The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has defended the experience and trajectory in terms of anti-doping regulations of its referees at the Tokyo Games and the winter ones in Beijing in response to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which has spoken of a “lack of knowledge” in a report on Tokyo 2020.
“With respect to the so-called ‘lack of knowledge’ of the CAS arbitrators, such statement appears to be based on a subjective assessment of an employee of the WADA legal department and at no time has it been raised directly with the CAS Anti-Doping Division,” the agency said in a statement.
In it, he explains that his Anti-Doping Division has sent a letter to the president and director of WADA, in response to some comments in the WADA Independent Observers report on its operation at the Tokyo Games.especially due to criticism for the lack of anti-doping knowledge of some of its referees and for the non-attendance of the World Agency to the hearing of a case.
“The six TAD referees who were on duty for the Tokyo Games were selected by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) for their solid experience, national and international, and for his career in the field of anti-doping regulations (as well as the referees appointed for the Beijing Games),” he said.
For him, “the mission of the independent observers is to verify the correct application of anti-doping policies and procedures, but not to express personal opinions about the performance of the arbitrators or the quality of the decisions of the CAS”.
The court announced that, ahead of the Beijing Winter Games, its anti-doping division has requested that “WADA’s independent observers who oversee anti-doping procedures are experienced in CAS procedures and remain independent from WADA, in order to ensure an independent assessment process.”
“This taking into account that the AMA has a direct interest in attending these first instance procedures, since he has the right to file an appeal against the CAS rulings,” he added
The Court regretted that the issues referred to in the report were not referred directly to it in Tokyo, “instead of waiting for the publication of the report six months later”, and believed that the recommendations of the same “were not necessary, considering that there was no failure in the procedures of the Anti-Doping Division.”
He also insisted that the AMA was informed of all the cases and received all the decisions and only, exceptionally, in one that was initiated. and it was resolved in three hours there was no material time to send a formal invitation to attend a hearing, which was held by telephone and was very brief.
“While the AMA might have been upset that it was not invited to the telephone hearing, it was not a matter of concern as it was not a party to the proceedings. In any case, said exception does not mean a change in the CAS practice of notifying the AMA of all new cases, hearings and final decisions.”
#CAS #responds #AMA #attitude #referees #doping #Tokyo