CAS 2014/A/3772 Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen v. International Rugby Board
In September 2013 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Salmon Rutgert Van Huysssteen after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
The Athlete and his parents admitted the violation and stated that the Athlete was injected in September 2012 a medication Deca 300 which was provided by a cousin, a bodybuilder, who had assured that the product was “safe”.
On 14 March 2014 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed this decision and on 8 September 2014 the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decided to set aside the decision of 14 March 2014 and to impose a 24 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter in October 2014 the Athlete appealed the decision of the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Panel for a reduced sanction because he did not act with any Significant Fault or Negligence. The Athlete argued that he was not a professional athlete when the violation was committed and he had never received any anti-doping education whatsoever. He contended he was administered the injections by his mother and that for a sixteen-year old boy it is both normal and reasonable to rely on the advice of his parents and not to cast any doubt on the trust he should have in the care he receives from them. The Athlete had admitted the violations, had been cooperative throughout the proceedings and had explained how the prohibited substance entered his system.
The Panel finds the IRB did not produce any evidence whatsoever to contradict the Athlete’s testimony (or his mother’s testimony for that matter) and the Panel does not question the Athlete’s explanation as to the source of the Prohibited Substance.
The Panel concludes that by completely ignoring all of the clear risks related to the use of a product about whose content and source he could not be and was not sure and by failing to carry out even the most basic search to verify whether the product contained a Prohibited Substance, the Athlete acted in a manner that deviates significantly from the standard of behavior expected of an athlete in his specific circumstances. This departure is all the more significant, considering that, as indicated, the Athlete knowingly and willfully accepted the “risk” of participating in sports competitions with a prohibited substance in his system.
Having considered the Parties’ submissions and the evidence provided by them, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed an ADRV pursuant the IRB Rules and that the conduct held by the Athlete does not permit a reduction of the sanction on the basis of Article 21.22.5 of the IRB Regulations (No Significant Fault or Negligence).
Therefor the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 June 2015 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen on 29 September 2014 against the decision issued by the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa on 8 September is dismissed.
2.) The decision issued by the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa on 8 September 2014 is confirmed.
3.) The costs of the proceedings, to be separately determined and communicated by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Mr Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen.
4.) Mr Salmon Rutgert Van Huyssteen shall contribute CHF 1,000 to the legal and other costs incurred by the International Rugby Board in these arbitral proceedings.
5.) All further prayers for relief are hereby dismissed.
