s);

• c) Signs of hemodilution in the haematological Passport;

• d) Steroid levels in urine below the corresponding Limit of Quantification of the assay;

• e) Intelligence in relation to the Rider concerned.

• C.2.2.4.2 An Expert review initiated in the above-mentioned situations may result in the same Consequences as an Expert review triggered by an Atypical Passport Finding.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 47 of 52

C.2.2.5 Expert Evaluation

• C.2.2.5.1 When evaluating a Passport, an Expert weighs the likelihood that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method against the likelihood that the Passport is the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition in order to provide one of the following opinions: “Normal”, “Suspicious”, “Likely doping” or “Likely medical condition”. For a “Likely doping” opinion, the Expert shall come to the conclusion that the likelihood that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method outweighs the likelihood that the Passport is the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition.

[Comment to Article C.2.2.5.1: When evaluating competing propositions, the likelihood of each proposition is evaluated by the Expert based on the evidence available for that proposition. It is acknowledged that it is the relative likelihoods (i.e., likelihood ratio) of the competing propositions that ultimately determine the Expert’s opinion. For example, where the Expert is of the view that a Passport is highly likely the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, it is necessary for a “Likely doping” evaluation that the Expert consider that it is unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition. Similarly, where the Expert is of the view that a Passport is likely the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, it is necessary for a “Likely doping” evaluation that the Expert consider that it is highly unlikely that it may be the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition.]

• C.2.2.5.2 To reach a conclusion of “Likely doping” in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding, the Expert shall come to the opinion that it is highly likely that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and that it is highly unlikely that the Passport is the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition.

C.2.3 Consequences of the Initial Review

Depending on the outcome of the initial review, the Athlete Passport Management Unit will take the following action:

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 48 of 52

[Comment to Article C.2.3: The Athlete Biological Passport is a tool to detect the possible Use of Prohibited Substance(s) or Prohibited Method(s) and it is not intended as a health check or for medical monitoring. It is important that the Passport Custodian educate the Rider to ensure that they undergo regular health monitoring and not rely on the Athlete Biological Passport for this purpose. Nevertheless, the Passport Custodian should inform the Rider in case the Passport indicates a likely pathology as determined by the Experts.]

C.3 Review by Three (3) Experts

• C.3.1 In the event that the opinion of the appointed Expert in the initial review, pending other explanation to be provided at a later stage, is that of “Likely doping”, the Passport shall then be sent by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to two (2) additional Experts for review. This should take place within seven (7) days after the reporting of the initial review. These additional reviews shall be conducted without knowledge of the initial review. These three (3) Experts now constitute the Expert Panel, composed of the Expert appointed in the initial review and these two (2) other Experts.

• C.3.2 The review by the three (3) Experts must follow the same procedure, where applicable, as presented in section C.2.2 of this Annex. The three (3) Experts shall each provide their individual reports in ADAMS. This should take place within seven (7) days after receipt of the request.

• C.3.3 The Athlete Passport Management Unit is responsible for liaising with the Experts and for advising the Passport Custodian of the subsequent Expert assessment. The Experts can request further information, as they deem relevant for their review, notably information related to medical conditions, Competition schedule and/or Sample(s) analysis results. Such requests are directed via the Athlete Passport Management Unit to the Passport Custodian.

• C.3.4 A unanimous opinion among the three (3) Experts is necessary in order to proceed further towards declaring an Adverse Passport Finding, which means that all three (3) Experts render an opinion of “Likely doping”. The conclusion of the Experts must be reached with the three (3) Experts assessing the Rider’s Passport with the same data.

• [Comment to Article C.3.4: The three (3) Expert opinions cannot be accumulated over time based on different data.]

• C.3.5 To reach a conclusion of “Likely doping” in the absence of an Atypical Passport Finding, the Expert Panel shall come to the unanimous opinion that it is highly likely that the Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method and that there is no reasonably

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 49 of 52

conceivable hypothesis under which the Passport is the result of a normal physiological condition and highly unlikely that it is the result of pathological condition.

• C.3.6 In the case when two (2) Experts evaluate the Passport as “Likely doping” and the third Expert as “Suspicious” asking for more information, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall confer with the Expert Panel before they finalize their opinion. The group can also seek advice from an appropriate outside Expert, although this must be done while maintaining strict confidentiality of the Rider’s Personal Information.

• C.3.7 If no unanimity can be reached among the three (3) Experts, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall report the Passport as “Suspicious”, update the Athlete Passport Management Unit report, and recommend that the Passport Custodian pursue additional Testing and/or gather intelligence on the Rider (refer to Information Gathering and Intelligence Sharing Guidelines), as appropriate.

