“Only he who can see the invisible can do the impossible.”
–Bill Shoemaker
TEAM PLAWYERED
Editorial Board
.
Authors
Gaurav Misra , Publishing Editor , Plawyered
He is currently pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from
Chanakya National Law University, Patna. A
voracious reader and an ardent Arsenal supporter,
Plawyered is his way of bringing his love for law and
sports on one single platform.
Tejaswini Ranjan, Managing Editor, Plawyered
She is currently pursuing B.A. LL.B. from Chanakya
National Law University, Patna. She is a sports
enthusiast and a big fan of cricket. It is her love for
sports that made her come up with this portal. Apart
from this, she also holds the experience of working
with several legal portals and research journals.
Vishal Kumar Singh is a third year law student pursuing his five
year B.A. LL.B.(H.) degree from School of Law and Governance,
Central University of South Bihar (Gaya Campus),Bihar. He is
Convener of the Parliamentary Debate Society of his University and
also member of his university‟s Literary club. He has also been
member of the editorial board of the College Magazine.He holds the
honor of representing his university at youth festivals twice.
Content Editors
*The views expressed in the articles are solely the views of the respective
authors.
**The copyright of the magazine vests with www.plawyered.com . All
communications are to be made at [email protected].
Vishakha Srivastava is currently pursuing B.A. L.L.B.
(Hons.) from Chanakya National Law University, Patna. She
is an avid reader and has a special corner for fiction. She is
also a Student Editor at CNLU Law Journal.
Ashutosh Kashyap is currently pursuing B.A. LL.B.(Hons.)
from Chanakya National Law University, Patna. He is a keen
reader and an enthusiast orator. His love for poems can be
reflected through his blog.
Shubham Raj is a final year engineering student pursuing
his Bachelor of Engineering from RNSIT,Bangalore. He is an
avid reader and a sports enthusiast.He is fond of blogging
about various events in this domain.
#1 BCCI-ICC-SMITH : DRS ROW
TEJASWINI RANJAN
Image Courtesy:thehansindia.com
Smith was out leg before for 28 in the
tourists' second innings off Umesh
Yadav that stayed low and struck him
above his left boot in front of middle
stump during their 75-run defeat that
levelled the Border-Gavaskar series at
1-1. Smith and partner Peter
Handscomb were then caught looking
towards the area outside Australia's
dressing room, where television
replays can be seen, while discussing
whether to review the verdict,
prompting umpire Nigel Llong to
intervene. The incident took place in
the 21st over of the Australia's second
innings on Day Four when Smith was
trapped LBW by pacer Umesh Yadav, a
delivery that went underground and
struck the former just above his left
boot in front of middle stump.
Smith later claimed that it was a 'brain
fade' moment on his behalf and that he
shouldn't have done what he did. He
has since been criticised for his actions
with former India captain Sourav
Ganguly urging the ICC to take action
against the 27-year-old for infringing
on DRS rules.
Code of Conduct DRS Rule 3.2 -
The manner of requesting the
Player Review
a) The request should be made by the
player making a ''T'' sign with both
forearms at head height.
b) The total time elapsed between the
ball becoming dead and the review
request being made should be no more
than a few seconds. If the umpires
believe that a request has not been
made sufficiently promptly, they may
at their discretion decline to review the
decision.
c) The captain may consult with the
bowler and other fielders or the two
batsmen may consult with each other
prior to deciding whether to request a
Player Review. However in order to
meet the requirement of
d) Above, such consultation will need
to occur almost instantly and be very
brief. Under no circumstances is any
player permitted to query an umpire
about any aspect of a decision before
deciding on whether or not to request a
Player Review. If the umpires believe
that the captain or batsman has
received direct or indirect input
emanating other than from the players
on the field, then they may at their
discretion decline the request for a
Player Review. In particular, signals
from the dressing room must not be
given.
BCCI’s stand
The Board of Control for Cricket in
India wrote an official complaint to the
International Cricket Council against
Australia captain Steve Smith and
Peter Handscomb for their
involvement in the DRS controversy in
the second Test in Bengaluru. Even
though the ICC had said last night they
will not further pursue the case and no
action will be taken, the BCCI has
quoted the Code of Conduct DRS Rule
3.2 and said that since Smith has
infringed the laws of cricket, the
umpires and match referee should
have reported and taken action against
Smith.
In most cases, a report can be lodged
with the ICC within five days and the
BCCI has now filed a complaint, asking
for action. After the BCCI complaint,
the ICC is under obligation to appoint
an Independent Commissioner within
48 hours to probe the complaint and
incident. The Commissioner will then
speak to the umpires, Match Referee
and look at the video footage.
Interestingly, the video footage is
conclusive and the fact that both Smith
and Handscomb have already admitted
to their "naivety".
The Commissioner is authorised to ask
the umpires and Match Referee if (a)
the Indians did point out any earlier
instance during the match, as Virat
said in PC it was the 3rd such case and
(b) Or if the umpires themselves saw
this happening. If it's proved there
were any other earlier instances, Smith
will be looking at a ban.
THE MEETING
In a sensational development to the
ongoing DRS row between India and
Australia, the Board of Control for
Cricket in India (BCCI) and Cricket
Australia held a joint meeting on
Thursday night to chalk out a solution
and move ahead with the Border-
Gavaskar series. The BCCI CEO Rahul
Johri and Cricket Australia chief
James Sutherland met at the Indian
cricket board's headquarters in
Mumbai and, in discussing the matters
at length, agreed the importance of
bringing back the focus to the game
and the much anticipated next Test
match in Ranchi. As a result of this
meet, the BCCI withdrew its complaint
filed with the International Cricket
Council (ICC) against Australia captain
Steve Smith and Peter Handscomb.
Cricket Australia, who were also
expected to appeal against India
captain Virat Kohli and fast bowler
Ishant Sharma, won't be taking any
such steps in return. 'The Daily
Telegraph' claimed Kohli 'hit' an
Aussie official with a bottle. It also
reported that Indian coach Kumble
stormed into the match officials' box
and questioned Kohli's dismissal under
controversial circumstances in the
second innings. 'The Daily Telegraph'
went on to accuse Kohli of leaving a
"tornado of destruction" in the Indian
dressing room.
BCCI’S STATEMENT
The Board of Control for Cricket in
India (BCCI) after due deliberation
and seeing the video replays of the
episode steadfastly stands with the
Indian Cricket Team and its Captain.
“Mr. Virat Kohli is a mature and
seasoned cricketer and his conduct on
the field has been exemplary. Mr.
Kohli‟s action was supported by ICC
Elite Panel Umpire Mr. Nigel Llong
who rushed in to dissuade Mr. Steve
Smith from taking recourse to
inappropriate assistance.
BCCI has requested the ICC to take
cognizance of the fact that the
Australian skipper Mr. Steve Smith in
his press conference admitted to a
„brain fade‟ at that moment.”
#2 HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE
(HGH) TESTING
Image Courtesy:cdn2.omidoo.com
Human growth hormone (HGH) is a
hormone that is naturally produced by
the body. It is synthesized and secreted
by cells in the anterior pituitary gland
located at the base of the brain. Its
secretion into the circulation follows a
pulsatile pattern resulting in widely
fluctuating blood levels that are
influenced by multiple factors such as
age, gender, sleep, physical activity,
diet, stress, fever, steroids and the
environment.
In serum, HGH exists as a complex
combination of different molecular
forms (isoforms), including the major
22-kDa form and minor isoforms such
as the 20-kDa form. Furthermore,
HGH also exists as aggregates of these
isoforms (dimers and oligomers,
forming both homo- and
heterodimers). Following secretion
into the blood circulation, the 22-kDa
HGH has a short half-life of 10-20
minutes.
hGH stimulates many metabolic
processes in cells. HGH affects protein,
fat, carbohydrate and mineral
metabolism. The major role of HGH is
to stimulate the liver to secrete
Insulin-like Growth Factor-I (IGF-I).
IGF-I stimulates production of
cartilage cells, resulting in bone growth
and also plays a key role in muscle
HGH is prohibited both in- and out-of-
competition under section S2 of
WADA‟s List of Prohibited Substances
and Methods.
EFFECT OF HGH ON ATHLETIC
PERFORMANCE:
Some of the effects attributed to HGH,
which may explain the attraction for its
use as a doping agent, especially in
power and endurance sports, include
the reduction of body fat (lipolysis),
the increase in muscle mass and
strength (anabolic effect), as well as its
tissue-repairing effects (recovery) on
the musculo-skeletal system. The
anabolic actions of GH are mostly
mediated through IGF-I and include
increases in total body protein
turnover and muscle synthesis. HGH
also appears to be used synergistically
with other performance-enhancing
drugs, thus having an effect, albeit
indirect, on muscle anabolism and
athletic performance.
THE SIDE EFFECTS OF HGH
ABUSE:
Commonly reported side effects for
HGH abuse are: diabetes in prone
individuals; worsening of
cardiovascular diseases; muscle, joint
and bone pain; hypertension and
cardiac deficiency; abnormal growth of
organs; accelerated osteoarthritis.
In untreated acromegalic individuals
(known for pathological over-
production of HGH), many of the
symptoms described above are
observed and life expectancy is known
to be significantly reduced.
Because of the role that HGH plays in
stimulating IGF-1 secretion, excessive
use of HGH may also lead to metabolic
dysfunction, including glucose
intolerance and other side effects
associated with excess levels of IGF-1.
TEST FOR HGH EXIST:
The menace that doping with HGH
presents to fair play and the health and
well-being of athletes has driven the
sport and anti-doping authorities to
support the development of analytical
methods for its detection. Such tests
have been elaborated following two
distinct, but complementary scientific
approaches: the „isoforms approach‟
and the „markers approach‟.
The Isoform Differential
Immunoassays (the Isoforms Test) was
first introduced as a research-scale test
at the 2004 Summer Olympic Games
in Athens, Greece, and later applied at
the 2006 Winter Olympic Games in
Torino, Italy. Following a process of
assay development and validation into
a new technical platform (tube-based
chemiluminescence technique), which
is suitable for the production of
commercial kits, the currently applied
test kits were firstly used during the
2008 European Football
Championship in Austria and
Switzerland, as well as during the
2008 Summer Olympic Games in
Beijing, China. Currently, all WADA
accredited laboratories test for HGH
using the Isoforms Test.
The HGH Biomarkers Test (the
„markers approach‟) was briefly
introduced for testing during the 2012
London Olympic and Paralympic
Games. However, following the
temporary withdrawal from the market
of one of its constituent assays, a
process of validation of new assays for
IGF-1 and P-III-NP has been
completed in collaboration with
USADA and several research groups,
including the method-developer GH-
2000 team from the UK and various
WADA accredited laboratories.
Following the completion of the study
on the determination of the Decision
Limits (DLs) for the HGH Biomarkers
Test, the application of the method will
be resumed in a number of WADA
accredited laboratories in the near
future.
ANALYTICAL DOPING CASES
INVOLVING HGH:
Yes. Since 2010, there have been
approximately 15 adverse analytical
findings reported following the
application of the HGH Isoforms Test.
In addition, two athletes were
sanctioned following detection of
doping with HGH through the
application of the HGH Biomarkers
Test during the 2012 London
Paralympic Games.
MATRIX USED FOR DETECTION
OF HGH:
Tests for detection of HGH doping are
applied in blood serum, which is
obtained following the centrifugation
in the laboratories of blood collected in
specified tubes containing an inert
polymeric serum separator gel and a
clotting activation factor.
THE HGH ISOFORM
DIFFERENTIAL
IMMUNOASSAYS (THE
‘ISOFORMS APPROACH’):
Since the total levels of HGH secreted
into circulation vary naturally, are
widely fluctuating over time and may
be influenced by several factors not
associated with doping, it is practically
impossible to develop an anti-doping
test based simply on the measurement
of increased total HGH concentrations.
However, doping with recombinant
HGH (recGH) alters the naturally
constant proportions between the
different isoforms of HGH present in
blood of an individual. The HGH
Isoform Differential Immunoassays
were developed to detect these changes
in the proportions of different HGH
isoforms after recombinant recGH
injection.
THE HGH BIOMARKERS TEST
(THE ‘MARKERS APPROACH):
HGH affects the expression of many
different proteins which may serve as
biological markers of HGH activity.
