As the Panel noted, it is one thing, having provided a blood sample, to question the accreditation of the testing personnel while keeping the intact samples in the possession of the testing authorities; it is quite another thing, after lengthy exchanges and warnings as to the consequences, to act in such a way that results in destroying the sample containers, thereby eliminating any chance of testing the sample at a later stage.
The arbitration on appeal was referred to a panel of CAS arbitrators, composed of Judge Franco Frattini (Italy), President, Mr Romano F. Subiotto QC (Belgium/UK) and Prof. Philippe Sands QC (UK)
The blood that was initially collected (and subsequently destroyed) was not collected with proper authorisation and thus was not properly a "sample" ... as a result, the sample collection session initiated by IDTM on September 4, 2018, is invalid and void. No FINA DC rule violations can result therefrom. ... The conduct on the part of the DCA (doping control assistant) is highly improper and extremely unprofessional. This should never happen ... proof of this conduct by a DCA prior to the athlete providing a chaperoned urine sample is unquestionably reason to immediately suspend the DCA's involvement in the testing mission. ... Ultimately, the BCA (blood collection assistant) did not testify at the hearing or answer any questions from the athlete. The Doping Panel is left with significant doubt whether the BCA was properly qualified to draw blood from an athlete.
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】 : FINA的裁决： : The blood that was initially collected (and subsequently destroyed) was not : collected with proper authorisation and thus was not properly a
Blood Collection Officer (or BCO): An official who is qualified and has been authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to collect a blood Samplefrom an Athlete.
H.4 Requirements - Qualifications and Training H.4.1 The Sample Collection Authority shall: a) determine the necessary competence and qualification requirements for the positions of DCO, Chaperone and BCO; and b) develop duty statements for all Sample Collection Personnel that outline their respective responsibilities. As a minimum: i) Sample Collection Personnel shall not be Minors; and ii) BCOs shall have adequate qualifications and practical skills required to perform blood collection from a vein.
H.4.3 The Sample Collection Authority shall establish a system that ensures that Sample Collection Personnel are adequately trained to carry out their duties. H.4.3.1 The training program for BCOs shall include, as a minimum, studies of all relevant requirements of the Testing process and familiarization with relevant standard precautions in healthcare settings.
6.1 A fundamental issue to evaluate is whether the Athlete was properly notified by the IDTM testing team. This is mandated in ISTI Article 5.4. Specifically, whether the DCO and the DCA and the BCA provided to the Athlete, pursuant to the ISTI, proper official documentation from IDTM evidencing their authority to collect a sample from the Athlete. 6.2 The Athlete insists that proper authorizations were not shown by the DCA and the BCA. In contrast, FINA strenuously contends that the generic 2018 FINA Letter of Authority, which was shown to the Athlete, is all the authorization documentation required for the Sample Collection Personnel to show to the Athlete. FINA claims that the DCA and BCA are not required to show any additional authorization documentation to the Athlete when they are attending a sample collection session with a properly accredited and properly authorized IDTM DCO. The Doping Panel cannot agree with FINA’s position. The totality of the “official documentation” provided by IDTM to evidence the Sample Collection Personnel’s authority to collect a sample from the Athlete was deficient. The Athlete was not properly notified. 6.3 It is common ground that the ISTI contains the rules and procedural requirements that both the Athlete and FINA must comply with. The most relevant provisions in the ISTI dealing with the proper notification of an athlete are the definitions of Doping Control Officer, Blood Collection Officer, Chaperone, and Sample Collection Personnel. Also highly applicable are Articles 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. (Requirements Prior to Notification), Article 5.4 (Requirements for Notification of Athletes) and Annex H (Sample Collection Personnel Requirements). 6.4 It is important when analysing the ISTI requirements to keep distinct the difference between proper identification (who the official is), proper appointment (of the official to a specific role) and proper authorization or authority (to permit the official to perform the specifically appointed role, including having appropriate training and qualifications). 6.5 The definitions of BCO, DCO and Chaperone contained in the ISTI make clear that the individual officials, each performing in a particular capacity, must be individually authorized by the Sample Collection Authority. It is of particular interest to an athlete which organization is the Sample Collection Authority – as this could be an International Federation (IF), a private company like IDTM or a national anti-doping organization ( NADO). For different tests in different locations on the same athlete, this will inevitably change. Precisely which organization is the responsible Sample Collection Authority will dictate what official documentation the athlete will look to have provided. 6.6 In the ISTI, “Sample Collection Personnel” is a collective term. In other words, Sample Collection Personnel is a term used to collectively refer to a group of one or more individually authorized and qualified officials (such as a DCO, BCO, DCA, etc.) who may all attend and work together at a sample collection session. The Sample Collection Personnel must be authorized by a Sample Collection Authority, like IDTM, to perform their respective duties during the sample collection session. 6.7 ISTI Article 5.3.2 is not specific to any particular testing mission. It makes no reference to collecting a sample from an athlete. Article 5.3.2 is a provision describing how the various Sample Collection Authorities shall “appoint and authorize” the individuals who can, at a later date, take on certain roles (their “assigned responsibilities”) at a sample collection session. These individuals, once appointed and authorized by a Sample Collection Authority (whether as a DCO or a DCA or a BCO), are eligible to participate at future sample collection sessions. Collectively, when assigned to and attending at a testing mission, they become Sample Collection Personnel. 6.8 Article 5.3.2 describes the method whereby the Sample Collection Authority develops a ‘pool’ of appointed and authorized individuals, each of whom (i) has been trained for their assigned responsibilities, (ii) do not have a conflict of interest in the outcome of the sample collection and (iii) are not minors. 6.9 This interpretation of Article 5.3.2 is fully consistent with the clear direction contained in Annex H.2, whereby the Sample Collection Authority must develop the necessary competencies for the various roles performed by the Sample Collection Personnel (whether as a DCO or a DCA or a BCO). The details of this acquiring, tracking and recording of competencies are described fully in Annex H. 6.10 Annex H.4 and H.5 provide significant detail regarding how the Sample Collection Authority should go about determining the necessary competence, qualification and accreditation for this ‘pool’ of appointed and authorized individual officials. The Sample Collection Authority must maintain records of the education, training, skills and experience of all its Sample Collection Personnel. These records are obviously specific to each individual official. 6.11 Annex H.2 requires that the Sample Collection Authority must provide each of the officials who may in the future become Sample Collection Personnel “identifiable accreditation”. This accreditation must be kept up to date. The Doping Panel finds this refers to more than personal identification. The use of the word “accreditation” in the ISTI refers to a document that is generated by the Sample Collection Authority which demonstrates that the official (acting in whatever role is to be performed) has been suitably trained for their responsibilities by the Sample Collection Authority. 6.12 The Doping Panel believes that the IDTM SoC, which was signed by the DCA and the BCA and maintained in a file at IDTM headquarters, is fully compliant with the provisions of Article 5.3.2 and Annex H. As stated by Ms. Johannesson in her testimony, the signed SoC is an internal document and is used by IDTM to maintain at IDTM a ‘pool’ of individual officials ( whether as a BCA or a DCA, etc.) who are trained, accredited and eligible to take part in testing missions on behalf of IDTM. All of this satisfies the general requirements in Article 5.3.2 whereby a ‘pool’ of eligible officials is maintained by IDTM. Each official so accredited by IDTM, in the role to which they have been trained, can now be appointed and authorized to conduct or assist with a specific sample collection session. 6.13 ISTI Article 5.3.3 is very different. It deals with the specifics of an actual testing mission when a sample will be collected from an athlete. Article 5.3.3 addresses what the IDTM officials who, as a group, comprise the Sample Collection Personnel, must have with them at the testing mission when they are sent by IDTM to collect a sample from a specific athlete. 6.14 The first sentence in Article 5.3.3 describes the required “official documentation” provided by the Sample Collection Authority “evidencing their authority” to collect a sample from the Athlete. The second sentence in Article 5.3.3 describes the additional “complementary identification” that must also be carried by the DCO. The question of what authorization documentation must be provided to an athlete during notification by an IDTM official can be answered by evaluating the ISTI as a whole, by interpreting the words actually used in Article 5.3.3, by considering that the ISTI also governs all testing missions where the Testing Authority is the Sample Collection Authority and by the specific notification requirements contained in Article 5.4. 6.15 The Doping Panel acknowledges that Sample Collection Personnel is a collective term referring to all qualified officials who have been authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to carry out or assist with duties during a testing mission. However, the Doping Panel does not agree with FINA that Article 5.3.3, read together with all other sections in the ISTI, only requires a single document to serve for all purposes as the official documentation evidencing proper authorization, for all officials. 6.16 Article 5.3.3 refers to “official documentation” provided by the Sample Collection Authority (such as IDTM), “evidencing their authority”. The word “their” clearly modifies Sample Collection Personnel. The ISTI definitions require that each individual official comprising the Sample Collection Personnel at a testing mission be previously “authorized” by IDTM to be in the IDTM ‘pool’. Further, each individual official will have been “appointed and authorized” by IDTM (pursuant to Article 5.3.2) and each individual official will have received “identifiable accreditation” from IDTM (pursuant to Annex H.2). Relying on this logical framework, the Doping Panel has concluded that “official documentation” from IDTM is needed to ‘evidence’ the authority of that individual official to collect a sample from the Athlete – and this documentation must be shown to the Athlete. 6.17 Article 5.3.3 refers to “official documentation”. This reference to “documentation” is plural. If a single document was all that was required to demonstrate that the Sample Collection Personnel (as a collective unit) were properly authorized by IDTM it would have stated that the Sample Collection Personnel must have “a document”. 6.18 The Doping Panel finds that in Article 5.3.3, the use of the words “ official documentation…evidencing their authority to collect a sample from the athlete” means, when applicable, “official documentation” evidencing both (i) the authority conferred on IDTM to be the Sample Collection Authority and (ii) the authority from IDTM that must be granted to each individual official (drawn from the “pool” of IDTM officials created and maintained by IDTM, pursuant to Article 5.3.2), who are sent on a testing mission to collect a sample from the athlete. 6.19 FINA’s interpretation of Article 5.3.3 relies on the fact that FINA is the Testing Authority and IDTM is the Sample Collection Authority. The annually issued generic FINA Letter of Authority is absolutely needed for FINA to delegate to IDTM the role of Sample Collection Authority. It is true that such a delegating authorization letter from a Testing Authority is expressly mentioned in the ISTI in Article 5.3.3. However, this is not determinative. 