Via Electronic Mail
11 December 2017
Mr. Olivier Niggli
Director-General, WADA

Dear Olivier:
Re: Objective Evaluation of prospective Olympic Athletes of Russia
Following consultation with many members and on behalf of iNADO we would liketo contribute to the important work ahead. We note that the International Olympic
Committee Executive Board (IOC EB) delegated responsibility for evaluating
athlete eligibility to a soon-to-be comprised panel into which, we understand, theWorld Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will have input.
The IOC EB has determined that for the Winter Games 2018 in PyeongChang only
Russian athletes who are “considered clean to the satisfaction of the panel” will beconsidered for invitation. Underpinning this process is the earlier determination of
the IOC EB that Russian athletes “have to assume the consequences of whatamounts to a collective responsibility in order to protect the credibility of theOlympic competitions, and the ‘presumption of innocence’ cannot be applied tothem.”1In addition to certain other criteria established by the IOC EB, such athletes “musthave undergone all the pre-Games targeted tests recommended by the Pre-GamesTesting Task Force” and “undergone any other testing requirements specified by thepanel to ensure a level playing field.”2 We believe this high burden of proof, must
be individually met by each applicant athlete using objective and neutral criteria ina transparent fashion, in order to provide assurance that the rights of clean athletes
have been fully protected.3
Respectfully, we write to request that WADA recommend objective criteria to guidethe evaluation panel.

1 IOC EB Decision 24 July 2016.
2 IOC EB Decision 5 December 2017.
3 Additionally, under these circumstances, each IOC decision regarding eligibility is potentiallysubject to review by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which seems to require an appropriate
evidentiary record be developed and maintained.

1

Procedural Fairness to Clean Athletes and Upholding Their Right ofReview
To meet the inviolable standards of the Charter and Code it is critical that all
eligibility determinations be made in a timely and transparent fashion with
sufficient time for appeals by clean athletes. For the interests of all parties,
avoiding the confusion and last-minute decision-making which occurred in the lead
up to Rio 2016 is essential.
Based on the experience of our members in implementing Code compliant antidoping programmes and membership on a number of Pre-Games Task Forces weattach, for your consideration, some recommendations of minimum criteria to be
used by the panel to review athletes for potential invitations. We recognize thechallenges associated with identifying robust, objective and transparent criteria andapplying them in a uniform and defensible manner. Nonetheless, the benefits to allparticipants would be apparent and the credibility of international anti-doping work
would be enhanced.
Offer of Assistance
We are hopeful that WADA will use its standing and expertise to recommend andannounce robust, objective criteria along the lines we have outlined.
In the event that iNADO, and any of its members with relevant expertise, can assist
in any further way in this process we are at your service.
Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate tocontact me.
Yours sincerely,

Graeme Steel
Chief Executive OfficerINADO2Proposed Objective Criteria
The following criteria are offered for your consideration. We note that in preparing
this letter, and specifically these criteria, there were (unsurprisingly) different
opinions from our members as to the applicability of each criterion and/or thespecific requirements contained within each one.
a.
Period of testing whereabouts and the availability for testing: The
potential athlete invitee must have been available for testing and subject to out ofcompetition testing in a Code-compliant anti-doping program for an appropriate
period. We would recommend a minimum of twelve (12) months prior to the 2018
Games unless sufficient justification exists for shortening this period (e.g. we areaware in many countries hockey players are only identified six (6) months prior tothe games). It may be appropriate that, in some cases, it is a requirement that theathlete has been part of a whereabouts programme and has complied in full. Where
the athlete has not been subject to the whereabouts programme, particularattention should be paid to the timing of any tests conducted. It follows that any
athlete who has lived and/or trained in one of the so-called ‘closed cities’ in Russia,
during the past 12 months, should be excluded from consideration.
b.
Out-of-competition (OOC) testing: While athletes cannot choose to betested, nor can they decide on what substances the lab will analyze for, werecommend the panel be mindful of the test context and histories of each applicant.
The appropriate minimum number of samples must be based on an individualizedrisk assessment for that applicant taking into account; the sport and discipline, theathlete’s biological passport and other factors specific to the athlete, during the 12month period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017. (For example potential
athlete invitees in “high risk” sports4 could be required to have been subject to atleast four (4) OOC urine collections and at least three (3) blood collections, including
an appropriate number of special analysis e.g. for ESA, GH/GHRFs.) The required
collections should be the sum of those conducted by any World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA)-compliant anti-doping organization (ADO), no more than one of which ineach category of blood and urine may have been collected during December 2017 inorder to satisfy these criteria.
Potential athlete invitees in medium and low risk sports may potentially qualify bysatisfying a different but comparably robust level of testing.
It will be difficult to fully consider tests performed in January 2018 in the review
process due to the time lag necessary for thorough analysis of samples, the lack oftime to conduct any potentially necessary follow up analysis and the strong interestin ensuring that athletes have been tested over a sufficiently lengthy period of time

