Dear Dr. Soliev, Thank you for this additional information regarding these cases

Dear Dr. Soliev, 
Thank you for this additional information regarding these cases.

Thank you also for clarifying that UzNADA intends to appeal the decision involving

MAIVMA04114. Please keep us informed of the status of these proceedings. 

As indicated in or email dated 10 August 2023, UzNADA must provide all interested parties with the decisions issued in results management proceedings and report these decisions in ADAMS, even if it intends to appeal these decisions.

Therefore, UzNADA must take the following steps to comply with its duties under the World Anti-Doping Code. 

Case of SAKAMA05644 Provide the full decision to all parties with a right of appeal (see Code Articles 8.4 and 13.2.3)Provide all these parties with a Frech or English summary of the decision, if the original decision is not in either of these languages (see Code Article 14.2.1)Report the full decision into ADAMS (see Article 9.2 of the International Standard for Results Management) Case of MAIVMA04114 Provide the full decision to all parties with a right of appeal (see Code Articles 8.4 and 13.2.3), as well as with an English or French summary, if the decision is not in either of these languages (see Code Article 14.2.1). As WADA has already been provided with these documents in your email dated 16 August 2023, there is no need to provide us with the decision again.Report the full decision into ADAMS (see Article 9.2 of the International Standard for Results Management) We would ask that UzNADA please confirm when these steps have been completed. We also trust that UzNADA will put appropriate internal processes in place to ensure that these steps are complied with in future cases. 

Dear Dr. Soliev, Thank you for this additional information regarding these cases. Thank you also for clarifying that UzNADA intends to appeal the decision involving MAIVMA04114. Please keep us informed of the status of these proceedings. As indicated in or email dated 10 August 2023, UzNADA must provide all interested parties with the decisions issued in results management proceedings and report these decisions in ADAMS, even if it intends to appeal these decisions. Therefore, UzNADA must take the following steps to comply with its duties under the World Anti-Doping Code. Case of SAKAMA05644 Provide the full decision to all parties with a right of appeal (see Code Articles 8.4 and 13.2.3)Provide all these parties with a Frech or English summary of the decision, if the original decision is not in either of these languages (see Code Article 14.2.1)Report the full decision into ADAMS (see Article 9.2 of the International Standard for Results Management) Case of MAIVMA04114 Provide the full decision to all parties with a right of appeal (see Code Articles 8.4 and 13.2.3), as well as with an English or French summary, if the decision is not in either of these languages (see Code Article 14.2.1). As WADA has already been provided with these documents in your email dated 16 August 2023, there is no need to provide us with the decision again.Report the full decision into ADAMS (see Article 9.2 of the International Standard for Results Management) We would ask that UzNADA please confirm when these steps have been completed. We also trust that UzNADA will put appropriate internal processes in place to ensure that these steps are complied with in future cases. In addition, with respect to the cases of the Athletes AKAMA05644, AKFAMA67797 and KHBEMA29861, please note that WADA’s position on the interpretation of Code article 10.8.1 is that an anti-doping organization cannot refuse to give an Athlete a one-year reduction if they admit the violation and accept the consequences no later than 20 days after receiving notice of an anti-doping rule violation charge. While the Article contains the word “may”, the comment under it states that an athlete can “unilaterally” reduce the period of ineligibility: [Comment to Article 10.8.1: For example, if an Anti-Doping Organization alleges that an Athlete has violated Article 2.1 for Use of an anabolic steroid and asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four years, then the Athlete may unilaterally reduce the period of Ineligibility to three years by admitting the violation and accepting the three-year period of Ineligibility within the time specified in this Article, with no further reduction allowed. This resolves the case without any need for a hearing.] (Emphasis added) Similarly, the Guidelines for the International Standard for Results Management do not contemplate the opportunity for an ADO to refuse to give a one-year reduction. It also mentions that an athlete does not have to provide any explanation: Code Article 10.8.1 provides an Athlete or other Person with the opportunity to admit an ADRV that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of four or more years and to receive a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility asserted by the RMA. This admission and acceptance of the asserted period of Ineligibility must take place no later than 20 days after the Athlete or other Person receives notice of the anti-doping rule violation charge (including the applicable Consequences).For the purposes of entering into a Result Management agreement, the Athlete or other Person’s admission (which should be a positive act and not inferred from silence) merely has to accept liability for the charge and need not describe the factual background of the anti-doping rule violation. (Emphasis added) Based on the above and the information available to us at this stage, WADA is of the opinion that these two athletes were entitled to a one-year reduction of the period of ineligibility under Code Article 10.8.1. We trust that UzNADA will take this into account in its management of future similar cases. Best regards,Hubert In addition, with respect to the cases of the Athletes AKAMA05644, AKFAMA67797 and KHBEMA29861, please note that WADA’s position on the interpretation of Code article 10.8.1 is that an anti-doping organization cannot refuse to give an Athlete a one-year reduction if they admit the violation and accept the consequences no later than 20 days after receiving notice of an anti-doping rule violation charge. While the Article contains the word “may”, the comment under it states that an athlete can “unilaterally” reduce the period of ineligibility: [Comment to Article 10.8.1: For example, if an Anti-Doping Organization alleges that an Athlete has violated Article 2.1 for Use of an anabolic steroid and asserts the applicable period of Ineligibility is four years, then the Athlete may unilaterally reduce the period of Ineligibility to three years by admitting the violation and accepting the three-year period of Ineligibility within the time specified in this Article, with no further reduction allowed. This resolves the case without any need for a hearing.] (Emphasis added) Similarly, the Guidelines for the International Standard for Results Management do not contemplate the opportunity for an ADO to refuse to give a one-year reduction. It also mentions that an athlete does not have to provide any explanation: Code Article 10.8.1 provides an Athlete or other Person with the opportunity to admit an ADRV that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of four or more years and to receive a one-year reduction in the period of Ineligibility asserted by the RMA. This admission and acceptance of the asserted period of Ineligibility must take place no later than 20 days after the Athlete or other Person receives notice of the anti-doping rule violation charge (including the applicable Consequences).For the purposes of entering into a Result Management agreement, the Athlete or other Person’s admission (which should be a positive act and not inferred from silence) merely has to accept liability for the charge and need not describe the factual background of the anti-doping rule violation. (Emphasis added) Based on the above and the information available to us at this stage, WADA is of the opinion that these two athletes were entitled to a one-year reduction of the period of ineligibility under Code Article 10.8.1. We trust that UzNADA will take this into account in its management of future similar cases. Best regards,Hubert