CAS 2001/A/330 R. / Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Aviron (FISA)
- Olympic Games
- Doping (nandrolone)
- Validity of a life ban for a first doping offence
1. The life ban sanction imposed was based upon valid provisions of the FISA Rules. Those provisions were well-known and predictable to all rowers, and had provided for the possibility of a life ban for a first doping offence for more than 12 years. In addition, the Appellant (rower) had signed the “rower commitment”, which clearly confirmed that doping violations in the sport of rowing were punishable with a life ban for a first offence. In the circumstances, therefore, the CAS has no hesitation in finding that the sanction contained in FISA’s Rules satisfied what might be called the “predictability test”.
2. Although the CAS undoubtedly has the authority to correct any penalty as it sees fit, it would hesitate for a long time before over-ruling a decision by an International Federation, unless it thought that the Federation’s decision was disproportionate to the offence. While it is clear that many International Federations have decided that a two year suspension is appropriate for a first doping offence, it is equally clear that other International Federations, such as FISA, have chosen to impose higher minimum sanctions as a demonstration of their determination and commitment to the eradication of doping in their sport.
3. As a matter of principle, a life ban can be considered both justifiable and proportionate in doping cases. That is so even if the ban is imposed for a first offence.
R. (The Athlete) is a Latvian Athlete competing in the rowing regatta at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
In September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
On 23 September 2000 the IOC decided to disqualify the Athlete and excluded him from the Olympic Games.
On 14 May 2001 the Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Aviron (FISA), the World Rowing Executive Committee decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FISA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete stated that he was planning to finish his sports career after the Sydney Olympic Games, but that he wanted to support the development of rowing in Latvia. He said that it would be an advantage to those who were organising rowing regattas in Latvia to have him present, and participating in the regatta.
The Panel noticed that the Athlete R. has had a number of opportunities at hearings before the FISA Commission of Enquiry, the FISA Executive Committee and the Panel to adduce evidence to demonstrate his lack of culpability, but has failed to avail himself of any of those opportunities. In particular, he failed to produce any evidence to the Panel which might have persuaded the Panel that the sentence imposed was disproportionate.
The Panel is of the view that the Athlete willingly and foolishly exposed himself to a serious risk by taking such a cocktail of food supplements and other substances as is shown by the evidence that he did take.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 23 November 2001 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.