These include markers of HGH action
in the liver such as IGF-I, as well as
markers of HGH action on soft tissue
collagen turnover, such as the N-
terminal peptide of procollagen type
III (P-III-NP). The measurement of
these two HGH markers in serum may
serve to uncover the manipulation of
the HGH/IGF-I axis independently of
the doping substance used, be it recGH
or other agents used to increase
circulating HGH [for example analogs
of GH-releasing hormone (GHRH),
HGH secretagogues such as GH-
releasing peptides (GHRP) or even
HGH gene doping]. The detection and
quantification of such biomarkers of
HGH activity constitute the rationale
of the indirect method for detection of
doping with HGH, referred to as the
„markers approach‟.
RELIABILITY:
The concepts and development of both
HGH tests have been systematically
reviewed by international independent
experts in such fields as HGH and IGF-
I, endocrinology, immunoassay,
analytical chemistry, pharmacology,
laboratory work, anti-doping, etc., and
published in international scientific
journals. The 2013 Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) decision on the FIS vs.
Veerpalu case confirmed that the
current Isoforms Test is robust and
scientifically reliable. As a result of
criticism expressed by the CAS Panel
on the statistical procedure originally
applied to the determination of the
test‟s DLs, new statistical analyses
were performed on an increased
number of HGH doping control data
(samples from athletes treated under
real doping control conditions of
sample collection, transportation,
storage and analysis, including
standardized analytical protocols and
instrumentation) by two independent
teams of statisticians. The results of
the study have been published in an
independent peer-reviewed scientific
journal specialized in GH and IGF-I
research. The revised DLs have been
incorporated into a new version of
the Guidelines on HGH Isoform
Differential Immunoassays for anti-
doping analyses, available on WADA‟s
website. These Guidelines continue to
provide direction on the sample pre-
analytical preparation procedure, the
performance of the test and the
interpretation and reporting of the test
results.
For more information on the process
followed to determine the test‟s DLs,
please consult Hanley JA et al. “HGH
isoforms differential immunoassays
applied to blood samples from
athletes: decision limits for anti-
doping testing”. Growth Hormone &
IGF Research, 2014. The scientific
validity and efficacy of the HGH
biomarkers approach has been
documented in multiple scientific
publications for over a decade. A series
of placebo-controlled recombinant
recGH administration studies
performed in Europe and Australia has
shown that both IGF-I and P-III-NP
rise substantially following recGH
administration in a dose-dependent
manner. These markers have been
evaluated for several confounding
factors that might influence the scores
of the discriminant functions,
including age, gender, ethnicity,
exercise, diurnal and day-to-day
variation, intra-individual variation,
bony and soft tissue injury, sporting
discipline, and body habitus
(physique). Nevertheless, before
resuming its implementation in
WADA-accredited laboratories, the
study on the determination of the DLs
for the new assays will be also
subjected to independent peer review
and publication in an international
scientific journal.
ISOFORM DIFFERENTIAL
IMMUNOASSAYS AND THE HGH
BIOMARKERS TESTS:
These two tests are complementary in
nature and in time window of HGH
detection. The HGH Isoforms Test
detects the alteration of proportions
(ratios) between HGH isoforms up to
24-48 hours after recGH
administration. The Biomarkers Test is
based on measuring the increased
synthesis of two biological markers of
HGH bioactivity, namely IGF-I and P-
III-NP, and it may not detect the initial
phase of recGH use, but does so at
later times and for a longer period than
the Isoforms Test.
GH-RELEASING FACTORS AND
ARE THEY DETECTABLE:
GH-releasing factors include the GH
Releasing Hormone (GHRH) and its
analogues, GH secretagogues (GHS)
and GH-releasing peptides (GHRPs).
These compounds induce the secretion
of endogenous HGH by the pituitary
gland. Therefore, they are used in
place of recGH to attain the effects of
HGH doping, and possibly to mask
detection of recGH use with the
Isoforms Test. However, anti-doping
laboratories have developed mass
spectrometry-based methods for their
detection, and adverse analytical
findings have been reported following
their detection in doping control
samples. In addition, their use may be
detected with the indirect HGH
Biomarkers Test.
BEST TIME TO TEST ATHLETES
FOR HGH:
As for any other doping controls, test
distribution plans for HGH testing
should be based on the
implementation of „Intelligent Testing‟
strategies aimed at making an effective
and efficient use of available testing
resources. Athletes use HGH as a
doping agent for extended periods of
time in order to benefit from its
purported performance-enhancing
effects (in contrast, for example, to
other doping agents such as
stimulants, which may have an
immediate effect). In addition, doping
athletes suspect that they may be
tested for HGH during competition
periods.
Therefore, testing for HGH should be
prioritized to out-of-competition
periods, and be based on intelligent,
non-notice and unpredictable testing.
Target testing of suspected athletes
based on intelligence information (e.g.
information about doping routines),
prior suspicious test results or dubious
and unexpected sporting achievements
is also recommended. Due to their
complementary nature in detecting
HGH doping, it is advised that samples
are tested with both the Isoforms and
the Biomarkers Tests.
URINE TEST FOR HGH LIKELY
TO BE DEVELOPED:
According to the majority of
international experts, the blood matrix
is the most suitable matrix for the
detection of HGH.
HGH in urine is found in extremely
small quantities (less than 1% than
that found in blood), and not much
information is available regarding the
excretion of different HGH isoforms in
urine .
Research efforts undertaken to develop
urine-based detection methods for
HGH have been unsuccessful so far.
However, WADA continues
collaborating with research teams to
explore this possibility using novel
scientific ideas and technical
strategies.
BLOOD SAMPLES TO BE
STORED:
Freezing blood serum is a scientifically
acceptable procedure that allows for
the preservation of substances in
samples for future testing and
detection.
Research has shown that HGH is
stable in serum if frozen under the
right conditions (please refer to
the HGH Guidelines for Assay Pre-
analytical Procedure, section 6.2).
WADA encourages Anti-Doping
Organizations under the World Anti-
Doping Code to store blood samples
when relevant (e.g. in cases of
unexpected results, intelligence
available to the anti-doping
organization, etc.). Storing serum for
future testing has a significant
deterrent effect.
The 2015 World Anti-Doping Code
makes it possible to open a disciplinary
proceeding within ten years from the
date an anti-doping rule violation
occurred.
#3 IND VS AUS : USHERING IN OF A NEW ERA
SHUBHAM RAJ
Image Courtey:s3.india.com
Just hearing of a cricket match with
the Aussies gives a great sense of
contention within our hearts. This
antagonism is not new , be it the
Gavaskar-Border , Tendulkar-Mcgrath
or Kohli-Smith era. It has always been
a prevalent culture amongst ex-
cricketers and media to go rampant
predicting the outcome of these
contests. This media banter is just a
psychological warfare that has become
an integral part of this strife. I have
even read some of the greats quoting it
as "mental disintegration".
Same was the case when the talk of Ozs
touring India was on the air. "One cant
beat a lion in his own den"-the most
overrated cliche employed to delineate
the situation after India's great test
season at home and abroad in the West
Indian subcontinent as well. The greats
of the game chose the hosts as
favorites and predicted a whitewash in
a 4 match test series and some even
said if Aussies played really nice
cricket the scoreboard might go down
to 3-0 in favour of hosts.
And then arrived the D-day for the
Indian fans : 3rd day 1st Test in Pune :
Steve O‟Keefe took a record 12 wickets
as India (107 all out) lost by 333 runs,
chasing a stiff 441 for a win. Earlier,
Steve Smith scored 109 before
Australia were all out for 285 in the
second innings. Though Pune's pitch
was testing for batsmen, as right from
the first ball itself the ball was turning
square. But there was a lack of effort
from the Indian batsmen "reknowned
for their great ability to tackle spin".
The name "Virat kohli" reminds me of
India's tour to Australia. It was on that
same tour that Kohli first took over the
reigns of captaincy from MS Dhoni,
and even ahead of the Adelaide Test,
where he was only standing-in, he
didn‟t hold himself back. He went
about that match with an aggressive
demeanour, showcasing his philosophy
of going all out in pursuit of victory.
Never mind the heartbreaking defeat
there, that result has formed the
bedrock of his leadership ever since, as
India have risen to the No 1 ranking
thereafter. This shows the character
and intent of the Indian skipper. He is
not someone who will whine about the
loss rather bounce back and unveil his
presence.
It's said that History repeats itself ,like
the prominent retaliation of the Indian
team after Galle test being 1-0 down
,the Indian team bounced back in a
very competitive test match at
bengaluru defeating the vistors by 75
runs with local boy Rahul notching half
centuries in both the innings and a
great tenacious show by Pujara and
Rahane in a pressure situation where
match could have drifted to the
Aussies. The spin twins, Jadeja and
Ashwin, scalped 6 batsmen each in
both the innings and brought the
match home.
Though,it was match that might be
remembered for offbeat reasons like
the DRS gate incident and limitations
of technology in reviewing the
decisions but Indian team will cherish
this victory for a while. Though there is
a long way to go for this young Indian
side to retain its title as the world no 1
in the upcoming tours. But before
signing off, i would like to quote the
very articulate Indian skipper "
This is a team that wins together and
loses together as well". Indeed these
words are genuine and we hope this
vibrant team does wonders in the
upcoming future. Hoping for a great
test match in Ranchi-another debutant
venue.
#4 AN INTERVIEW WITH THE
YOUNG GOLFERS
VISHAL SINGH
In this issue of Plawyered, we are proud to bring before you the interview of two
young achievers from the field of sports. The two young golfers, Serena Vikram
Singh, aged 14 years and her younger brother, Aryan Vikram Singh, aged
12 years. Vishal Kumar Singh interviewed these young golfers and their mother
Mrs. Rita Singh on behalf of the Plawyered. This interview is an honest attempt of
the Plawyered to investigate the real scenario of Golf in our country.
Here is the interview:
In which class you are currently?
Serena: 8th Class
Aryan: 6th Class
At what age you started playing Golf?
Serena: I started playing Golf when I was 9 years old in 2012.
Aryan: I started playing Golf when I was 7 years old in 2012 with my elder sister
Serena.
How you started playing Golf?
Serena: Frankly speaking, I was bad at sports in my initial years. But then with my
father and mother, I went to Golf academy and started playing Golf. In 2016, I played
my first tournament in 2016 at JaypeeGreen Golf course, Greater Noida.
Aryan: Actually I love to play games. I was introduced to Golf by my father Mr.
Amresh Singh, who himself plays Golf as a hobby.
Tell us about your achievements so far in the Golf?
Serena: I played in 20 Golf tournaments last year and won 18 out of them. My biggest
achievement so far is winning the four tournaments of the Indian North Zone Golf
tour in 2016.
Aryan: I have played in 15 Golf tournaments so far and won 11 out of them.
How do you maintain balance between your studies and sports?
Serena: Initially, it was quite difficult. Then I started waking up early in the morning.
Then I do fitness workouts. Then whole day is spent in school and tuition. Then I go
for my Golf coaching which is five days a week. So, basically this is how balance is
maintained between studies and sports.
Aryan: I wake-up early by 4:30 AM regularly. Then I do my fitness workout. Then I
go to the school, after that tuitions and then in the evening for the Golf training of
two hours.
What is your aim in the Golf field?
Serena: I want to become the world‟s best golfer. This year I want to win the National
Golf Tournament.
Aryan (giggles): I want to become the world‟s no. 1 golfer. This year I want to win the
season 2 of North Zone of National Golf Tournament.
What is your expectation from the society? As we all know that golf is not
so popular as a sports in India, what are your expectations?
Serena: In India, most of the people don‟t know about Golf. They think golf as a
boring game. There lacks the spirit of enthusiasm about golf in masses here. I wish
that Indians start taking Golf as a sports seriously. There is a lot of scope in this field.
Aryan: People don‟t know about this game. They prefer cricket over any other sports.
I wish if there are Golf tournaments as frequently as any other sports tournaments in
India.
Who is your favorite sports personality?
Serena: Tiger Woods
Aryan: Tiger Woods and M.S. Dhoni
Which is your favorite movie based on sports?
Serena: The greatest game ever played.
Aryan: The greatest game ever played.
What is your message to the young sports enthusiasts?
