主题：【原创】无耻的 世界反兴奋剂组织 和 国际体育仲裁法庭 -- 任爱杰

The Parties did not dispute that CHINADA could challenge the Appealed Decision. Considering that CHINADA is the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organisation, this follows from Article 13.2.3.d FINA DC, which provides that:“In cases under DC 13.2.1, the following parties shall have the right to appeal to CAS: [...] (d) the National Anti-Doping Organisation of the Person’s country of residence or countries where the Person is a national or license holder; [...].”

Given that the Appealed Decision was notified to CHINADA on 7 January 2019, pursuant to Article 13.7.1 §1 FINA DC, the 21-day deadline to file an appeal for CHINADA expired on 28 January 2019.

It is further not in dispute that, based on Article 13.7.1 §3 FINA DC, FINA had an additional deadline of 21-days to file an appeal, i.e. until 18 February 2019.172.The main question to be addressed by the Panel is therefore whether WADA’s deadline to appeal was identical to FINA’s deadline, or whether it had an additional period of 21 days to appeal following expiration of FINA’s deadline to appeal.

CAS 2019/A/6148 -Page 42

The Panel finds that the wording of Article 13.7.1 §2(a) FINA DC does not leave any doubt in this respect. In accordance with the wording of the WADA Code, this provision provides WADA with a deadline to file an appeal of 21 days after “the last day on which any other party in the case could have appealed” (emphasis added).174.The Panel finds that the reference to “any other party” is applicable also to FINA and that WADA was,therefore,afforded an additional period of 21 days to appeal after the deadline to appeal for FINA expired.

The Panel in particular finds the reasoning of WADA compelling, namely that, as the main harmonizer of the WADA Code, it needs to decide which decisions to appeal and that a relevant consideration in this respect could be whether any other party with a right to do so has already filed an appeal. The Panel finds that such function and the rationale of Article 13.2.3 WADA Code and Article 13.7.1 §2(a) FINA DC would be obstructed if FINA were to be granted an identical time limit to appeal as WADA, for in such case WADA would have been required to decide whether to challenge the Appealed Decision without knowing if FINA would do so.

The existence of a special provision, applicable only to WADA, does not violate the general principle of parity of all the Parties. The special status and unique function of WADA serves in the general interest to prevent and counter doping-related violations in sport, and in doing so, it pursues one of the key objectives of the Olympic Charter. The WADA Code’s intention to recognize in some aspect that special status is made clear by the “ad hoc” paragraph proceeded by “The above notwithstanding”, so as to clarify that the previous paragraph’s provisions are not applicable to the paragraph concerning WADA’s deadline.

Accordingly, since FINA could challenge the Appealed Decision until 18 February 2019, WADA had an additional 21 days to challenge the Appealed Decision, i.e. until 11 March 2019. The Appeal Brief was to be filed within 10 days following the deadline to file an appeal, i.e. until 21 March 2019. Finally, considering that WADA was granted an additional20-day extension, the Appeal Brief was to be filed by 10 April 2019.

Considering that the Appeal Brief was filed on 3 April 2019, the Panel finds that the Appeal Brief was filed in a timely manner.

In view of the above conclusion, the Panel need not consider whether WADA also complied with the deadline to appeal as set out in Article 13.7.1 §2(b) FINA DC.

Consequently, the objections of the Athlete and FINA on the “Admissibility of the Appeal and/or Jurisdiction of CAS in View of the (Non-) Compliance with the Deadline to Appeal by WADA” are dismissed.