6.20 In all cases where there is a need to transfer authority from a Testing Authority (say, an IF or a NADO) to a Sample Collection Authority (such as IDTM) a similar generic delegation of authority letter will be in existence. However, this is not the situation in many other testing scenarios where the Testing Authority is also the Sample Collection Authority. This will be the case when an IF conducts its own testing on athletes in that sport or when a NADO tests national athletes in that country. Absolutely no delegation of authority from a Testing Authority is required. There will be no “authorization letter from the Testing Authority” in such a scenario. If FINA’s interpretation of the required “authorization” in Article 5.3.3 prevails, no authorization at all would be required to be provided on a testing mission when a Testing Authority is also the Sample Collection Authority. This makes no sense. 6.21 The express reference in Article 5.3.3 to “such as an authorization letter from the Testing Authority” (emphasis added) is simply an example of the sort, class or type of “official documentation” that may be provided in a single testing scenario. The reference to an “authorization letter from the Testing Authority” is not an exhaustive list. It does not describe the totality of the official documentation that is required, in every testing scenario, to evidence the proper authorizations. In the present case, the FINA Letter of Authority is a needed and a necessary document to provide to the Athlete (as it demonstrates that IDTM is the delegated Sample Collection Authority), but it is not sufficient. 6.22 The further weakness in FINA’s argument is that Article 5.3.3 specifies that the “official documentation” must be provided by the Sample Collection Authority. The FINA 2018 generic Letter of Authority came from FINA, not IDTM. In no sense was the Letter of Authority provided by IDTM. IDTM merely passed it along to show it was acting as the proper Sample Testing Authority. In all aspects, the ISTI is clear that it is the Sample Collection Authority who shall appoint and authorize the individual officials who will form part of the collective Sample Collection Personnel that will actually collect a sample from the Athlete. In Article 5.3.3, the “official documentation” that must be shown to the Athlete must be provided by the Sample Collection Authority – in this case IDTM. Nothing was provided to the DCA and the BCA by IDTM and so nothing could be shown to the Athlete. 6.23 ISTI Article 5.4 provides a final point of clarity on this issue. This Article describes in detail what must happen during an athlete’s notification. As stated earlier, when applicable, both (i) the authority conferred on IDTM as the delegated Sample Collection Authority (pursuant to the 2018 FINA Letter of Authority) and (ii) the authority to collect a sample from an athlete granted by IDTM to each official in the “pool” of individuals created and maintained by IDTM, must be shown to the Athlete. 6.24 The Doping Panel is satisfied that ISTI Article 5.4.1 (b) can be satisfied by showing the Athlete the generic Letter of Authority provided by FINA to IDTM or provided by any Testing Authority to any Sample Collection Authority. Such a letter will provide the general authority under which the sample collection will be conducted. 6.25 In contrast, Article 5.4.2 (b) requires that the individual members of the Sample Collection Personnel – the DCO and/or the Chaperone, as applicable – “identify themselves”, which is a plural reference, using the “documentation referred to in Article 5.3.3”. This cannot mean just showing to the Athlete the DCO’s complementary identification referenced in the second sentence in Article 5.3.3. It cannot refer to the generic FINA Letter of Authority. The Chaperone, and indeed all other attending officials (each of whom by definition has been “authorized” by the Sample Collection Authority), must “identify themselves” by showing “official documentation” provided by the Sample Collection Authority which evidences their individual authority collect a sample from the Athlete. 6.26 One document (such as the generic 2018 FINA Letter of Authority) is not sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling both Article 5.4.1 (b) and Article 5.4.2 (b) in the ISTI. The ISTI contemplates various documentation being provided by attending officials to demonstrate evidence of their authority to act. Some documentation may come from a Testing Authority (where there is a delegation to a Sample Collection Authority) while others must be provided by the Sample Collection Authority. The notification requirements in the ISTI Article 5.4 make clear that the “official documentation” referred to in 5.3.3 cannot be limited to the generic letter delegating authority from a Testing Authority to a Sample Collection Authority. If this were so, both Article 5.4.1 (b) and Article 5.4.2 (b) would not be needed. 6.27 The Doping Panel does not agree with FINA’s position that a properly authorized individual DCO, holding the generic FINA Letter of Authority sent to IDTM, is adequate evidence of a DCA’s, a Chaperone’s or a BCA’s “ authority” to collect a sample from the Athlete. Such reliance on the single FINA Letter of Authority does not comply with the requirements contained in the ISTI.
6.28 The Doping Panel is satisfied that the Athlete was not properly notified by the DCO. The notification requirements in the ISTI were not met for the other attending Sample Collection Personnel. Proper authorizations contained in “official documentation” from IDTM were not provided to the Athlete in connection with the attendance of the DCA and the BCA.
6.29 The Athlete (and every athlete) is held strictly accountable to the provisions in the World Anti-Doping Code and the FINA DC. The Doping Panel must insist that IDTM and FINA also strictly comply with the requirements in the ISTI. The Doping Panel rejects any argument or claim that the deficiencies in the notification procedure which it has identified are minor, do not impact the integrity of the blood sample that was collected and should not serve to invalidate an entire testing mission – especially when held up against the troubling and rather aggressive ‘self-help’ conduct of the Athlete and his entourage.
6.30 Notification processes contained in the ISTI go to the very heart of assuming jurisdiction over an athlete and thereby acquiring the authority to impose onerous obligations and penalties. Notification is something that must be done correctly. Notification is the ‘gateway’ into a realm of onerous obligations and responsibilities – all falling on an athlete. The FINA Doping Panel insists that FINA members must know with certainty under whose authority they are being tested and that every official attending at the sample collection session has been properly trained, appointed and authorized by the Sample Collection Authority. The fact that the Athlete in this instance did elect to engage in very troubling conduct regarding the collected blood samples (which will be addressed below) does not serve to eliminate the requirements resting on IDTM and FINA to comply with the provisions contained in the ISTI. 6.31 While the DCO had proper documentation evidencing her authority from IDTM, the total absence of any official documentation from IDTM in the hands of the DCA and the BCA is not acceptable. The Doping Panel is not prepared to dictate what form the “official documentation” evidencing the needed “authority” should take. That is up to each Sample Collection Authority to determine. There will not be a single correct way to proceed. 6.32 The Doping Panel is mindful that appointing Chaperones present a unique situation. Chaperones (or DCAs) are often recruited, selected, trained and then authorized by a DCO at the actual event where they are needed. However, they must be trained prior to playing any role at a testing mission. This need not cause a problem. They can be considered very recent additions into the Sample Collection Authority’s ‘pool’ of properly accredited and authorized officials. This is entirely proper. The DCO is, of course, acting on behalf of the Sample Collection Authority when the DCO selects and trains the Chaperone. In this capacity, as an agent for the Sample Collection Authority, the DCO can easily provide the “official documentation” from the Sample Collection Authority to evidence the Chaperone’s training and authority to attend at the Sample Collection Session and act in a particular capacity. This documentation must then be shown to the athlete who is asked to provide a sample. 6.33 The “official documentation” provided by the Sample Collection Authority (covering the critical components of identification, appointment and authorization) held by officials who are Sample Collection Personnel could be some combination of (or all of) the following: a badge or Card with a photo and details of the official; a specific hard-copy Authorization Form with the name and logo of the Sample Collection Authority and the details of the official; digital identification, photo and authorization of the official on a website; digital links that include Mission Order details. At a minimum, the “official documentation” from the Sample Collection Authority must provide “evidence” of a clear link between the Sample Collection Authority, the official involved and the testing mission being undertaken where the athlete will provide a sample. 6.34 It is not sufficient to rely on a known IDTM DCO (as in the case at hand) to state verbally to the Athlete with reference to an attending DCA or a BCA (who have no official documentation from IDTM whatsoever), in effect: “they are with me, I will be in charge – everything is OK.” Showing the Athlete the contents of the IDTM DCO Portal might have established (with a photo) that the DCA was in IDTM’s ‘pool’ of qualified officials for 2018, but that step provided no evidence of an authorization from IDTM to take part in the OOC mission on September 4, 2018 when the sample was to be collected from the Athlete. 6.35 The Doping Panel finds that the OOC sample collection session conducted by IDTM on behalf of FINA on September 4, 2018 was not properly commenced. The lack of “official documentation” from IDTM for the DCA and the BCA meant that the Athlete was not properly notified. The request to provide a urine sample was not properly accomplished. The blood that was initially collected (and subsequently destroyed) was not collected with proper authorization and thus was not properly a “Sample” as that term is used in the ISTI and defined in the FINA DC. As a result, the sample collection session initiated by IDTM on September 4, 2018, is invalid and void. No FINA DC rule violations can result therefrom. Additional Grounds: 6.36 If the Doping Panel were inclined to the view that the described deficiencies in the notification procedure were serious, but were not enough to invalidate the sample collection session, there are other grounds for concluding that the Athlete did not breach the FINA DC. 6.37 With regard to the attempt to collect urine: The Doping Panel is satisfied that the DCA did surreptitiously take pictures and/or videos of the Athlete using his personal cell phone. He took more photos than described by the DCO in her testimony. The Doping Panel heard believable and compelling evidence from various witnesses that there were pictures on the DCA’s phone that contained images of the Athlete. The Athlete witnessed their deletion. Critically, the DCA provided no evidence or testimony whatsoever. He was the best person to disprove the serious allegations against him that were raised – but he failed to do so. In the result, none of the Athlete’s direct evidence regarding the DCA taking pictures and videos of him during the mission was effectively challenged. 6.38 This conduct on the part of the DCA is highly improper and extremely unprofessional. This should never happen. Chaperoning an athlete is a sensitive, personal and serious matter. It is not for ‘fans’. The Athlete was initially suspicious and eventually discovered that there were photos of him on the DCA’s phone. The pictures were deleted. Proof of this conduct by a DCA prior to the Athlete providing a chaperoned urine sample is unquestionably reason to immediately suspend the DCA’s involvement in the testing mission. With no other male DCA’s to perform this role – the mission with regard to urine collection must be abandoned. Such facts, once established, are a compelling justification for the Athlete to refuse to have any further personal and sensitive contact with the DCA. 6.39 With regard to the collected blood: This issue is raised merely to identify a point of confusion. Doping Panel is left with some uncertainty regarding the role an IDTM BCA can properly play in the collection of blood from an athlete. The ISTI does not refer anywhere to a BCA – it is apparently a term specific to IDTM. The ISTI only refers to a BCO. To cloud the issue, the evidence at the hearing made clear that IDTM does certify BCOs but only if they are also a DCO. In that event, IDTM provides the BCO/ DCO with official documentation evidencing their authorization to collect a sample from an athlete which is similar to that which a DCO receives. 