TAS - Laudo Arbitral CAS 2013-A-3437 International Shooting Sport Federation v WADA

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Mr Conny Jórneklint, Chief Judge in Kalmar, Sweden

Arbitrators: Mr Alan John Sullivan QC, Barrister in Sydney, Australia The Hon. Michael J. Beloff QC, Barrister in London, England in the arbitration between THE INTERNATIONAL SHOOTING SPORT FEDERATION (ISSF), Munich, Germany Represented by Mr Christian Keidel, Martens Rechtsanwilte, Munich, Germany, and Ms Janie

Soubliére, Attorney-at-law Appellant and

THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY (WADA), Montreal, Quebec

Represented by Mr Ross Wenzel, Carrard & Associés, Lausanne, Switzerland Respondent Chateau de Béthusy Av. de Beaumont 2 CH-1012 Lausanne Tél: +41 21643 5000 Fax: +41 21613 5001 www.tas-cas.orgTribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport L Kn.

CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 2

THE PARTIES The International Shooting Sport Federation (hereinafter referred to as “ISSF” or “theAppellant”) is the world governing body for the shooting sport. It has its seat in Munich, Germany. The World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinafter referred to as “WADA” or “theRespondent) is a Swiss private law foundation with its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland and its headquarters in Montreal, Canada.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND The circumstances stated below are a summary of the main relevant facts, as submittedby the Parties in their written pleadings or in the evidence offered during the course ofthe proceedings. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion which follows. The facts in this case are straightforward and are not substantially in dispute. OO female shooter from) (hercinafter referred to as“the Athlete”), underwent a compulsory medical examination for the squad membersof the GD on 20 July 2010. This examination led to theAthlete being diagnosed with the genetic disorder of Long QT Syndrome ("LQTS")Type 1. A LQTS diagnosis is made when a visible prolongation of the QT interval isshown on an electrocardiogram ("EKG"). After a genetic investigation, the Departmentof Clinical Genetics at the University of Amsterdam found mutations in two genes known to be associated with LQTS. This diagnosis was subsequently confirmed.Following this diagnosis the Athlete's treating doctor, QED prescribed her a treatment of Atenolol, a beta blocker, in order to minimize the risk ofa cardiac arrest.Since March 2011, therefore, WWW has been taking Atenolol in order to reduce the risk of a cardiac arrest. According to Section P2. of the WADA 2013 Prohibited List, beta blockers, includingAtenolol, are prohibited in and out-of-competition in shooting sport. On 7 March 2011, the Athlete applied for a Therapeutic Use Exemption ("TUE") from the National Anti-Doping Agency (BD) for the use of Atenolol. On 11 March 2011, the) granted the TUE request for the use of Atenolol at adosage of 200 mg per day. The TUE was originally valid until 11 March 2016. CO the Athlete competed in one of her ISSF Competitions: @® CD (<r score oD was higher than the scoreTribunal Arbitral du SportCourt of Arbitration for Sport 10. 11. 12, 15, 16. 1718.

CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 3

of the winner of the (senior) women's category which wasEDImmediately after the event, the Athlete underwent a doping control. Her urine samplewas analysed by the Aker University WADA-accredited laboratory in Norway andyielded an adverse analytical finding of Atenolol.The Athlete had, as noted above, been granted a TUE from) but not from theISSF as required by Article 4.4.4 of the ISSF Anti-Doping Rules in force at the time(hereinafter "ISSF ADR").As a result, the ISSF asserted an adverse analytical finding against the Athlete andinstituted disciplinary procedures. In light of the exceptional circumstances of the case,and in accordance with Article 10.4 of the ISSF ADR, the Executive Committee of theISSF on 5 July 2013 reduced the mandatory sanction for the Athlete's first anti-dopingrule violation from 2 years to a 3-month period of ineligibility.In accordance with Article 10.1 of the ISSF ADR, the Athlete also had to return her)medal and to have her expunged. Although it had the right under the WorldAnti-Doping Code and the respective ISSF ADR, WADA did not challenge the decisionof the ISSF Executive Committee before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”).On 25 July 2013, the Athlete's TUE fromfor the use of 200 mg ofAtenolol dailywas withdrawn,On 1 September 2013, the Athlete applied for a TUE for the use of 35 mg of Atenololtwice daily from the ISSF Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (“ISSF TUEC”) inaccordance with the ISSF ADR.The Appellant's TUEC was comprised of Dr. James Lally, Dr. Jean-EmmanuelMonneyron and Dr. Stefan Nolte. All three are qualified physicians who haveparticipated

