3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof INBA and its National Federations shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether INBA or its National Federation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these Rules place the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. The following rules of proof shall be applicable in doping cases:

3.2.1 WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis. The Athlete may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard occurred. If the Athlete rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard occurred, then INBA or its National Federation shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.

3.2.2 Departures from the International Standard for Testing which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such results. If the Athlete establishes that departures from the International Standard occurred during Testing then INBA or its National Federation shall have the burden to establish that such departures did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping rule violation.