News and Live Scores February 18, 2022

Advertisement


A file photo of the CAS headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.
A file photo of the CAS headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images)
Advertisement

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has responded to the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to reject the appeal of the decision to allow Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva to participate in the Beijing Games in 2022, stating “c is surprising and grave concern.”

On Thursday, the CAS published a 41-page document explaining the reasons for the rejection of the appeal filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), WADA and the International Skating Union (ISU) to lift the doping suspension of Valieva, 15 years old.

In the report released Thursday by CAS explaining its decision, the organization blamed WADA for how the situation unfolded.

WADA responded Friday with the following statement, saying CAS “has decided to ignore the clear and unambiguous language of the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code (Code) regarding the criteria for lifting a Mandatory Provisional Suspension.”

“Indeed, in making this award, the CAS Panel rewrote the Code to say that mandatory Provisional Suspensions for ‘Protected Persons’ are now to be considered Optional Provisional Suspensions. That is not what the Code says. , not what the Code’s drafters intended and has never been proposed by any of WADA’s stakeholders during the three rounds of consultation on the Code.

“This rewrite of the Code, which would apparently allow ‘protected persons’ to continue to compete after testing positive for unspecified substances without any clarification of the circumstances, risks undermining the integrity of athletic competition and the trust athletes that they are competing on an equal footing.”

“The Panel also takes into account that had the Athlete’s case been heard before the Appeals Division of CAS rather than the Ad Hoc Division of CAS, it could have requested an Interim Measure (based on criteria different) and therefore compete. WADA does not accept this argument. For two fundamental reasons.

“First, the criteria for lifting a mandatory Provisional Suspension, under the Code, simply does not include the criteria for granting an Interim Measure. Second, in a scenario where WADA (and/or d other) had appealed the decision of the RUSADA Disciplinary Panel to the CAS Appeals Chamber, the Athlete would not have needed to request an Interim Measure as the Provisional Suspension would have already been lifted. Additionally, had the RUSADA Disciplinary Committee decided not to lift the mandatory Provisional Suspension, that decision would not be subject to appeal under the Code.”

The statement goes on to say that it is “surprising and of great concern to WADA that a CAS panel finds it appropriate to depart from the clear terms of the Code, which has been the subject of three rounds of consultation involving all anti-doping stakeholders, including athletes, over a two-year period before being unanimously adopted in November 2019.

“This sets a dangerous precedent, which WADA hopes and expects will be corrected by future CAS panels.

“With regard to the delay between the collection of the sample and the notification of the positive result from the anti-doping laboratory in Stockholm, as indicated on February 14, WADA reiterates that it is clearly the responsibility of the anti-doping organization which initiated the control, in this case, RUSADA, to communicate effectively with the laboratory to ensure timely sample analysis, especially in the run up to a major event Unfortunately, RUSADA has not flagged the high priority nature of the sample despite being informed by the laboratory of delays caused by an outbreak of COVID-19 among its staff.”

You Can Read Also

Entertainment News

Advertisement

malek

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.