6.40 This begs the following questions. Why have both BCOs and BCAs? What is the role for an IDTM BCA when collecting blood from the Athlete? The Doping Panel can only assume that an IDTM BCA has precisely the same role and duties as a typical BCO with regard only to the drawing of blood. It is assumed that a BCA is simply an IDTM official who is authorized to collect blood from an athlete using a different designation. If so – why not provide to the BCA similar authorization documentation provided to an IDTM BCO? Greater clarity on this issue and compliance with the nomenclature found in the ISTI would likely avoid much confusion. 6.41 Of substantive concern, the Athlete led evidence from various witnesses that the IDTM BCA did not produce documentation demonstrating that she was qualified to draw blood in the location where the test took place. This is a requirement in the ISTI. 6.42 The ISTI in Annex E, demands that blood be collected by “a suitably qualified person”. Annex E.4 provides that “Procedures involving blood shall be consistent with the local standards and regulatory requirements regarding precautions in healthcare settings where those standards and requirements exceed the requirements set out below” (emphasis added). 6.43 As the BCA drew the Athlete’s blood successfully on September 4, 2018, whether she knew how to do the medical procedure is not the issue. She apparently did it well. Rather, the issue is whether she (i) had proper qualifications to legally draw blood in that locality, and (ii) did she present documentation regarding her valid qualifications to the Athlete? 6.44 The BCA, who is a nurse, provided to the Athlete a professional technical certificate issued in 2009. In the Declaration written by 6.45 Dr. Ba, it is described as “her Nurse Qualification Certificate, Number 09092081”. The Doping Panel assumes this Certificate is her foundation qualification to be a nurse. However, Dr. Han testified that what is required to draw blood from an athlete is a nursing Practice Certificate. Dr. Han testified that a nurse without a Practice Certificate issued by the health administration cannot collect blood. In his view, the relevant Regulations (No. 59 of the Ministry of Health of the Peoples Republic of China) require that nurses who wish to collect blood from athletes must have both a Nursing Practice Certificate and a “practicing registration license.” Neither were provided to the Athlete. FINA called no evidence to rebut the serious contentions made by the Athlete regarding the BCA’s claimed lack of qualification. To be fair, the scheduling and order of production in this case did not allow FINA to learn of and assess this specific allegation from the Athlete, and then file material in response. All parties filed their materials at roughly the same time. Ultimately, the BCA did not testify at the hearing or answer any questions from the Athlete. The BCA’s position regarding her qualification status is unknown. Her signed statement filed with the Doping Panel only confirmed that the Athlete and his entourage had expressed dissatisfaction (after the blood was collected) with what the BCA described as her “nurse’s certificate.” The only evidence before the Doping Panel was that the BCA was not properly qualified. There was no evidence to the contrary. The Doping Panel is left with significant doubt whether the BCA was properly qualified to draw blood from an athlete. 6.46 – 6.47 The BCA may well have been properly licensed and the holder of a Practice Certificate – the Doping Panel will never know based on the record before it. What is certain is that she did not produce unequivocal evidence of her qualifications to draw blood from the Athlete, as required in the ISTI. Blood collected by an individual not possessing proper qualifications and not in a position to show these qualifications to the Athlete is a proper ground to abandon the blood collection session. 6.48 Blood taken by a BCA or BCO without proper authorization or proper qualifications is not a “Sample” as defined in the FINA DC. As the improperly collected blood cannot be used for Doping Control purposes, it is not a “Sample” as that term is defined. Such blood is merely biological material taken from an athlete that has become medical waste. 6.49 Failure to Comply Consequences – blood and urine: There was certainly much discussion and heated debate over what was proper and allowed pursuant to the ISTI and what was not. It is abundantly clear that the DCO tried constantly to explain why the complaints and deficiencies raised by the Athlete were not valid, in her view. It is equally clear that the Athlete and his entourage were insistent that their views were correct. This debate continued all night and the parties were at a stand-off. Unfortunately, the ongoing debate had the result that the consequences of the Athlete’s proposed course of conduct became ‘lost in the noise’. 6.50 The debate between the DCO and the Athlete (and his entourage) inevitably focused on who was ‘right’ and whether there could be a Failure to Comply or a risk of a violation in that evolving situation. The Athlete consistently denied that this was ever a possible outcome. The ISTI is clear in Annex A 3.3.a) that the DCO must tell the Athlete, in a language he can understand, the consequences of a possible Failure to Comply. Explaining the risks that certain conduct might lead to a violation is not sufficient. The DCO must go further and clearly articulate that she is treating the Athlete’s conduct as a Failure to Comply and that the following consequences will apply. 6.51 This critical message to the Athlete regarding the consequences of his conduct, while attempted many times by the DCO, never got through. The Athlete, and every witness for the Athlete, testified they were never told by the DCO the consequences that would apply. This is likely true. All that was ‘heard’ from the DCO in the ongoing debate regarding whose interpretation of the rules was ‘correct’ was the message that certain conduct might constitute a rule violation. This message would be immediately denied. 6.52 There was no clarifying and crystalizing moment (a metaphorical “bang ”) ensuring that the Athlete clearly knew, in the face of the identified conduct, that his conduct was being treated by the DCO as a Failure to Comply and that serious consequences would apply. 6.53 This is the very reason that Refusal Forms are utilized by many Sample Collection Authorities. They provide clear evidence to the athlete (when pulled out to be signed at the critical moment by a DCO) that the DCO considers the athlete’s conduct to be a breach of the rules and the consequences specified will apply. There is no room for ambiguity. While use of such a Refusal Forms is not mandatory, this clarity was never achieved at the testing mission on September 4, 2018. In contrast, the Athlete and his entourage all testified that as the evening ended they believed, perhaps naively, that they had been successful in the debate regarding who was ‘right’. They believed that they had eventually convinced the DCO and IDTM to back down and accept the Athlete’s position. There was absolutely no “bang” involved.
A CAUTION TO THE ATHLETE
6.54 Although not required to decide the case, the Doping Panel feels compelled to point out its very significant concerns regarding the conduct of the Athlete and his entourage. Avoiding an anti-doping rule violation in this matter should not be equated with the Doping Panel condoning such a strategy in future situations. While ultimately successful, it was a close- run thing. 6.55 The Athlete’s success ultimately hinged on the Doping Panel’s interpretation of what “official documentation” was required to be provided by the Sample Collection Authority. The Athlete’s entire athletic career hung in the balance – on what amounted to, essentially, a gamble that the Athlete’s assessment of the complex situation would prevail. That strikes the Doping Panel as foolish in the extreme. 6.56 As many CAS awards have stated, it is far more prudent to comply with the directions of a DCO and provide a sample in every case, even if provided “under protest.” Subsequently, all manner of complaints and comments can be filed, rather than risk any chance of an asserted violation when an aspect of the doping control process becomes a concern. Staking an entire athletic career on being correct when the issue is complex and contentious is a huge and foolish gamble. 6.57 In fact, the Doping Panel rejected many of the Athlete’s contentions and positions as being unfounded and invalid. The Athlete and his entourage were not correct regarding many aspects of the sample collection session. That should be a sobering lesson to the Athlete. The following are but examples; • Signing the Declaration prepared by Dr. Ba was not evidence that the sample collection personnel agreed with its substantive contents. In contrast, it was a form of Report that any athlete may submit at the conclusion of a sample collection session (see ISTI Article 7.4.4). DCOs are instructed to sign any and all such athlete provided comments. Others may sign as a witness. ISTI Article 7.4.6 references the need to have the DCO sign the documentation to confirm that the comments provided by an athlete (or Dr. Ba) reflect the athlete’s concerns – not to confirm that the DCO is in agreement with them. • The time of the testing mission (commencing at about 11 p.m.) was perfectly appropriate. That it continued so long into the night was unfortunate, but no ground to fault the conduct of IDTM or FINA. This was at the very end of the “60-minute” time period specifically identified by the Athlete when he would be available to be tested. Indeed, the Athlete narrowly avoided a potential Missed Test allegation as he arrived just as the 60-minute time period was ending. • The Athlete’s entourage continually asserted that the IDTM DCA should have presented to the Athlete DCO accreditation and related authorizations. This is absolutely not required – despite testimony that in China it is standard for all individuals who attend at a sample collection session to be trained as DCOs. In the ISTI, and for all tests performed by other Sample Collection Authorities while in China, it is perfectly proper for DCAs or Chaperones to perform their limited roles and tasks with no DCO accreditation. This so-called “higher standard” claimed by the Athlete’s witnesses is not required in the ISTI, and is absolutely not a justification to refuse to accept the credentials of an otherwise properly authorized DCA, who is not a DCO. • The events in 2017 involving the Athlete and the DCO (when she was in training to be a certified ITDM Doping Control Officer) did not give rise to a conflict of interest so as to disqualify the DCO from acting in her role at the sample collection session on September 4, 2018. Complaints were made and comments were written at the conclusion of the session in 2017, but in no way did that disqualify the DCO from continuing to test the Athlete, now or into the future. Likewise, the Athlete’s testing history and the latest negative test result were not relevant to the issues before this Doping Panel. 6.58 Finally, the Doping Panel desires to acknowledge the very significant efforts expended by the various legal counsel, and translators, to facilitate the actual hearing. The hearing was lengthy and contentious – but never acrimonious. All parties focused on providing the Doping Panel with the relevant information they possessed to assist in the decision- making process. This effort was much appreciated.
CONCLUSION Mr. Sun Yang has not committed an anti-doping rule violation under FINA DC 2.3 or FINA DC 2.5. This award shall not be made public pursuant to FINA DC 14.3.3, unless and until the Athlete consents to such disclosure. All costs of this case shall be borne by CSA in accordance with FINA DC 12.3. Any appeal against this decision may be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Lausanne, Switzerland not later than twenty one (21) days after receipt of the complete and reasoned judgement (FINA Rule C 12.11.4 and DC 13).
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】 : FINA裁决的分析部分是很详细合理的 : 希望CAS也能公布它自己的分析 : https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/sun-yang-verdict-the-fina- doping- : panel-ruling-that-triggered-wada-action/ : 6. ANALYSIS : 6.1 A fundamental issue to evaluate is whether the Athlete was properly : notified by the IDTM testing team. This is mandated in ISTI Article 5.4. : Specifically, whether the DCO and the DCA and the BCA provided
FINA claims that the DCA and BCA are not required to show any additional authorization documentation to the Athlete when they areattending a sample collection session with a properly accredited and properly authorized IDTM DCO. The Doping Panel cannot agree with FINA’s position.
【 在 addaddtwo (haha2) 的大作中提到: 】 : 这是事后分析。 : FINA claims that the DCA and BCA are not required to : show any additional authorization documentation to the Athlete when they are : attending a sample collection session with a properly accredited and : properly authorized IDTM DCO. The Doping Panel cannot agree with FINA’s : position.
