TAS - Laudo Arbitral CAS 2013A3347 World Anti-Doping Agency WADA v. Polish Olympic Committee

22. Déc. 2014 17:07 Court of Arbitration for Sport" N78lt PB. 2/00

Tribunal Arbitral du SportCourt of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2013/A/3347 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Polish Olympic Committee& Przemyslaw Koterba ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition: Sole Arbitrator: Mr, Conny Jórneklint, Chief Judge in Kalmar, Sweden in the arbitration between World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Lausanne, SwitzerlandRepresented by Mr. Yvan Henzer, Attorney-at-Law, Lausanne, Switzerland - Appellantand Polish Olympic Committee, Warszawa, PolandRepresented by Katarzyna Grabska-Luberadska, Director of legal affairsFirst RespondentMr, Przemyslaw Koterba, Kobierzyce, Poland - Second RespondentES Chateau de Béthusy Av, de Beaumont 2 CH-1012 Lausanne T6l: +41 216135000 Fax: +81216135001 www.tas-cas.org22. Déc. 2014 17:08 Court of Arbitration for Soort W 7811? 3/20 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport WAD +o Commi ci AnSCourt of Arbitration for Sport A y, Polish Olympic Committee & Przemyslaw KoterbaPage

I. The PARTIES1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinafter referred to as “WADA” or the “Appellant”)is a Swiss private law foundation with its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland, and itsheadquarters in Montreal, Canada. WADA was created in 1999 to promote, coordinate andmonitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms,

2. The Polish Olympic Committee (hereinafter referred to as “POC” or “First Respondent”)has the mission to develop, promote and protect the Olympic Movement in Poland, inaccordance with the Olympic Charter. It has its seat in Warszawa, Poland.

3. Mr. Przemyslaw Koterba (hereinafter referred to as the “Athlete” or “SecondRespondent”) is a weightlifter affiliated with the Polish Weightlifting Federation,(“PWF”), the governing body for weightlifting in Poland.

Il, FAcTUAL BACKGROUND4. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as submitted by the Parties in their writtensubmissions and in the evidence examined during the course of the proceedings, This _background is made for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute,Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussionwhich follows.

5. On26 May 2012, on the occasion of the Polish National Senior Championship in Zakliczyn(Poland), the Athlete was selected to provide a urine sample,

6. On the Doping Control Form, the Athlete disclosed that he had taken the followingproducts: Olfen, Voltaren, Dicloduo, Maiamil, B12 and Miligamma.

7. The sample provided by the Athlete was analyzed by the WADA-accredited laboratory inWarszawa, Poland, which reported an adverse analytical finding, The Athlete testedpositive for amphetamine, which appears on the WADA 2012 Prohibited List under thegroup S6. Stimulants, (a) Non-Specified Stimulants.

8. On 25 July 2012, the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Commission of the Polish WeightliftingFederation decided to impose a six-month period of ineligibility upon the Athlete furtherto his anti-doping rule violation. :

9. On 25 March 2013, WADA filed an appeal against this decision with the Court ofArbitration for Sports of the Polish Olympic Committee (the “CAS POC”,

10. By a decision issued on 3 September 2013 (the “Appealed Decision”), the CAS POCdismissed WADA's appeal and confirmed the six-month ban.

11. In short, the CAS POC found that (i) the Athlete tested positive for a specified substance,(ii) that the Athlete established how the prohibited substance entered his body, (iii) that hedid not intend to enhance his sport performances and (iv) that the 6-month period ofineligibility was appropriate.

12. The CAS POC made the following determinations in its decision (in its English translation):22, Déc. 2014 17:08 “Cork of Arbitration for Sport Y Terr PP. 4/20

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport son O1 Co oP CAS EraCourt of Arbitration for S port WADA v. Polish Olympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page

1. The appeal is dismissed.2, Pursuant to Article 92 clause 4 of the Regulations of the Court of Arbitrationfor Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee, the final fee is set at the amount ofPLN 4,000 (four thousand), payable to the Court ofArbitration for Sports at thePolish Olympic Committee. “

[J 1V. Violationof anti-doping regulations,

1. Amphetamine, for which the athlete tested positive, is a prohibited substance shown undercategory "56 (a)" - Non-specified Stimulants in the WADA List of Prohibited Substances2012. The use of that substance in competition is prohibited.

