Truth Under Water (23)
Nonfacts that influence WADA v. Sun Yang
Training Record — Decipher the trainee categories
The first issue with IDTM’s Statement of Confidentiality (“SoC”) is the confusing trainee categories. In the SoC allegedly for the Chaperone Wu, the “Assistant” category, instead of the “Chaperone” category, was checked (see below).
Tudor Popa, IDTM’s Key Account Manager, explained that, according to the company’s terminology, Wu was a Doping Control Assistant (“DCA”), not a Chaperone (see below).
WADA Counsel: Mr. Popa, with respect to the form showing Chaperone and Assistant, in IDTM parlance, what is the difference in duties between a chaperone and assistant in this circumstance?
Popa: In IDTM’s case, we decided to divide chaperone and assistant into two separate topics or names. The first one, the Chaperone, is used for in-competition testing when there is no extra duties except notification and bringing the athletes to the doping control stations, while Assistant is somehow witnessing chaperone as referred in the ISTI. So they have additional duties as to witness the sample collection.
— Transcript of CAS Rehearing, 2021.05.25, 143:4.
The “Chaperone” defined under the ISTI is divided into two categories in IDTM’s terminology: IDTM’s Chaperone only works in the in-competition, but does not witness urine sample collection; IDTM’s DCA is equivalent to a full-functional ISTI Chaperone (see below).
Popa’s explanation seemed okay at the first glance, but did not make much sense, because Wu’s SoC was specifically designed for out-of-competition testings, as evidenced by the title of the SoC (see above). Why on earth did a training document earmarked for out-of-competion include a trainee category specifically for in-competition personnel?
The similar chaos also happened to Ms. Lin. The trainee category checked in her SoC was Blood Collection Officer (“BCO”) (see below).
Nonetheless, IDTM insisted that Lin was not a BCO, but a Blood Collection Assistant (“BCA”) (see below).
FINA Councel: Jenny, in this particular Statement of Confidentiality…[Ms. Lin] she’s described as a BCO and not a BCA. So we just want the clarification that she was — what was she, a BCA or a BCO?
Johannesson: To my understanding she was a BCA.
— Transcript of FINA Hearing, 2018.11.19, 266:20.
In IDTM’s terminology, a BCO is a doping control officer (“DCO”) who is also qualifed to collect blood. Therefore, according to IDTM’s own protocol, a BCO is issued an IDTM DCO Card, which must be carried and presented at doping controls (see below).
At IDTM, Blood Collection Officers (BCO) are also valid IDTM DCOs who have been trained and are qualified to draw blood. All BCOs are issued a DCO Card by IDTM. BCOs must possess and show valid DCO Cards and other identification required of a DCO at a testing mission.
— FINA Doping Panel Decision, 2019.01.03, sec. 4.41.
Because Lin did not have an IDTM DCO Card, she had to be a BCA, though the trainee category in her SoC was checked BCO. Otherwise, IDTM would have breached its own protocol by not issuing a BCO the DCO Card, and Lin would have violated IDTM’s rule by not carrying her DCO Card.
Finally, to explain the confusion of BCA/BCO category in the SoC, IDTM’s General Counsel blamed her staff for not diligent in updating the form (see below).
FINA Counsel: But then why is this document which is issued by IDTM describing somebody with logically BCA personnel as a BCO?
Johannesson: …So if there is now a confusion, and I can see that, Blood Collection Officer, which I think is actually, I would say we have not updated definition years back I recall correctly, and I think this my be just something that is still there from the past years. However, this document is not an official document that we show and that we, let’s say, identify or authorize our personnel with.
— Transcript of FINA Hearing, 2018.11.19, 267:5.
