CAS 2005/A/925 Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo v/ FINA
In May 2003 the Brazilian Water Sports Confederation (CBDA) imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Laura Dutra de Abreu Mancini de Azevedo after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol, Nortestosterone and Methyltestosterone.
On 16 September 2003 the CBDA decided to lift the suspension after the civil court in Rio de Janeiro had ordered the CBDA that as a provisional measure the suspension should be lifted.
On 15 January 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Panel decided (CAS 2003/A/510) to uphold the 2 year period of ineligiblility imposed by the CBDA on the Athlete.
Previously in December 2003 the Athlete, FINA and CBDA had signed an agreement with the stipulations that the Athlete can compete when she is not sanctioned by CAS, or when sanctioned she will serve the 2 year period of ineligibility.
Despite this agreement and the CAS decision the Athlete did not withdraw her claim before the Brazilian courts and she continued to participate in swimming competitions in Brazil.
In June 2004 the CBDA reported to the International Swimming Federation (FINA) that the Athlete’s had refused to submit to sample collection at a competition in Brazil. Consequently on 21 April 2005 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a liftetime ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation.
Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete appealed with CAS and requested the Panel to set aside the FINA decision of 21 April 2005.
The Athlete argued that she had not committed the first doping violation in 2003 for which she was sanctioned by a two-year suspension. Her innocence notably had been established by the DNA tests relating to the May 2003 A and B samples.
She asserted that she had refused sample collection during the Winter State Swimming Championships on 6 June 2004, yet merely demanded that the test involve a different laboratory than LADETEC, whose previous test results she had questioned as part of her action pending in the Brazilian courts.
As a result she argued that she cannot be deemed to have committed a second violation. Also she disputed the irregularities during the sample collection in June 2004 where she refused to provide a sample.
FINA argued that the Athlete’s refusal has been established and admitted by the Athlete. The Athlete has no right to to choose the laboratory whereas the LADETEC is a WADA accredited laboratory to conduct doping control.
Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:
- The Athlete failed to provide a sample and without compelling justification she committed an anti-doping ruleviolation, which is her second violation.
- The Athlete disregarded her own written agreement of 11 December 2003 to respect any period of ineligibility to which she might be sanctioned by CAS (CAS 2003/A/510).
- Aggravating circumstances re-emphasises the finding that a lifetime ban is not disproportionate.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2006:
1) The appeal by Ms Azevedo is dismissed.
2) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the court-office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.
3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
