Lies, Ignorance & Prejudice, Doping control out of control
Q3：ADAMS授权书呢？
《Q2：中国法律安在？》谈了中国法律对采样任务的影响，接着聊国际泳联(“FINA”)的规章制度。
世界反兴奋剂机构(“WADA”)的反兴奋剂管理系统(“ADAMS”)是一个基于网络的数据库管理工具，旨在协助WADA与相关各方开展兴奋剂检查工作。
作为采样公司(“IDTM”)的授权方，FINA一贯使用ADAMS系统自动生成的兴奋剂检查授权书(“ADAMS授权书”)。然而，在国际体育仲裁法庭(“CAS”)的前后两份仲裁书中，均未提及ADAMS授权书。这引发《36问系列》的三问：
FINA的ADAMS授权书是如何被雪藏的？
这一问的解答需要福尔摩斯穿越襄助：追踪WADA证人证词和CAS仲裁书中的蛛丝马迹，揭露仲裁庭和控方的乾坤大挪移。
首先，确认一下FINA使用ADAMS授权书的事实：
值得一提的是，WADA证人Neal Soderstrom还承认：在2018年9月4日当晚，IDTM其实持有FINA的ADAMS授权书，但却没有出示给运动员(见视频)。
Soderstrom给出的解释是，由于FINA没有指示IDTM使用ADAMS授权书，所以IDTM认为从未获准使用该专用授权书。不提前面IDTM自己的检查官已经承认使用过ADAMS授权书，来看一下FINA的ADAMS授权书的相关内容(见下图)。
这是一份WADA的ADAMS系统生成的授权书，上面印着FINA的组织标识，明确要求出示给受检对象，然后FINA将该文件交给IDTM使用......这个“未被允许使用”的理由也太水了。正因为担心IDTM的蹩脚借口无法过关，仲裁庭和控方律师大变戏法，先后两次将ADAMS授权书这个对WADA极为不利的证据从仲裁书中抹去。
接下来，见证这个奇迹是怎么诞生的。
CAS的第一份仲裁书中写到FINA提交了由ADAMS生成的文件作为证据，但只说是“任务指令”(“Mission Order”)而只字不提ADAMS授权书；然后吧啦吧啦大谈任务指令是不需要出示给运动员看的。[5]
可惜，WADA证人将戏演穿帮了。先是Tudor Popa在盘问中确认第55号证据为ADAMS生成的任务指令；接着Neal Soderstrom确认第56号证据是关于涉案采样任务的ADAMS授权书。[6]
破案了：辩方提交ADAMS授权书作为证据，但仲裁庭为掩饰IDTM未按规定使用授权书的事实，不惜上手段“雪藏”证据。普通人谁有闲情逸致去查对仲裁书和听证会录像，于是被蒙在鼓里。
CAS的第二份仲裁书更为谨慎，压根不提ADAMS生成文件的事，而是风轻云淡地将ADAMS授权书粉饰成其他机构(International Testing Agency, “ITA”)曾使用的兴奋剂检查授权书。[7]
WADA的律师Richard Young更是一本正经地胡说八道，称FINA先授权ITA进行采样，然后ITA把任务分包给IDTM，因此IDTM使用ADAMS授权书是服从ITA的要求，并非遵守FINA的规定(见视频)。
首先，科普一下ITA是个什么性质的机构：[8]
接着，学习下ADAMS授权书的签名栏(见下图)。ITA是作为FINA代理人出现在签名栏上的；因其代理人身份，ITA对采样机构的要求即为被代理人FINA的规定。
作为WADA执行委员会的法律顾问，Young大状会不知道ITA在兴奋剂检查中的角色？会不了解代理关系的法律效力？颇有声望的资深律师，为打赢官司不择手段，自身晚节不保，更给行业抹黑。
网上有不少朋友动辄言称：观毕听证录像和仲裁书，方知运动员其实不冤。然而，真的看完整了吗，看明白了吗，看懂了吗？
本案的冲突之所以会发生，是运动员认为采样人员出示的通知文书不合规。不妨细思量：为何主检官的IPad里有ADAMS专用授权书，却不出示？为何血检官的手机上有《护士执业证》的照片，也不出示？[9]
【未完待续】
[1] CAS Award II, 2019/A/6148, 22 June 2021, para. 29, quoting FINA Letter of Authority 2018, “IDTM will ensure that all doping controls are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the FINA Doping Control Rules…”
[2] FINA Doping Control Rules (2017), DC 5.1, Purpose of Testing and Investigation, “Testing and investigation shall only be undertaken for anti-doping purposes. They shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and any protocolsof FINA supplementing that International Standard.”
[3] WADA Code (2018), art. 5.4.3, “Where reasonably feasible, Testing shall be coordinated through ADAMS or another system approved by WADA, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the combined Testing effort and to avoid unnecessary repetitive Testing.”
[4] CAS Award II, para. 232.
[5] CAS Award I, 2019/A/6148, 28 February 2020, para. 236, “FINA also provided evidence taken from [ADAMS], which established that FINA had instructed IDTM to conduct an OOC doping control on the Athlete in China between 29 March and 30 September 2018, which mentioned the name of the DCO as Lead Doping Control Officer. In accordance with the reasoning above, it was not necessary for the DCO to show such mission order to the Athlete...”
[6] CAS Public Hearing, 15 November 2019, Video Part II, Popa @01:40:00, and Soderstrom @02:07:05.
[7] CAS Award II, para. 231, “Other doping agencies, too, incorporate Authorization Letters into their doping control processes. Detailed information, including a specific ‘Mission Order’ number, appears in the International Testing Agency’s ‘Doping Control Authorization’ forms.”
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Testing_Agency, retrieved as of 26 December 2021.
[9] CAS Award II, para. 280, “Even if the ISTI did require a [Practicing Nurse Certificate], in fact the BCA did possess one; the original was filed with her accrediting hospital, such that she was not able to physically present it to the Athlete or his entourage – but she did have a copy on her phone, which the Athlete neverasked her to show.”
