CAS (Oceania Registry) A4/2014 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) (on behalf of Athletics Australia) v. Kim Mottrom
Doping (dextran / S5 - Diuretics and other Masking Agents)
Burden and standard of proof
Dextran as a blood (plasma) expander and effect of dextran as masking agent for steroids
Presence of dextran in the athlete’s urine and intravenous administration
1. The burden of proving (presence and use) of a prohibited substance by an athlete lies upon the anti-doping organisation. The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction, a term of art, in so far as deployed in sports law derived from a decision of a CAS ad hoc panel at the Atlanta Games in 1996 and regularly applied by CAS panels since then.
2. To consider the effect of dextran in a urine sample it is necessary to understand the chemistry of sugar and also the digestion of carbohydrates in the human digestive tract. Dextran is a blood (plasma) expander. When in the blood it draws in fluid which increases the fluidity of the blood. The blood volume is expanded. The blood has the ability to transport oxygen around the system releasing energy and thereby assisting acrobat performance. Dextran can also act as a masking agent for steroids.
3. If the overwhelming scientific evidence establish the presence of dextran in the athlete’s urine and oral ingestion cannot explain the concentration detected, then the panel is comfortably satisfied that the substance detected in the athlete’s sample was by intravenous administration.
In March 2014 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kim Mottrom after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dextran.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Oceania Registry Ordinary Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with the right of appeal.
ASADA argued that the presence of high concentration dextran was established in the Athlete’s samples as result of intravenous administration.
The Athlete rejected ASADA’s evidence and contended that ASADA’s “intravenous injection” case rests on an unstable foundation of unqualified and inappropriately retained expert witnesses, contaminated urine samples, unexplained and less than thorough scientific analysis by the Laboratory and sloppy speculation.
The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the scientific evidence satisfies as to the presence of dextran and this was not challenged. The challenge was how the dextran entered the Athlete’s blood stream.
The Sole Arbitrator notes that both the Athlete’s A and B samples revealed the analytical finding was of high concentration of high molecule weight dextran. It was, even at the lowest reported range, a concentration far in excess of the allowable level. While there may have been a contaminated ceramic dish used that affected the A sample with bacteria that does not negate that the detection of dextran and the calculations of its concentration were done by the laboratory in accordance with accredited techniques.
The Sole Arbitrator rejects the proposition of the Athlete’s expert witness that the dextran was added to or made by the bacterial activity in the sample. The bacterial activity asserted could not have made the type of dextran detected. From the evidence, the Sole Arbitrator accepts the bacteria which was recognised by the laboratory in no way discredited the adverse analytical finding of the presence of dextran.
The overwhelming scientific evidence established the presence of dextran in the Athlete’s urine. Oral ingestion cannot explain the concentration detected. The Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied on the evidence the dextran detected in the Athlete’s sample was by intravenous administration.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 March 2016:
1.) Kim Mottrom has committed two anti-doping rule violations under the Athletes Australia Anti-Doping Policy that of:
a) The Presence of a Prohibited Substance; and
b) The Use of a Prohibited Substance.
2.) Mr Mottrom is suspended from competition for two years from 21 March 2014 with credit for the period of provisional voluntary suspension served by Mr Mottrom.
(…).
