Impact of New Hearing Standards on the Conduct of Proceedings Janie Soublière Arbitrator, SDRCC and CAS Montreal January 30, 2020 Ulrich Haas Arbitrator, CAS
1. 1. Terminology Code 2015 Code 2021 … … - Results Management (Art. 7) - Results Management (Art. 7, 8, 13) • Initial Review • Initial Review Part 3: RM – • Notice • Notice pre-adjudication Provisional Suspension Provisional Suspension • • • Charge - Hearing (Art. 8) Part 4: RM – • Hearing strictu sensu • Hearing strictu sensu adjudication • Decision • Decision • Notice Notice • Appeals • … … 2020-02-04 2
2. 2. “Cour urt O Organi nisation” Code 2021 … - Results Management (Art. 7, 8, 13) ISRM 8.1: May be • Initial Review delegated to a Notice • Delegated Third Party (eg ITA) • Provisional Suspension • Charge ISRM 8.1: May be delegated to a • Hearing strictu sensu Delegated Third • Decision Party (eg ITA, ADD, SDRCC) Appeals • … Responsibility of Results Management Authority (the ADO responsible for conducting RM in a given case) 2020-02-04 3
2. 2. “Cour urt O Organi nisation” Code 2021 … - Results Management (Art. 7, 8, 13) Art. 20 WADC: Each Anti-Doping Organization • Initial Review may delegate aspects of Doping Control or anti- Notice • doping Education for which it is responsible but remains fully responsible for ensuring that any • Provisional Suspension aspect it delegates is performed in compliance • Charge with the Code. To the extent such delegation is • Hearing strictu sensu made to a Delegated Third Party that is not a Signatory, the agreement with the Delegated • Decision Third Party shall require its compliance with Appeals • the Code and International Standards . … Responsibility of Results Management Authority (the ADO responsible for conducting RM in a given case) 4 2020-02-04
2. “Cour 2. urt O Organi nisation” Code 2021 … - Results Management (Art. 7, 8, 13) • Initial Review Art 8.1 WADC / ISRM 8.6: The rules governing the Notice • activities of the Results Management Authority shall • Provisional Suspension guarantee the Operational Independence of hearing • Charge panel members • Hearing strictu sensu • Decision (1) incompatibility : board members, staff members, commission Appeals • members, consultants and officials of the RMA … cannot be members and/or clerks of hearing panels of that Results … Management Authority and (2) no interference : hearing panels shall be in a position to conduct the hearing & decision-making process without interference from RMA or any third party 5 2020-02-04
3. “ “Ju Judges” selection panel wider pool ISRM 8.2 specific case qualification anti-doping experience [legal, sports, medical and/or scientific] ISRM 8.2 The number of potential hearing panel members appointed to the wider pool depends on the number of affiliates and the anti-doping history (including the number number of anti-doping rule violations committed in the past years) of the Anti- ISRM 8.2 Doping Organization. At the very least, the number of potential hearing panel members shall be sufficient to ensure that Hearing Processes are timely conducted and provide for replacement possibilities in the event of a conflict of interest 2020-02-04 6
3. “Judges ” panel wider pool specific case The applicable rules shall provide for an independent person or body to determine in their discretion the size and appointment composition of a particular hearing panel to adjudicate an ISRM 8.3 individual case. At least one appointed hearing panel member must have a legal background eg chairperson of the pool may vary depending on the nature of the charge and the evidence put forward. The hearing panel may be composed of a single adjudicator. 2020-02-04 7
4. 4. Proc oced edure Single Hearing before CAS (Art. 8.5 / ISRM 7.6) Charge ISRM 7 Normal Hearing Process RM-authority / DTP (Art. 8 / ISRM 8) 2020-02-04 8
4. 4. Proc oced edure ISRM 8.5: notification of Hearing : (ISRM 8.1) not necessarily in constitution of panel / person, use of modern technology or right to challenge on paper only appointment charge ISRM 8.5 possibility of ISRM 8.4 declaration challenge (within 7 of independence days) 9 2020-02-04
4. 4. Proc oced edure Contents : jurisdictional basis, detailed factual background, ADRV committed, ISRM 8.5 Hearing appointment applicable consequences, appeal rules (national/international) and deadlines charge 2 months ISRM 8.5 possibility of ISRM 8.4 declaration of independence challenge (within 7 days) ISRM 9.1: Decision 10 2020-02-04
4. 4. Proc oced edure ISRM 9.2: Notification ISRM 8.5 Hearing appointment charge - adressee : all ADO with right to appeal + ISRM 8.5 possibility of WADA ISRM 8.4 declaration of ISRM 9.1: Decision independence challenge (within 7 days) - report in ADAMS - translate English / French summary - Inform of status and enforcement - provide full case file upon request - notify relevant Laboratory 11 2020-02-04
4. 4. Proc oced edure ISRM 8.8: respect prodecural guarantees : fair, impartial, accessible, affordable, reasonable time (not exceed 2 months), be informed timely and fairly of asserted ADRV, right to be represented by counsel, right submit evidence, right to an interpreter (at own expense), right to request a public hearing subject to certain ISRM 8.5 Hearing conditions appointment ISRM 9.2: Notification charge ISRM 8.5 possibility of ISRM 4.1: Save for disclosures, including Public Disclosure , that are required or permitted under Code Article ISRM 8.4 declaration of ISRM 9.1: Decision challenge (within 7 days) independence 14 or this International Standard , all processes and procedures related to Results Management are confidential. ISRM 4.2: Anti-Doping Organizations should be able to conclude Results Management (including the Hearing Process at first instance) within six (6) months 12 2020-02-04
Recommend
More recommend