4 High risk sports should include, at a minimum:

alpine skiing, biathlon, bobsleigh, cross-country
skiing, ice hockey, and short and long track speedskating.

3in advance of the Games to enhance the credibility of the determination the athlete
has been subject to rigorous and robust pre-Games testing.5c.
Athlete Biological Passport (applicable mandatorily for athletes in
the higher risk sports/disciplines as set out in the TDSSA): The same
concern as above applies to the ABP for athletes - while athletes cannot choose tohave an ABP nor can they decide the testing profile they will face, we recommendthe panel be mindful of the test context and histories of each applicant. Any atypicalor adverse steroidal or hematological passport findings associated with potential
athlete invitees shall have been appropriately addressed by the relevant passport
custodian including Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) review, results
management and/or strategic follow-up testing. Any potential athlete invitee with aprevious anti-doping rule violation based on a hematological Adverse Passport
Finding shall (notwithstanding the above point dealing with OOC testing) havebeen subject to additional strategic follow-up testing that comfortably satisfies theAPMU and the evaluation panel that the issue has been fully and appropriatelyaddressed. In every instance, the potential athlete invitee must have a current
hematological passport APMU evaluation of “Normal.”d.
Assessment of Athlete Support Personnel from Whom the Applicant
Has Received Service: Although this could be very difficult to objectively assess,
we believe potential athlete invitees should not have been coached within the past
two (2) years by any individual sanctioned or identified by any WADA Independent
Commission, WADA Independent Person, IOC Commission or the CAS as having
participated in doping of athletes.
e.
Clearance through McLaren EDP, LIMS and other Forensic
Evidence Review: Any potential athlete invitees cannot be negatively referenced
in any WADA Independent Commission or Independent Person Report, IOCCommission decision or report, McLaren evidence disclosure packages and/or in theLaboratory Information System (LIMS)6 database of the former WADA-accredited
Moscow Laboratory in the possession of WADA. .
f.
No pending or potential cases and no provisional suspension:
Potential athlete invitees may not be subject to any pending or potential case for ananti-doping rule violation or disqualification of results pursuant to a potential rules
violation and may not be serving a provisional suspension as of 28 January 2017.
We note in the IOC EB decision the following reference: “Athletes must not havebeen disqualified or declared ineligible for any Anti-Doping Rule Violation.” We
5 Of course, pre-Games testing should continue throughout January and February 2018.
6 It is understood that an evaluation of the LIMS data will require reasonable assumptions to bemade to link athlete sample data to ADAMS information or other information by which athletes may
be tied to data concerning their biological samples.

4strongly encourage the panel to refrain from applying this criterion as written.
Since the IOC has lost twice now at CAS trying to exclude athletes who had ADRVs
and served the ban and now wish to compete, we believe that this provision should
only be applied to any athlete who is serving an active or provisional suspension.
g.
Mandatory Interview: Consistent with WADA Code Articles 21.1.5 and21.1.6, potential athlete invitees must submit to an interview conducted by WADA
or a Code-compliant, independent national anti-doping agency who is investigating
a potential ADRV. WADA or such NADO should be required to declare to the Paneltheir interest in the applicant athlete prior to such athlete participating in theinterview process. In such interviews, during which the athlete has been asked
about any anti-doping rule violations or related matters of themselves and allothers of which they may have any knowledge, a determination must be made that
there is no reason to believe that their answers have been less than fully truthful.
Potential athlete invitees should be required in writing to agree that any failure toprovide full and complete testimony will result in denial of their application andthat providing any false or misleading information in this process may lead to a
determination that they have committed an anti-doping rule violation which could
subject them to up to four (4) years ineligibility.7 Before being allowed to compete
all potential athlete invitees should sign a written transcript of their testimony.

7 Code Article 2.5 (tampering); Code Article 2.9 (complicity); Code Article 21.1.6 (duty of athletes tocooperate with ADOs investigating anti-doping rule violations).

5