and/or been involved with shooting sport for a long time.On 12 September 2013, ISSF TUEC denied the Athlete's TUE request for Atenolol.The ISSF TUEC found the following:“The Athlete had to successfully demonstrate all four of the required ISTUE criteriain order for the Committee to grant a TUE, and if one of the four required criteria wasmissing, her request had to be denied;The Athlete to some extent proved the first of the four criteria, i.e. that she would"experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance orTribunal Arbitral du Sport

Court of Arbitration for Sport 20.

CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 4

Prohibited Method were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition"; The Athlete failed to prove the second criterion of Article 4.1.6. ISTUE, i.e. that the "Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health following treatment of a legitimate medical condition", because she failed to counteract the ample medical and scientific evidence which shows that beta blockers enhance the performance of athletes in precision and accuracy sports; As evidence that the beta blockers enhanced her performance, the Appellant's TUEC also pointed to the fact that the Athlete finishedfirst with a score that would have been a world record and that was higher than the winning score in the Senior Women's event; Thus, the Athlete's TUE request had to be denied because she failed to satisfy the second criterion of the ISTUE; Even though the Appellant's TUEC did not have to address any of the other criteria, it Sound that the Athlete also failed to prove the third criterion, i.e. that "[t]here is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method", because a few of the documents provided by the Athlete stated that there were other therapeutic options to treat the Athlete's medical condition besides beta blockers.” On 2 October 2013, as a result of the Appellant's TUEC decision, the Athlete requested a review of the case by WADA. On 29 November 2013, the WADA Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (“WADA 'TUEC>) issued its decision (“the Decision”). It ruled that the decision rendered by ISSF

TUEC of 12 September 2013 be reversed, the permission for the use of Atenolol 35 mg twice a day be granted and the TUE be valid immediately and be granted for a period of four years. The WADA TUEC was composed as follows: Dr Katarina Grimm, as President, and Professor Antonio Pelliccia, Professor Andrew Pipe and Professor Peter Schwartz as members. The reasons for the Decision were stated to be the following: “Case-Specific Analysis of the criteria for granting a TUE as established in the ISTUE 4.1 a-dTribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 5 a, The Athlete would experience a significant impairment to health if the ProhibitedSubstance were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition. It is incontestable that the athlete would experience a highly significant Impairment tohealth - the risk of sudden cardiac death - were the beta-blocker to be withheld. This statement is based on the following considerations: 1, Correct diagnosis The athlete suffers from congenital long-QT syndrome (LOTS), a life-threateningcardiac arrhythmia syndrome characterized by disturbances of normal electrical activity in the heart. The medical file testifies to the thorough and careful way in whichher condition was investigated and has been managed. Following the electrocardiographic diagnosis, genetic examinations revealed an alteration of the KCNQ1-Genewhich represents unequivocal proof of Type 1 LOTS and is the clinically relevant,disease-causing abnormality (Schwartz PJ, Crotti L, Insolla R, Long QT Syndrome:From Genetics to Management, Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2012 August 1; 5(4):868-877). The clinical significance of the alteration in the SCNSA-Gene Indicative of

Type 3 LOTS is uncertain. 2, Natural course of the disease LOTS is a serious pathologic condition associated with the risk ofominous ventriculararrhythmias including torsade de point and ventricular fibrillation which may commonly result in Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD). Individuals with LOTS are at riskof SCD at any time, irrespective of their involvement in sport. The risk of sudden cardiac death for a LOTS patient who is not being treated is close to 12-13 % in thefirst 40 years of life. Therefore, it is essential that all patients diagnosed with LOTS,including those currently asymptomatic, are treated. Patients with the LOT! genotypehave been consistently reported to have a high frequency of arrhythmic events duringactivities that are associated with increased sympathetic activity and faster heartrates, such as vigorous exercise (Barsheshet A, Peterson DA, Moss AJ, et al,Genotype-Specifie OT correction for heart rate and the risk of life threatening cardiacevents in adolescents with the congenital Long-OT Syndrome, Heart Rhythm, 2011 August; 8(8): 1207-1213).

