Draft an anti-doping response or procedural submission
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- Confirm from the sport's anti-doping policy which forum hears the matter — the National Sports Tribunal or the sport's own tribunal — before any date is tabled. Map each article asserted in the notice to the material on the file that answers it: the laboratory documentation package and the doping control form where the allegation is a positive test; the athlete's whereabouts filings and the test-attempt records where it is a missed test or a filing failure; and in either case the athlete's supplement, medication and therapeutic use exemption (TUE) records — then list every allegation the file does not yet answer. Extract the athlete's election dates (the B-sample request window and the hearing election) and response dates into a strictly tabular, source-tagged table drawn from the notice itself, the sport's anti-doping policy, the national anti-doping policy and that tribunal's rules, naming which rules each date was taken from. Flag every account of how the substance entered the body that has nothing on the file behind it. The tool writes no part of the response, no part of the procedural submission and no part of any statutory declaration annexed to them — in this task the submission restates the material sworn in those declarations, and the tier follows the most restrictive component of the task.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer writes the response, the procedural submission and every statutory declaration annexed to them, and each account of how the substance entered the body comes from the athlete, not from the file and not from the tool. Settle the forum from the sport's anti-doping policy; verify the asserted articles and sanction ranges against the edition of the World Anti-Doping Code and the anti-doping policy in force at the date of the alleged violation rather than any copy the tool holds; check the doping control form, the whereabouts filings and the laboratory documentation package against what the notice asserts; and calculate every election and response deadline independently, from the instrument it comes from. Read the drafted response back against the list of allegations and satisfy yourself that each one is answered. The investigators are Commonwealth officials: an explanation the tool has generated or embellished can itself found a tampering violation and an offence of giving false or misleading information.
- Written for / version
- Cth
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Supporting preparation only. Potential support includes organising research leads and extracting and organising information. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.
- Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.