Serena: If they believe they want to play and they can do better in this field they
should definitely listen to their hearts and try their level best to achieve success in
their efforts.
Aryan: The younger generation should focus both on studies and sports and try to
maintain a balance between them.
Interview of Mrs. Rita Singh, proud mother of two young golfers:
As a mother of two very young enthusiastic golfers, how do you feel?
When I was young like my children, I didn‟t know that any sports like Golf exists
(laughs). It was my husband who introduced me to the Golf. Basically, I am very
concerned about the fitness of my family, so when my children were too young I took
them with my husband to the sports field so that they can do some workouts and
physical activities. Gradually, Serena and Aryan, developed interest for this game. I
am taking my daughter Serena to Florida on May 1st , 2017 for two months to get her
well trained in Golf. India lacks good coaches in Golf.
What role do you play in managing the hectic schedules of studies and
sports of your children?
As a mother of two sports enthusiast youngsters my day starts really very early, when
my children wake up and go for their fitness workouts. Then send them to school and
after they come home and gain they go for tuitions and golf training. It‟s really very
hard. Also, if the tournament is out of station, I have to accompany my children
there.
What is your message to the Parents of young sports enthusiast children?
My message to the Parents of young sports enthusiast children is that “times are
changing now. Now sports is also regarded as a career option. So, encourage your
children, if you see the vital capacity of success in them. Also, I have seen children as
young as 5-6 years of age playing in sports academies. This is a good sign that, India
is changing.”
ARYAN VIKRAM SINGH
RITA SINGH
SERENA VIKRAM SINGH
SERENA VIKRAM SINGH
#5 FIFA GOVERNANCE UPDATES
Image Courtesy:gioconews.com
WORLDWIDE EXTENSION OF
SANCTIONS IMPOSED IN
CONNECTION WITH ANTI-
DOPING VIOLATIONS
The chairman of the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee has decided to extend
sanctions imposed on 6 players from
Brazil, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Iran and
Italy for anti-doping rule violations to
have worldwide effect. The sanctions,
which were extended in accordance
with art.136 ff. of the FIFA Disciplinary
Code, relate to the following cases:
Venildo Pereira of Brazil was
banned by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Portuguese
Football Federation from any
kind of football-related activity
(administrative, sports or any
other) for a period of eight
months. The player is banned
until 4 April 2017.
André Faria Piloto of Portugal
was banned by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Portuguese
Football Federation from any
kind of football-related activity
(administrative, sports or any
other) for a period of two years.
The player is banned until 24
October 2018.
José Carlos Silva Fernandes
Chastre of Portugal was banned
by the Disciplinary Committee
of the Portuguese Football
Federation from any kind of
football-related activity
(administrative, sports or any
other) for a period of one year.
The player is banned until 26
July 2017.
Ismoilov Abdulkhay of
Uzbekistan was banned by the
AFC Disciplinary Committee
from any kind of football-
related activity (administrative,
sports or any other) for a period
of one year. The player is
banned until 2 November 2017.
Mohsen Fakoori of Iran was
banned by the Preliminary
Commission of the IR Iran
Football Federation from any
kind of football-related activity
(administrative, sports or any
other) for a period of four years.
The player is banned until 5
August 2020.
Nicola Dalmonte of Italy was
banned by the Italian National
Anti-doping Tribunal (Second
Section) from any kind of
football-related activity
(administrative, sports or any
other) for a period of one year
and two months. The player is
banned until 20 September
2017.
FIFA REJECTS APPEAL OF
SEVILLA FC AGAINST
SANCTIONS UNDER THIRD-
PARTY INFLUENCE RULES
FIFA‟s Appeal Committee has decided
to reject the appeal lodged by the
Spanish club Sevilla FC and to confirm
in its entirety the decision rendered by
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
sanctioning the club for breaches of
the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (2012 edition) (the
“Regulations”) relating to, inter alia,
the prohibition of third-party influence
on clubs.
As such, Sevilla FC is sanctioned with a
fine of CHF 55,000 and a warning for
breaching art. 18bis of the Regulations
as well as art. 4 par. 2 of Annexe 3 of
the Regulations. The club was found
liable for entering into a contract that
enabled a third party to influence the
club‟s independence in employment
and transfer-related matters and for
failing to enter mandatory information
into ITMS. The ban on third-party
influence, which is set out in article
18bis of the Regulations, has been in
place since 1 January 2008, and was
amended on 1 May 2015.
INDEPENDENT ADVISORY
BOARD OF HUMAN RIGHTS
EXPERTS
To further strengthen its work to
ensure respect for human rights, FIFA
has set up an independent advisory
body composed of international
experts from the United Nations, trade
unions, civil society and business. This
Human Rights Advisory Board will
provide FIFA with advice on all issues
that the board members may consider
relevant for the implementation of
FIFA‟s human rights responsibilities.
The board is scheduled to meet at least
twice a year, with the first meeting to
be held at the Home of FIFA in Zurich
on 13 March 2017. After each meeting,
a report will be published with the
board‟s recommendations to FIFA and
an update from FIFA on how it is
addressing previous recommendations
from the board. The timeline for the
publication of the first report will be
discussed by the board at the 13 March
meeting and communicated in due
course.
The current members of the advisory
board, selected on the basis of their
expertise in human rights-related
matters, are (in alphabetical order):
William Anderson (adidas)
Rachel Davis (Shift)
Ignacio Packer (Terre des
Hommes)
Sylvia Schenk (Transparency
International Germany)
Theo van Seggelen (FIFPro)
Lene Wendland (Office of the UN
High Commissioner for Human
Rights)
Brent Wilton (The Coca-Cola
Company)
Ambet Yuson (Building and Wood
Workers‟ International)
“The work of this advisory board is
another important step as we
strengthen our efforts to deliver on our
human rights commitments. We are
very glad to have such a prominent
panel of experts who will support us
with their expertise and challenge us
where they believe we need to improve.
It is the first advisory board of its kind
for any sports federation, and we look
forward to the pioneering work we will
jointly undertake,” said FIFA Secretary
General Fatma Samoura. “I welcome
FIFA's decision to establish a Human
Rights Advisory Board which, if it
functions as envisaged, will help FIFA
to implement its human rights
commitments and take effective action
to address human rights risks related
to FIFA events. Football has a huge
global following, cutting across all
social boundaries. There is therefore
huge potential for FIFA to play a
dynamic role in standing up for human
rights, including within its own
immediate sphere of operations,” said
Lene Wendland, Adviser on Business
and Human Rights at the Office of the
UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights.
“The establishment of the Human
Rights Advisory Board is a step in the
right direction in implementing the
recommendations by Professor John
Ruggie. We have high expectations for
it to be an independent body to
seriously and concretely address the
concerns raised by workers on the
ground,” said Ambet Yuson, General
Secretary of the Building and Wood
Workers‟ International.“I accepted the
invitation to become a member of the
board because implementing respect
for human rights in the day-to-day
work at FIFA helps those affected by
FIFA's operations, including in its
supply chain. It also globally promotes
the need for instruments which ensure
that efforts for positive change on
human rights are not undermined by
corrupt practices,” said Sylvia Schenk,
Chair of the Working Group on Sport
at Transparency International
Germany “We are pleased to be a part
of the Human Rights Advisory Board,
which we believe will provide robust
guidance to FIFA as it strives to
progress the social sustainability of
football. We look forward to engaging
with FIFA on a full range of human
rights topics that are pertinent to the
organisation and the sport it
represents,” said Brent Wilton,
Director of Global Workplace Rights at
The Coca-Cola Company.
The new advisory board, which will
advise and support FIFA in its work on
human rights, was set up on the
initiative of FIFA President Gianni
Infantino. Possible issues on which the
board may choose to provide guidance
include labour standards, health and
safety, property rights, security,
discrimination and freedom of
expression. The members will provide
their advice on an independent basis
and will not receive any financial or
other compensation for the time
invested. Further information on the
purpose and working methods of the
board are included in its terms of
reference, which were developed with
input from a broad range of
stakeholders from international
organisations, trade unions, civil
society and FIFA‟s Commercial
Affiliates.
The board is part of a systematic push
by FIFA to step up its human rights
efforts. Amongst various other
initiatives, a firm human rights
commitment was included in the FIFA
Statutes in February 2016 and figures
prominently in the newly published
organisational strategy FIFA 2.0: The
Vision for the Future. For the
upcoming editions of the FIFA World
Cup™, elaborate monitoring processes
for labour standards have been
developed in cooperation with the
Local Organising Committee in Russia
and the Supreme Committee for
Delivery & Legacy in Qatar. Moreover,
FIFA has successfully launched an
Anti-Discrimination Monitoring
System and is working on the
integration of human rights criteria
into the bidding process for the 2026
FIFA World Cup™.
#6 IOC STRENGTHENS ITS STANCE
IN FAVOUR OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND AGAINST CORRUPTION IN
NEW HOST CITY CONTRACT
Image Courtesy:ibtimes.com
The INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE (IOC) is moving forward
with the implementation of Olympic
Agenda 2020 after consulting with the
SPORT AND RIGHTS ALLIANCE
(SRA) and is making specific changes
to the host city contract 2024 with
regard to human rights, anti-
corruption and sustainable
development standards.
As part of the implementation of
Olympic Agenda 2020
(Recommendation 1), IOC President
Thomas Bach met representatives of
the Sport and Rights Alliance (SRA),
which includes Transparency
International Germany, UNI World
Athletes, Terre des Hommes, the
International Trade Union
Confederation, Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch. Reiterating
its commitment to integrate the results
of its collaboration with the SRA, the
IOC adopted new procedures and
made changes to the Host City
Contract 2024, which now includes a
section designed to strengthen
provisions protecting human rights
and countering fraud and corruption
related to the organisation of the
Olympic Games. “Strengthening
transparency, good governance and
accountability are key elements of
Olympic Agenda 2020. Based on these
principles, the IOC is moving forward
by including provisions in the Host
City Contract aimed specifically at
protecting human rights and
countering corruption,” said IOC
President Thomas Bach.
“The organisation of the Olympic
Games should always promote and
enhance the fundamental values of
Olympism. This latest step is another
reflection of the IOC‟s commitment to
embedding these values in all aspects
of the Olympic Games. “We worked
closely with SRA and we welcome its
input, which is now reflected in the
new version of the Host City Contract”,
he added. Through their candidatures,
candidate cities commit themselves to
respect the Olympic Charter and the
Host City Contract for all participants
of the Games and all Games-related
matters and are henceforth subject to
the following obligations:
prohibit any form of discrimination
with regard to a country or a person on
grounds of race, colour, sex, sexual
orientation, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other
status;
protect and respect human rights and
ensure any violation of human rights is
remedied in a manner consistent with
international agreements, laws and
regulations applicable in the Host
Country and in a manner consistent
with all internationally recognised
human rights standards and
principles, including the United
Nations Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights,
applicable in the Host Country;
refrain from any act involving fraud or
corruption, in a manner consistent
with any international agreements,
laws and regulations applicable in the
Host Country and all internationally-
recognised anti-corruption standards
applicable in the Host Country,
including by establishing and
maintaining effective reporting and
compliance;
carry out all activities foreseen under
the Host City Contract in a manner
which embraces sustainable
development and contributes to the
United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals;
take all necessary measures, where
necessary in cooperation with Host
Country authorities and other third
parties, to ensure that their activities in
relation to the organisation of the
Games comply with any international
agreements, laws and regulations
applicable in the Host Country, with
regard to planning, construction,
protection of the environment, health
and safety, labour and working
conditions and cultural heritage.
In light of Olympic Agenda 2020, the
IOC had previously distilled over
7,000 pages of Technical Manuals into
fewer than 350 pages of contractually
binding Host City Contract
Operational Requirements, and
published in September 2015 all the
documents related to the Candidature:
Candidature Process Olympic Games
2024, Candidature Questionnaire
Olympic Games 2024, Host City
Contract Principles, and Host City
Contract Operational Requirements.
This was the first time that the full
package of documentation had been
made public at the very outset of the
process.