2, Therefore, the athlete must be deemed to have violated Article 2.1 of the Model Anti-Doping Rules.

V. Decision as to sanction, fd The Court of Arbitrationfor Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee considered as follows: WADA's appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary, Anti-Doping and Transfer Board ofthe Polish Weightlifting Federation, issued on 25 July 2012, does not deserve to be granted.Pursuant to Article 10.4 of the Model Anti-Doping Rules, whenever the athlete or anotherperson can explain how the specific substance got into the athlete's body or how the athletecame into the possession of that substance, and demonstrate that the substance was not used toimprove the athlete's performance or to canceal the use of a performance-boosting substance,the duration of the penalty consisting in the ban on participation in contests, as providedfor inArticle 10.2 shall be replaced as follows: for the first violation - from reprimand without theban on participation in future contests up to twa (2) years of such ban.dn the light of Article 10.4 sentence 2 of the Model Anti-Doping Rules, to substantiate the waiveror shortening of the ban period, the athlete or another person must submit, along his/herdeposition, also evidence in its confirmation that will convince the disciplinary board as to theabsence of the intention to improve performance or to conceal the use of a performance-boosting substance, The criteria for considering the possibility of shortening the ban period isthe degree of the athlete's or another person's guilt,Within the meaning ofArticle 10.4 of the Model Anti-Doping Rules, to meet the requirement ofdemonstrating how the prohibited substance got into the athlete's body, it is sufficient to providea plausible accaunt of related circumstances,

The athlete is obliged to demonstrate the circumstances that supposedly occurred, the so-called"probability balance" taken into consideration. According to the case law of the Court ofArbitration for Sport in Lausanne, the "probability balance” means that the defendant athletehas to convince the adjudicating authority that occurrence of the circumstances on whichhis/her defence is based is more probable than non-occurrence or than other possibleexplanations of the charges pertaining to doping, see Judgement of the Court ofArbitration for22.Déc. 2014 17:09 Court of Arbitration for Sports W781 P. 5/26 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport polish O co CAS eaeon , Poli i itt terba - 4Court of Arbitration for Sport WADA v. Poli ympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page Sport in Lausanne in case: Wawrzyniak vs. the Greek Football Federation, Ref. No. CAS2009/4/2019). In view of the above and of the facts of this case, the Courtfully believes the depositions of theathlete and his coaches and treats them as sufficiently plausible explanations of the way howthe prohibited substance, i.¢, amphetamine, got into the athlete's body. The athlete has never before tested positive during anti-doping tests, which makes it highlyprobable that he was not taking drugs before the test concerned in this case, Besides,amphetamine is a psychotropic drug that is sometimes taken as a stimulant at parties, whichshould obviously meet with due disapproval. The factual cireumstances of this case taken intoaccount, it is highly probable that such prohibited substance could have been added, even quiteunintentionally and by chance, to the athlete's glass of beer during a party at his home, Oneshould bear it in mind that even the athlete himself said, "I could have met the wrong kind ofpeople during a private party”. The athlete’ explanations suggest that some of the guests couldhave brought amphetamine to the party.

Practical experience and logical thinking taken into account, the circumstances described bythe athlete explain in a sufficiently plausible manner how amphetamine could have got into hisbody without his knowledge and will. In this Court's opinion, also the other.condition under Article 10.4 sentence 2 of the ModelAnti-Doping Rules - that the prohibited substance was not used to improve the athlete'sperformance or to conceal another performance-boosting substance - has been met.The physico-chemical properties of amphetamine hardly suggest that its use might significantlyimprove the athlete's performance in his specific discipline, i.e. weightlifting, Amphetamineincreases neither the muscle bulk nor strength, which are the two most important features inweightlifting. This also follows from the testimony of witness Mirostaw Chlebosz, who said, 'Iam aware of the effect of amphetamine on performance weightlifters. I have never encountereda case where an athlete would take amphetamine to improve his result.”Within analysis of the possibility that the athlete actually took amphetamine to improve hisperformance, one should consider the way in which that prohibited substance got into his body.One cannot possibly assume that the amphetamine that was introduced into the athlete's bodyduring a party (quite apart from his being unaware of that fact) was actually taken with thepurpose of improving his results in weightlifting. As follows from the circumstances,amphetamine could have been taken only as a stimulant at the very most. The decision of the PWF Disciplinary, Anti-Doping and Transfer Board of 25 July 2012,despite the absence of substantiation and indication of the legal grounds for the penalty of6months' disqualification and ban on participation in national and international contests, iscompliant with the Model Anti-Doping Rules. It is beyond all doubt that during the test on 26 May 2012, the athlete tested positive for aprohibited substance - amphetamine, Although not guilty, the athlete failed to exercise due carein preventing introduction of the prohibited substance into his body. However, thecircumstances of that introduction and the fact that amphetamine was not used to improve theathlete's performance taken into account, the penalty is adequate.