事实证明：那2个检测人员（血检员和尿检员）都有资格或认证的问题。FINA的裁决就
认定了这个关键点。
而这个推翻了上述决定的裁决实际的意思是：（即使WADA人员有可能很不合资格，样品采取不合法，）尽管运动员对检测人员资格有质疑，样品还是应该被那些人员带走/保
留，以便留下被未来检测的可能
那几乎完全剥夺了运动员质疑检测人员身份资格的权利。是在说：wada派去的人可能会非常不合它定的规则，但是运动员还是应该配合。
做出这个新裁决的3个人真是很可耻。
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6148_
decision.pdf
As the Panel noted, it is one thing, having
provided a blood sample, to question the accreditation of the testing
personnel while keeping the intact samples in the possession of the testing authorities; it is quite another thing, after lengthy exchanges and warnings as to the consequences, to act in such a way that results in destroying the sample
containers, thereby eliminating any chance of testing the sample at a later stage.
The arbitration on appeal was referred to a panel of CAS arbitrators,
composed of Judge Franco Frattini (Italy), President, Mr Romano F. Subiotto QC (Belgium/UK) and Prof. Philippe Sands QC (UK)
那几乎完全剥夺了运动员质疑检测人员身份资格的权利。是在说：wada派去的人可能会非常不合它定的规则，但是运动员还是应该配合。
这个是你脑补的，“检测人员身份资格”没有问题。。。
【 在 skybluewei (weilan) 的大作中提到: 】
: 那几乎完全剥夺了运动员质疑检测人员身份资格的权利。是在说：wada派去的人可能会
: 非常不合它定的规则，但是运动员还是应该配合。
: 这个是你脑补的，“检测人员身份资格”没有问题。。。
你看看FINA的裁决就知道资格都有问题了
FINA的裁决：
The blood that was initially collected (and subsequently destroyed) was not collected with proper authorisation and thus was not properly a "sample" ... as a result, the sample collection session initiated by IDTM on September 4, 2018, is invalid and void. No FINA DC rule violations can result therefrom. ... The conduct on the part of the DCA (doping control assistant) is
highly improper and extremely unprofessional. This should never happen ...
proof of this conduct by a DCA prior to the athlete providing a chaperoned
urine sample is unquestionably reason to immediately suspend the DCA's
involvement in the testing mission. ... Ultimately, the BCA (blood
collection assistant) did not testify at the hearing or answer any questions from the athlete. The Doping Panel is left with significant doubt whether
the BCA was properly qualified to draw blood from an athlete.
FINA裁决的详情
里面有对两个人员资格和样品的否定
https://gfx.sueddeutsche.de/pdf/sunyangdoping201819_cleaned.pdf
三个人里面只要有一个合格的就足够了
其他二个算辅助人员
就好比警察抓人，带了非警察人员 去这人家 把没收的东西搬走
难道你可以因为人家不是警察就 可以拒捕吗？
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: FINA裁决的详情
: 里面有对两个人员资格和样品的否定
: https://gfx.sueddeutsche.de/pdf/sunyangdoping201819_cleaned.pdf
【 在 addaddtwo (haha2) 的大作中提到: 】
: 三个人里面只要有一个合格的就足够了
: 其他二个算辅助人员
: 就好比警察抓人，带了非警察人员 去这人家 把没收的东西搬走
: 难道你可以因为人家不是警察就 可以拒捕吗？
完全是扯淡
WADA自己的规则里明文写着对检测人员的规则或要求是什么
FINA的裁决里也都提到
照你这么说，你带了两个人去找你老婆，你是你老婆的合法丈夫，所以你可以和你老婆发生关系，另外两个也可以是么？
【 在 addaddtwo (haha2) 的大作中提到: 】
: 三个人里面只要有一个合格的就足够了
: 其他二个算辅助人员
: 就好比警察抓人，带了非警察人员 去这人家 把没收的东西搬走
: 难道你可以因为人家不是警察就 可以拒捕吗？
因为三个里面二个不合格
所以规则不适用这二个人
只要那个合格人员 按规则行事就行，其它二个人是这个合格人员的助手
发信人: wewill2009 (daluobe), 信区: Military
标 题: Re: 对孙杨的裁决很荒唐。国际泳联的裁决合理多了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Feb 28 11:41:04 2020, 美东)
【 在 addaddtwo (haha2) 的大作中提到: 】
: 三个人里面只要有一个合格的就足够了
: 其他二个算辅助人员
: 就好比警察抓人，带了非警察人员 去这人家 把没收的东西搬走
: 难道你可以因为人家不是警察就 可以拒捕吗？
完全是扯淡
WADA自己的规则里明文写着对检测人员的规则或要求是什么
FINA的裁决里也都提到
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 完全是扯淡
: WADA自己的规则里明文写着对检测人员的规则或要求是什么
: FINA的裁决里也都提到
【 在 addaddtwo (haha2) 的大作中提到: 】
: 因为三个里面二个不合格
: 所以规则不适用这二个人
: 只要那个合格人员 按规则行事就行，其它二个人是这个合格人员的助手
: 发信人: wewill2009 (daluobe), 信区: Military
: 标 题: Re: 对孙杨的裁决很荒唐。国际泳联的裁决合理多了
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Feb 28 11:41:04 2020, 美东)
: 完全是扯淡
: WADA自己的规则里明文写着对检测人员的规则或要求是什么
: FINA的裁决里也都提到
你带了两个人去找你老婆，你是你老婆的合法丈夫，所以你可以和你老婆
发生关系，另外两个也可以是么？
看来老酱经常这么干
麻痹的什么狗屁蛙瘩穷的雇临时工了，钱都让领导拿去嫖娼了
FINA对资格和样品不合格的认定是根据WADA自己的规则条款的
这些在FINA的裁决里都是有详细解释的
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-30_-_
isti_final_january_2017.pdf
这三个裁决人可耻之处在于裁定：那两个（资格/证件实际上很不合WADA规则的）检测
员都是符合规则的
他们完全是睁眼说瞎话
实际的检测员只有2个。一个管血，一个管尿。
2个的资格/证件都有问题
CAS认为没问题！
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: FINA的裁决：
: The blood that was initially collected (and subsequently destroyed) was
not
: collected with proper authorisation and thus was not properly a
★ 发自iPhone App: ChinaWeb 1.1.5
【 在 skybluewei (weilan) 的大作中提到: 】
: CAS认为没问题！
: not
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChinaWeb 1.1.5
可耻之处就在那里
后面任何话就是“自然推理“了
发信人: wewill2009 (daluobe), 信区: Military
标 题: Re: 对孙杨的裁决很荒唐。国际泳联的裁决合理多了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Feb 28 12:03:51 2020, 美东)
这三个裁决人可耻之处在于裁定：那两个（资格/证件实际上很不合WADA规则的）检测
员都是符合规则的
他们完全是睁眼说瞎话
不能你说有问题就有问题啊！不是吗？否则打官司干啥？
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 可耻之处就在那里
: 后面任何话就是“自然推理“了
: 发信人: wewill2009 (daluobe), 信区: Military
: 标 题: Re: 对孙杨的裁决很荒唐。国际泳联的裁决合理多了
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Feb 28 12:03:51 2020, 美东)
: 这三个裁决人可耻之处在于裁定：那两个（资格/证件实际上很不合WADA规则的）检测
: 员都是符合规则的
: 他们完全是睁眼说瞎
★ 发自iPhone App: ChinaWeb 1.1.5
怀疑检测人员资格有问题不能做为破坏样本的理由。道理不是很简单。
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 事实证明：那2个检测人员（血检员和尿检员）都有资格或认证的问题。FINA的裁决就
: 认定了这个关键点。
: 而这个推翻了上述决定的裁决实际的意思是：（即使WADA人员有可能很不合资格，样品
: 采取不合法，）尽管运动员对检测人员资格有质疑，样品还是应该被那些人员带走/保
: 留，以便留下被未来检测的可能
: 那几乎完全剥夺了运动员质疑检测人员身份资格的权利。是在说：wada派去的人可能会
: 非常不合它定的规则，但是运动员还是应该配合。
: 做出这个新裁决的3个人真是很可耻。
: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6148_
: decision.pdf
: ...................
这次官司的重点不是检测人员资格有没有问题，而是孙杨暴力抗检的行为能不能被接受。
仲裁法庭的结论是不能接受
资格有问题，就不存在一个合法的检验，何来抗检？泳联的立场一样说得通。
这样的官司最后就看站队了。
【 在 kazan (喀山) 的大作中提到: 】
: 这次官司的重点不是检测人员资格有没有问题，而是孙杨暴力抗检的行为能不能被接受。
: 仲裁法庭的结论是不能接受
仲裁书说得很清楚：第一，检测人员资质没有问题。第二，即使孙杨对检测人员有疑问，他的行为也是不可接受的
【 在 GoLost (GoLost) 的大作中提到: 】
: 资格有问题，就不存在一个合法的检验，何来抗检？泳联的立场一样说得通。
: 这样的官司最后就看站队了。
: 受。
就是话语权和执法权的问题，双方都有瑕疵。关键是我们没有执法权，这个等国力继续上升，参加国际组织更多之后会有提升。慢慢来，其实孙杨已经到了职业生涯末期，也没啥损失，荣誉也得到了，接下去就该收拾WADA!
好哇，以后前戏我包了
【在 addaddtwo(haha2)的大作中提到：】
：因为三个里面二个不合格
：
这个结果我有预感。WADA对毛子的凶恶，孙杨自己的跋扈，综合起来的感觉。
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 事实证明：那2个检测人员（血检员和尿检员）都有资格或认证的问题。FINA的裁决就
: 认定了这个关键点。
: 而这个推翻了上述决定的裁决实际的意思是：（即使WADA人员有可能很不合资格，样品
: 采取不合法，）尽管运动员对检测人员资格有质疑，样品还是应该被那些人员带走/保
: 留，以便留下被未来检测的可能
: 那几乎完全剥夺了运动员质疑检测人员身份资格的权利。是在说：wada派去的人可能会
: 非常不合它定的规则，但是运动员还是应该配合。
: 做出这个新裁决的3个人真是很可耻。
: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6148_
: decision.pdf
: ...................
这个很简单，如果你被条子抓了，不管有多冤屈都得先服从，后面再打官司。如果从兜里掏把枪出来拒捕，条子就有理由把你打死。
这次的两个检测员实际上是DCO自己找的。那个同学可以说是比较随便找的。程序上应
该是不符合WADA自己定的BCO规则。
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-30_-_
isti_final_january_2017.pdf
Blood Collection Officer (or BCO): An official who is qualified and has
been authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to collect a blood Samplefrom an Athlete.