FIA AND IOC AGREE ON
PROMOTING ROAD SAFETY
FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE
DE L‟AUTOMOBILE (FIA) President
Jean Todt and International Olympic
Committee (IOC) President Thomas
Bach today signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) concerning the
promotion of joint road safety
campaigns across their shared
platforms and ahead of sporting
events. A working group has been
established that will develop a specific
programme of cooperation
recommendations, and will explore
actions and initiatives to provide
education in the field of road safety. In
particular, it has been agreed that the
IOC will help the FIA promote road
safety across its media channels and
Olympic Movement network. “Making
the world healthier and safer for all is a
team effort,” said IOC President
Thomas Bach. “It is my hope that by
working together, we can make a
difference, in raising awareness and
educating the public about the
importance of road safety.”
IOC support will include the upcoming
FIA “3,500 lives” campaign, which is
to be launched on 10 March 2017. The
campaign will involve five Olympic and
Paralympic athletes: tennis player
Rafael Nadal (ESP), track and field
sprinters Yohan Blake (JAM) and
Wayde Van Niekerk (RSA), long-
distance runner Haile Gebrselassie
(ETH) and track athlete Vanessa Low
(GER). “I am delighted to formalise
cooperation with the IOC on the
promotion of key road safety messages
across the different channels of the
Olympic Movement,” said Jean Todt,
President of the FIA. “The support of
the IOC and its athletes can help to
engage young people on this issue in a
powerful way,” he added.
IOC SANCTIONS ONE ATHLETE
FOR FAILING ANTI-DOPING
TEST AT BEIJING 2008
The protection of clean athletes and
the fight against doping are top
priorities for the INTERNATIONAL
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC), as
outlined in olympic Agenda 2020,
the IOC‟s strategic roadmap for the
future of the Olympic Movement. To
provide a level playing field for all
clean athletes at the OLYMPIC GAMES
RIO 2016, the IOC put special
measures in place, including targeted
pre-tests and the re-analysis of stored
samples from the Olympic Games
Beijing 2008 and London 2012,
following an intelligence-gathering
process that started in August 2015.
As part of this process, the IOC today
announced that one athlete has been
disqualified from the Olympic Games
Beijing 2008. The details follow.
Viktoriya TERESHCHUK, 35, of
Ukraine, competing in the women‟s
individual modern pentathlon event
(running, riding, swimming, fencing,
shooting) in which she ranked 3rd and
for which she was awarded a bronze
medal, has been disqualified from the
Olympic Games Beijing 2008. Re-
analysis of Tereshchuk‟s samples from
Beijing 2008 resulted in a positive test
for the prohibited substance
dehydrochloromethyltestosterone
(turinabol).
The IOC Disciplinary Commission,
composed for this case of Mr Denis
Oswald (Chairman), Mrs Gunilla
Lindberg and Dr Ugur Erdener,
decided the following:
I. The Athlete, Viktoriya
TERESHCHUK:
i. is found to have
committed an anti-
doping rule violation
pursuant to the IOC Anti-
Doping Rules applicable
to the Games of the XXIX
Olympiad in Beijing in
2008 (presence and/or
use, of a Prohibited
Substance or its
Metabolites or Markers
in an athlete‟s bodily
specimen),
ii. is disqualified from the
events in which she
participated upon the
occasion of the Olympic
Games Beijing 2008,
namely, the women‟s
individual modern
pentathlon event in
which she ranked 3rd
and for which she was
awarded a bronze medal,
and
iii. has the bronze medal, the
diploma and the
medallist pin obtained in
the women‟s individual
modern pentathlon event
withdrawn and is
ordered to return same.
II. The UIPM is requested to
modify the results of the above-
mentioned event accordingly
and to consider any further
action within its own
competence.
III. The National Olympic
Committee of Ukraine shall
ensure full implementation of
this decision.
IV. The National Olympic
Committee of Ukraine shall
notably secure the return to the
IOC, as soon as possible, of the
bronze medal, the diploma and
the medallist pin awarded in
connection with the women‟s
individual modern pentathlon
even to the Athlete.
V. This decision enters into force
immediately.
#7 FIFA WELCOMES CAS AWARD
RECOGNISING COMPATIBILITY OF
TPO BAN WITH EU LAW
Image courtesy:sportskeeda.com
FIFA welcome the award given by the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in
the case involving the Belgian club FC
Seraing, who were sanctioned by the
FIFA Disciplinary Committee (as
confirmed by the FIFA Appeal
Committee) for breaches relating to
the third-party ownership of players‟
economic rights (TPO) and third-party
influence (articles 18ter and 18bis of
the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players).
With this decision, which came after a
thorough and comprehensive
examination of the arguments raised
and an analysis of all relevant legal
provisions, mainly of EU law, and
despite a slight reduction in the
original transfer ban imposed from
four to three registration periods, CAS
has recognised and confirmed the
validity of FIFA‟s ban on TPO, which
was adopted in order to preserve the
independence of clubs and players in
matters of recruitment and transfer,
and to ensure the integrity of matches
and competitions.
Following the decisions in interim
relief proceedings before the Brussels
first-instance tribunal and the Brussels
Court of Appeal, which held that there
was no prima facie case to adjudge the
TPO ban illegal, yesterday‟s CAS award
is the first decision that unreservedly
recognises the compatibility of the ban
on TPO with EU law.
BACKGROUND:
Belgian club FC Seraing
sanctioned under third-party
influence and third-party
ownership rules: The FIFA
Disciplinary Committee sanctioned the
Belgian club FC Seraing with a transfer
ban and fine of CHF 150,000 for
breaches relating to the third-party
ownership of players‟ economic rights
(TPO) and third-party influence.
The transfer ban will prevent the club
from registering any new players,
nationally or internationally, for four
complete and consecutive registration
periods.
TPO refers to the circumstances in
which a third party invests in the
economic rights of a professional
player, potentially in order to receive a
share of the value of any future
transfer of that player.
In the case of FC Seraing, the
Disciplinary Committee found the club
to have breached articles 18bis and
18ter of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players by having sold
part of the economic rights of several
players to a third party and by having
entered into contracts that enabled the
third party to have influence on the
club‟s independence and policies in
transfer-related matters.
The sanctions, which include the
transfer ban and fine as well as a
reprimand and warning, were imposed
in accordance with articles 13, 14, 15
and 23 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
FIFA welcomes Brussels court’s
decision to reject suspension of
TPO ban: The Brussels first-instance
tribunal has rejected an application by
Doyen Sports Investments and Belgian
second-division club Seraing United
against FIFA, UEFA and the Belgian
FA for a temporary injunction to
suspend the implementation of the
worldwide ban on third-party
ownership (TPO). The conditions of
the ban are set out in article 18ter of
the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (RSTP), which was
approved by the FIFA Executive
Committee in December 2014.
In the decision passed on Friday, 24
July 2015, the tribunal held that the
applicants had failed to prove their
allegations that upon initial
examination, the ban contravened EU
law or was disproportionate to the
attainment of the legitimate objectives
sought by the introduction of this new
regulation, such as the protection of
players and the integrity of the game.
The court noted that FIFPro had
intervened in the proceedings on the
side of the defendants and referred to
the specificity of sport and to the
arguments presented for justifying the
imposition of the ban, holding that
although the activity of TPO is of a
financial nature, it primarily has
consequences of a purely sporting
nature.
Third-party ownership of players’
economic rights
Following its decision of general
principle that third-party ownership of
players‟ economic rights (TPO) shall be
banned with a transitional period, the
Executive Committee approved the
following measures:
- The ban will come into force on 1
May 2015
- Existing agreements shall continue
to be in place until their contractual
expiry
- New agreements made between 1
January and 30 April 2015 will be
subject to a time limit (one year
maximum)
Protection of minors
In order to strengthen the protection
of minors and due to the increased
number of international transfers of
players younger than 12, the Executive
Committee has approved a reduction
in the age limit for which an
international transfer certificate (ITC)
is required to the age of 10.
#8 UPDATES FROM IOC
Image Courtesy:horsetalk.co.nz
INTERNATIONAL FORUM FOR SPORTS INTEGRITY
STEPS UP ACTION TO PREVENT COMPETITION
MANIPULATION AND CORRUPTION IN SPORT
The second edition of the International
Forum for Sports Integrity (IFSI) took
place today at the Olympic Museum in
Lausanne, Switzerland, at the initiative
of the International Olympic
Committee (IOC).
Building on the success of the first
edition two years ago and representing
another major step towards the
realisation of Olympic Agenda 2020,
the event, chaired by IOC President
Thomas Bach, gathered together some
180 participants representing
governments, the UN Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC), the Council of
Europe, the European Union,
INTERPOL, Europol, sports betting
operators, national regulating
authorities, Olympic Movement
stakeholders and other experts to
collaborate on the protection of clean
sport.
The IFSI is the main platform for all
stakeholders to exchange ideas and
coordinate actions. Discussions at
today‟s meeting focused on future
actions on two main strands:
strengthening the prevention of the
manipulation of competitions and
supporting ethical conduct and anti-
corruption.
“Today‟s Forum also highlights how
closely good governance is linked to
the credibility of sport,” said IOC
President Thomas Bach during his
opening speech. “As the role of sport in
society continues to grow, so do the
expectations of the public with regard
to the credibility of sports
organisations. The standards of good
governance are ever evolving for
everyone of us,” he added. “This is one
more reason why we say that in an
interconnected world, these issues and
this mistrust affect us all. This is why,
when we look back at the many
initiatives that we have taken since our
last meeting in 2015, we see just how
important this open exchange and
close cooperation is. Each of us here
today has a very specific domain of
responsibility. It is only through
cooperation and partnership that we
can be truly effective,” Bach outlined.
The outcome of the Forum is brought
together in a Declaration which,
amongst other commitments, outlines
the establishment of an Olympic
Movement Unit on the Prevention of
the Manipulation of Competitions and
the launch of an International Sports
Integrity Partnership. The Olympic
Movement Unit on the Prevention of
the Manipulation of Competitions will
streamline related IOC initiatives and
engage Olympic Movement
stakeholders, including International
Federations (IFs), National Olympic
Committees (NOCs), athletes and their
entourage more strongly.
The International Sports Integrity
Partnership will help prevent the risk
of corruption in sport, enable better
cooperation between the key
stakeholders and ensure that. The
Declaration will be implemented
through programmes and initiatives of
the various stakeholders within the
IFSI. In order to ensure a proper
assessment of the measures taken,
progress reports will be delivered
during the 3rd IFSI edition in 2019.
The first edition of the IFSI took place
two years ago, shortly after the
adoption of Olympic Agenda 2020.
Important tools to protect sport‟s
integrity have been created since then,
including the Olympic Movement Code
on the Prevention of the Manipulation
of Competitions, the IOC-UNODC
Model Criminal Provisions for the
Prosecution of Competition
Manipulation, the IOC-INTERPOL
capacity building programme,
an Integrity e-Learning programme for
Olympic athletes and officials and
the IOC Integrity and Compliance
Hotline. These tools complement the
IOC‟s Integrity Betting Intelligence
System (IBIS), which has operated
successfully since the Olympic Winter
Games Sochi 2014 and is also at the
disposal of International Federations
and organisers of multisport events.
Overall, the IOC implemented all good
governance measures that were called
for under Olympic Agenda 2020 to
ensure respect for internationally
recognised standards of governance.
For example, the IOC accounts are
audited according to the International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS),
which is a higher reporting standard
than is legally required. Furthermore,
the IOC publishes all financial figures,
as well as the indemnity policy for the
IOC President and IOC Members, in an
annual report, giving full transparency
to its operations and activities.
THE DECLARATION :
The International Forum for Sports
Integrity (IFSI) enables
representatives of governments,
international organisations,
international and national sports
organisations, betting entities and
experts to collaborate on the
protection of clean sport. All the
participants of the second IFSI, held
on 15 February 2017 in Lausanne,
Switzerland, indicate their support for
the content of this declaration, which
aims to strengthen their cooperation
and coordination in order to protect
the credibility and integrity of sport
and competitions. In particular, they
recognise the importance of
strengthening the fight against the
manipulation of sports competitions
and tackling corruption in sports
organisations. In particular, they agree
to the following:
With regard to the prevention of the
manipulation of competitions: All
participants acknowledge what has
been achieved since the first IFSI with
regard to the fight against the
manipulation of competitions, namely
through the IOC‟s integrity initiatives
and 3-Pillar Strategy, which cover the
fields of (1) legislation and regulations;
(2) education and capacity-building;
and (3) intelligence and investigation.