Giving the arbitral award in this case, the Court also bore it in mind that by the moment oflodging of the appeal by WADA (i.e. 25 March 2013), the athlete had already served the wholeof the penalty and taken up participation in contests. The increase of severity of the penaltyimposed on the athlete after such penalty has actually been served would offend the basicprinciples of equity and justice,”22.Déc. 2014 17:09 Court of Arbitration for Sport’ W 78th P. 6/20 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport . ; CAS 2013/A/3347Court of Arbitration for Sport WADA v. Polish Olympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page 3

13. The Appealed Decision was notified to WADA on 3 October 2013,

TM. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT14. On 11 October 2013, WADA filed its statement of appeal serving as appeal brief with theCourt of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter referred to as “CAS”) against the AppealedDecision.

15. By a letter dated 16 October 2013, notified to the First Respondent on 25 October 2013,the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the case had been assigned to the AppealsArbitration Division of the CAS and should, therefore, be dealt with according to ArticleR47 et seg, of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2013 edition) (hereinafter referred toas the “Code”). The CAS Court Office further invited the Respondents to submit to theCAS an answer containing inter alia a statement of defence, any contentions of lack ofjurisdiction, and any exhibits or specifications of other evidence they intended to rely on.Finally, the CAS Court Office took note of the Appellant’s request that the present case besubmitted to a sole arbitrator and had suggested nomination of Dr. Andrés Gurovits,attomey at law in Zúrich, Switzerland. The Respondents were invited to inform the CASCourt Office whether they agreed to the appointment of a sole arbitrator and to thesuggested arbitrator. The Respondents were informed that in the absence of an answer orin case of disagreement, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division or hisDeputy, in accordance with Article R50 of the Code, would decide these issues, taking intoaccount the circumstances of the case.

16. The CAS Court Office was informed by the DHL that it was not able to deliver the CASletter of 16 October 2013 to the Athlete. WADA provided on 15 November 2013 a newaddress for the Athlete. In a letter dated 25 November 2013, the CAS Court Office informedWADA that DHL still was not able to deliver the CAS letter to the Athlete. As an answerWADA provided a telephone number to the Athlete. Yet, DHL remained unable to deliverthe letter. As a consequence, WADA, on 12 December 2013, provided a new address anda new telephone number. According to a DHL report the statement of appeal serving asappeal brief was finally delivered to the Athlete on 16 December 2013,

17. On 13 November 2013 the POC filed its answer in accordance with Article R55 of theCode and agreed to submit the case to a sole arbitrator leaving the appointment of the solearbitrator for the decision of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division.

18. The President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division nominated Mr, Conny Jérneklint,Chief Judge in Kalmar, Sweden, as the Sole Arbitrator for this case to which none of theparties objected, The nomination of the Sole Arbitrator was confirmed in a letter to theParties of 25 March 2014.

19. On 21 May 2014, the CAS Court Office issued an Order of Procedure and requested theparties return a signed copy of such Order by 28 May 2014. On the same day, WADAreturned a signed copy of the Order of Procedure confirming that its right to be heard hadbeen fully upheld. The POC, however, declared on 29 May 2014 in essence that it has nostanding to be sued and shall, thus, not be deemed a party to the CAS proceedings and thatit will not sign the Order of Procedure. The Athlete did not return a signed copy of theOrder of Procedure although the respective DHL reports show that the CAS Court Office’sletter containing the Order was delivered to the Athlete on 22 May 2014, Within said order,22. Déc. 2014 17:10 Court of Arbitration for Sport ce DBT] 21/00

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2013/A/3347Court of Arbitration for Sp ort WADAv. Polish Olympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page6 the CAS Court Office notified the Parties that the Sole Arbitrator considered himself to besufficiently informed to decide the matter without the need to hold a hearing, pursuant toArticle R57 of the Code,

