“This is a major step forward to make doping testing independent, following the decision of the IOC Executive Board three months ago after the proposal of the Olympic Summit. It represents support for the IOC’s zero tolerance policy in the fight against doping and in the protection of the clean athletes,” the IOC President Thomas Bach said. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been adjudicating on a variety of disputes arising on the occasion of the Olympic Games (OG) through its CAS Ad Hoc Divisions since 1996. Over the years, it has dealt with qualification matters, doping and other disciplinary issues, primarily as a last instance body. The main particularity of the CAS Ad Hoc Divisions is that it provides athletes and federations with free access to justice within very short deadlines (generally, within 24 hours from lodging the claim or in accordance with the competition schedule). The Rio Games established CAS Anti-Doping Division, ADD. For the first time in the history of the Olympic Games, the CAS was in charge of doping-related matters arising on the occasion of the Games as a first-instance authority. This CAS Anti-doping Division handled doping cases referred to it in accordance with the IOC Anti-doping Rules. It had the power to impose provisional suspensions pending the conclusion of the procedure and its final decisions could be appealed before the CAS ad hoc Division in Rio or before the CAS in Lausanne after the end of the Olympic Games. The Executive Board (EB) of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) agreed to delegate the decisions on alleged anti-doping rule violations during the Olympic Games to an independent body. The CAS Anti-Doping Division replaced the IOC Disciplinary Commission to hear and decide on doping cases at the Olympic Games, as well as the subsequent re-analysis of samples taken at the Games. The move comes as part of the Olympic Agenda 2020 reforms, and follows the Resolution of the Fourth Olympic Summit to make anti-doping testing independent of sports organisations. The delegation by the IOC Executive Board to the CAS Anti-doping Division is pursuant to Rule 59.2.4 of the Olympic Charter. Generally, the parties to an ADD procedure may be individual athletes (or members of the athlete’s entourage), IFs, the IOC, NOCs and WADA. The typical disputes brought before the ADD are anti-doping rule violations committed during the OG, therefore the application (that will be further examined below) is always filed by the IOC, as soon as the latter asserts an anti-doping rule violation. The sanctions determined by the CAS ADD are limited to the OG (i.e. disqualification from a sports event, withdrawal of medals, exclusion from the OG), and all further sanctions are then determined by the relevant IFs. The ADD Rules apply in case of violations of the World Anti-doping Code (WADC) arising upon the occasion of the OG: the narrow scope of the ADD Rules is juxtaposed to the broader scope of the AHD Rules, which includes “any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games”.( Article 1 AHD Rules). The temporal scope of jurisdiction of the AHD Rules is systematically examined by CAS Ad Hoc Panels and this should also be the case for the ADD Rules. However, in cases where all parties agree, they may waive their objections to the admissibility of the application and agree to have the matter heard by the AHD Panel. The main procedural difference between the CAS ADD and the AHD Rules is that the former acts as the first instance authority for doping-related matters, responsible for the conduct of the proceedings and the rendering of decisions under the IOC ADR. As seen a