Thank you for the clarification.
We would receive the information and evaluate the nature of the tip. We would determine whether there are similar tips that we've received, or other sources of information, and we would check with respect to the data sets that we try to maintain around the testing, the actual work that we're doing in the area where the individual reports suspicion of doping.
From there, we may change our testing behaviours. We may allocate more resources. We may try to collect additional information to substantiate the nature of the tip. In these non-analytical forms, ultimately in order to prove an anti-doping rule violation, we have to assert and advance a case. It's very similar to the criminal system, but it's done before an arbitrator. We collect and maintain the evidence chain and then advance a case to prove a violation.