H.4 Requirements - Qualifications and Training
H.4.1 The Sample Collection Authority shall:
a) determine the necessary competence and qualification
requirements for the positions of DCO, Chaperone and BCO; and
b) develop duty statements for all Sample Collection Personnel that
outline their respective responsibilities. As a minimum:
i) Sample Collection Personnel shall not be Minors; and
ii) BCOs shall have adequate qualifications and practical skills
required to perform blood collection from a vein.
H.4.3 The Sample Collection Authority shall establish a system that ensures
that Sample Collection Personnel are adequately trained to carry out their
duties.
H.4.3.1 The training program for BCOs shall include, as a minimum,
studies of all relevant requirements of the Testing process and
familiarization with relevant standard precautions in healthcare settings.
WADA规则里提到需要有WADA提供的人员的授权”their authority”
FINA裁决是：每个检查员都有各自是授权。因为里面有their之类的复数
否则就只提DCO了。那样DCO会乱用职权，随便找人。
WADA要求2-8年的惩罚
结果是CAS给了8年
孙杨一方在检测当日的解释说明在后面
去检测的三人在这个说明上也都签名了
https://www.kaolanews.com/client/news/detail.html?id=38286
2018年9月4日晚，国际泳联一行四人对孙杨进行尿检和血检，一位是开车司机属于无关人员，其余另外三位工作人员进入房间。在三位工作人员中Bingrou Yang女士（card
NO.386）具有并提供出示了反兴奋剂检察官资格。
孙杨积极配合检查，但是在接下来的采尿和采血过程中，孙杨发现了血检官林黄芬女士只提供了护士资格证书（编号 09092081）没有提供其他任血检官的资历证明。尿检官
武兵先生（Bingrou Yang女士的同学）只提供了中国公民居民身份证，也没有提供其他任何尿检官的资历证明，都属于无关人员。
在我们再三询问下，他们仅仅只有Bingrou Yang女士（card NO.386）提供了反兴奋剂
检察官的资格证明，其余两位均无法提供反兴奋剂检察官资格证明和相关授权证明，所以无法完成本次尿检和血检。（已采血样本也不能带走）
FINA裁决的分析部分是很详细合理的
希望CAS也能公布它自己的分析
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/sun-yang-verdict-the-fina-doping-panel-ruling-that-triggered-wada-action/
6. ANALYSIS
6.1 A fundamental issue to evaluate is whether the Athlete was properly
notified by the IDTM testing team. This is mandated in ISTI Article 5.4.
Specifically, whether the DCO and the DCA and the BCA provided to the
Athlete, pursuant to the ISTI, proper official documentation from IDTM
evidencing their authority to collect a sample from the Athlete.
6.2 The Athlete insists that proper authorizations were not shown by the DCA and the BCA. In contrast, FINA strenuously contends that the generic 2018
FINA Letter of Authority, which was shown to the Athlete, is all the
authorization documentation required for the Sample Collection Personnel to show to the Athlete. FINA claims that the DCA and BCA are not required to
show any additional authorization documentation to the Athlete when they are attending a sample collection session with a properly accredited and
properly authorized IDTM DCO. The Doping Panel cannot agree with FINA’s
position. The totality of the “official documentation” provided by IDTM to evidence the Sample Collection Personnel’s authority to collect a sample
from the Athlete was deficient. The Athlete was not properly notified.
6.3 It is common ground that the ISTI contains the rules and procedural
requirements that both the Athlete and FINA must comply with. The most
relevant provisions in the ISTI dealing with the proper notification of an
athlete are the definitions of Doping Control Officer, Blood Collection
Officer, Chaperone, and Sample Collection Personnel. Also highly applicable are Articles 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. (Requirements Prior to Notification), Article 5.4 (Requirements for Notification of Athletes) and Annex H (Sample
Collection Personnel Requirements).
6.4 It is important when analysing the ISTI requirements to keep distinct
the difference between proper identification (who the official is), proper
appointment (of the official to a specific role) and proper authorization or authority (to permit the official to perform the specifically appointed
role, including having appropriate training and qualifications).
6.5 The definitions of BCO, DCO and Chaperone contained in the ISTI make
clear that the individual officials, each performing in a particular
capacity, must be individually authorized by the Sample Collection Authority. It is of particular interest to an athlete which organization is the
Sample Collection Authority – as this could be an International Federation (IF), a private company like IDTM or a national anti-doping organization (
NADO). For different tests in different locations on the same athlete, this will inevitably change. Precisely which organization is the responsible
Sample Collection Authority will dictate what official documentation the
athlete will look to have provided.
6.6 In the ISTI, “Sample Collection Personnel” is a collective term. In
other words, Sample Collection Personnel is a term used to collectively
refer to a group of one or more individually authorized and qualified
officials (such as a DCO, BCO, DCA, etc.) who may all attend and work
together at a sample collection session. The Sample Collection Personnel
must be authorized by a Sample Collection Authority, like IDTM, to perform
their respective duties during the sample collection session.
6.7 ISTI Article 5.3.2 is not specific to any particular testing mission. It makes no reference to collecting a sample from an athlete. Article 5.3.2 is a provision describing how the various Sample Collection Authorities shall “appoint and authorize” the individuals who can, at a later date, take on certain roles (their “assigned responsibilities”) at a sample collection
session. These individuals, once appointed and authorized by a Sample
Collection Authority (whether as a DCO or a DCA or a BCO), are eligible to
participate at future sample collection sessions. Collectively, when
assigned to and attending at a testing mission, they become Sample
Collection Personnel.
6.8 Article 5.3.2 describes the method whereby the Sample Collection
Authority develops a ‘pool’ of appointed and authorized individuals, each of whom (i) has been trained for their assigned responsibilities, (ii) do
not have a conflict of interest in the outcome of the sample collection and (iii) are not minors.
6.9 This interpretation of Article 5.3.2 is fully consistent with the clear direction contained in Annex H.2, whereby the Sample Collection Authority
must develop the necessary competencies for the various roles performed by
the Sample Collection Personnel (whether as a DCO or a DCA or a BCO). The
details of this acquiring, tracking and recording of competencies are
described fully in Annex H.
6.10 Annex H.4 and H.5 provide significant detail regarding how the Sample
Collection Authority should go about determining the necessary competence,
qualification and accreditation for this ‘pool’ of appointed and
authorized individual officials. The Sample Collection Authority must
maintain records of the education, training, skills and experience of all
its Sample Collection Personnel. These records are obviously specific to
each individual official.
6.11 Annex H.2 requires that the Sample Collection Authority must provide
each of the officials who may in the future become Sample Collection
Personnel “identifiable accreditation”. This accreditation must be kept up to date. The Doping Panel finds this refers to more than personal
identification. The use of the word “accreditation” in the ISTI refers to a document that is generated by the Sample Collection Authority which
demonstrates that the official (acting in whatever role is to be performed) has been suitably trained for their responsibilities by the Sample
Collection Authority.
6.12 The Doping Panel believes that the IDTM SoC, which was signed by the
DCA and the BCA and maintained in a file at IDTM headquarters, is fully
compliant with the provisions of Article 5.3.2 and Annex H. As stated by Ms. Johannesson in her testimony, the signed SoC is an internal document and is used by IDTM to maintain at IDTM a ‘pool’ of individual officials (
whether as a BCA or a DCA, etc.) who are trained, accredited and eligible to take part in testing missions on behalf of IDTM. All of this satisfies the general requirements in Article 5.3.2 whereby a ‘pool’ of eligible
officials is maintained by IDTM. Each official so accredited by IDTM, in the role to which they have been trained, can now be appointed and authorized
to conduct or assist with a specific sample collection session.
6.13 ISTI Article 5.3.3 is very different. It deals with the specifics of an actual testing mission when a sample will be collected from an athlete.
Article 5.3.3 addresses what the IDTM officials who, as a group, comprise
the Sample Collection Personnel, must have with them at the testing mission when they are sent by IDTM to collect a sample from a specific athlete.
6.14 The first sentence in Article 5.3.3 describes the required “official
documentation” provided by the Sample Collection Authority “evidencing
their authority” to collect a sample from the Athlete. The second sentence in Article 5.3.3 describes the additional “complementary identification”
that must also be carried by the DCO. The question of what authorization
documentation must be provided to an athlete during notification by an IDTM official can be answered by evaluating the ISTI as a whole, by interpreting the words actually used in Article 5.3.3, by considering that the ISTI also governs all testing missions where the Testing Authority is the Sample
Collection Authority and by the specific notification requirements contained in Article 5.4.
6.15 The Doping Panel acknowledges that Sample Collection Personnel is a
collective term referring to all qualified officials who have been
authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to carry out or assist with
duties during a testing mission. However, the Doping Panel does not agree
with FINA that Article 5.3.3, read together with all other sections in the
ISTI, only requires a single document to serve for all purposes as the
official documentation evidencing proper authorization, for all officials.
6.16 Article 5.3.3 refers to “official documentation” provided by the
Sample Collection Authority (such as IDTM), “evidencing their authority”. The word “their” clearly modifies Sample Collection Personnel. The ISTI
definitions require that each individual official comprising the Sample
Collection Personnel at a testing mission be previously “authorized” by
IDTM to be in the IDTM ‘pool’. Further, each individual official will have been “appointed and authorized” by IDTM (pursuant to Article 5.3.2) and
each individual official will have received “identifiable accreditation”
from IDTM (pursuant to Annex H.2). Relying on this logical framework, the
Doping Panel has concluded that “official documentation” from IDTM is
needed to ‘evidence’ the authority of that individual official to collect a sample from the Athlete – and this documentation must be shown to the
Athlete.
6.17 Article 5.3.3 refers to “official documentation”. This reference to
“documentation” is plural. If a single document was all that was required to demonstrate that the Sample Collection Personnel (as a collective unit)
were properly authorized by IDTM it would have stated that the Sample
Collection Personnel must have “a document”.
6.18 The Doping Panel finds that in Article 5.3.3, the use of the words “
official documentation…evidencing their authority to collect a sample from the athlete” means, when applicable, “official documentation” evidencing both (i) the authority conferred on IDTM to be the Sample Collection
Authority and (ii) the authority from IDTM that must be granted to each
individual official (drawn from the “pool” of IDTM officials created and
maintained by IDTM, pursuant to Article 5.3.2), who are sent on a testing
mission to collect a sample from the athlete.
6.19 FINA’s interpretation of Article 5.3.3 relies on the fact that FINA is the Testing Authority and IDTM is the Sample Collection Authority. The
annually issued generic FINA Letter of Authority is absolutely needed for
FINA to delegate to IDTM the role of Sample Collection Authority. It is true that such a delegating authorization letter from a Testing Authority is
expressly mentioned in the ISTI in Article 5.3.3. However, this is not
determinative.