Concrete tools include the Olympic
Movement (OM) Code on the
Prevention of the Manipulation of
Competitions; the IOC-UNODC Model
Criminal Law Provisions for the
Prosecution of Competition
Manipulation; support for the Council
of Europe Convention on the
Manipulation of Sports Competitions;
the IOC Integrity e-learning that was
launched at the Olympic Games Rio
2016, the IOC-INTERPOL capacity-
building programme; the Integrity
Betting Intelligence System (IBIS); and
the IOC Integrity and Compliance
Hotline. All the participants
acknowledge the need to further
strengthen the three-pillar strategy, in
particular by:
- Streamlining the IOC initiatives via
an Olympic Movement Unit on the
Prevention of the Manipulation of
Competitions in order to better engage
the Olympic Movement stakeholders
(particularly IFs, NOCs, athletes and
their entourage);
- Calling on national governments to
consider signing and ratifying the
Council of Europe Convention on the
Manipulation of Sports Competitions
and to set up national platforms for
efficient coordination; national
governments are also asked to ensure
that their legislation allows for
effective investigations and the
exchange of information; and
- Reinforcing prevention measures, in
particular educational and capacity-
building initiatives at the national and
international levels for the protection
of athletes and their entourage.
With regard to the prevention of the
risk of corruption in sport: All the
participants reaffirm their
commitment to safeguarding the
credibility of sport and reducing the
risk of corruption. They highlight the
need for greater cooperation and
collaboration between the various
stakeholders guided by the following
points:
- Welcoming the launch of an
International Sports Integrity
Partnership, a crosssectorial, multi-
stakeholder platform to enable a
pragmatic partnership allowing the
development and implementation of
programmes and initiatives by the
various partners, to strengthen efforts
promoting transparency, integrity and
good governance in sports
organisations, in particular through
education and awareness-raising
initiatives; the IOC is committed to
working with the partners to support
this platform;
- Recognising the independence and
autonomy of sport as adopted by the
69th United Nations‟ General
Assembly in 2014; they appreciate the
acknowledgement by sports
organisations that good governance
and the autonomy of sport are
intricately linked;
- Acknowledging that governments
have a primary responsibility in
fighting corruption, notably through
the ratification and implementation of
the United Nations Convention against
Corruption and other international
agreements such as the OECD
AntiBribery Convention and the
Council of Europe Criminal Law
Convention on Corruption; relevant
international organisations should
facilitate cooperation and active
engagement by law enforcement
agencies and sports organisations, in
order to prevent, detect and sanction
corrupt practices as well as to enhance
good governance;
- Recognising and supporting the
efforts already undertaken by sports
organisations, in particular at the
international level through Olympic
Agenda 2020 and the various IFs‟
efforts such as the Association of
Summer Olympic International
Federations (ASOIF) Good
Governance Task Force; sports
organisations confirm the importance
of complying with the highest
standards of good governance
principles; and
- Welcoming the readiness and
commitment of international
organisations to enhance their support
to national governments‟ and sports
organisations‟ efforts to promote good
governance and prevent corruption in
sport.
Following the second IFSI, this
Declaration will be implemented
through the various programmes and
initiatives of the stakeholders. The
experts, representing the stakeholders,
will assess the situation, develop joint
action plans and review monitoring
reports. An update on progress will be
presented during the third IFSI in
2019.
#9 ICC OUTLINES PROPOSED
USACA CONSTITUTION
Image Courtesy:p.imgci.com
The ICC highlighted the key principles
of the proposed new constitution for
the United States of America Cricket
Association (USACA). The document,
which was unanimously approved by
the ICC Board, is the result of an 18-
month project driven by the ICC to
create a governance model for cricket
in the USA.
Aimed at unifying the currently
fractured cricket community,
facilitating USACA‟s efforts to be
reinstated as a member of the ICC and
allowing the sport to flourish at all
levels for the benefit of the whole sport
in the U.S, the constitution has now
been sent to USACA for adoption by its
membership.
The constitution was developed by the
Sustainable Foundation Advisory
Group (SFAG) with input and support
from the ICC, the U.S. Olympic
Committee and other individuals with
relevant experiences of sports
governance models in the USA.
Representatives of the USACA Board
have also contributed to the
development of the constitution,
including in a meeting with the SFAG
in Dallas in December.
The SFAG is a ten member panel
recruited through an open process and
reflecting stakeholders from across the
diverse cricket community in the USA
as well as individuals independent of
cricket in the USA but with relevant
sports governance experience. It was
charged with developing key
governance principles, grounded in
best practices for non-profit sports
organisations in the USA, and
proposing a model that is capable of
bringing each and every stakeholder
together within one modern, effective
and inclusive governance structure.
Highlights of the new constitution
include:
· New individual
membership structure that allows
USACA to engage, communicate with
and support the entire cricket
community directly, including players,
coaches, match officials, fans and
administrators.
· Supplemented by organizational
membership that continues league
engagement and involvement but also
provides the opportunity for
membership of USACA by all of the
individual clubs across the USA.
· The country will be divided into
three Conferences further split
into six geographic ‘Zones’ (East,
Mid-Atlantic, South, South-West,
West, Midwest) with programmes and
services including unified and
structured competitions, high
performance camps and coach /
umpire education being delivered in
each Zone.
· New Board composition that is
diverse, inclusive, engages and is
representative of the entire cricket
community, complies with the
requirements of the US Olympic
Committee, and establishes a focus on
independence. It will be made up of
the following ten directors;
Two Player Directors: one female
and one male - elected by the
International Players who have
represented the U.S. senior team in
any event recognised or sanctioned by
the ICC in the last ten years. This
ensures the Board has female and male
representation from those who have
played the game at an elite level.
Three Independent Directors: at
least one of whom must be female.
They must be completely independent
from any cricket governance or
administration for at least the last
three years. This ensures a balance of
constituent and non-constituent
Directors, reduces the risk of divisive
politics within the Board and enables
USACA to recruit skill sets and
experiences that would not otherwise
be represented on the Board.
Three Individual Directors: who
will be elected by the entire Individual
Membership (other than the
International Players), thereby
introducing the prospect of every
Individual Member across the country
having the right to directly influence
who should represent them on the
Board.
One Club Director: who will be
elected by all registered and eligible
clubs, thereby introducing the prospect
of every Club across the country having
the right to directly influence who
should represent them on the Board.
One League Director: who will be
elected by all registered and eligible
leagues, thereby acknowledging the
continuing need and importance of the
Leagues as vital stakeholders in the
structure moving forward, which is
emphasised by the creation of a new
Leagues Committee (reporting directly
to the Board) which will contain
representatives of the two biggest
leagues in each of the six Zones across
the country.
Independent Chair of the Board -
for the first three years this post will be
elected by the Board from one of the
three Independent Directors. This role
will play a key part in the unification of
the sport and the SFAG felt strongly
that independence for the first three
years would depoliticise the role and
signal a fresh start. The ICC Board
unanimously supported this view
noting that the USACA Board felt
otherwise. It is proposed this
restriction is lifted after three years.
Board Directors will have both term
limits and staggered terms to
ensure a good mix of fresh perspective
and continuity of institutional
knowledge.
· The governance model includes
a Nominating and Governance
Committee who will be responsible
for vetting all Board candidates and
recruiting and recommending the
three Independent Directors for
appointment by the Board.
· There will be an Annual General
Meeting where all members of
USACA will be invited to participate to
both learn about the direction of the
organization and to provide input and
feedback to the USACA Board of
Directors and staff.
· Engagement in the governance of
USACA by a wider group of individuals
in the cricket community will be
undertaken via five
additional Standing
Committees including; Cricket,
Leagues, Finance and
Commercial, Ethics, Grievance
and Disciplinary and Audit, each
of which would have a significant level
of representation by players.
In the event that the constitution is
approved by USACA, it also contains
within it a detailed process and
timeframe by which the
transitionary measures would be
implemented. This includes
· The development of an individual
membership database
· The appointment of an initial
Nominating & Governance Committee
· The staging of elections for the initial
Board being conducted by the ICC
Americas region (subject to a full
independent audit) to be completed
by 20 September 2017
· The composition of the full Board,
including the Independent Directors
and the elected Chair, being completed
at the first Initial Board meeting
scheduled to take place on or
around 20 October 2017.
Eric Parthen, USA Project Manager for
the ICC said the constitution is now
representative of the entire sport:
“This constitution has been driven by
the SFAG with the clear goal of
developing a governance model that
can unify the sport across the U.S. and
provide a platform for cricket to grow
and flourish at every level and for the
benefit of all stakeholders in the USA.
“We have studied best practices for
non-profit sports organisations in the
U.S. looking in particular at the U.S
Olympic National Governing Bodies
and have applied those principles to a
model that works for cricket. The
result is, I believe, the best opportunity
for cricket in the USA the sport has
ever had, and it is pleasing to have that
assessment endorsed unanimously by
the ICC Board.
“By unifying a diverse group of
stakeholders under a single umbrella,
we are collectively much stronger and
in a better position to grow the game. I
would like to thank everyone who has
given their time to this project and I
now urge USACA members to adopt
the constitution so the sport in the
USA can collectively move forward and
seize the moment.”
The ICC Board, under the leadership of
Chairman Shashank Manohar and
supported by West Indies Cricket
Board President Dave Cameron and
Imran Khwaja, ICC Chairman of
Associates, has been an integral part of
the process to engage the whole
community including USACA. The
group recognise the importance to the
growth and development of world
cricket of a truly unified and
sustainable governance structure for
cricket in the USA. As such they
travelled to the USA in October 2016 to
meet with both the SFAG and the
USACA Board, and the ICC Board has
received detailed presentations on
progress made in this respect over
many months.
Most recently, the ICC Board
unanimously agreed to send the
proposed constitution to USACA for it
to put to its membership for adoption
on or before 1 April 2017. USACA‟s
membership of the ICC remains
suspended until then, and if it fails to
adopt the constitution as proposed, the
ICC Board has agreed to consider at its
April Board meeting whether to
propose a motion to expel USACA as a
member of the ICC.
POSITIVE MEETINGS HELD AS
PART OF PROCESS TO RE-
ADMIT CRICKET ASSOCIATION
OF NEPAL IN ICC
A series of positive meetings of the
Nepal Advisory Group concluded in
Kathmandu as part of the process to
re-admit the Cricket Association of
Nepal as a member of the
International Cricket Council. The
Nepal Advisory Group, which consists
of various stakeholders of cricket in
Nepal, was formed by the ICC to
recommend amendments to the
constitution of the CAN so that
elections can be conducted
subsequently as per the revised
constitution.
At the meeting, the advisory group
agreed on a Terms of Reference for the
work and a community consultation
process by which members of the
Nepalese cricket community will give
inputs for the revised Constitution. An
ICC delegation to return to Kathmandu
around the time the World Cricket
League Championship matches against
Kenya are held on 11 and 13 March and
will decide on a timetable for the
adoption of the revised Constitution
and subsequent elections. Following
this, Nepal‟s membership of the ICC
will be tabled for consideration at the
ICC Annual General Meeting in June.
The ICC had suspended Nepal in April
last year for breach of Article 2.9 of the
ICC‟s Articles of Association, which
prohibits government interference and
requires free and fair elections. The
suspension cut off funding for the CAN
but Nepal was allowed to continue
participating in ICC events.
#10 COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR
SPORTS
Image courtesy:esport360.com
JEROME VALCKE FILES AN APPEAL AT THE COURT
OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS)
Jérôme Valcke, former Secretary
General of the Fédération
Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA), has filed an appeal at the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against
the decision issued by the FIFA Appeal
Committee dated 24 June 2016 (with
reasons notified on 3 February 2017),
in which he was banned from taking
part in any football-related activity for
a period of ten years. Jérôme Valcke
seeks to have the challenged decision
set aside in order for the sanction
imposed on him to be lifted
definitively. A CAS arbitration
procedure is in progress. First, the
parties will exchange written
submissions and a Panel of three
arbitrators will be constituted. The
Panel will then issue directions with
respect to the holding of a hearing.
Following the hearing, the Panel will
deliberate and at a later date, it will
issue a decision in the form of an
Arbitral Award.
