Official or assistant

IDTM,IDTM

In the Arbitral Award, the biggest mystery is the official identity of the BCA and DCA.While Sun Yang namedthemofficerUrine Testing Officer and Blood Testing Officer, IDTM(the sample collection authority) named them DCA(Doping Control Assistant) and BCA(Blood Collection Assistant) respectively.The Panel used DCA and BCA as well. At the same time,In theaward, the Panel admitted thatthe term DCA or BCA does not appear in the WADA Code, the FINA DC,the ISTI, or any of WADAs Guidelines.They are terms used internally by IDTM. The role of the DCA is equivalent to chaperone in the ISTI.The role of theBCAis equivalent to BCO(Blood Collection Officer)in the ISTI.

Three different terms for one single role.Whichoneis right?

According to the rules,theyareofficials instead of assistants.

Chaperone,in ISTI,is defined as an official who is trained and authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to carry out specific duties including one or more of the following-----.BCO in the ISTI is defined as an official who is qualified and has been authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to collect a blood Sample from an Athlete.

Moreover,ISTI definesSampleCollection Personnel as acollective term for qualified officials authorized by theSampleCollection Authority to carry out or assist with duties during theSampleCollection Session.

IDTM

We can clearly see thatin the relevant regulations, they are supposed to be officials, not assistants. But, instead of conveniently using the terms Chaperoneor BCO as defined in the regulations, IDTM bothered changing them into assistants, so we can comfortably assume there are differences between those two sets of terms.

The significance of the terms

OFFICIALOFFICER

According to Cambridge English Dictionary, official is a person who has a position of responsibility in an organization, officer is a person who has a position of responsibility in a hierarchical organization. Assistant is a person who helps someone else to do a job or who holds a less important position in an organization. Literally, it can be concluded that officer and official are basicly the same. Both of the terms can be translated into the same Chinese word . Official and assistant, on the other hand, are quite different.

Based on the literal differences between official and assistant, it can be inferred that:

A.An official is expected to have the same official ID card like other officials from the same organization, assistants may not.

IDTM

It is well-established from all the documents and testimonies that Sun Yang and his support group considered these two persons as officers. If the BTO and UTO are all officials from IDTM, like the DCO, it is reasonable for Sun to assume that they should bear the same certificate or documentation like the DCO. In fact, the DCO produced the IDTM-issued ID card to Sun, and Sun asked the BTO and UTO to show him the same kind of ID card. When he was told the BTO and UTO did not have it, not surprisingly, he asked more questions and had more doubts.

But, to be fair, the BCO, UCO or the DCO never claimed those two were actually officials. If Sun and his team had wrong assumptions about their identity, its his problem and the sample collection personnel or IDTM should not to be blame.

So the next question is: did Sun and his team made mistakes about their identity? As above mentioned, the Panel quoted the definition of chaperone and BCO fromISTI, which clearly provided that they are actually officials.When Sun Yangs assumption about their titles are consistent with the regulation, it shouldnotbe counted as a mistake on his part. Therefore the swimmer reasonably assume that those two officials should have the same IDTM-issued ID as the DCO does.

B.Officials are expected to be the representative of an organization, assistants may not.

As the ISTI indicates, as officials, chaperone and BCO need to be qualified and has been authorized by the Authority. It is contestable that they should be directly authorized by IDTM, or by DCO through a chain of authorization. But there must be a link between the authority and the officials.

In the testimonies of Sun Yang and his supporting personnel, their main argument was that the BTO and UTO had no documentation to demonstrate that they are duly authorized by IDTM. The Panel disagreed by saying that no specific and individual Authorization Letter was required. That disagreement was not only based on the interpretation of the relevant regulations by the Panel, but also reinforced by the fact that no such documentation was shown to the swimmer during the multiple previous sample collections. The reasoning is telling.

But, Sun Yang and even the Panel all ignored the fact that no documentation was needed doesnt mean the chain of authorization can be broken.As claimed by WADA, the BTO and UTO are actually assistants. As assistants, except when they were authorized by the DCO, they are not expected to act as the representatives of IDTM. Because of the fact that:

1.

a)there is a possibility that the two persons are just some personal helpers brought in by the DCO, thus not accredited by IDTM, and

2.

b)it is the BTO and the UTO who were responsible for the actual collecting of samples, their duties were important and indispensable elements of the whole sample collection process,

the chain of authorization needs to reach the UTO and the CTO either by individual authorization letters, or by a simple but clear oral statement of authorization made by the DCO on the scene.

So the question is: did the DCO clearly tell the Athlete that IDTM has authorized her to select and supervise assistants to collect samples, and the BTO and the UTO were assistants she authorized to collect samples?

In the Arbitral Award, there is no record for that kind of statement. In the decision issued by the FINA Doping Panel, there was a statement quoted from the DCO: they are with me, I will be in charge--everything is OK. That statement did not reveal if the DCO was authorized by IDTM to delegate part of her duties, and if those two assistants were officially authorized or were just her personal helpers, therefore that statement does not constitute the final link of the authorization link.

C.Officials can take responsibilities independently, assistants may not.

It is indisputable that the UTO had misconduct and thus removed from the testing mission. But in the case of blood samples already collected before, the Panel believes it has nothing to do with the misconduct of the UTO and Sun should not have retrieved the blood sample.

The Panel indicated that it wastotally inappropriate and unprofessional for the UTO to take photos of the athlete in the course of sample collection. And raised the two important questions that 1)if the inappropriate actions of the UTO constitute a compelling justification to abort the doping control, and, 2) whether the premature ending of the urine sample collection process has any impact on the blood sample collection process, one in which the UTO had no role to play, and did not play any role.

But wait a minute, the UTO was only an assistant subject to the supervision of the DCO, and should be trained and authorized by the DCO according to the Statement of Confidentiality provided by IDTM. When the UTO was taking photos, the DCO was right there. She did not notice his misconduct. She did not stop him for that action. And they used to be classmates. Under the circumstances, has it gone too far to consider the DCO had breach of duty and should take responsibilities? Is it reasonable for Sun and his support staff to believe that the DCO is not qualified and the blood sample collection process may also have serious problems? If the DCO was found not able to discipline her assistant right in her face, how could that have no impact on the whole doping control process she supervises?

Precisely because the assistants could not take responsibilities on their own, so it is subsequently natural for the Panel to view the Sample Collection Personnel as a whole. And therefore a generic letter of authorization instead of specific and individual authorization letters is enough for authorization. But, by the same logic, is it fair to conclude that the Sample Collection Personnel as a whole should take responsibilities for the UTOs totally inappropriate and unprofessional behavior and hence invalidate the whole sample collection process?

In the Award, the Panel holds that the role chaperone played is as simple as witnessing the passing of urine. It is not a highly demanding job. So it is not reasonable for Sun Yang to ask for individual authorization letter from him. It can be argued that the difference of the terms does not worth making a fuss. But, their tasks might bedone byassistants, but officials should, and are expected to, be held by a higher standard. That standard is not only about what they should do(tasks), but also about what they should not do. In terms of the easy tasks, even the job of head of state may be viewed by some as being simply about handshaking and paper-signing, that does not mean they can lower their standard of behavior to any one who can shake hands and sign papers.

\n

|

Official or assistant

IDTM,IDTM

In the Arbitral Award, the biggest mystery is the official identity of the BCA and DCA.While Sun Yang namedthemofficerUrine Testing Officer and Blood Testing Officer, IDTM(the sample collection authority) named them DCA(Doping Control Assistant) and BCA(Blood Collection Assistant) respectively.The Panel used DCA and BCA as well. At the same time,In theaward, the Panel admitted thatthe term DCA or BCA does not appear in the WADA Code, the FINA DC,the ISTI, or any of WADAs Guidelines.They are terms used internally by IDTM. The role of the DCA is equivalent to chaperone in the ISTI.The role of theBCAis equivalent to BCO(Blood Collection Officer)in the ISTI.

Three different terms for one single role.Whichoneis right?

According to the rules,theyareofficials instead of assistants.

Chaperone,in ISTI,is defined as an official who is trained and authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to carry out specific duties including one or more of the following-----.BCO in the ISTI is defined as an official who is qualified and has been authorized by the Sample Collection Authority to collect a blood Sample from an Athlete.

Moreover,ISTI definesSampleCollection Personnel as acollective term for qualified officials authorized by theSampleCollection Authority to carry out or assist with duties during theSampleCollection Session.

IDTM

We can clearly see thatin the relevant regulations, they are supposed to be officials, not assistants. But, instead of conveniently using the terms Chaperoneor BCO as defined in the regulations, IDTM bothered changing them into assistants, so we can comfortably assume there are differences between those two sets of terms.

The significance of the terms

OFFICIALOFFICER

According to Cambridge English Dictionary, official is a person who has a position of responsibility in an organization, officer is a person who has a position of responsibility in a hierarchical organization. Assistant is a person who helps someone else to do a job or who holds a less important position in an organization. Literally, it can be concluded that officer and official are basicly the same. Both of the terms can be translated into the same Chinese word . Official and assistant, on the other hand, are quite different.

Based on the literal differences between official and assistant, it can be inferred that:

A.An official is expected to have the same official ID card like other officials from the same organization, assistants may not.

IDTM

It is well-established from all the documents and testimonies that Sun Yang and his support group considered these two persons as officers. If the BTO and UTO are all officials from IDTM, like the DCO, it is reasonable for Sun to assume that they should bear the same certificate or documentation like the DCO. In fact, the DCO produced the IDTM-issued ID card to Sun, and Sun asked the BTO and UTO to show him the same kind of ID card. When he was told the BTO and UTO did not have it, not surprisingly, he asked more questions and had more doubts.

But, to be fair, the BCO, UCO or the DCO never claimed those two were actually officials. If Sun and his team had wrong assumptions about their identity, its his problem and the sample collection personnel or IDTM should not to be blame.

So the next question is: did Sun and his team made mistakes about their identity? As above mentioned, the Panel quoted the definition of chaperone and BCO fromISTI, which clearly provided that they are actually officials.When Sun Yangs assumption about their titles are consistent with the regulation, it shouldnotbe counted as a mistake on his part. Therefore the swimmer reasonably assume that those two officials should have the same IDTM-issued ID as the DCO does.

B.Officials are expected to be the representative of an organization, assistants may not.

As the ISTI indicates, as officials, chaperone and BCO need to be qualified and has been authorized by the Authority. It is contestable that they should be directly authorized by IDTM, or by DCO through a chain of authorization. But there must be a link between the authority and the officials.

In the testimonies of Sun Yang and his supporting personnel, their main argument was that the BTO and UTO had no documentation to demonstrate that they are duly authorized by IDTM. The Panel disagreed by saying that no specific and individual Authorization Letter was required. That disagreement was not only based on the interpretation of the relevant regulations by the Panel, but also reinforced by the fact that no such documentation was shown to the swimmer during the multiple previous sample collections. The reasoning is telling.

But, Sun Yang and even the Panel all ignored the fact that no documentation was needed doesnt mean the chain of authorization can be broken.As claimed by WADA, the BTO and UTO are actually assistants. As assistants, except when they were authorized by the DCO, they are not expected to act as the representatives of IDTM. Because of the fact that:

1.

a)there is a possibility that the two persons are just some personal helpers brought in by the DCO, thus not accredited by IDTM, and

2.

b)it is the BTO and the UTO who were responsible for the actual collecting of samples, their duties were important and indispensable elements of the whole sample collection process,

the chain of authorization needs to reach the UTO and the CTO either by individual authorization letters, or by a simple but clear oral statement of authorization made by the DCO on the scene.

So the question is: did the DCO clearly tell the Athlete that IDTM has authorized her to select and supervise assistants to collect samples, and the BTO and the UTO were assistants she authorized to collect samples?

In the Arbitral Award, there is no record for that kind of statement. In the decision issued by the FINA Doping Panel, there was a statement quoted from the DCO: they are with me, I will be in charge--everything is OK. That statement did not reveal if the DCO was authorized by IDTM to delegate part of her duties, and if those two assistants were officially authorized or were just her personal helpers, therefore that statement does not constitute the final link of the authorization link.

C.Officials can take responsibilities independently, assistants may not.

It is indisputable that the UTO had misconduct and thus removed from the testing mission. But in the case of blood samples already collected before, the Panel believes it has nothing to do with the misconduct of the UTO and Sun should not have retrieved the blood sample.

The Panel indicated that it wastotally inappropriate and unprofessional for the UTO to take photos of the athlete in the course of sample collection. And raised the two important questions that 1)if the inappropriate actions of the UTO constitute a compelling justification to abort the doping control, and, 2) whether the premature ending of the urine sample collection process has any impact on the blood sample collection process, one in which the UTO had no role to play, and did not play any role.

But wait a minute, the UTO was only an assistant subject to the supervision of the DCO, and should be trained and authorized by the DCO according to the Statement of Confidentiality provided by IDTM. When the UTO was taking photos, the DCO was right there. She did not notice his misconduct. She did not stop him for that action. And they used to be classmates. Under the circumstances, has it gone too far to consider the DCO had breach of duty and should take responsibilities? Is it reasonable for Sun and his support staff to believe that the DCO is not qualified and the blood sample collection process may also have serious problems? If the DCO was found not able to discipline her assistant right in her face, how could that have no impact on the whole doping control process she supervises?

Precisely because the assistants could not take responsibilities on their own, so it is subsequently natural for the Panel to view the Sample Collection Personnel as a whole. And therefore a generic letter of authorization instead of specific and individual authorization letters is enough for authorization. But, by the same logic, is it fair to conclude that the Sample Collection Personnel as a whole should take responsibilities for the UTOs totally inappropriate and unprofessional behavior and hence invalidate the whole sample collection process?

In the Award, the Panel holds that the role chaperone played is as simple as witnessing the passing of urine. It is not a highly demanding job. So it is not reasonable for Sun Yang to ask for individual authorization letter from him. It can be argued that the difference of the terms does not worth making a fuss. But, their tasks might bedone byassistants, but officials should, and are expected to, be held by a higher standard. That standard is not only about what they should do(tasks), but also about what they should not do. In terms of the easy tasks, even the job of head of state may be viewed by some as being simply about handshaking and paper-signing, that does not mean they can lower their standard of behavior to any one who can shake hands and sign papers.

\n

No comments:

Post a Comment