6.20 In all cases where there is a need to transfer authority from a Testing Authority (say, an IF or a NADO) to a Sample Collection Authority (such as IDTM) a similar generic delegation of authority letter will be in existence. However, this is not the situation in many other testing scenarios where
the Testing Authority is also the Sample Collection Authority. This will be the case when an IF conducts its own testing on athletes in that sport or
when a NADO tests national athletes in that country. Absolutely no
delegation of authority from a Testing Authority is required. There will be no “authorization letter from the Testing Authority” in such a scenario.
If FINA’s interpretation of the required “authorization” in Article 5.3.3 prevails, no authorization at all would be required to be provided on a
testing mission when a Testing Authority is also the Sample Collection
Authority. This makes no sense.
6.21 The express reference in Article 5.3.3 to “such as an authorization
letter from the Testing Authority” (emphasis added) is simply an example of the sort, class or type of “official documentation” that may be provided in a single testing scenario. The reference to an “authorization letter
from the Testing Authority” is not an exhaustive list. It does not describe the totality of the official documentation that is required, in every
testing scenario, to evidence the proper authorizations. In the present case, the FINA Letter of Authority is a needed and a necessary document to
provide to the Athlete (as it demonstrates that IDTM is the delegated Sample Collection Authority), but it is not sufficient.
6.22 The further weakness in FINA’s argument is that Article 5.3.3
specifies that the “official documentation” must be provided by the Sample Collection Authority. The FINA 2018 generic Letter of Authority came from
FINA, not IDTM. In no sense was the Letter of Authority provided by IDTM.
IDTM merely passed it along to show it was acting as the proper Sample
Testing Authority. In all aspects, the ISTI is clear that it is the Sample
Collection Authority who shall appoint and authorize the individual
officials who will form part of the collective Sample Collection Personnel
that will actually collect a sample from the Athlete. In Article 5.3.3, the “official documentation” that must be shown to the Athlete must be
provided by the Sample Collection Authority – in this case IDTM. Nothing
was provided to the DCA and the BCA by IDTM and so nothing could be shown to the Athlete.
6.23 ISTI Article 5.4 provides a final point of clarity on this issue. This Article describes in detail what must happen during an athlete’s
notification. As stated earlier, when applicable, both (i) the authority
conferred on IDTM as the delegated Sample Collection Authority (pursuant to the 2018 FINA Letter of Authority) and (ii) the authority to collect a
sample from an athlete granted by IDTM to each official in the “pool” of
individuals created and maintained by IDTM, must be shown to the Athlete.
6.24 The Doping Panel is satisfied that ISTI Article 5.4.1 (b) can be
satisfied by showing the Athlete the generic Letter of Authority provided by FINA to IDTM or provided by any Testing Authority to any Sample Collection Authority. Such a letter will provide the general authority under which the sample collection will be conducted.
6.25 In contrast, Article 5.4.2 (b) requires that the individual members of the Sample Collection Personnel – the DCO and/or the Chaperone, as
applicable – “identify themselves”, which is a plural reference, using
the “documentation referred to in Article 5.3.3”. This cannot mean just
showing to the Athlete the DCO’s complementary identification referenced in the second sentence in Article 5.3.3. It cannot refer to the generic FINA
Letter of Authority. The Chaperone, and indeed all other attending officials (each of whom by definition has been “authorized” by the Sample
Collection Authority), must “identify themselves” by showing “official
documentation” provided by the Sample Collection Authority which evidences their individual authority collect a sample from the Athlete.
6.26 One document (such as the generic 2018 FINA Letter of Authority) is not sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling both Article 5.4.1 (b) and Article 5.4.2 (b) in the ISTI. The ISTI contemplates various documentation being
provided by attending officials to demonstrate evidence of their authority
to act. Some documentation may come from a Testing Authority (where there is a delegation to a Sample Collection Authority) while others must be
provided by the Sample Collection Authority. The notification requirements
in the ISTI Article 5.4 make clear that the “official documentation”
referred to in 5.3.3 cannot be limited to the generic letter delegating
authority from a Testing Authority to a Sample Collection Authority. If this were so, both Article 5.4.1 (b) and Article 5.4.2 (b) would not be needed.
6.27 The Doping Panel does not agree with FINA’s position that a properly
authorized individual DCO, holding the generic FINA Letter of Authority sent to IDTM, is adequate evidence of a DCA’s, a Chaperone’s or a BCA’s “
authority” to collect a sample from the Athlete. Such reliance on the
single FINA Letter of Authority does not comply with the requirements
contained in the ISTI.
6.28 The Doping Panel is satisfied that the Athlete was not properly
notified by the DCO. The notification requirements in the ISTI were not met for the other attending Sample Collection Personnel. Proper authorizations
contained in “official documentation” from IDTM were not provided to the
Athlete in connection with the attendance of the DCA and the BCA.
6.29 The Athlete (and every athlete) is held strictly accountable to the
provisions in the World Anti-Doping Code and the FINA DC. The Doping Panel
must insist that IDTM and FINA also strictly comply with the requirements in the ISTI. The Doping Panel rejects any argument or claim that the
deficiencies in the notification procedure which it has identified are minor, do not impact the integrity of the blood sample that was collected and
should not serve to invalidate an entire testing mission – especially when held up against the troubling and rather aggressive ‘self-help’ conduct of the Athlete and his entourage.
6.30 Notification processes contained in the ISTI go to the very heart of
assuming jurisdiction over an athlete and thereby acquiring the authority to impose onerous obligations and penalties. Notification is something that
must be done correctly. Notification is the ‘gateway’ into a realm of
onerous obligations and responsibilities – all falling on an athlete. The
FINA Doping Panel insists that FINA members must know with certainty under
whose authority they are being tested and that every official attending at
the sample collection session has been properly trained, appointed and
authorized by the Sample Collection Authority. The fact that the Athlete in this instance did elect to engage in very troubling conduct regarding the
collected blood samples (which will be addressed below) does not serve to
eliminate the requirements resting on IDTM and FINA to comply with the
provisions contained in the ISTI.
6.31 While the DCO had proper documentation evidencing her authority from
IDTM, the total absence of any official documentation from IDTM in the hands of the DCA and the BCA is not acceptable. The Doping Panel is not prepared to dictate what form the “official documentation” evidencing the needed “authority” should take. That is up to each Sample Collection Authority to
determine. There will not be a single correct way to proceed.
6.32 The Doping Panel is mindful that appointing Chaperones present a unique situation. Chaperones (or DCAs) are often recruited, selected, trained and then authorized by a DCO at the actual event where they are needed. However, they must be trained prior to playing any role at a testing mission. This
need not cause a problem. They can be considered very recent additions into the Sample Collection Authority’s ‘pool’ of properly accredited and
authorized officials. This is entirely proper. The DCO is, of course, acting on behalf of the Sample Collection Authority when the DCO selects and
trains the Chaperone. In this capacity, as an agent for the Sample
Collection Authority, the DCO can easily provide the “official
documentation” from the Sample Collection Authority to evidence the
Chaperone’s training and authority to attend at the Sample Collection
Session and act in a particular capacity. This documentation must then be
shown to the athlete who is asked to provide a sample.
6.33 The “official documentation” provided by the Sample Collection
Authority (covering the critical components of identification, appointment
and authorization) held by officials who are Sample Collection Personnel
could be some combination of (or all of) the following: a badge or Card with a photo and details of the official; a specific hard-copy Authorization
Form with the name and logo of the Sample Collection Authority and the
details of the official; digital identification, photo and authorization of the official on a website; digital links that include Mission Order details. At a minimum, the “official documentation” from the Sample Collection
Authority must provide “evidence” of a clear link between the Sample
Collection Authority, the official involved and the testing mission being
undertaken where the athlete will provide a sample.
6.34 It is not sufficient to rely on a known IDTM DCO (as in the case at
hand) to state verbally to the Athlete with reference to an attending DCA or a BCA (who have no official documentation from IDTM whatsoever), in effect: “they are with me, I will be in charge – everything is OK.” Showing the Athlete the contents of the IDTM DCO Portal might have established (with a
photo) that the DCA was in IDTM’s ‘pool’ of qualified officials for 2018, but that step provided no evidence of an authorization from IDTM to take
part in the OOC mission on September 4, 2018 when the sample was to be
collected from the Athlete.
6.35 The Doping Panel finds that the OOC sample collection session conducted by IDTM on behalf of FINA on September 4, 2018 was not properly commenced. The lack of “official documentation” from IDTM for the DCA and the BCA
meant that the Athlete was not properly notified. The request to provide a
urine sample was not properly accomplished. The blood that was initially
collected (and subsequently destroyed) was not collected with proper
authorization and thus was not properly a “Sample” as that term is used in the ISTI and defined in the FINA DC. As a result, the sample collection
session initiated by IDTM on September 4, 2018, is invalid and void. No FINA DC rule violations can result therefrom.
Additional Grounds:
6.36 If the Doping Panel were inclined to the view that the described
deficiencies in the notification procedure were serious, but were not enough to invalidate the sample collection session, there are other grounds for
concluding that the Athlete did not breach the FINA DC.
6.37 With regard to the attempt to collect urine: The Doping Panel is
satisfied that the DCA did surreptitiously take pictures and/or videos of
the Athlete using his personal cell phone. He took more photos than
described by the DCO in her testimony. The Doping Panel heard believable and compelling evidence from various witnesses that there were pictures on the DCA’s phone that contained images of the Athlete. The Athlete witnessed
their deletion. Critically, the DCA provided no evidence or testimony
whatsoever. He was the best person to disprove the serious allegations
against him that were raised – but he failed to do so. In the result, none of the Athlete’s direct evidence regarding the DCA taking pictures and
videos of him during the mission was effectively challenged.
6.38 This conduct on the part of the DCA is highly improper and extremely
unprofessional. This should never happen. Chaperoning an athlete is a
sensitive, personal and serious matter. It is not for ‘fans’. The Athlete was initially suspicious and eventually discovered that there were photos of him on the DCA’s phone. The pictures were deleted. Proof of this conduct
by a DCA prior to the Athlete providing a chaperoned urine sample is
unquestionably reason to immediately suspend the DCA’s involvement in the
testing mission. With no other male DCA’s to perform this role – the
mission with regard to urine collection must be abandoned. Such facts, once established, are a compelling justification for the Athlete to refuse to
have any further personal and sensitive contact with the DCA.
