A hearing panel’s decision not to lift a mandatory Provisional Suspension on account of the Athlete’s assertion regarding a Contami-nated Product will not be appealable; (b)   the violation asserted involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under Article 10.2.4.1; (c)   the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has no reasonable prospect of being upheld, e.g., be-cause of a patent flaw in the case against the Athlete or other Person; (d)   any period of Ineligibility that might otherwise be imposed for the violation(s) asserted is likely to be completely eliminated by application of Article 10.5 (No Fault or Negligence); and/or(e)   other facts exist that make it clearly unfair, in all of the circumstances, for the Athlete or other Person to be subject to a Provisional Suspension prior to the final first instance decision on the merits (this ground is to be construed narrowly, and applied only in truly exceptional circumstances, e.g., the fact that the Provisional Suspension would prevent the Athlete or other Person participating in a particular Competition or Event will not qualify as exceptional circumstances for these purposes).7.3.3.3  If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and subsequent B Sample analysis (if requested by the Athlete or the BIU) does not confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Provisional Suspension will be lifted with immediate effect.