• C.4 Conference Call, Compilation of the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package and Joint Expert Report

• C.4.1 If a unanimous opinion of “Likely doping” is rendered by all three (3) Experts, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall declare a “Likely doping” evaluation in the Athlete Passport Management Unit report in ADAMS and should organize a conference call with the Expert Panel to initiate the next steps for the case, including proceeding with the compilation of the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package (see Technical Document for Athlete Passport Management Units) and drafting of the joint Expert report. In preparation for this conference call, the Athlete Passport Management Unit should coordinate with the Passport Custodian to compile any potentially relevant information to share with the Experts (e.g. suspicious analytical findings, relevant intelligence and relevant pathophysiological information).

• C.4.2 Once completed, the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package shall be sent by the Athlete Passport Management Unit to the Expert Panel, who will review it and provide a joint Expert report to be signed by all three (3) Experts. The conclusion within the joint Expert report shall be reached without interference from the Passport Custodian. If necessary, the Expert Panel may request complementary information from the Athlete Passport Management Unit.

• C.4.3 At this stage, the identity of the Rider is not mentioned but it is accepted that specific information provided may allow to identify the Rider. This shall not affect the validity of the process.

• C.5 Issuing an Adverse Passport Finding

• C.5.1 If the Expert Panel confirms their unanimous position of “likely doping”, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall declare an Adverse Passport Finding in ADAMS that includes a written statement of the Adverse Passport Finding, the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package and the joint Expert report.

• C.5.2 After reviewing the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package and joint Expert report, the Passport Custodian shall:

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 50 of 52

• a) Notify the Rider of the Adverse Passport Finding in accordance with Article 5.3.2;

• b) Provide the Rider the Athlete Biological Passport Documentation Package and the joint Expert report;

• c) Invite the Rider to provide their own explanation, in a timely manner, of the data provided to the Passport Custodian.

C.6 Review of Explanation from Rider and Disciplinary Proceedings

• C.6.1 Upon receipt of any explanation and supporting information from the Rider, which should be received within the specified deadline, the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall forward it to the Expert Panel for review with any additional information that the Expert Panel considers necessary to render its opinion in coordination with both the Passport Custodian and the Athlete Passport Management Unit. At this stage, the review is no longer anonymous. The Expert Panel shall reassess or reassert the case and reach one of the following conclusions:

• a) Unanimous opinion of “Likely doping” by the Experts based on the information in the Passport and any explanation provided by the Rider; or

• b) Based on the available information, the Experts are unable to reach a unanimous opinion of “Likely doping” set forth above.

[Comment to Article C.6.1: Such a reassessment shall also take place when the Rider does not provide any explanation.]

• C.6.2 If the Expert Panel expresses the opinion set forth in section C.6.1(a), then the Passport Custodian shall be informed by the Athlete Passport Management Unit, shall charge the Rider in accordance with Article 7 and continue with Results Management in accordance with the UCI Results Management Regulations.

• C.6.3 If the Expert Panel expresses the opinion set forth in section C.6.1(b), the Athlete Passport Management Unit shall update the Athlete Passport Management Unit report and recommend the Passport Custodian to pursue additional Testing and/or gather intelligence on the Rider (refer to Information Gathering and Intelligence Sharing Guidelines), as appropriate. The Passport Custodian shall notify the Rider and WADA of the outcome of the review.

C.7 Passport Re-setting

• C.7.1 In the event the Rider has been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the Passport , the Rider’s Passport shall be reset by the Passport Custodian at the start of the relevant period of Ineligibility and a new Biological Passport ID shall be assigned in ADAMS. This maintains the Rider’s anonymity for potential Athlete Passport Management Unit and Expert Panel reviews conducted in the future.

• C.7.2 When a Rider is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation on any basis other than the Athlete Biological Passport, the haematological and/or Steroidal Passport will remain in

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 51 of 52

effect, except in those cases where the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method caused an alteration of the haematological or steroidal Markers, respectively (e.g. for AAF reported for anabolic androgenic steroids, which may affect the Markers of the steroid profile, or for the Use of Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents or blood transfusions, which would alter the haematological Markers ). The Passport Custodian shall consult with their Athlete Passport Management Unit following an Adverse Analytical Finding to determine whether a Passport reset is warranted. In such instances, the Rider’s profile(s) would be reset from the date the sample is collected.

UCI RMR – February 2023

Page 52 of 52