3. Correct therapy Beta-blockers are the therapy of choice in LOTS. The recommended initial treatmentis beta-blocker therapy, propranolol and nadolol recognized as the two most effective.(Chockalingam P, Crotti L, Girardengo G, et al, Not all beta-blockers are equal in themanagement of long OT syndrome types 1 and 2: higher recurrence of events underTribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA ~ Page 6

metoprolol, J Am Coli Cardiol, 2012 Nov 13;60(20):2092-9). Nevertheless, the choiceof atenolol would most likely be considered as acceptable by many clinicians; thisagent is less likely to induce non-cardiac side effects such as fatigue and mood changes. In LOTS, the mechanism causing arrhythmias is "afier-depolarization” which occursmore often in states of adrenergic stimulation. Therefore, the risk of ventriculartachyarrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in LOTS is greater during states ofincreased adrenergic tone (i.e., exercise, excitement). Beta-blockers reduce thesympathetic tone and attenuate the effects of adrenergic stimulation, effectively andsubstantially decreasing the risk of SCD in LOTS to about 1% (Schwartz PJ, Crotti L, Long QT and short QT syndromes. In: Zipes DP, Jalife l, editors, CardiacElectrophysiology: from Cell to Bedside, Sth edition, Elsevier/Saunders;

Philadelphia: 2009, p. 731-744).

Based on current evidence, withholding beta-blockers in a patient with LOTS patientis unethical and irresponsible as it entails accepting the enhanced risk of SCD as aconsequence, raising fundamental medico-legal concerns. No physician can beexpected to assume responsibilityfor such a decision, b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance would produce no additionalenhancement ofperformance other than that which might be anticipated by a returnto a state of normal health following the treatment of a legitimate medical condition.The ISSF decision states that the performance-enhancing effect of beta-blockers inaccuracy sports were-beyond doubt, referring exclusively to their cardiovasculareffects as an explanationfor this putative effect. No reference to any scientific evidencesupporting a performance-enhancing effect of beta-blockers in shooting are includedin the ISSF decision. Upon additional request, a number of references were providedto WADA. The full-text articles of these references were reviewed by this panel withregard to the implications of their findings with regard to the use of beta-blockers inshooting (Gibbons D, Philipps M, The effect of acebutolol on tachycardia andperformance during competition rifle shooting. Letter, Br J Clin Pharmacol,1976;3:516-517; Siitonen L, Sonck T, Janne J, Effect of beta-blockade onperformance: use of beta-blockade in bowling and in shooting competitions, J Int MedRes. 1977;5(5): 359-36; S Jongers JJ et al, Effects of placebo and of small doses of abeta-blocker (oxprenolol) and ethyl alcohol on the precision ofpistol shooting, BruxMed. 1978 Aug;58(8):395-9, French; Antal LC, Good CS, Effects of oxprenolol onpistol shooting under stress. Practitioner, 1980 Jul;224(1345): 75560; Kruse P et al,Beta-blockade used in precision sports: effect on pistol shooting performance, J Appl

Physiol, 1986:61(2):417-420).Tribunal Arbitral du SportCourt of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 7