The International Ski Federation
(FIS) Refers The Case Of Therese
Johaug To The Court Of
Arbitration For Sport (CAS)
The International Ski Federation (FIS)
has filed an appeal at the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the
decision issued by the Adjudication
Committee of the Norwegian Olympic
and Paralympic Committee and
Confederation of Sport on 10 February
2017 in which the Norwegian skier
Therese Johaug was found to have
committed an anti-doping rule
violation and sanctioned with a period
of ineligibility of 13 months. The FIS
requests that the period of ineligibility
imposed on the athlete be “reasonably
extended”. A CAS arbitration
procedure is in progress. First, the
parties will exchange written
submissions and a Panel composed of
either one or three arbitrators will be
constituted. The Panel will then issue
directions with respect to the holding
of a hearing. Following the hearing, the
Panel will deliberate and, at a later
date, issue a decision in the form of an
Arbitral Award.
Harold Mayne-Nicholls Files an
Appeal at the Court Of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Harold Mayne-Nicholls, former
President of the Chilean Football
Association and former Chairman of
the FIFA Evaluation Group for the
2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids
filed an appeal at the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 27
February 2017 against the Fédération
Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA). Mr Mayne-Nicholls is
appealing a decision issued by the
FIFA Appeal Committee dated 7 April
2016 (with reasons notified on 8
February 2017), in which he was
banned from taking part in any
football-related activity for a period of
three years. Harold Mayne-Nicholls
seeks the annulment of the challenged
decision and has filed a request for
provisional measures in order to stay
the execution of the challenged
decision while the CAS proceedings are
in progress. A preliminary decision on
this point will be issued in due course.
The Court Of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS) registers two appeals
filed by the Bolivia Football
Federation
The Bolivia Football Federation (BFF)
has filed two appeals at the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against
decisions issued by the FIFA Appeal
Committee dated 12 January 2017
concerning the eligibility of the player
Nelson Cabrera who participated for
Bolivia in two FIFA 2018 World Cup
qualification matches in September
2016. In a decision dated 27 October
2016, the FIFA Disciplinary Chamber
found that the BFF had breached the
FIFA rules regarding nationality in
fielding Nelson Cabrera who did not
meet the eligibility criteria to play for
the national team of Bolivia. As a
consequence, FIFA ordered that the
matches played between Bolivia and
Peru (2-0) on 1 September 2016 and
between Chile and Bolivia (0-0) on 6
September 2016 be forfeited. In
appealing to CAS, the BFF seeks to
have the decisions issued by the FIFA
Disciplinary Chamber and FIFA
Appeal Committee overturned in order
to recover the FIFA 2018 World Cup
qualification points it has lost.
#11 ANTI DOPING UPDATES
Image Courtesy:shawnews.files
WADA REMOVES SPAIN FROM THE LIST OF
SIGNATORIES DEEMED NON COMPLIANT WITH
THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE
Following a circular vote of its
Foundation Board, the World Anti-
Doping Agency (WADA) today
removed the Spanish National Anti-
Doping Organization (NADO) from the
list of Signatories deemed non-
compliant with the 2015 World Anti-
Doping Code (Code).
At its meeting of 18 November 2015,
WADA‟s Foundation Board followed
the recommendation of its
independent Compliance Review
Committee (CRC) and placed the
Spanish NADO on the compliance
“watchlist”, given that the Code had
not been implemented in the national
legislation of Spain due to the absence
of a government in the country. On 18
March 2016, at the expiration of the
four-month deadline for “watchlist–
Signatories”, the Spanish NADO
automatically became non-compliant.
The NADO has remained in this status
since then.
On 17 February 2017, the Spanish
Council of Ministers adopted a “Royal
Decree-Law”, the content of which is in
line with the Code, in order to
incorporate the Code into the Spanish
legislation. This “decree-law” took
effect immediately and therefore the
Code was implemented into the
Spanish legislation. However, in
accordance with relevant government
procedures brought to WADA‟s
attention by the Spanish NADO, the
“decree-law” still has to be formally
ratified by the Spanish Parliament
within one month from the date of its
adoption. If the “decree-law” is not
ratified by the Parliament within the
one month period, the Spanish NADO
will automatically revert to being non-
compliant.
As stipulated in Article 23.5.5 of the
Code, WADA will now report the
removal of the Spanish NADO from
the list of non-compliant Signatories to
the Sports Movement and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
WADA continues to work with the
remaining non-compliant signatories
(the NADOs of Brazil and Russia) to
address their outstanding issues.
WADA removes Azerbaijan and
Indonesia from the World Anti-
Doping Code’s non-compliant list
Following a circular vote of its
Foundation Board, the World Anti-
Doping Agency (WADA) today
removed the National Anti-Doping
Organizations (NADO) of Azerbaijan
and Indonesia from the list of
signatories previously deemed non-
compliant with the 2015 World Anti-
Doping Code (Code). Azerbaijan
adopted new legislation and NADO
rules in line with the Code, and the
NADO of Indonesia has resolved its
outstanding issue related to the use of
non-WADA-accredited laboratories.
As stipulated in Article 23.5.5 of the
Code, WADA will now report the
removal of the NADOs of Azerbaijan
and Indonesia from the list of non-
compliant organizations to the Sports
Movement and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
Laos ratifies UNESCO Anti-
Doping Convention
The World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA) announced that the Lao
People‟s Democratic Republic (Laos)
has become the 184th State Party to
ratify the UNESCO International
Convention against Doping in Sport.
“I am thrilled that Laos has become the
latest State Party to commit to clean
sport through its ratification of the
UNESCO Convention, and I wish to
place on record my appreciation to the
Southeast Asia Regional Anti-Doping
Organization (SEARADO) and the
team at our Asia/Oceania Regional
Office for making this happen” said
WADA President, Sir Craig Reedie.
“We have reached an important
juncture for the anti-doping
movement, with one of WADA‟s main
priorities today to ensure that the
UNESCO Convention is implemented
and practiced effectively in every
country. In achieving quality anti-
doping programs on a global scale, we
will be reaffirming our commitment to
clean athletes around the world,”
Reedie added.
The UNESCO International
Convention against Doping in Sport,
which was adopted on 19 October
2005, is the practical instrument by
which governments formalize their
commitment to the fight against
doping. Given that many governments
cannot be bound by a non-
governmental document such as the
World Anti-Doping Code (Code), the
Convention allows governments to
align their domestic policies with the
Code, thus harmonizing the rules
governing anti-doping in sport and
public legislation. Under UNESCO
standards, the Convention has set
records in terms of the speed with
which it was prepared, adopted and
ratified.
After Laos‟ ratification of the UNESCO
Convention, the population of the
world that has pledged its support to
clean sport through the Convention
remains at 98%, with 11 countries still
to ratify the Convention.
WADA Suspends Accreditation of
the Bogota Laboratory
The World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA) has suspended the
accreditation of the Laboratorio de
Control al Dopaje (the Bogota
Laboratory) in Bogota, Colombia for a
period of up to six months. The
suspension is due to analytical issues,
which led to a failure to comply with
WADA‟s External Quality Assessment
Scheme (EQAS).
The suspension, which took effect on
20 February 2017, prohibits the Bogota
Laboratory from carrying out any anti-
doping activities including all analyses
of urine and blood samples, and is
intended to provide an opportunity for
the Laboratory to make concrete
improvements to its operations and
ensure future compliance.
During the period of suspension,
samples are required to be transported
securely to another WADA-accredited
laboratory, ensuring that athletes can
have full confidence in continued high
quality sample analysis and the wider
anti-doping system. The decision to
suspend the Bogota Laboratory is a
direct result of the more stringent
quality assessment procedures enacted
by WADA to ensure that laboratories
maintain the highest standards, and in
turn, guarantee that the rights of clean
athletes are protected.
Pursuant to Article 13.7 of the World
Anti-Doping Code (Code), the Bogota
Laboratory may appeal this decision to
the Court of Arbitration for Sport
within 21 days of receipt of notice.
During the period of suspension, the
Bogota Laboratory shall address all
non-conformities identified by the
Laboratory Expert Group or WADA in
any request for corrective action or
otherwise, as well as any additional
non-conformities identified through
any WADA site visit during the
suspension period. If the Bogota
Laboratory satisfies the Disciplinary
Committee in meeting these
requirements, it may apply for
reinstatement prior to the expiry of the
six-month suspension period. Should
the Laboratory not address the non-
conformities by the end of the six-
month suspension period, WADA may
extend the suspension of the
Laboratory‟s accreditation for an
additional period of up to six months.
According to the International
Standard for Laboratories (ISL),
WADA is responsible for accrediting
and re-accrediting anti-doping
laboratories, thereby ensuring that
they maintain the highest quality
standards. This monitoring process is
conducted in conjunction with
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) assessment by
independent national accreditation
bodies that are full members of the
International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC).
Whenever a laboratory does not meet
ISL requirements, WADA may
suspend the laboratory‟s accreditation
(see Decision below).
Decision of the Chairman of the WADA
Executive Committee:
1. As a result of the non-conformities
identified by the LabEG and
confirmed by the WADA Disciplinary
Committee, the WADA accreditation
of the Bogota Laboratory shall be
suspended for a period of up to six
months (or for such shorter or longer
period as may be determined in
accordance with paragraph 7 or
paragraph 8, below).
2. The suspension shall be effective
immediately and shall be notified to
all stakeholders by announcement on
the WADA website, in accordance
with ISL Art 4.4.14.3.
3. All samples not yet analysed and all
samples currently undergoing “A” or
“B” confirmation procedures, and all
samples where a presumptive
analytical finding has been reported
as of the date of this decision, shall be
securely transported with a
demonstrable chain of custody to
another WADA-accredited laboratory
as soon as possible and in any event
no later than 14 calendar days
following the date of this decision.
4. The suspension period is intended to
provide an opportunity for the Bogota
Laboratory to focus all its efforts on
concrete improvements to its
operations with the objective of
ensuring future compliance.
5. A laboratory site visit and satisfactory
analysis of EQAS samples shall also
be conducted at the Bogota
Laboratory's expense during the
period of suspension, at a date to be
determined by WADA, taking into
account the time required by the
Bogota Laboratory to address the
non-conformities identified by the
LabEG and confirmed by the WADA
Disciplinary Committee.
6. During the period of the suspension,
the Bogota Laboratory shall address
all of the said non-conformities, as
well as any additional non-
conformities identified by the LabEG
or WADA in any request for
corrective action or otherwise,
including during the above WADA
site visit. The LabEG should decide
whether the Bogota Laboratory
should be required to review any test
results it previously reported and/or
to reanalyse any samples.
7. If the Laboratory completes all
aspects of item 6 to WADA‟s
satisfaction prior to the expiry of the
six month suspension period, it may
apply to the Chair of the WADA
Executive Committee for
reinstatement of its WADA
accreditation prior to the expiry of
that period. In support of that
application, the Laboratory shall
provide documentation sufficient to
demonstrate that all remedial and
preventive actions required by WADA
have been implemented in full, such
that the Chair of the WADA Executive
Committee can be confident in the
accuracy and reliability of the doping
control sample testing conducted by
the Bogota Laboratory moving
forward.
8. Should any identified non-
conformities not be resolved by the
Bogota Laboratory by the end of the
suspension period in a manner
satisfactory to WADA, WADA may
extend the suspension of the
Laboratory‟s WADA accreditation for
an additional period of up to six
months, in accordance with ISL Art
4.4.13.2.1.
#12 CASE LAW ALERT
Image Courtesy: amazonaws.com
BELARUS CANOE ASSOCIATION & BELARUSIAN
SENIOR MEN’S CANOE AND KAYAK TEAM
MEMBERS V. INTERNATIONAL CANOE
FEDERATION (ICF)
On 12 April 2016, French Police and
Customs raided the rooms and
personal belongings of the male
Belarusian canoe athletes at the
training camp in Le Temple-sur-Lot
(France). They confiscated various
substances, medication, material and
medical equipment, including
meldonium, needles and other
equipment for transfusions, Actovegin
and iron supplements. The meldonium
(16 capsules of Mildronate) were found
in the room of Mr. Henadzi Halitski,
the coach of the Belarusian women‟s
kayak team.
