The doping control officers sent by NADA must be thorough in the performance of their work. This is a matter of course. Inaccurate documentation on the part of the controllers must not be to the detriment of the athletes concerned. Controllers must rather make every effort to reach the NTP test pool athlete and must therefore do everything possible to achieve success (contacting and carrying out the control).
And yet (and again): In the case of a reigning Olympic champion, this basis of effective anti-doping work had to be reaffirmed by a recent "Administrative Review" decision in favor of our client. NADA imposed a "Notification and Control Failure" (Missed Test) on the Olympic champion due to the facts to be assessed (control attempt outside of a competition), because he had allegedly not ensured that a doping control team would also find him at the specified location. In NADA's opinion, the doping control team had "done everything possible" but had not been able to find the athlete.
Against this decision of NADA, our client requested the "Administrative Review". Within the framework of the review procedure, the body responsible under the Rules of Procedure has currently corrected NADA's measure (imposition of a "Missed Test") and, as a result, has determined that there was no failure to report and control on the part of the Olympic champion.
By way of background: all athletes in the RTP and NTP test pools submit their whereabouts information for the purpose of control planning in an Internet-based database of WADA ("ADAMS"), with which NADA also works. For athletes who belong to an international or national testing pool, the consequences of a "Missed Test" determination by NADA can be serious. This is because if three reporting or control failures occur within 12 months, this leads to a ban of 2 years according to the NADA Code, but at least - depending on the degree of culpability - 1 year.
However, the situation for athletes does not only become dicey with the third "Missed Test". The requirements to be observed by the athletes in the so-called "Standard for Reporting Obligations" (sufficiently detailed information and updating obligations; see Art. 3.1. and 3.2., available on the NADA website) are extremely demanding. Against this background, the risk of being imposed another "Missed Test" within 12 months is not insignificant.
The test pool athletes confronted with a possible failure to report and control, who are always given the opportunity to comment by NADA before a "Missed Test" is imposed, should therefore always critically examine the justification of the accusations made against them and, if necessary - as in the current case - also make use of the "Administrative Review"; this, however, not only from the second or third potential "Missed Test", but always already at the first accusation of a failure to report and control.
See a comparable case from 2016:
https://www.handball-world.news/o.red.r/news-1-1-1-79682.html
Hanover, 13.02.2020
