[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-240821-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-240821-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","decision-of-the-disciplinary-and-appeals-tribunal-on-costs-mr-norbert-kobielski","Decision of the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal on Costs - Mr Norbert Kobielski","","Decision of the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal on costs in proceedings under the Anti-Doping Rules of World Athletics. The Tribunal addresses submissions by World Athletics’ Athletics Integrity Unit regarding the athlete’s conduct, including the procedural history of a vacated and then rearranged hearing, and the claim that the costs should reflect protracted proceedings. The Tribunal describes the athlete’s asserted financial incapacity without supporting details, and issues directions for particulars of sought costs and for disclosure of relevant financial circumstances.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/decision-of-the-disciplinary-and-appeals-tribunal-on-costs-mr-norbert-kobielski/240821/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/decision-of-the-disciplinary-and-appeals-tribunal-on-costs-mr-norbert-kobielski/240821.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Tawan","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-09-11",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What did the Tribunal require regarding costs in paragraph 84 of the earlier decision dated 19 May 2025?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Tribunal directed the AIU to particularise the costs sought within seven days, and directed the Athlete to provide details of financial circumstances he wanted the Tribunal to consider within fourteen days thereafter.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why did World Athletics’ Athletics Integrity Unit request a contribution towards legal and other costs?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The AIU argued the proceedings were protracted due to the Athlete’s conduct, highlighted significant preparation and hearing-related costs, and anticipated that costs (including panel costs) would exceed €10,000.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did the Athlete’s representative address the cause of the protracted nature of the proceedings and the costs issue?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The Athlete’s counsel submitted that protracted proceedings were not caused by counsel inaction or negligence, and emphasized that the Athlete’s financial situation made it impossible for him to bear any costs.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},240821,1790829122,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":141,"read_time":26},2336475104042,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c4c32af1715be0?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786537525561427321","IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER THE ANTI-DOPING RULES OF WORLD ATHLETICS  \nBefore:  \nChristopher Quinlan KC (Chair) Julien Berenger  \nHarveen Thauli  \nBETWEEN:  \nWORLD ATHLETICS Anti-Doping Organisation  \nand  \nMR NORBERT KOBIELSKI Athlete  \nDECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY AND APPEALS TRIBUNAL ON COSTS  \nI. INTRODUCTION  \n1. In paragraph 84 of the decision dated 19 May 2025 , the Tribunal stated:  \n“The AIU seeks ‘a contribution towards its legal and other costs (including the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal)’ pursuant to Rule 10.12.1 ADR. The Athlete asserts, ‘Due to his financial situation, shall not to be ordered to bear any costs of these proceedings’. No details were provided to support this claimed impecuniosity. The Tribunal directs:  \na. Within seven (7) days of the date hereof, theAIU must particularise the costs it seeks.  \nb. Within fourteen (14) days thereof, the Athlete must provide such details of his financial circumstances he wishes the Tribunal to consider in relation to this issue.”  \n2. This document constitutes the Tribunal’s reasoned and unanimous Decision on the issue of costs.  \nII. WORLD ATHLETICS SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS  \n3. World Athletics (“WA”), formerly the International Association of Athletics Federations, is the International Federation governing the sport of Athletics worldwide. WA was represented in these proceedings by the Athletics Integrity Unit (“AIU”) which has delegated authority for results management and hearings on behalf of WA pursuant to Rule 1.2.2 2024 WA AntiDoping Rules (“ADR”) .  \n4. On 27 May 2025 , the AIU submitted as follows:  \n“The AIU agrees with the Panel’s characterisation of the procedure in this matter as  \n‘protracted’ at paragraph 39 of the Decision. This matter was originally set down fora hearing  \non 24 February 2025, but that date was vacated solely due to the Athlete’s failure to engage  \nwith his appointed legal representative for a period of months prior. The hearing was then  \nrearranged for 28 and 29 April 2025 following the Athlete’s confirmation ‘of his full  \nparticipation and availability in the proceedings’ as set out in Mr Klimczyk’s email of 14  \nFebruary 2025. Notwithstanding that commitment given by the Athlete, he ultimately  \nabandoned his request for an oral hearing in his case at the very last minute, immediately  \nbefore the hearing commenced on the morning of 28 April 2025 (on alleged personal and  \nhealth related grounds which remain entirely unspecified and unsubstantiated).  \nThe Athlete’s conduct in this case is unreasonable and unjustifiable. His decision to abandon  \nhis request for a hearing on the morning of the hearing itself is unprecedented in the AIU’s  \nexperience before the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal. The AIU has dedicated substantial  \nresources and has incurred significant legal and other costs in relation to the determination  \nof this matter, including in relation to preparation of its written submissions and in preparing  \nfor the hearing on 28 and 29 April 2025 (by instructing external counsel and preparation for  \nthe hearing with counsel and witnesses). In addition, the AIU anticipates that the Panel’s  \ncosts in this matter will necessarily reflect the ‘protracted’ nature of the proceedings, which  \nthe Athlete is entirely culpable for. On that basis, the AIU anticipates that its legal and other costs incurred in the context of these proceedings (including the costs of the Panel) will exceed €10,000 and the AIU therefore respectfully requests that it be awarded a substantial contribution to those costs in this matter.”  \n5. On 30 May 2025 , the AIU further submitted:  \n“Thankyou foryour e-mail. We are grateful to the Chair for his clarification. TheAIU maintains that the Athlete’s request to abandon the hearing was manifestly late; the Athlete did not provide any indication or any instructions confirming his position viz. the hearing until his email on the morning of the hearing on 2","cbCaidQRwln3FQxg","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidQRwln3FQxg","pdf",286441,6,"English","# I. Introduction\n## Tribunal directions on costs\n# II. World Athletics submissions on costs\n## Procedural history and resource expenditures\n## Request for contribution towards costs\n# III. Athlete’s submissions on costs\n## Clarifications regarding protracted proceedings\n## Financial inability to bear costs","[{\"question\":\"What did the Tribunal require regarding costs in paragraph 84 of the earlier decision dated 19 May 2025?\",\"answer\":\"The Tribunal directed the AIU to particularise the costs sought within seven days, and directed the Athlete to provide details of financial circumstances he wanted the Tribunal to consider within fourteen days thereafter.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did World Athletics’ Athletics Integrity Unit request a contribution towards legal and other costs?\",\"answer\":\"The AIU argued the proceedings were protracted due to the Athlete’s conduct, highlighted significant preparation and hearing-related costs, and anticipated that costs (including panel costs) would exceed €10,000.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Athlete’s representative address the cause of the protracted nature of the proceedings and the costs issue?\",\"answer\":\"The Athlete’s counsel submitted that protracted proceedings were not caused by counsel inaction or negligence, and emphasized that the Athlete’s financial situation made it impossible for him to bear any costs.\"}]","Decision of the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal on Costs - Mr Norbert Kobielski | PDF",1789166181]