6.39 With regard to the collected blood: This issue is raised merely to
identify a point of confusion. Doping Panel is left with some uncertainty
regarding the role an IDTM BCA can properly play in the collection of blood from an athlete. The ISTI does not refer anywhere to a BCA – it is
apparently a term specific to IDTM. The ISTI only refers to a BCO. To cloud the issue, the evidence at the hearing made clear that IDTM does certify
BCOs but only if they are also a DCO. In that event, IDTM provides the BCO/
DCO with official documentation evidencing their authorization to collect a sample from an athlete which is similar to that which a DCO receives.
6.40 This begs the following questions. Why have both BCOs and BCAs? What is the role for an IDTM BCA when collecting blood from the Athlete? The Doping Panel can only assume that an IDTM BCA has precisely the same role and
duties as a typical BCO with regard only to the drawing of blood. It is
assumed that a BCA is simply an IDTM official who is authorized to collect
blood from an athlete using a different designation. If so – why not
provide to the BCA similar authorization documentation provided to an IDTM
BCO? Greater clarity on this issue and compliance with the nomenclature
found in the ISTI would likely avoid much confusion.
6.41 Of substantive concern, the Athlete led evidence from various witnesses that the IDTM BCA did not produce documentation demonstrating that she was qualified to draw blood in the location where the test took place. This is a requirement in the ISTI.
6.42 The ISTI in Annex E, demands that blood be collected by “a suitably
qualified person”. Annex E.4 provides that “Procedures involving blood
shall be consistent with the local standards and regulatory requirements
regarding precautions in healthcare settings where those standards and
requirements exceed the requirements set out below” (emphasis added).
6.43 As the BCA drew the Athlete’s blood successfully on September 4, 2018, whether she knew how to do the medical procedure is not the issue. She
apparently did it well. Rather, the issue is whether she (i) had proper
qualifications to legally draw blood in that locality, and (ii) did she
present documentation regarding her valid qualifications to the Athlete?
6.44 The BCA, who is a nurse, provided to the Athlete a professional
technical certificate issued in 2009. In the Declaration written by
6.45 Dr. Ba, it is described as “her Nurse Qualification Certificate,
Number 09092081”. The Doping Panel assumes this Certificate is her
foundation qualification to be a nurse. However, Dr. Han testified that what is required to draw blood from an athlete is a nursing Practice Certificate. Dr. Han testified that a nurse without a Practice Certificate issued by
the health administration cannot collect blood. In his view, the relevant
Regulations (No. 59 of the Ministry of Health of the Peoples Republic of
China) require that nurses who wish to collect blood from athletes must have both a Nursing Practice Certificate and a “practicing registration license.” Neither were provided to the Athlete.
FINA called no evidence to rebut the serious contentions made by the Athlete regarding the BCA’s claimed lack of qualification. To be fair, the
scheduling and order of production in this case did not allow FINA to learn of and assess this specific allegation from the Athlete, and then file
material in response. All parties filed their materials at roughly the same time.
Ultimately, the BCA did not testify at the hearing or answer any questions
from the Athlete. The BCA’s position regarding her qualification status is unknown. Her signed statement filed with the Doping Panel only confirmed
that the Athlete and his entourage had expressed dissatisfaction (after the blood was collected) with what the BCA described as her “nurse’s
certificate.” The only evidence before the Doping Panel was that the BCA
was not properly qualified. There was no evidence to the contrary. The
Doping Panel is left with significant doubt whether the BCA was properly
qualified to draw blood from an athlete.
6.46 – 6.47 The BCA may well have been properly licensed and the holder of a Practice Certificate – the Doping Panel will never know based on the
record before it. What is certain is that she did not produce unequivocal
evidence of her qualifications to draw blood from the Athlete, as required
in the ISTI. Blood collected by an individual not possessing proper
qualifications and not in a position to show these qualifications to the
Athlete is a proper ground to abandon the blood collection session.
6.48 Blood taken by a BCA or BCO without proper authorization or proper
qualifications is not a “Sample” as defined in the FINA DC. As the
improperly collected blood cannot be used for Doping Control purposes, it is not a “Sample” as that term is defined. Such blood is merely biological
material taken from an athlete that has become medical waste.
6.49 Failure to Comply Consequences – blood and urine: There was certainly much discussion and heated debate over what was proper and allowed pursuant to the ISTI and what was not. It is abundantly clear that the DCO tried
constantly to explain why the complaints and deficiencies raised by the
Athlete were not valid, in her view. It is equally clear that the Athlete
and his entourage were insistent that their views were correct. This debate continued all night and the parties were at a stand-off. Unfortunately, the ongoing debate had the result that the consequences of the Athlete’s
proposed course of conduct became ‘lost in the noise’.
6.50 The debate between the DCO and the Athlete (and his entourage)
inevitably focused on who was ‘right’ and whether there could be a Failure to Comply or a risk of a violation in that evolving situation. The Athlete consistently denied that this was ever a possible outcome. The ISTI is clear in Annex A 3.3.a) that the DCO must tell the Athlete, in a language he can understand, the consequences of a possible Failure to Comply. Explaining the risks that certain conduct might lead to a violation is not sufficient. The DCO must go further and clearly articulate that she is treating the Athlete’s conduct as a Failure to Comply and that the following consequences will apply.
6.51 This critical message to the Athlete regarding the consequences of his conduct, while attempted many times by the DCO, never got through. The
Athlete, and every witness for the Athlete, testified they were never told
by the DCO the consequences that would apply. This is likely true. All that was ‘heard’ from the DCO in the ongoing debate regarding whose
interpretation of the rules was ‘correct’ was the message that certain
conduct might constitute a rule violation. This message would be immediately denied.
6.52 There was no clarifying and crystalizing moment (a metaphorical “bang
”) ensuring that the Athlete clearly knew, in the face of the identified
conduct, that his conduct was being treated by the DCO as a Failure to
Comply and that serious consequences would apply.
6.53 This is the very reason that Refusal Forms are utilized by many Sample Collection Authorities. They provide clear evidence to
the athlete (when pulled out to be signed at the critical moment by a DCO)
that the DCO considers the athlete’s conduct to be a breach of the rules
and the consequences specified will apply. There is no room for ambiguity.
While use of such a Refusal Forms is not mandatory, this clarity was never
achieved at the testing mission on September 4, 2018. In contrast, the
Athlete and his entourage all testified that as the evening ended they
believed, perhaps naively, that they had been successful in the debate
regarding who was ‘right’. They believed that they had eventually
convinced the DCO and IDTM to back down and accept the Athlete’s position. There was absolutely no “bang” involved.
A CAUTION TO THE ATHLETE
6.54 Although not required to decide the case, the Doping Panel feels
compelled to point out its very significant concerns regarding the conduct
of the Athlete and his entourage. Avoiding an anti-doping rule violation in this matter should not be equated with the Doping Panel condoning such a
strategy in future situations. While ultimately successful, it was a close-
run thing.
6.55 The Athlete’s success ultimately hinged on the Doping Panel’s
interpretation of what “official documentation” was required to be
provided by the Sample Collection Authority. The Athlete’s entire athletic career hung in the balance – on what amounted to, essentially, a gamble
that the Athlete’s assessment of the complex situation would prevail. That strikes the Doping Panel as foolish in the extreme.
6.56 As many CAS awards have stated, it is far more prudent to comply with
the directions of a DCO and provide a sample in every case, even if provided “under protest.” Subsequently, all manner of complaints and comments can be filed, rather than risk any chance of an asserted violation when an
aspect of the doping control process becomes a concern. Staking an entire
athletic career on being correct when the issue is complex and contentious
is a huge and foolish gamble.
6.57 In fact, the Doping Panel rejected many of the Athlete’s contentions
and positions as being unfounded and invalid. The Athlete and his entourage were not correct regarding many aspects of the sample collection session.
That should be a sobering lesson to the Athlete. The following are but
examples;
• Signing the Declaration prepared by Dr. Ba was not evidence that the sample collection personnel agreed with its substantive contents. In
contrast, it was a form of Report that any athlete may submit at the
conclusion of a sample collection session (see ISTI Article 7.4.4). DCOs are instructed to sign any and all such athlete provided comments. Others may
sign as a witness. ISTI Article 7.4.6 references the need to have the DCO
sign the documentation to confirm that the comments provided by an athlete (or Dr. Ba) reflect the athlete’s concerns – not to confirm that the DCO is in agreement with them.
• The time of the testing mission (commencing at about 11 p.m.) was
perfectly appropriate. That it continued so long into the night was
unfortunate, but no ground to fault the conduct of IDTM or FINA. This was at the very end of the “60-minute” time period specifically identified by
the Athlete when he would be available to be tested. Indeed, the Athlete
narrowly avoided a potential Missed Test allegation as he arrived just as
the 60-minute time period was ending.
• The Athlete’s entourage continually asserted that the IDTM DCA
should have presented to the Athlete DCO accreditation and related
authorizations. This is absolutely not required – despite testimony that in China it is standard for all individuals who attend at a sample collection session to be trained as DCOs. In the ISTI, and for all tests performed by
other Sample Collection Authorities while in China, it is perfectly proper
for DCAs or Chaperones to perform their limited roles and tasks with no DCO accreditation. This so-called “higher standard” claimed by the Athlete’s witnesses is not required in the ISTI, and is absolutely not a justification to refuse to accept the credentials of an otherwise properly authorized DCA, who is not a DCO.
• The events in 2017 involving the Athlete and the DCO (when she was
in training to be a certified ITDM Doping Control Officer) did not give rise to a conflict of interest so as to disqualify the DCO from acting in her
role at the sample collection session on September 4, 2018. Complaints were made and comments were written at the conclusion of the session in 2017, but in no way did that disqualify the DCO from continuing to test the Athlete, now or into the future. Likewise, the Athlete’s testing history and the
latest negative test result were not relevant to the issues before this
Doping Panel.
6.58 Finally, the Doping Panel desires to acknowledge the very significant
efforts expended by the various legal counsel, and translators, to
facilitate the actual hearing. The hearing was lengthy and contentious –
but never acrimonious. All parties focused on providing the Doping Panel
with the relevant information they possessed to assist in the decision-
making process. This effort was much appreciated.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Sun Yang has not committed an anti-doping rule violation under FINA DC 2.3 or FINA DC 2.5.
This award shall not be made public pursuant to FINA DC 14.3.3, unless and
until the Athlete consents to such disclosure.
All costs of this case shall be borne by CSA in accordance with FINA DC 12.3.
