Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel v XZTT

In the case of Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel v XZTT, the appeal was brought before the court against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had set aside two decisions of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (the Panel). The Panel's decisions involved making entries in its Register of Findings in relation to an elite Australian cyclist. The cyclist, referred to as XZTT, had been found to have a metabolite of cocaine in his urine sample, which raised questions about whether the Panel had correctly followed procedural fairness and timeliness requirements under the National Anti-Doping Scheme (the NAD Scheme).

The primary legal issues in this case centred on whether the Panel was required to conduct a hearing to afford procedural fairness to the cyclist before making any entry in the Register and whether the delays in notification timeframes by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) invalidated the process, thus rendering the entry invalid. Additionally, there was a question of whether the Panel had the authority to make an entry in the Register that differed slightly from the entry approved by the Panel, specifically concerning a date change.

The court found that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the law regarding the Panel's functions and the conditions under which entries could be made in the Register. The court held that the Panel was not required to conduct a hearing to afford procedural fairness to the cyclist before making an entry in the Register. Furthermore, the court determined that the delays in notification by the UCI did not invalidate the process or the entry in the Register. The court also clarified that the Panel had the authority to make an entry in the Register that differed slightly from the entry approved by the Panel, particularly where the difference involved a date change.

As a result of these findings, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the AAT, and directed that the Register of Findings be amended to reflect these reasons for judgment. The cross-appeal was dismissed. The court ordered written submissions on costs and the continuation of the non-publication order to be filed within specified timeframes, with the remaining issues to be resolved on the papers unless an oral hearing was requested by any party.