IV. THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONSA. The Appellant20, On 11 October 2013, in its “Appeal Brief”, the Appellant requested CAS to rule as follows: t The Appeal of WADA is admissible.2. The decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sports of the Polish Olympic Committee in theimatier of Mr Praemystaw Koterba is set aside.3. Mr Przemystaw Koterba is sanctioned with a 2-year period of ineligibility starting on thedate on which the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sports enters into force. Anyperiod of ineligibility (whether imposed to or voluntarily accepted by Mr PrzemysiawKoterba) before the entry into force ofthe decision shall be credited against the totalperiodof ineligibility to be served.4, All competitive results obtained by Mr Preemystaw Koterba from 26 May 2012, throughthe commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be disqualified with all ofthe resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prices.5. WADA is granted an Awardfor costs."

21. The Appellant’s submissions in support of its request can be summarized, in essence, asfollows: Regarding the anti-doping rule violation: Article 2.1 ADR provided that "The presence of a Prohibited Substance or itsMetabolites or Markers in an Athlete's Sample" constituted an anti-doping violation.

Amphetamine was a prohibited substance, which was classified under 86 (a) "non-specified stimulants" on the 2012 WADA Prohibited List. It was prohibited incompetition.

The presence of a prohibited substance in the bodily sample of the Athlete was dulyestablished by the analysis conducted by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Warsaw.Furthermore, the adverse analytical finding was not challenged by the Athlete. Consequently, the violation by the Athlete of Article 2.1 ADR (presence of aprohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete's sample) wasestablished, Regarding the sanction: According to Article 10.2 of the ADR, the Athlete shall incura two-year period of ineligibility for a first anti-doping violation. The CAS POC had erred in applying Article 10.4 ADR since this provision onlyapplied for specified substances, But amphetamine was not a specified substance, asexpressly specified by the WADA Prohibited List,22. Déc. 2014 17:11 Court of Arbitration for Sport Y 7811 P. 8/20 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2013/A/3347Court of Arbitration for Sport WADA v. Polish Olympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page 7 Pursuant to Article 10.5 ADR, which applied for non-specified substances, an athlete¿an establish that, in view of the exceptional circumstances of his individual case, theperiod of ineligibility shall be eliminated (in case of no fault or negligence as perArticle 10,5,1 of the ADR) or reduced (in case of no significant fault or negligence asper Article 10,5.2 of the ADR). According to the constant CAS case law, the proof of the Athlete on how theprohibited substance has entered his system was a necessary prerequisite condition inestablishing an absence of fault or a no-significant fault (see CAS 2005/ A/ 922, 923& 926, UC] & WADA v. Hondo & Swiss Olympic; CAS 2006/A/1067 IRB v/ Keyter;CAS 2006/A/1130; WADA v/ Stanic & Swiss Olympic, $ 41).

The Athlete was required to prove his allegations on the "balance of probability". Thebalance of probability standard entailed that the athlete has the burden of convincingthe adjudicatory body that the occurrence of the circumstances on which the athleterelies is more probable than their non-occurrence or more probable than other possibleexplanations of the positive testing (CAS 200B/A/1515 WADA w/Swiss Olympic &Daubney, § 116). At the hearing which had been held before the CAS POC, on 3 September 2013, itseemed that the Athlete had confessed that he had not known how amphetamine hadentered his system. However, he had thought that he could have been somehowcontaminated "during a party where alcohol had been served". He had furtherexplained that "somebody could have added something to my glass of beer, and this,as I see it, is the only possible explanation", In the Appellant’s opinion, these explanations were highly suspicious andhypothetical, Moreover, the declarations of the Athlete were not substantiated by anyevidence. Under these circumstances, it must be found that the Athlete had notestablished, on a balance of probability, how the prohibited substance had entered hisbody; his mere declarations did not constitute sufficient evidence (see CAS2008/A/1479 WADA v/ Coni, FPI & Elga Comastri; CAS 2007/A/1284 & CAS2007/A/1308 WADA v/ FECNA & Lina Maria Prieto, para 117). The Appellant further submits, in arguendo, that the ordinary two-year ban applicablefor first anti-doping rule violations can nevertheless not be reduced since the Athletebore a significant fault,

