CAS A2_2015 ASADA vs Jeone Park

CAS (Oceania Registry) A2/2015 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), on behalf of Cycling Australia v. Jeone Park

Cycling
Doping (prohibited method: intravenous infusion of grape syrup and vitamins)
Establishment of an anti-doping rule violation and shifting of the onus to the athlete to mitigate the sanction
Athlete’s youth and ignorance that an intravenous injection constituted a breach of the WADA Code
Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited method is used according to the WADA Code

1. Once the anti-doping rule violation is established, the athlete must be suspended for two years, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility are met. The onus then shifts to the athlete to mitigate the sanction and, in that regard, to satisfy the CAS of any specified facts or circumstances on the balance of probabilities.

2. Ignorance that an intravenous injection constituted a breach of the WADA Code (prohibited method) is no excuse. An athlete’s youth and his propensity to accept direction from his family members are also not excuses. They are relied upon to alleviate the consequences for the purposes of assessing culpability. That lack of knowledge is not an exculpatory or mitigating factor.

3. Article 2.2 of the WADA Code provides that it is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited method is used and that it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated. Further, the success or failure of the attempted use is not material.


In January 2015 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the attempted use of a Prohibited Method: the intravenous infusion of grape syrup and vitamins.
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).

The violation occurred previously in August 2014 in Korea when the Athlete’s cousing, a fully trained nurse, administerd this intravenous infusion to assist the Athlete recovery after he felt unwell.

ASADA requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing the anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Use of a Prohibited Method with the IV infusion in August 2014. ASADA argued that the Athlete was not inexperienced and he failed to establish that he bears no significant fault or negligence.

The Athlete accepted that he committed the anti-doping rule violation in August 2014 and contended that the violation was principally the result of the actions conducted by the adults around him. The Athlete argued that he gave a prompt admission; there is no allegation of use of a prohibited substance; he gained no benefit from the attempted use; he was a minor at the time and in his situation unaware that he was committing an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s arguments are insufficient for establishing that he bears no significant fault or negligence and concludes that the Athlete has committed a violation of the CA Anti-Doping Policy.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 March 2016:

1.) Jeone Park committed an anti-doping rule violation of Attempted Use of a Prohibited Method, namely an intravenous infusion, in breach of Art. 7 of the Cycling Australia Anti-Doping Policy 2010, which incorporates by reference Art. 2.2 of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code.
2.) In accordance with Art. 17 of the Cycling Australia Anti-Doping Policy 2010 (which incorporates by reference Art. 10 of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code), a period of ineligibility be imposed upon Jeone Park for a period of two (2) years, backdated to commence on 11 June 2015.
3.) All competitive results obtained by Jeone Park from 11 June 2015 shall be invalidated with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes.
4.) (…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Miscellaneous Awards
Date
17 March 2016
Arbitrator
Bennett, Annabelle Claire
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
Australia
Korea, Republic of
Language
English
ADRV
Use / attempted use
Legal Terms
Admission
Burdens and standards of proof
Commencement of ineligibility period
Digital evidence / information
First instance case
Minor
Negligence
No intention to enhance performance
Prompt / Timely Admission
Sole Arbitrator
Strict liability
Sport/IFs
Cycling (UCI) - International Cycling Union
Other organisations
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA)
Cycling Australia (CA)
Doping classes
M2. Chemical And Physical Manipulation
Medical terms
Intravenous infusions
Treatment / self-medication
Various
Athlete support personnel
Out-of-competition use / Substances of Abuse
Supplements
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
19 July 2017
Date of last modification
24 January 2019
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin