Yes, it is handled differently and there are no clear rules in the WADA Code regarding which athletes must be included in a testing pool. The NADOs and international agencies must do this according to their established rules.
Some NADOs include a large number of athletes in testing pools, while others include only a few.
Can inference be made on the amount of time the Simmonds case has taken? Is this extensive delay a sign that the case is swinging one way or the other?
And I guess my last question is: can this apparent stalemate be prolonged indefinitely?
In the triathletes you find doping.
The ones who are gaining the most from it… what are they using, what amounts, frequency…
While @Aerothing concentrates on their day job, I’ll offer a scenario.
What Simmonds really wants to avoid is that the ITA have a hearing and makes a judgement of ‘no fault/significant fault or negligence’ and if the latter awards a penalty shorter than 2 years.
BUT then WADA appeals that decision to CAS, and the resolution time extends accordingly. I guess this method of contamination is one WADA may ‘fight’ though case law suggests it has merit (on the balance of probability = 51%) provided other evidence lines up.
If Simmonds, as advised, considers this is % likely then, aiui, she can request that the hearing/judgement goes straight to CAS, provided they all agree (ITA, WADA and Simmonds).
WADA Code 8.5 Single Hearing Before CAS
Anti-doping rule violations asserted against International
Level Athletes, National-Level Athletes or other Persons
may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person,
the Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management
responsibility, and WADA, be heard in a single hearing
directly at CAS. Footnote 54
[Comment to Article 8.5: In some
cases, the combined cost of holding
a hearing in the first instance at the
international or national level, then
rehearing the case de novo before CAS
can be very substantial. Where all of
the parties identified in this Article
are satisfied that their interests will
be adequately protected in a single
hearing, there is no need for the Athlete
or ADOs to incur the extra expense of two hearings.
An ADO may participate in in the CAS hearing as an
observer.]