“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 plawyered@gmail.com.

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