Seventeen athletes from the Belarus
canoe team underwent a doping
control and urine samples were taken
from them. Meldonium was found in
five of these samples. On 20 May 2016,
the Belarusian team participated in the
World Cup Stage in Germany. No
police raid took place there.
On 15 June 2016, the BCA updated the
ICF on the cases of the five athletes
found with meldonium.
On 30 June 2016, WADA released a
Notice on meldonium to its
stakeholders concerning cases where
athletes claim that the substance was
taken before 1 January 2016, when the
2016 WADA Prohibited List including
meldonium entered into force.
According to this Notice, for samples
taken on or after 1 March 2016 and
showing a urinary concentration of
meldonium below 1000 ng/ml, in the
absence of other evidence of use of
meldonium on or after 1 January 2016,
a finding of no fault could be made.
Nevertheless, having analysed the
results of the internal investigation
conducted by the National Federation
in Minsk with members of the national
team, BCA declared the following:
1. We may assume that certain
medicines could have been
unintentionally imported into the
customs territory of France without
corresponding registration in view of
the lack of reliable information on the
existing rules of their customs
clearance. Undoubtedly, it can be
regarded as a violation of customs
rules.
2. They found and seized Mildranat (16
capsules) from the coach Henadzi
Halitski1 and the coach Leonid
Shkumatov – Asparkam (potassium
and magnesium salts). Both medicines
have been prescribed by a doctor in the
Republic of Belarus in connection with
existing diseases of the cardiovascular
system (recipes attached). After
providing explanations and doctor‟s
health prescriptions on the use of these
pills, coaches were released without
presenting any claims and accusations
from the French authorities.
3. The use of the found by the French
NADA, but not prohibited by the Anti-
Doping legislation, medications
(aktovegin, asparkam, cardonat,
kokarnit, reamberin, cytoflavin,
ferrum-lek) are foreseen for the
treatment and prevention of
pathological conditions and the
quantity of medications is calculated
by the doctor of the national team
taking into account the duration of the
training camp, the results of dynamic
medical observation, state of health of
team members (mainly coaches), and
only for emergency medical care.
4. Transfusion systems were purchased
and intended only for emergency
treatment of critical pathological
conditions (dehydration, heart disease,
and others.). These transfusion
systems are not intended for
transfusion of blood and its
derivatives, or other means.
5. Not prohibited for use Aktovegin,
which was found in athletes Volha
Khudenka, is assigned by a doctor for
therapeutic purposes to treat sports
over-strain (muscles, heart and
others). On April, 8, 2016 Volha
Khudenka was officially diagnosed a
myocardial dystrophy physical
overexertion by the team doctor Elena
Kallaur. The diagnose is also noted in
the individual athlete‟s medical card.
The amount used for the treatment did
not exceed a volume of 50 ml per day
(maximum therapeutic dose set by the
Aktovegin manufacturer, 20-50 ml).
6. Medical products containing iron –
Fe (like found “Ferrum Lek”) are the
nonprohibited WADA medications in
the treatment of iron deficiency for
professional athletes, described by
FIMS as the female athlete triad. The
other seized drugs are also not
prohibited by anti-doping legislation,
as there is a written conclusion of the
Republican Sport Medicine Center
(enclosed).
7. There was no any written
information addressed to the National
Federation from the French NADA and
other organizations on any violations
of anti-doping regulations by athletes.
The athletes of the national team did
not use prohibited by the anti-doping
legislation substances and prohibited
methods.
Also we would like to note that athletes
of the national canoe team actively
participate in educational programs of
Belarus NADA by WADA program
“Clean Sport”.
From our side, in the frameworks of
“clean” athletes support, we are ready
to impose appropriate punishment to
athletes or officials, whose guilt in the
anti-doping rules violation will be
proved based on lawful court decision
about which we still do not know.
Moreover, our efforts to clarify the
situation through official channels
from the French side have not been
successful.
According to information received by
our lawyer in Agen court, at the
moment, there are no any court
decisions made on any assumed
violations of French law. Nobody so far
was prosecuted. Accordingly,
investigations assumptions have no
power without judicial confirmation
and cannot be the basis for making by
someone else, including the
International Federation of the
decisions.
Once again, the Belarus Canoe
Association express [sic] its intention
to support doping free sport and the
clean athletes.”
On 12 July 2016, a Belarusian
delegation headed by the Secretary
General of the Belarusian Olympic
Committee and the Secretary General
of the BCA together with a lawyer
arrived in Krakow for the hearing by
the ICF Executive Committee. On 13
July 2016, a hearing before the ICF
took place and was attended by the
BCA.
14. The BCA disclosed that the BCA
Secretary General, Mr. Siarei Shablyka,
was in sms contact with the ICF
Secretary General, Mr. Simon Toulson,
from 12 July onwards until 16 July
2016. The sms recorded that the
Belarusian delegation was waiting for
the ICF Executive Committee decision
in Krakow until 15 July 2016. The ICF
Secretary General, having been
informed that the BCA would appeal
the decision to CAS, involved a lawyer
for the drafting of the decision and
stated in the last reported sms:
“Ok then as you will be aware with
these threats we will request even
stronger penalties should we win or
find more evidence. …”
On 15 July 2016, the ICF informed the
BCA of the ICF Executive Committee
decision following the hearing of 13
July 2016 (“Appealed Decision”),
which states as follows:
The ICF Executive Committee
concludes that for the Belarus athletes:
Under 2.1.1 of the ICF Anti-doping
rules states “It is each athlete‟s
personal duty to ensure that no
prohibited substance enters his or her
body”.
Proof of Meldonium in the analysis of
samples collected from the athletes
were consistent with the use of the
medication and a banned substance by
WADA since 1 January 2016.
The French police recovered tablets of
Meldonium (Midranat) in the
possession of the Belarus contingent.
Under article 2.6.2 of the ICF Anti
Doping Rules this constitutes an anti-
doping rule violation.
The Belarus National Federation in a
hearing before the ICF Executive
Committee on 13th July 2016 stated
that all Meldonium had been destroyed
on 29th August 2015 and all athletes
had been told not to take this drug
after 1 January 2016. The Belarus NF
gave a copy of a letter stating the
destruction of the medication to the
ICF. However, they could not answer
why one of their athletes had over
1.0µg/ml in his body from the tests
conducted and the response to why
Meldonium tablets were confiscated by
the French police at the training camp
were unsatisfactorily answered.
From the training camp there was also
the confiscation of transfusion
equipment, needles and medical
equipment of the same design that
would be used for blood doping. Again
under article 2.6.2 of the ICF Anti-
doping Rules the possession of
prohibited methods without a TUE
constitutes a violation of the anti
doping rules of the ICF.
In addition, various drugs such as
Actovegin, in solution were located
which are restricted under WADA
rules in terms of their application in
humans undertaking sport activities.
Other confiscated such as Cytoflavan at
the training camp in France also
indicate the intent or actual doping
processes being carried out by these
athletes.
Further release of information from
the French Police is due in the coming
days and the ICF is working with the
authorities to process this evidence.
The ICF Executive Committee elected
to use Article 12.3 of the ICF Anti-
doping rules to “take additional
disciplinary action against National
Federations with respect to
recognition, the eligibility of its
officials and athletes to participate in
international events”.
Four or more violations of the ICF
Anti-Doping rules (Article 12) are
committed by athletes from Belarus
within a 12 month period and in fact at
one defined training period which is a
serious breach of the ICF rules.
The ICF Executive Committee affirms
that they are satisfied that there is
enough evidence and proof to issue
sanctions against the athletes, coaches
and entourage of the Belarus
delegation.
The ICF Executive Committee imposes
a one year suspension of the SENIOR
men‟s Canoe and Kayak teams
including coaches, medical staff and
entourage for all international
competitions. The starting date for this
sanction would be 13 July 2016.
All Olympic athlete and boat places
won by Belarus Senior Men‟s team for
the Olympic Games in 2016 will be
redistributed by the ICF.
The Belarus Senior Women‟s team are
free to compete as so far insufficient
evidence against them has been found.
Should new information or evidence
come to light then further sanctions
could be imposed by the ICF.
The ICF Executive Committee found so
far no evidence to suggest the National
Federation was implicated in the
actual doping activities or the intent to
dope during the training camp,
therefore, no action is taken against
the National Federation
administration or management.
The ICF requires that the Belarus
National Federation prove that their
athletes undergo Anti-Doping
education in the next 12 months and
also that doping tests are undertaken
at least 3 times before they compete at
International Competitions.
However, as the French Ministry of
Justice has opened a criminal case and
this hearing is likely to last several
months the ICF reserves the right to
impose further sanctions on the
National federation, athletes or
entourage involved.
The ICF Executive Committee
rendered this judgement with
impartiality and made the decision
based on the all evidence that was
available at the time.”
APPLICABLE LAW
Article R58 of the Code provides
as follows:
“The Panel shall decide the dispute
according to the applicable regulations
and, subsidiarily, the rules of law
chosen by the parties or, in the absence
of such a choice, according to the law
of the country in which the federation,
association or sportsrelated body
which has issued the challenged
decision is domiciled or according to
the rules of law, the application of
which the Panel deems appropriate. In
the latter case, the Panel shall give
reasons for its decision.”
MERITS
The issues in dispute in the present
proceedings are:
(A) whether the ICF Executive
Committee was entitled to issue the
Appealed Decision,
(B) whether the ICF Executive
Committee, when adopting the
Appealed Decision, violated the
relevant rules and procedural rights of
the Athletes.
Entitlement to Issue the
Appealed Decision
The ICF Executive Committee bases
the Appealed Decision on Article 12.3
ICF ADR. This article mentions the
“ICF”, but does not specify which ICF
body is entitled to issue a respective
decision. The decision is by its nature a
disciplinary decision.
The disciplinary sanctions known by
the ICF and the ICF bodies authorised
to impose them are listed in Article 42
ICF Statutes. The relevant parts of this
provision read as follows:
ARTICLE 42 - DISCIPLINARY
MEASURES
The disciplinary measures of the ICF
are:
a) Caution
b) Reprimand
c) Exclusion of some or all Members of
a National Federation from
participation in the international
competitions and ICF Competitions
d) Suspension
e) Expulsion
f) The imposition of a fine.
These disciplinary measures can be
taken against individual Members of a
National Federation or National
Federations in their entirety for breach
of the ICF Statutes and Competition
Rules or for having harmed the
interest of the ICF or for the non-
payment of Membership Fees and any
other financial obligations to the ICF
arising from contractual agreements or
any other duties.
Disciplinary measures a) - c) and f) are
taken by the ICF Executive Committee,
measure d) by the ICF Board of
Directors and e) by the Congress with a
two thirds majority of the National
Federations represented at the
Congress and entitled to vote.
According to the wording of the
Appealed Decision, the “ICF Executive
Committee imposes a one year
suspension of the SENIOR men‟s
Canoe and Kayak teams including
coaches, medical staff and entourage
for all international competitions.” The
Appellants understand that,
accordingly, the measure of suspension
(Article 42 (d) ICF Statutes) has been
applied, whereas the Respondent
considers the wording of the decision
misleading and argues that, by its very
effect, the Appealed Decision imposes
an exclusion of some or all members of
a National Federation from
participation in the international
competitions and ICF Competitions
(Article 42 (c) ICF Statutes).
A suspension may be decided by the
ICF Board of Directors, a (partial)
exclusion by the ICF Executive
Committee. Since the Appealed
Decision does not refer to one of the
reasons given by Article 42 paragraph
2 ICF Statutes for taking also the
measure of “suspension” against
individual members of a National
Federation, the Panel holds that it was
not a suspension that was applied, but
an exclusion. The Panel follows the
arguments of the Respondent in that
the ICF Executive Board erred in
choosing the word “suspension”, but,
in fact, wanted to apply and applied
the measure of exclusion (Article 42 (c)
ICF Statutes) and, thus, - in principle -
used the competence assigned to it by
Article 42 ICF Statutes. The Panel
finds that, absent any particular
explanation in the ICF Statutes and
Bylaws themselves, “suspension” must
be understood to have the meaning
generally used by many international
sports federations. “Suspension” in
such understanding means that use of
all membership rights by the
respective National Federation or
individual shall be prohibited for a
certain period of time. “Exclusion”, as
follows directly from the text of Article
42 (c) ICF Statutes, is restricted to
particular rights, the participation at
international competitions and ICF
Competitions. This is exactly what the
ICF Executive Committee has imposed
on the BCA‟s senior men‟s canoe and
kayak teams, including coaches,
medical staff and entourage. The
words “all international competitions”
means obviously “international
competitions and ICF Competitions”.
