CAS 2015/A/4272 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA) & Rishan Pieris
Rugby
Doping (metandienone)
Intent to take the prohibited substance
Duty to inquire as to whether a product contains a prohibited substance
1. An athlete who ingested tablets in order to increase his body weight causing likely the positive analytical test, cannot be considered that he had no intent to take the prohibited substance solely on his stated ignorance as to the contents of the tablets.
2. The ability for an athlete to reduce a standard applicable period of ineligibility on the basis of an anti-doping rule violation on a “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence” rationale is reserved for specific circumstances. Abundant CAS case law underscores the athlete’s responsibility with respect to whatever he or she ingests or otherwise administers to his or her body. Indeed, such case law is replete with language to the effect that an athlete has “a duty of utmost caution to avoid that a prohibited substance enters his or her body”. Failing to inquire as to whether a product contains a prohibited substance constitutes significant fault in and of itself, according to CAS precedent.
On 3 November 2014 the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Rishan Pieris after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone.
Hereafter in October 2015 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the SLADA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the SLADA decision of 3 November 2014 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility due to the Athlete’s degree of fault is conversely very significant.
SLADA and the Athlete did not file written submissions.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that is uncontested that the Athlete ingested the “Anabole” tablets, did so with the stated intent to increase his body weight, and that this act likely caused the positive analytical test. The Appealed Decision, however, finds that he had no intent to take this prohibited substance. This finding appears to be based solely on the Athlete’s stated ignorance as to the contents of the tablets. If another basis exists, it does not appear in the Appealed Decision.
In the present case, neither SLADA or the Athlete have attempted to meet its burden of proof with respect to establishing “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence”. Moreover, even if deduced in the light most favourable to the Athlete, the facts arising from the Appealed Decision do not even allow for a prima facie possibility of reduced fault.
Since the SLADA ADR imposes a two-year period of ineligibility absent conditions that would meet the requirements of Articles 10.5.1 or 10.5.2, and these conditions are not met, the Appealed Decision cannot be deemed compliant with the applicable rules, and an additional period of ineligibility must be imposed in order to bring the sanction in line with the rules.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 March 2016:
1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 30 October 2015 against the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency and Mr. Rishan Pieris with respect to the decision rendered by the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency Disciplinary Committee on 3 November 2014 is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by the SLADA Disciplinary Committee on 3 November 2014 is set aside.
3.) Mr. Rishan Pieris is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility commencing on the date of this award with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served by Mr Rishan Pieris between 8 July 2014 and 7 July 2015.
4.) (…).
5.) (…).
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