The cornerstone of the anti-doping legal system was the personal responsibility of theathlete for what he ingests. This fundamental principle was implemented in Article2.1.1 of the ADR, which states as follows: "It is each athlete's personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his orher body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites orMarkers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary thatintent, faults, negligence or knowing Use on the athlete's part be demonstrated inorder to establish an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1 [ =presence of aProhibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete's Sample] " The Appellant further submitted that in FIFA & WADA, CAS 2005/C/976 & 9862,the panel offered the following opinion at paras. 73 and 74:22. Dec. 2014 17:11 Court of Arbitration for Sport IS 9/20

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Ww CAS 2013/A/3347. : ADAv. Poli i i Kot -PCourt of Arbitration for Sport v. Polish Olympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page8 "The WADC [World Anti-Doping Code] imposes on the athlete a duty of ulmostcaution to avoid that a prohibited substance enters his or her body. Case law of CASand of other sanctioning bodies has confirmed these duties, and identified a numberof obligations which an athlete has to observe, e.g., to be aware of the actual list ofprohibited substances, to closely follow the guidelines and instructions with respectto health care and nutrition of the national and international sports federations, theNOC's and the national anti-doping organisation, not to take any drugs, not to takeany medication or nutritional supplements without consulting with a competentmedical professional, not to accept any medication or even food from unreliablesources (including on-line orders by internet) [ .. .]. The Panel underlines that thisstandard is rigorous, and must be rigorous, especially in the interest of all othercompetitors in a fair competition ... It is this standard of utmost care against whichthe behaviour ofan athlete is measured ifan antidoping violation has been identified."No fault” means that the athlete has fully complied with the duty of care." In the Appellant’s conclusion, in order to benefit from an elimination of the period ofineligibility for no fault or negligence, the athlete must thus establish that he did notknow or suspect and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with theexercise of the utmost caution, that he had used or been administered the prohibitedsubstance. As confirmed by the CAS case law, the burden on an athlete to establishno fault or negligence was placed extremely high (CAS 2006/A/1025 Puerta v, ITF,Nr. 11-4; CAS 06 06/001 WADA v. Lund, USADA & USBSF Nr. 4.11).

Moreover, the Appellant contents that the comments to Article 10.5.2 ADR madeabundantly clear that the sanction can only be reduced under Article 10.5.1 and 10.5.2which require that: "[...] the circumstances are truly exceptional and not in the vast majority of cases". Any evidence adduced within this context has to be “specific and decisive". Certainspecific examples of circumstances which will not entitle an athlete to a completeelimination of the sanction were given in the commentary section to Article 10.5 ADRwhich reads as follows: “[...] A positive test resulting from a mislabelled or contaminated vitamin ornutritional supplemeni, the administration of a prohibited substance by the player'steam physician or coach without disclosure to the player, sabotage of the player'sfoodor drink by a spouse [...]". These examples highlight, in the Appellant's opinion, howexceptional the circumstances must be for an athlete to be able to avail himself ofArticle 10.5.2 ADR. Given that athletes are held to be at fault even in the above circumstances, the Athletecould not invoke a highly improbable sabotage of his drink as a mitigatingcircumstance. Since the Athlete was bound by a duty of care, he should have avoidedto put himself in an unsure situation - allegedly a few days before an importantcompetition - by entering into an environment where people were using recreationaldrugs. At least, he should have been prudent enough not to accept drinks which werenot in sealed bottles in order to avoid any risk of contamination or sabotage. With respect to recreational drug use, the CAS had always been very reluctant toaccept reduced sanctions, considering that the athletes were responsible for what they22. Déc. 2014 17:12 "Court of Arbitration for Sport Wo78it P. 10/20

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport ; ; ; CAS 2013/A/3347Court of Arbitration for Sport WADA v. Polish Olympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page 9 ingest (see CAS 2008/4/1627 WADA v/ Malta Football Association & GilbertMartin; CAS 2008/ A/1628 WADA v/ Malta Footbal] Association & Ryan Grech;CAS 2008/ A/1516 WADA v/ CONI, FITET & Piacentini; CAS 2008/A/1479 WADAv] CONI, FPI & Elga Comastri; CAS 2008/A/1515 WADA v/Swiss Olympic &Simon Daubney; CAS 2006/A/1130 WADA v/ Darko Stanic & Swiss Olympic; CAS2006/A/1067 IRB v/ Keyter) In the constant CAS case law, the athletes, who weretested positive for recreational drugs (mostly cocaine), were found to have committeda significant fault or negligence, In short, the Athlete had not established that he bore no fault or negligence, so that hemust be sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility according to the Appellant, B, The Athlete22, The Athlete filed neither an answer within the time limit prescribed by the CAS CourtOffice by its letter of 16 October 2013 which became effective once such letter wasnotified to the Athlete by DHL nor any other submissions in his defence, nor did heotherwise participate in this appeal proceedings.