“ICF Competitions” is understood in
most provisions of the ICF Standing
Bylaws as “World Championship and
World Cups”, which by their nature are
international.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport
ruled that:
The appeal filed by the Belarus
Canoe Association and the
Belarusian senior men‟s canoe
and kayak team members
against the decision rendered
on 15 July 2016 by the ICF
Executive Committee is upheld.
The decision of the Executive
Committee of the International
Canoe Federation rendered on
15 July 2016 is set aside.
The present award is rendered
without costs, except for the
Court Office fee of CHF 1,000
(one thousand Swiss francs),
which has already been paid by
the Belarus Canoe Association
and is retained by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport.
All other motions or prayers for
relief are dismissed.
#13 2014 ANTI-DOPING RULE
VIOLATIONS REPORT
Image Courtesy:media.aws.iaaf.org
Anti-doping rule violation
(ADRV):
When an athlete or athlete support
person commits a doping offence, it is
known as an ADRV. Certain
consequences or sanctions apply to the
athlete or athlete support person who
commits an anti-doping rule violation
(ADRV).
Different types of ADRV:
There are a number of different types
of ADRVs, which are defined in Article
2 of the World Anti-Doping Code
(Code). The 2014 ADRVs Report is
based on the types of ADRVs listed in
the 2009 Code:
Article 2.1 – Presence of a
prohibited substance or its
metabolites or markers in an
athlete‟s sample
Article 2.2 – Use or attempted
use of a prohibited substance or
a prohibited method
Article 2.3 – Refusing or failing
without compelling justification
to submit to sample collection or
evading
Article 2.4 – Whereabouts
violation (any combination of
three missed tests and/or filing
failures within an 18-month
period)
Article 2.5 – Tampering or
attempted tampering with any
part of doping control
Article 2.6 – Possession of
prohibited substances and
prohibited methods
Article 2.7 – Trafficking or
attempted trafficking in any
prohibited substance or
prohibited method
Article 2.8 – Administration or
attempted administration of any
prohibited method or prohibited
substance or assisting,
encouraging, aiding, abetting,
covering up, or other type of
complicity.
Difference between an analytical
ADRV and a non-analytical
ADRV:
An analytical ADRV refers to violation
of Code Article 2.1 above and is based
on an adverse analytical finding,
otherwise known as a positive result),
which indicates the presence of a
prohibited substance in a urine and/or
blood sample collected from athletes
and analyzed by a WADA-accredited
laboratory.
A non-analytical ADRV is where an
athlete or athlete support person
(coach, trainer, manager, agent,
medical staff, parent, etc.) commits
another type of ADRV that does not
involve the detection of a prohibited
substance in a urine or blood sample
from athletes, as outlined in Code
Articles 2.2 to 2.8 above.
Figures that are included in the
2014 ADRVS report:
The 2014 ADRVs Report begins with
an executive summary and consists of
four main sections.
The Executive
Summary captures key figures
and patterns of data contained in
the report.
Sections 1 and 2 present the
results management outcomes
(including ADRVs) of all AAFs
detected by WADA-accredited
laboratories for samples
collected from athletes in- and
out-of-competition and received
by the laboratories in 2014, and
is presented by sport, discipline
(Section 1) and testing authority
(Section 2).
Section 3 presents ADRVs that
resulted from non-analytical
findings committed by athletes
presented by sport and
nationality and athlete support
personnel by nationality.
Section 4 indicates the total
number of ADRVs in 2014,
which includes AAFs that
resulted in an ADRV plus all
non-analytical ADRVs; it also
presents the data by sport and
nationality. It is further broken
down into sample type (urine or
blood), type of test (in- or out-of-
competition) and athlete gender.
This report vs. The annual testing
figures report:
WADA‟s Annual Testing Figures
Report is a compilation of analysis
results of athlete urine and blood
samples as reported by WADA-
accredited laboratories.
The ADRVs Report provides
information regarding all ADRVs,
which includes the outcomes of AAFs
detected by WADA-accredited
laboratories and also ADRVs that
resulted from non-analytical findings.
Data for this report:
The data on urine and blood samples
analyzed and the resulting AAFs are
taken from WADA‟s 2014 Testing
Figures Report (published in July
2015). The results for all samples were
submitted by WADA-accredited
laboratories directly into the Anti-
Doping Administration and
Management System (ADAMS), the
organization‟s centralized online
database.
Aggregated data on the outcomes of
AAFs, as well as all the data on the
Non-Analytical Findings (case
decisions) were compiled by WADA
based on decisions provided by Anti-
Doping Organizations (ADOs).
Period the ADRVS report cover:
The AAFs featured in the 2014 ADRVs
Report correspond to the analysis of
samples received by all WADA-
accredited laboratories between 1
January and 31 December 2014.
The ADRVs that resulted from non-
analytical findings refer to cases that
were concluded in 2014. These figures
may include violations that were
initially pursued prior to 2014, and
may not include violations that
occurred in 2014 yet were not closed in
the same year.
The outcomes indicated in the 2014
ADRVs Report for cases involving both
AAFs and non-analytical ADRVs are
based on the decisions received and
reviewed by WADA as of 21 February
2016, which is the date the Report was
compiled.
Interpretation:
This Report offers the most
comprehensive set of global statistics
on doping offences in 2014 broken
down by sport, testing authority and
nationality. The Report provides the
outcomes of cases reported as AAFs
and includes those that resulted in an
ADRV being asserted (subject to any
cases that remain pending). The
Report also includes the number of
non-analytical ADRVs, which, when
combined with the total number of
AAFs, provides a more accurate
assessment of the number of doping
cases that were adjudicated in 2014.
The Report‟s data is provided by Code
signatories and reviewed by WADA in
accordance with the requirements of
the 2009 Code (Article 14.4). WADA is
mandated to report the data. It should
be noted that interpretation of the data
should be undertaken with caution as
there are many contributing factors
that must be taken into account when
attempting to interpret the data
regarding sports, testing and results
management authorities and
nationalities. This caution applies to
this Report; as well as the Testing
Figures Report.
WADA is committed to further
enhancing the statistical reports by
providing the anti-doping community
with more transparent and accurate
data of the testing and investigation
activities worldwide.
Report being published nearly
one year after the 2014 testing
figures report:
The results management process can
take a long time. This process includes
a number of steps, beginning with the
observation of a potential analytical or
non-analytical violation, followed by
an AAF being reported, then an
investigation, decision, appeal and the
publication of the decision. A high
number of cases must be resolved
before the Report can be prepared on
the basis of a robust set of data that
reflects the year in its entirety. At the
time of compiling this ADRVs Report
(21 February 2016), WADA had
received 93% of the decisions relating
to 2014 AAFs.
Future ADRVs Reports will be released
on an annual basis and within a similar
timeframe prior to the release of the
following year‟s Testing Figures
Report.
Cases pending from 2014:
Cases classified as pending are those
cases where the Results Management
Authority (RMA) has not provided all
the documentation necessary to allow
WADA to validate the case decision.
Examples of missing documentation
could include:
The reasoned decision
explaining the outcome of the
case;
A copy of the relevant
Therapeutic Use Exemption
(TUE); and
The athlete‟s identification
information or any other
relevant information about the
case.
A very small number of cases may also
be pending due to the complexity of
the case; consequently, disciplinary
proceedings may still be ongoing.
Responsibility for the cases that
are still pending:
It is the responsibility of the RMA to
manage the results of testing and
render a decision for AAF cases. In the
majority of cases, the RMA is also the
Testing Authority (TA), which is the
organization that authorized the
collection of the sample.
In a small number of cases, the Testing
Authority is not the RMA, and
therefore is not responsible for the
outcome of a pending case. Another
organization such as an International
Federation (IF), National Anti-Doping
Organization (NADO) or National
Federation (NF) may be the RMA and
is therefore responsible for rendering a
decision in a particular case.
WADA continues to follow up with the
relevant RMAs to remind them to
complete their outstanding results
management procedures as soon as
possible and to provide WADA with
the final, reasoned decision. Any
outstanding cases may result in
compliance decisions being made by
the Compliance Review Committee in
the future.
Time frame in which cases
should be finalized by the results
management authority:
The Code requires that cases are dealt
with in a timely, fair and impartial
manner. Sufficient time must be
provided for each party to prepare and
present their case to the appointed
disciplinary body. As outlined in
the Results Management, Hearings
and Decisions Guidelines:
“Irrespective of the type of ADRV
involved, any anti-doping organization
(ADO) should be able to conclude the
Results Management and hearing
process within a maximum of six
months of the date of the commission
or of discovery of the ADRV.”
Some cases are more complex than
others, and may be appealed after the
first instance hearing, which then takes
additional time for the case to be
finalized and for a written decision to
be published and submitted to WADA.
Details of the sanctions:
Every individual case is different and is
assessed by the relevant Results
Management Authority (RMA) based
on the specific facts and
circumstances. Publishing the sanction
details for every single case without the
reasoning and context behind the
decision could lead to
misinterpretation of the information.
Requirement for anti-doping
organizations (ADOS) to publish
all ADRVS under their
jurisdiction:
ADOs are mandated under the Code to
publish all ADRVs from their doping
control activities (Article 10.13 and
Article 14.3.2). Furthermore, all ADOs
must also notify WADA and the
applicable IF or NADO of the decision
of all cases, including non-analytical
cases and any investigations conducted
(Article 14.4).
Wada review every case decision
it receives:
WADA reviews every single decision
provided to its Legal Department by
RMAs, and has the right to appeal
those decisions that are not compliant
with the Code to, either, the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) or to
national level reviewing bodies.
Difference in the number of
violations by cases and the
number by type of violations:
A total of 231 individuals (185 athletes
and 46 athlete support personnel)
were reported to have committed one
or more non-analytical ADRVs in
2014.
In certain cases, the athlete or athlete
support person may have been charged
with more than one non-analytical
ADRV. For example, an athlete can be
charged with Article 2.6 (possession),
Article 2.7 (trafficking) and Article 2.8
(Administration). Such cases are
calculated as single occurrences for
each type of violation but only relate to
one athlete or athlete support person.
Therefore, a total of 301 different types
of non-analytical violations were
committed in 2014.
Athlete support personnel cases
not classified by sport:
The Code defines the term athlete
support personnel as any coach,
trainer, manager, agent, and team
staff, official, medical, paramedical
personnel, parent or any other Person
working with, treating or assisting an
Athlete participating in or preparing
for sports Competition. As such, an
athlete support person can be involved
in different sports and may not be
connected to only one.
#14 MONTHLY FIXTURES
Image Courtesy:e2.365dm.com
March
14-15: Football - Champions League last 16, second legs
14-17: Horse racing - Cheltenham Festival
16: Football - Europa League last 16, second legs
18: Rugby union - Six Nations (final day): Scotland v Italy, France v Wales, Ireland v England
19: Basketball - BBL Trophy finals, Glasgow
22: Football - Germany v England, international friendly
24: Football - 2018 World Cup qualifier: Republic of Ireland v Wales (Group D)
26: Football - 2018 World Cup qualifiers: Northern Ireland v Norway (Group C); Scotland v Slovenia, England v Lithuania (Group F)
26: Formula 1 - Australian Grand Prix, Melbourne
April
1-2: Rugby union - European Rugby Champions Cup and Challenge Cup quarter-finals
2: Rowing - Boat Races, London
2: Football - Checkatrade Trophy final, Wembley
6-9: Golf - Masters, Augusta, USA
7: Cricket - County Championship season starts
7-9: Tennis - Davis Cup quarter-finals
8: Horse racing - Grand National, Aintree
8: World Cup of Gymnastics, London
9: Formula 1 - Chinese Grand Prix, Shanghai
11-12: Football - Champions League quarter-finals, first legs
12-16: Cycling - Track World Championships, Hong Kong
13: Football - Europa League quarter-finals, first legs
15 Apr-1 May: Snooker - World Championship, Sheffield
16: Formula 1 - Bahrain Grand Prix
Top Related