Rivista di Diritto ed Economia dello Sport - Rdes.it

CAS 2005/C/976 & 986, FIFA & WADA 213to the granting body and to the medical personnel of other relevant antidopingorganisations under the FIFA RDC 16 which also includes the medicalpersonnel of WADA, since its review body consists of physicians 17 .43 Art. 4.4 of the WADC further states that WADA shall be informed ofthe granting of TUE. Pursuant to the “TUE Commission DecisionTemplate” 18 , WADA is provided with certain specific information 19 . Accordingto art. B8 of the FIFA RDC, it seems that WADA will be provided withsimilar information 20 . Thus, there is no difference between the WADC andthe FIFA rules in this respect.44 Art. 7.0 and 8.0 IS-TUE describe in great detail the contents of theTUE applications. Model application forms are attached, the sections anditems of which - but not the form itself - are declared to be a minimumstandard. Materially, the content must enable the granting body to assess themedical situation of the athlete and the necessity to use a prohibited substanceor method. Even though the FIFA Anti-Doping Rules do not list the contentsof the application form, the FIFA granting body requires the same informationto reach its decision. The FIFA RDC fur their suggests the use of the standardapplication forms of WADA. The Panel, therefore, concludes that there isno material difference in the application process.45 Finally, art. 4.4 of the WADC provides that WADA may review thegrant or, upon request of an athlete, the denial, of a TUE and reverse thedecision which was subject to the review. WADA’s decision is subject toappeal to CAS 21 .46 The FIFA Anti-Doping Rules do not contain an express provisiongiving WADA a right to review the granting or denial of a TUE. WADA isonly granted a more general right to appeal to CAS against doping decisionsof FIFA after “every internal channel has been exhausted” 22 . However, thisright of appeal is not a valid substitute for the right to review the grant ordenial of a TUE. The appeal right applies only in the very final phase of ananti-doping rule violation, i.e. after the athlete has been notified of an antidopingrule violation. In contrast, the right to review the granting or denial____________________16Art. B8 of Appendix B of the FIFA RDC.17Art. 6 IS-TUE.18Downloaded from WADA’s website on December 22, 2005.19I.e. names of the athlete and the TUE Committee’s members, file number, substance and thedates of decision and expiration of the TUE.20I.e. name of the player and association, medical indication, medication and its duration.21Art. 13.3 WADC.22Cf. art. 61.5 FIFA DC and art. 60.5 FIFA Statutes. However, the FIFA Anti-Doping Rulesneither explicitly provide for an appeal against TUE decisions of the granting body, nor explicitlygive WADA a right to such appeal.