Any appeal against this decision may be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Lausanne, Switzerland not later than twenty one (21) days after receipt of the complete and reasoned judgement (FINA Rule C 12.11.4
and DC 13).
http://www.cunman.com/new/a2e61fb09f1b454b9bfceb4c134a3ff0
最先被披露身份的是血检官，这名面容清秀的护士，真名叫做林黄芬，在上海工作。此前，在第一次听证会上，血检官与另外两人一起，都没有出庭作证。而在此次听证会上，林黄芬本人也没有到庭。但孙杨的律师在听证会明确表示：“护士只出示了护士证，你可能不知道，昨天这个护士作证了，她说自己没有IDTM卡，完全没有！”也就是说，虽然林护士没有出庭，但还是通过其他途径替孙杨作了证明。
接着便是尿检官，这名至今都不知其姓名的男子，在孙杨听证会结束后，接受了新华社的采访。在采访中，他明确表示自己只是一名建筑工人，是临时被叫去充当尿检官。并且自己也愿意通过视频进行作证，但不知为何国际体育仲裁法庭始终没有联系他。
而三名当事人中最为重要的主检官，这也是这三人中最为神秘的人物，孙杨“暴力抗检”事件发生了一年多时间，连强大的中国网友都没有能够找出她的任何信息。但世界上没有不透风的墙，尽管这名主检官一直隐身，但在此次听证会上她的名字还是无意中被主仲裁官口误说了出来。随后，这个名叫杨冰柔的主检测官的信息便被找了出来。原来，这名主检测官和林黄芬护士一样，也是在上海工作。杨冰柔目前正在上海一家咨询公司上班，这份工作是她的全职工作。她在工作之余，还在兴奋剂检测的外包私人公司
IDTM公司兼职，也就是说，她给孙杨作主检测官也只是一份兼职工作。
如果是真的，那次检测还是缺乏证件就可能是有意的
https://www.sohu.com/a/355244203_434146
听证会泄露主检测官姓名，上海某咨询公司工作，她与孙杨早有矛盾
2019-11-21 22:25
孙杨听证会有一个细节被大家忽略了，那就是主仲裁官口误说出了主检测官的姓名，她叫杨冰柔，在上海罗盖特管理有限公司工作，这是一家咨询公司。杨冰柔曾经因为证件不全被孙杨投诉过，与孙杨早就有矛盾，所以WADA委派她作为主检测官进行孙杨的药检，本身就是非常不严谨的，缺乏说服力的。
三名中国检测人员在没有正当证件的情况下对孙杨进行药检，并且用手机鬼鬼祟祟偷拍，从而引发了所谓的孙杨抗检事件。这其中，血检官林黄芬是上海杨浦区某医院的护士，尿检官是一个建筑工人，他们两个都是主检测官杨冰柔临时拉来检测孙杨的，并没有相关的资质和培训。
一般来说国际兴奋剂检查管理公司IDTM检测人员会得到相关授权，进行相关检测，但他们也都有自己的工作，杨冰柔在上海罗盖特管理有限公司工作，这家公司主要提供投资管理和咨询服务。杨冰柔在还是检测助手的时候，因为证件不全和行为不当，被孙杨投诉过。不过IDTM公司竟然没有处罚她，反而在后来提拔她担任了主检测官。
事发当天，杨冰柔叫上了自己的两个同学，护士林黄芬、建筑工XXX，一起去给孙杨做
检测。建筑工穿着拖鞋短裤就去了，完全不知道事情的严肃性，护士林黄芬则是跨地执业，是不合法的，而且她没有带《护士执业证》，随身携带的《护理学专业技术资格证》过期了。
孙杨事件里，建筑工XXX良心未泯，他愿意出庭说出真相，告诉全世界他从未有过检测
的相关培训，是临时被叫去的，以前一次也没有担任过尿检官。（IDTM官员在听证会上撒谎称尿检官有过相关培训，此前也有过检测经历）。可惜体育仲裁法庭CAS没有联系
建筑工XXX出庭。血检官护士林黄芬，起的也不是主要作用。故而，最大的罪魁祸首是
主检测官杨冰柔。
在孙杨事件里，是主检测官杨冰柔一口咬定孙杨暴力抗检，给IDTM和WADA打了小报告，这才导致孙杨陷入舆论漩涡，饱受流言蜚语攻击。如果当时杨冰柔和孙杨进行善意的沟通，绝对不会把事情闹得这么大。更令人气愤的是，直到现在她也不肯替孙杨说一句公道话。
检查人员的资质有问题当然就需要破坏样本。否则他们在尿里面加点东西，或者自己撒泡尿当作样本怎么办？
【 在 nwleaf (My, you are a tall one!) 的大作中提到: 】
: 怀疑检测人员资格有问题不能做为破坏样本的理由。道理不是很简单。
孙杨的听证会
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Military/56089965.html
运动员当然不能现场判定对方不合格 就可以把样本拿回来。
按照你这么说，采样员出具了证书，运动员也可以说当时认为证书是伪造的。
运动员只能事后投诉，让仲裁委员会判定采样员资格是否合法。
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 事实证明：那2个检测人员（血检员和尿检员）都有资格或认证的问题。FINA的裁决就
: 认定了这个关键点。
: 而这个推翻了上述决定的裁决实际的意思是：（即使WADA人员有可能很不合资格，样品
: 采取不合法，）尽管运动员对检测人员资格有质疑，样品还是应该被那些人员带走/保
: 留，以便留下被未来检测的可能
: 那几乎完全剥夺了运动员质疑检测人员身份资格的权利。是在说：wada派去的人可能会
: 非常不合它定的规则，但是运动员还是应该配合。
: 做出这个新裁决的3个人真是很可耻。
: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6148_
: decision.pdf
: ...................
【 在 arcam (arcam) 的大作中提到: 】
: 运动员当然不能现场判定对方不合格 就可以把样本拿回来。
: 按照你这么说，采样员出具了证书，运动员也可以说当时认为证书是伪造的。
: 运动员只能事后投诉，让仲裁委员会判定采样员资格是否合法。
你的意思是：如果有个过去就有过对你家检查办事松垮历史的警察（主检官曾经没有官方授权文件参与过对孙杨的采样，并被投诉过--孙杨在法庭上如是说）带着自己的官方搜查文件，带着2个完全没被官方授命过的帮手进入你家，那两个帮手各自要带走重要
的物品，你就让他们带走？？？？？？？？？？？？？？
太专业了
cas几句话就打发了
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: FINA裁决的分析部分是很详细合理的
: 希望CAS也能公布它自己的分析
: https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/sun-yang-verdict-the-fina-
doping-
: panel-ruling-that-triggered-wada-action/
: 6. ANALYSIS
: 6.1 A fundamental issue to evaluate is whether the Athlete was properly
: notified by the IDTM testing team. This is mandated in ISTI Article 5.4.
: Specifically, whether the DCO and the DCA and the BCA provided
★ 发自iPhone App: ChinaWeb 1.1.5
你的理解错了
二个检验员得到检验官的授权，手续完备
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 你的意思是：如果有个过去就有过对你家检查办事松垮历史的警察（主检官曾经没有官
: 方授权文件参与过对孙杨的采样，并被投诉过--孙杨在法庭上如是说）带着自己的官方
: 搜查文件，带着2个完全没被官方授命过的帮手进入你家，那两个帮手各自要带走重要
: 的物品，你就让他们带走？？？？？？？？？？？？？？
主检查官 有被处理处分过码？有被剥夺了资格码？
还不是孙杨自己的一家之言
按你这么说 ，运动员可以凭借主观不爽检查管，质疑检查管，都可以拒绝检查码
那逃避检查的成本也太低了。
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 你的意思是：如果有个过去就有过对你家检查办事松垮历史的警察（主检官曾经没有官
: 方授权文件参与过对孙杨的采样，并被投诉过--孙杨在法庭上如是说）带着自己的官方
: 搜查文件，带着2个完全没被官方授命过的帮手进入你家，那两个帮手各自要带走重要
: 的物品，你就让他们带走？？？？？？？？？？？？？？
从cas这次打死召唤证人来看 其实就是走个过场
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 如果是真的，那次检测还是缺乏证件就可能是有意的
: https://www.sohu.com/a/355244203_434146
: 听证会泄露主检测官姓名，上海某咨询公司工作，她与孙杨早有矛盾
: 2019-11-21 22:25
: 孙杨听证会有一个细节被大家忽略了，那就是主仲裁官口误说出了主检测官的姓名，她
: 叫杨冰柔，在上海罗盖特管理有限公司工作，这是一家咨询公司。杨冰柔
★ 发自iPhone App: ChinaWeb 1.1.5
【 在 addaddtwo (haha2) 的大作中提到: 】
: 你的理解错了
: 二个检验员得到检验官的授权，手续完备
你不会中英文都看不懂吧？
连FINA都说BCO没有官方的授权文件。你看FINA裁决里analysis里面很长的分析。在前
面我就全部copy过来了。
【 在 arcam (arcam) 的大作中提到: 】
: 主检查官 有被处理处分过码？有被剥夺了资格码？
没有授权文件是不合适的，但不意味你公司就会大处罚你，也不意味可能有的第三方就一定做出什么大的举动，即使他们有这个权利。
: 还不是孙杨自己的一家之言
: 按你这么说 ，运动员可以凭借主观不爽检查管，质疑检查管，都可以拒绝检查码
: 那逃避检查的成本也太低了。
你这种话也是一家之言吧？
孙杨从那天的双方的签字的字据里就说明了对方2人缺乏官方授权或者资格证明。
这是事后分析。
FINA claims that the DCA and BCA are not required to
show any additional authorization documentation to the Athlete when they areattending a sample collection session with a properly accredited and
properly authorized IDTM DCO. The Doping Panel cannot agree with FINA’s
position.
DCA 和BCA 无需向孙杨显示资格证书
所以孙杨因为DCA 和BCA 没有显示证书就 不配合检查，完全错了
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】
: 你不会中英文都看不懂吧？
: 连FINA都说BCO没有官方的授权文件。你看FINA裁决里analysis里面很长的分析。在前
: 面我就全部copy过来了。
如果一个检查小组有多人，而每人各有重要职责（尤其是有重要的技术职责），但官方文件却只有一个人员的名字出现在上面就应该被检测人员接受了，那么这种规则实在是太扯淡了。
【 在 addaddtwo (haha2) 的大作中提到: 】
: 这是事后分析。
: FINA claims that the DCA and BCA are not required to
: show any additional authorization documentation to the Athlete when they
are
: attending a sample collection session with a properly accredited and
: properly authorized IDTM DCO. The Doping Panel cannot agree with FINA’s
: position.
你那不是FINA听证会的裁决。那次FINA相当于孙杨的对方，双方是独立于FINA的那个裁决小组的。
: DCA 和BCA 无需向孙杨显示资格证书
: 所以孙杨因为DCA 和BCA 没有显示证书就 不配合检查，完全错了