In June 2012 the International Rugby Board (IRB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Fiji rugby player Isake Katonibau for his refusal without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification. After notification of the violation a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IRB Judicial Committee.
The Athlete denied the allegation. He stated he agreed to be tested, although he was variously “angry”, “offended”, “embarrassed” “felt he was being discriminated” because during family time at his parents’ residence he again had been selected. Thus, he stated he waited at his parents’ residence for “not less than 30 minutes” and then for reasons relating to his wife and infant child he chose to leave the property. As a result the Doping Control Officer (DCO) and her male chaperone were thwarted in their attempt to obtain a sample from the Athlete.
The IRB alleged the Athlete’s conduct amounted to either an intentional refusal, or failure or evasion to submit to a sample collection. Alternatively, it is alleged there was a negligent failure to submit to sample collection. Further it is alleged there was not a compelling justification for the Athlete’s refusal or failure to take the test.
Considering the evidence the Judicial Committee can understand the Athlete’s frustration at again being selected for sample collection, The Committee is unable to conclude that the Athlete has established there was a compelling justification for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. Essentially the Athlete should have made alternative arrangements for the care of his daughter and waited for the DCO so that he could provide his sample. Indeed, he could have made the necessary arrangements during the waiting period.
The Committee has not found it necessary to make a finding as to whether the DCO erred in giving advance Notice. The Committee considers it would have been preferable if the DCO had not given prior Notice but whether that amounted to what Counsel characterises as a “critical error” is a matter of conjecture. Further, when the DCO made the second telephone call the Athlete of his own volition and contrary to the DCO’s instruction had departed from his parents’ residence. Further, given the lack of relevant information provided by the Athlete and his parents as to his whereabouts, the DCO cannot be criticised for not attempting to locate the Athlete that evening. Indeed, the Committee does not consider the DCO was under any obligation to collect the sample from any other location.
The Committee is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete in leaving his parents’ residence in the circumstances described intentionally refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection following notification.
Therefore the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 21 January 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 July 2012.