In conclusion, It must be noted that these few studies:. are considerably dated (the first appeared in 1976), with the most recentpublication being 27 years old;. were all published in low-impact journals;. comprise only small populations of from 6 to a maximum of 33 young, mostlymale and without exception healthy shooters;. most ofien investigated oxprenolol, with one further study performed onacebutolol and one on metoprolol. None of the beta-blockers introduced for clinicaluse after 1977 were investigated. None of the studies was performed on atenolol, Thisis an important consideration since beta-blockers are a heterogeneous group ofsubstances with considerably different pharmacologic properties between and amongparticular beta-blockers;. all used study designs involving administration of the beta-blocker 1-3 hoursprior to the shooting test to ensure maximum plasma levels at that time, and noneexamined long-term use, creating a setting markedly different from therapeutic use.Effects can be expected to be very dissimilar with administration not immediately priorto shooting, and with chronic use (down-regulation of receptors has been reported,and thus certain impacts of beta-blocker therapy can be anticipated to be diminished);. produced conflicting results: two finding no other than a placebo effect for theperformance with beta-blockers; one establishing a difference only for slow, but notfor rapid shooting; and two claiming a significant improvement ofperformance withbeta-blocker versus placebo use;. did not show any relationship between the cardiovascular effects of the beta-blockers and the shooting scores as is claimed in the ISSF decision to be the reasonfor improved performance;. all revealed a substantial number of participants whose shooting performancedeteriorated while using beta-blockers, including the two studies reporting an overallimprovement of performance. In one of the studies, those shooters who failed toimprove their performance while taking the beta-blocker did not show any heart rateincrease in competition (Siitonen L, Sonck T, Janne J, Effect of beta-blockade onperformance: use of beta-blockade in bowling and in shooting competitions, J Int Res1977;5:359-66). This inter-individual variation in the reaction to beta-blockers foundin these shooters was emphasized by Clarkson and Thompson in their reviewTribuna) Arbitral du Sport

Court of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 8 (Clarkson PM, Thompson HS, Drugs and Sports, Research findings and limitations,Sports Med. 1997 Dec; 24(6):366-384), who noted that there might be hyper-responders to beta-blockers in whom the heart rate response is so blunted as to impairperformance and that some level of anxiety (as manifested by an increase in heart rate)is important for performance. The authors identified the need for further studies to assess these individual effects. Consequently/the current literature regarding the effect of beta-blockers in shooting has to be considered as insufficient to constitute any claim of general performance enhancement. Since the published data fail to establish clear scientific evidence of any distinct capacity of beta-blockers to enhance performance in shooting, there is noevidence-based justification for a categorical prohibition of these substances. Given that there is no scientific evidence for a performance-enhancing effect of beta-blockers on shooting in general there is accordingly no evidence that there is a beneficial effect of atenolol on the shooting performance in this athlete. €. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance. There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of beta-blocker therapy inthis athlete with LOTS. Alternative treatments used to treat LOTS in other patients are not medically justifiable or relevant in this instance. There are three treatment options in the management of LOTS to prevent suddencardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation, all of which have clearly definedindications: beta-blockers, Left Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation (LCSD) and an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD). In the case of this asymptomatic athlete with no history of cardiac events, a large variability of absolute QT and corrected OT Intervals measured in serial 12-leadECGs and a QTc interval never exceeding 0.48s, beta-blockers are the treatment of

choice. LCSD is indicated particularly in young patients with syncope despite beta-blocker therapy. This option is not medically justified in this case, apart from being only available in a few centres worldwide (Schwartz PJ, Practical issues in themanagement of the long QT syndrome; focus on diagnosis and therapy Swiss Med Wkly 2013;143:w13843).Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport 21.

CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 9

An ICD is only indicated in cases in which repeated ECG's and 24-hour Holter ECG monitoring demonstrate consistent (not merely occasional) prolongation of the QTc interval above 0.50s. A QTc interval > 0.50s is the threshold associated with asignificantly higher incidence of arrhythmic complications and cardiac arrest. The implantation of an ICD cannot be justified in this asymptomatic athlete with modestQTe interval prolongation who has never experienced syncope (Schwartz PJ,Pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of the congenital Long OT

Syndrome: The Rationale, Pharmacol Ther. 2011 July; 131(1):171-177).

d. The necessity for the Use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or ProhibitedMethod cannot be a consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use, without a TUE, of a substance or method which was prohibited at the time of Use. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the clinical condition requiringtreatment has occurred as a consequence of the use of other prohibited substances or methods, The cardiac manifestation of Long OT Syndrome requiring treatment originates in a congenital disease with well-documented mutations in different genes; in this case, two mutations have been identified in the athlete and one of them has been demonstrated in her father.

Comment: The denial of a TUE despite the clear clinical indication for beta-blockers preventsthis athlete from participating in one ofthe few sports in which she may safely compete.Such a decision would be based on a speculated, but entirely unproven, positive benefit of beta-blockers on shooting performance.

Decision In light ofthese arguments, the WADA Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee renders the following decision: us The decision rendered by ihe ISSF TUEC dated 12 September 2013 is reversed.

