Peris and Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP). The applicant sought to extend the time for applying for review by seven months beyond the prescribed period. The respondent argued that it would be prejudiced by the extension and that the applicant's reasons for the delay were insufficient. The court was required to determine whether to grant the extension of time, considering the prejudice to the respondent and the adequacy of the applicant's explanation for the delay.

The court considered the applicant's rights as communicated by ASADA in a letter dated 10 May 2019. This letter advised the applicant that the ADRVP's decision related only to assertions of anti-doping rule violations and that such decisions could be referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review within 28 days of receipt of the letter. The letter explicitly stated that the AAT was not the forum for appealing decisions relating to sanctions, which were matters for sporting bodies or tribunals. The court also noted that a subsequent Infraction Notice, issued on 25 June 2019, informed the applicant of asserted anti-doping rule violations and proposed sanctions, with a 14-day period to file an application for a hearing with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The court found that the applicant's reasons for the significant delay were not sufficient to justify granting an extension of time. The applicant had been informed of her review rights and the relevant timeframes, including the distinction between AAT review of the ADRVP's decision and CAS proceedings for sanction. The court concluded that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the seven-month delay in seeking review. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.