In recent years, several “no fault or negligence” anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) have occurred in Japan. The World Anti-Doping Code stipulates that the burden of proof is on the athlete to prove that the result of a positive sample was not “intentional” and that the athlete was “no fault or negligence”. In this study, a web-based survey was conducted to find out what criteria top-level coaches and support staff in Japan use to determine whether a violation is “unintended” and what preparations they make in case a “unintended” ADRV occurs on the “risk and crisis management” point of view. 56 top-level coaches and support staff from 23 sports and 1 NOC support staff responded. The questions covered the level of interest in and understanding of anti-doping activities, the borderline between negligence and “no negligence” in ADRVs, the actions being taken for “unintended” ADRVs, and the preparations being made after a “unintended”ADRV has occurred. The results of the web survey showed that there was a statistically significant difference (5％ level) in the determination of whether or not a violation was “unintended” depending on whether or not the prohibited substance was labeled on the package and whether or not the athlete was confirmed it for pharmaceutical products. For dietary supplements, the borderline was whether or not the product had gone through a certification program, which also showed a statistically significant difference (5％ level). In terms of coping strategies for “unintended” ADRVs, respondents understood the risks by learning about past violations. However, it has been shown that there is little actions of themselves or guidance to athletes about recording evidence used to track “routes of entry” in case of positive sample. This suggests the need to develop educational programs on “risk and crisis management”.