Truth Under Water (20)

Nonfacts that influence WADA v. Sun Yang

Fabricated Report — Not duly archived report

WADA DCO Manual requires a supplementary report to be signed by the DCO and submitted within 48 hours to be archived with the anti-doping organization.

The supplementary report alledged written by IDTM’s DCO Simoes (Simoes Report), in addition to failing the signature and filing time requirements, was not duly archived as well.

According to the DCO Manual, all testing-related paperwork will be placed in one envelop and archived with the anti-doping organization (see below).

WADA DCO Manual, sec. 8.2

The Simoes Report was not only a supplementary report, but also a file with athlete’ name. So it should have been archived with other documents in the same packet for the 2017 sample collection.

If the Simoes Report were duly archived, counsels on the IDTM side would not have been surprised by IDTM’s provision of the report on 17 November 2018, just two days before the FINA hearing (see below).

Counsel: That’s where in terms of timing. So I did not wait for Sunday. It was Saturday. Then I said what would I do with that. And I saw my colleague producing new document, and he said the report was provided by IDTM.

— Transcript of FINA Hearing, 2018.11.19, 90:2

The “new document” and “report” mentioned by the counsel was exactly the Simoes Report. If IDTM’s councels did not see the Simoes Report until on the eve of the FINA hearing, how could Simoes be identified and invited to attend the hearing? Here is a plausible explanation:

1. Sun Yang submitted the athlete copy of the Doping Control Form for the 2017 testing to evidence the complaint he filed against then DCA Yang.
2. The athlete copy of the DCF did not contain DCO’s information, but had the mission number of the sample collection.
3. By matching the mission number, IDTM’s counsels located the archived document packet of the 2017 testing.
4. From those documentation, Simoes was found to be the DCO in charge of the 2017 testing, and was asked to attend the FINA hearing.

In other words, it is almost certain that the Simoes Report was not in the archived 2017 testing documentation. Otherwise, IDTM’s councels would have discovered the report and submitted it to the tribunal well before the FINA hearing.

Here comes the question: Did Simoes actually write and submit the Simoes Report in 2017? Had he done so, IDTM could have provided a scanned PDF copy with Simoes’ signature and conforming metadata, instead of a WORD file without signature.