C. ThePOC23. The POC submitted the following in its answer: “Position of the Polish Olympic Committee

1. The CAS POC is being considered as the autonomous and independent organisation underPolish law. Therefore the POC shall not be deemed responsible for the CAS POC rulingsand/or actions.

2, It should be also pointed out that proceedings before the CAS POC are confidential and thePOC has no access lo the case files of the CAS POC, including the files of the case at hand.Thus the POC does not knaw the facts or the legal aspects of the case.

3. Concerning the case of Mr Praemystaw Koterba the POC has access only to opencomponents of the case files namely to the CAS POC decision dated 3 September 2013 with itsgrounds as well as to the note of a dissenting opinion of one of the Arbitrators of the Panel -Ms Maria Zuchowicz regarding the grounds of the decision at hand (which is being enclosedto this Answer to the Appealfor the CAS reference).

4. In the light ofthe abave the POC shall not take any stand in merits regarding Mr PraemystawKolerba's case, Consequently the POC shall not bring: any petitions in this case or motionsas to evidence or witnesses or holding a hearing and shall leave the case at hand for the CASexamination andfinal decision,”

24. In its letter of 29 May 2014 refusing to sign the Order of Procedure, the POC addedthe following: “[...] the POC declares that the [CAS POC] is an autonomous and independentorganisation. In this respect the POC shall not be deemed as a party in theproceedings involving the [CAS POC’s] rulings or actions.

(oJ22, Déc. 2014 17:12 Court of Arbitration for Sport Wo 7811? 11/00 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport ; ; ; CAS 2013/A/3347Court of Arbitration for Sport WADA v. Polish Olympic Committee & Przemystaw Koterba - Page 10 - the POC denies its locus standi in the present case, as well ds

• the POC is not a party io any dispute, disagreement or misunderstandingrelating to Mr. Przemystaw Koterba - the POC has no intention to refer any case or dispute to the CAS at the momentand Y, JURISDICTION OF CAS25. Article R47 of the Code provides as follows: “An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may beJiled with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties haveconcluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legalremedies available to him prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulationsof that body,

26. The CAS POC determined according to the applicable rules that: “Like any other sports association, the Polish Weightlifting Federation (PWF) is obligedto observe the anti-doping regulations adopted by the Commission against Daping in Sport(CADIS), which is an independent organization to fight doping in the Republic of Poland.On 8 April 2004 the Commission adopted the World Anti-Doping Code ("the Code"); itoperates under the Sports Act of 25 June 2010 (Journal of Laws No. 127, item 857),applying anti-doping regulations within all kinds of anti-doping control tests, Athletes,support crew (coaches, instructors, physicians etc.) as well as other persons who acceptthe anti-doping regulations as the precondition ofparticipation in the sports competitionare bound by those regulations. Basing on the Model Anti-Doping Rules, the Polish sportsassociations adopt anti-doping regulations, incorporating them in their charters anddisciplinary bylaws, and are obliged to observe such regulations, Being a member ofPWF,Praemystaw Koterba is obliged to observe the anti-doping regulations.”

27. The Sole Arbitrator doesn’t find any reason not to accept what the CAS POC foundaccording the applicable rules of this case. This means that jurisdiction in this matter isderived from Article 13 ADR. According to Article 13.2.3. WADA is entitled to appeal toCAS against a decision from CAS POC,

28. The jurisdiction of CAS is not disputed by the Parties and is otherwise confirmed by theOrder of Procedure duly signed by WADA.

29. Therefore, CAS has jurisdiction to decide on the present matter. Under Article R57 of theCode, the Sole Arbitrator has full authority to review the facts and the law.22, Déc. 2014 17:13 Court of Arbitration for Sport NW 7811 P. 12/20

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport N ] CAS 2013/A/3347‘ . DA v. Poli j i K -Court of Arbitration for Sport WADA v. Polish Olympic Committeede Przemystaw Koterba - Page 11

VI. A