2. Permissionfor the use of atenolol 35 mg twice daily is granted.

3. The TUE is valid immediately and is grantedfor a period offour years.” On 29 November 2013, the Appealed Decision was notified to ISSF.Tribunal Arbitral du SportCourt of Arbitration for Sport mn.Ze,

23 24. 29. 26. 27.

CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 10

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORTOn 18 December 2013, ISSF filed its statement of appeal with the CAS against theAppealed Decision, in accordance with Article R48 of the Code of Sports-relatedArbitration (2013 edition - hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). In the statement ofappeal it mentioned as parties ISSF as Appellant and WADA as Respondent. Inparagraph 9 of the statement of appeal it referred to the right for the Athlete to interveneand to the fact that it had sent a copy of the statement of appeal to the Athlete andrequested that effect be given to R41.3 of the Code the Athlete be granted theopportunity to intervene as a party if she should wish to do so.In the statement of appeal the prayers for relief were expressed in the following form: ce

ce 1. to set aside the decision of WADA TUEC dated November 16, 2013 [later correctedto the right date, Panel’s remark] anda) to reject the TUE application made by Ms (MID:b) alternatively, to refer the case back to WADA for another WADA TUEC Panelcompromised of different members to consider Ms (Ds application incorrect accordance with the Prohibited List and the ISTUE;2. to order the Respondent to pay the entire costs of the present arbitration, if any;3. To order the Respondent to pay the entire costs for the Appellant's legalrepresentation and assistance as well as other costs incurred by the Appellant inconnection with this arbitration.”The Panel observes that ISSF in the hearing amended the prayers for relief by deletingeverything in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Prayer 1.On 14 January 2014, pursuant to Article R51 of the CAS Code, ISSF filed its appealbrief. In its appeal brief, ISSF referred to the relief asked for in the statement of appeal.On 27 December 2013, the Athlete wrote to CAS in) through her representativeDr Peter Lechner and expressed her wish to intervene in the procedure between ISSFand WADA. On 10 January 2014, the CAS Court Office answered Dr Peter Lechner,acknowledged the receipt of the letter of 27 December 2013 confirmed the expressedwish from the Athlete to intervene and requested that the Athlete should provide atranslation of the letter into English within seven days from receipt of the CAS Officeletter.On 8 January 2014, WADA in a letter noted that the ISSF had directed its appeal againstWADA only and that the Athlete had not been named as a Respondent in the CASproceedings. WADA proceeded:Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport 28. 29: 30. 31. CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 11 “With respect, WADA has great difficulty in understanding how this arbitration can proceed in any meaningful manner without the involvement of Ms (MD. MsGERD is he person most obviously affected by the challenged decision and is explicitly named in such decision.

CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 11 “With respect, WADA has great difficulty in understanding how this arbitration can proceed in any meaningful manner without the involvement of Ms (MD. MsGERD is he person most obviously affected by the challenged decision and is explicitly named in such decision. CAS Panels refuse to make rulings that "would directly affect the position of a third party in such a way without that party being able to present its position" (see paragraph 6.8 of CAS 2011/A/2551). Similarly, in the case of CAS 201 1/A/2654, the Panel was not willing to grant prayers for reliefin circumstances where such prayers were directed against a third party who could have been (but was not) included as a respondent (see paragraph 15 et seq.). The fact is that no appeal has been directed against Ms (MD within the relevant appeal deadline. She cannot now be compelled to participate in these proceedings. WADA notes the Appellant's reference, at paragraph 4 of the Statement ofAppeal, to R 41.3 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; however, this procedure would require Ms (WD to participate voluntarily. If Ms (WD chooses not to participate in these proceedings as a party, WADA has some difficulty in envisaging how a CAS Panel could, even if it were to accept that the appeal was admissible in these circumstances, grant relief which negatively impacted upon Ms (EEE (+. x. rejecting the TUE application). WADA respectfully requests CAS to invite the Appellant to clarify its position with respect to the above.” On 10 January 2014, the CAS Court Office informed the parties of the intervention of the Athlete and also of WADA’s observations regarding the ISSF’s failure to direct its

appeal additionally against the Athlete. The parties were advised that it was obviously for an Appellant to designate the parties against whom it wishes to direct its appeal. The parties were informed that as soon as the Athlete’s letter had been provided in English the parties should be invited to comment on the issue raised by WADA. On 14 January 2014, the Athlete through her representative Dr Peter Lechner informed the CAS that she withdraw her “entry explanation of 27 December 2013” since she as a student did not have any income but might be made liable for costs. On 16 January 2014, the parties were informed of the Athlete’s withdrawal of her request for intervention and the ISSF were invited to comment on WADA’s observations of 8 January 2014, On 21 January 2014, the ISSF commented on those observations as follows:Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF y. WADA— Page 12

1. Appeal against Ms (ID as Second Respondent This Appeal is directed against a decision by the Respondent which overturned a decision of the Appellant. Numerous errors of law were committed by theRespondent's TUE Committee in its decision-making process, in particular ininterpreting the WADA Code and the 2013 Prohibited List (see Appeal Brief).The Respondent's errors of law that are being appealed by the Appellant are atthe heart of this dispute, These errors of law have nothing to do with Ms.

The Appellant did not add Ms. (WD as a Respondent in its Statement ofAppeal, as it felt unnecessary to drag the young athlete into a court proceedingas Respondent. It is correct that Ms. (WD night be affected by the rightsfrom the onset; the Appellant granted her the possibility to join the proceedingsas Intervenor in accordance with Article 41,3 of the CAS Code. Ms. QED has now withdrawn her request to intervene. Yet, as theRespondent insists on compelling her to participate, the Appellant hereby directsits requests for relief mentioned in its Statement of Appeal also against Ms(II «s Second Respondent to the proceedings.

Ms. QED has now withdrawn her request to intervene. Yet, as theRespondent insists on compelling her to participate, the Appellant hereby directsits requests for relief mentioned in its Statement of Appeal also against Ms(II «s Second Respondent to the proceedings. The Appellant kindly requests CAS to submit to Ms (ID a copy of theAppeal Brief filed on 14 January 2014 together with this letter, if CAS has not forwarded it yet to her. The Appellant has the right to direct its Appeal against Ms. MD in addition to the First Respondent. There is no provision in the CAS Code which would hinder the Appellant to addadditional Respondents after it filed its Appeal within the time-limit. Thedeadline to appeal the Respondent's decision according to Article 49 of the CAS Code has been met by the Appellant, as it appealed the Respondent's decision within such time-limit. Therefore, the Appeal has been filed in accordance to the CAS Code. Additionally, Ms. (WD was invited to join the proceedings and althoughshe decided firstly to do so, has now withdrawn her intervention. Hence, Ms.(ID 1015 been aware of the Appeal from the moment it was filed.

2. Admissibility of the Appeal without Ms WD as Second Respondent The admissibility of the Appeal is not affected if the Panel was to find that the Appellant cannot add Ms. (WD as Second Respondent at this stage for the following reasons:Tribunal Arbitral du SportCourt of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2013/A/3437 ISSF v. WADA — Page 13

The appealed Decision is flawed because the Respondent's TUE Committeebased its reasons on an erroneous application of the World Anti-DopingProgram. The dispute at hand is a dispute between the Appellant and theRespondent about the interpretation of various elements of World Anti-DopingProgram, in particular whether the Respondent's TUE Committee could qualifya substance as being not performance-enhancing in general although it is on the2013 Prohibited List. The various errors of law committed by the Respondent'sTUE Committee as outlined and specified in the Appellant's Appeal Brief are thegrounds for this Appeal. These are directed against and related to theRespondent, not Ms. (MD.Therefore, the Appeal did not have to involve Ms. Ml)as a Respondent butrather as a possibly affected (interested) party seeking to preserve its owninterest which would be to maintain the validity of her TUE. This understandingis confirmed by the CAS Code Commentary to Article 41para. 2-4 as follows:"The term "participation" used in Arts. R41.2-R41.4 is very broad andrefers to different instances ofparticipation by a third party: Firstly, sucha third party may participate as a formal party to the proceedings, be it ascreditor/claimant or debtor/respondent (participation as a formal party).Secondly, such a third party may be a participant directly or indirectlyseeking to preserve its own interests or a party's interests, although not acreditor or debtor (participation as a non-party)