• +86 188-0018-6806
  • harveyyan@zhongyinlawyer.com



The logic of anti-doping tests and of the DC Rules demands and expects that, whenever physically, hygienically and morally possible, the sample be provided despite objections by the athlete. If that does not occur, athletes would systematically refuse to provide samples for whatever reasons, leaving no opportunity for testing.

On the other hand, the Panel isconscious that as a general matter, athletes should not take matters into theirown hands, and if they do they will bear the risk of serious consequences. Theproper path for an Athlete is to proceed with a Doping Control under objection,and making available immediately the complete grounds for such objection.

In the view of the Panel, itmust be emphasised that any athlete who questions whether notificationrequirements have been properly complied with would be well-advised not torefuse or abort the sample collection process, but rather to complete thesample collection process under protest and document the reasons of suchobjection in as much detail, and as early, as possible. The Athlete’s entire athleticcareer hung in the balance – on what amounted to, essentially, a gamble thatthe Athlete’s assessment of the complex situation would prevail. That strikesthe Doping Panel as foolish in the extreme. As many CAS awards have stated, itis far more prudent to comply with the directions of a DCO and provide a samplein every case, even if provided “under protest”.

阅读全文 →
Harvey Yan


%d 博主赞过: