{"id":1184,"date":"2022-01-13T13:35:00","date_gmt":"2022-01-13T13:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/?p=1184"},"modified":"2022-01-24T13:49:48","modified_gmt":"2022-01-24T13:49:48","slug":"cas-judges-lacked-anti-doping-expertise-at-tokyo-olympics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/2022\/01\/13\/cas-judges-lacked-anti-doping-expertise-at-tokyo-olympics\/","title":{"rendered":"CAS JUDGES ‘LACKED ANTI-DOPING EXPERTISE’ AT TOKYO OLYMPICS"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

SOURCE: GRAHAM DUNBAR<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 AP SPORTS WRITER<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

GENEVA (AP) \u2014 The Court of Arbitration for Sport has been criticized for picking judges to work at the Tokyo Olympics who were not expert enough to handle doping cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Days before the highest court in sports opens its special Olympic tribunals at the Winter Games in Beijing, it was singled out in a wide-ranging report published by the World Anti-Doping Agency that broadly praised operations at last year\u2019s Tokyo Olympics. Some CAS judges in Tokyo had an \u201cinsufficient level of anti-doping knowledge\u201d relating to rules and previous cases, independent observers appointed by WADA said Friday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSome questions asked by panel members in at least one of the hearings highlighted this,\u201d the observer team said. The \u2013 44 page report\u00a0did not identify which members of the CAS anti-doping division in Tokyo \u2014 a president, co-president and six arbitrators \u2014 were thought to lack expert knowledge for the handful of cases they dealt with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lausanne, Switzerland-based court countered that the panel which made the criticisms \u2014 eight professionals from different sectors of anti-doping work \u2014 \u201care not familiar with CAS procedures\u201d and made \u201csubjective assessments.\u201d Of the six arbitrators at the Tokyo Games, only one is returning among the four selected by CAS for anti-doping cases in Beijing. The\u00a0court published the list\u00a0in a statement this week<\/em>. That turnover was announced before the advice published by the WADA observers that at future Olympics the CAS anti-doping division \u201cis comprised of members more familiar with the World Anti-Doping Code and anti-doping regulations or that the members have access to anti-doping training or education materials prior to the Games.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new member of the CAS team in Beijing will be Australian lawyer John Boultbee, a former secretary general of rowing\u2019s governing body who now chairs that organization\u2019s anti-doping tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cinsufficient knowledge\u201d in Tokyo was said to be \u201cspecifically their understanding of some provisions of the Code, the International Standard for Results Management, as well as CAS jurisprudence on strict liability, burden of proof, and responsibility of that burden,\u201d the WADA-appointed team said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The observers did not suggest any athlete in Tokyo was judged unfairly but they did object to not being notified about two hearings where a provisional suspension was to be imposed. \u201cIt is important that an (observer) participates in hearings to ensure that the parties\u2019 procedural rights are maintained,\u201d the WADA-appointed panel said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The long-time director general at CAS, Matthieu Reeb, said the court would investigate the panel\u2019s view on judges\u2019 expertise, though noted it \u201chas at no point been raised with CAS directly.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reeb further defended the court in a statement to The Associated Press, saying \u201cit can be already emphasized that none of the (doping case decisions) rendered in Tokyo have been challenged by WADA or by any party.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SOURCE: GRAHAM DUNBAR \u2013 AP SPORTS WRITER GENEVA (AP) \u2014 The Court of Arbitration for Sport has been criticized for picking judges to work at the Tokyo Olympics who were not expert enough to handle doping cases. Days before the highest court in sports opens its special Olympic tribunals at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1185,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[84],"tags":[195,196,187,431],"class_list":["post-1184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nicarb-adr-developments","tag-adr-2","tag-arbitration-2","tag-nicarb-2","tag-tokyo-olympics","col-lg-4 col-md-6"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.nicarb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Olympics-wk-2.jpeg?fit=452%2C274&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pcb80P-j6","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1184"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1184\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1186,"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1184\/revisions\/1186"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1185"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.nicarb.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}