CAS 2014/A/3694 Roman Kreuziger v. UCI

Related cases:
ČOV 2014 ČSC vs Roman Kreuziger (Czech)
September 22, 2014
ČOV 2014 ČSC vs Roman Kreuziger (English)
September 22, 2014

In June 2013 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Roman Kreuzinger on the irregularities in his Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) and offered him an “acceptance of sanction”. After deliberations between the Athlete and the UCI a provisional suspension was ordered on 2 August 2014 and the disciplinary proceedings were referred by the UCI to the Czech Cycling Federation.

Hereafter in August 2014 the Athlete appealed the UCI decision for imposing a provisional suspension with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the UCI decision and argued that the Decision for imposing a provisional suspension is illegal and inconsistent with the UCI’s Rules and Regulations.
The UCI contended that the imposition of provisional measures was valid and according to the UCI ADR and the WADA Code.

The Panel concludes that none of the provisions in the UCI ADR enumerated by the Athlete speaks against the legitimacy of the reasons given in the Challenged Decision about the imposition of the provisional measure.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 September 2014 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 5 August 2014 by Mr Roman Kreuziger against the decision adopted by the UCI Anti-Doping Hearing Panel on 2 August 2014 is dismissed.
2.) The decision adopted by the UCI Anti-Doping Hearing Panel on 2 August 2014 is confirmed.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

International Olympic Committee Expert Group Statement on Dietary Supplements in Athletes / International Olympic Committee Expert Group. - Lausanne : IOC, 2017. - (IOC Medical and Scientific Consensus Meeting on Supplements, 3-5 May 2017, IOC HQ, Lausanne, Switzerland)

A panel of leading medical and scientific experts concludes a three-day meeting at the International Olympic Committee (IOC) headquarters to discuss the use of dietary supplements, their effects on athletes’ health and performances and the risk of contamination and anti-doping issues.

The IOC Medical and Scientific Commission has recognised the important role that sound nutrition practices play in protecting good health and promoting the optimum performance of athletes. As part of its commitment to supporting the health and performance of athletes, it convened a meeting of experts in the field of dietary supplements to assess the evidence relating to the place of dietary supplements in the preparations of elite athletes. Particular focus was placed on their effects on athletes’ health and performances, and the risk of contamination with substances that may be harmful to health or that may trigger an adverse analytical finding, leading to an anti-doping rule violation.

The use of dietary supplements is widespread among elite athletes, as it is among the general population. The expert group concluded, after three days of intensive discussions, that:

1.) Diet significantly influences athletic performance, but the use of supplements does not compensate for poor food choices and an inadequate diet.
2.) Supplementation with essential nutrients may be beneficial if a specific nutrient deficiency is medically diagnosed and a food-based solution cannot be easily implemented.
3.) A few supplements, from the many thousands of different products on the market, may provide performance or health-related benefits for some athletes in some types of sports, when optimum training, nutrition and recovery are already achieved.
4.) Quality assurance in supplement manufacture, storage and distribution is sometimes not strictly enforced, leading to products that are of poor quality or contaminated.

In October 2016 Anti-Doping Norway has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Nowegian Athlete Therese Johaug after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clostebol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Adjudication Committee of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports.

The Athlete did not dispute the test results and asserted that the violation was non intentional. She stated that she had a sunstroke while at a training camp in Italy in August 2016 and hereafter she developed a fever, diarrhoea and sunburst on her lip. The Athlete’s team doctor treated the Athlete’s sunburst with the pharmaceutical substance Trofodermin which he purchased at a pharmacy in Livigno, Italy, in September 2016. The doctor assured the Athlete that she could use the product and she mentioned Trofodermin on the Doping Control Form when she provided a sample for drug testing in September 2016.

The Adjudication Committee accepts the Athlete’s explanation and witness statements in this case and finds it not reasonable to assume that the insufficient dose of clostebol would produce a performance enhancing effect due to the use of the product Trofodermin.

Considering the circumstances and with No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case the Adjudication Committee decides on 10 February 2017 to impose a 13 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 October 2016.

In April 2009 the Hellenic Swimming Federation reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Dimitrios Xynadas for refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification.

The Athlete underwent a Doping Control on 15 April 2009 at the National Swimming Pool of Thessaloniki. During the Doping Control the Athlete left the swimming pool in a hurry leaving all his personal belongings behind after he had received phone calls from his family.

The Athlete stated that he was informed by his family that his father was found in a critical medical condition and he went immediately to the Mpodosakeio Hospital of Ptolemaida where his father was admitted.
In support of his statement the Athlete produced official medical documents and witness statements about his father medical condition and the Athlete’s presence in the Hospital of Ptolemaida.

The Board of the Hellenic Swimming Federation accepted the Athlete’s explanation and evidence and concluded that the Athlete’s failure to submit was without intention or negligence considering the circumstances in this case.
Therefore the Board of the Hellenic Swimming Fedeation decided in June 2009 to drop the charges against the Athlete.

CAS 2016/A/4439 Tomasz Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee (IPC)

Athletics (long distance - marathon)
Doping (stanozolol)
Personal responsibility of the athlete and involvement of the coach and the federation in the distribution of supplements
Proof of the source of the prohibited substance
Athlete’s intent and burden of proof
Athlete belonging to a Registered Testing Pool as an argument for the question of intent/lack of intent
Sporting relevance of the specific promotional race as an argument for the question of intent/lack of intent

1. The personal responsibility of the Athlete laid down by Articles 10.2 and 2.1.1 of the IPC Code (equivalent to the WAD Code) makes mute any effort of an athlete to justify his/her behaviour by arguing that he/she acquired the supplements, he/she considered to be the source of the prohibited substance, through his/her coach and upon the coach’s recommendation from the federation. Even if a CAS panel finds also the involvement of the coach and the federation in buying and distributing supplements to athletes as risky and rather doubtable, their involvement cannot exculpate an athlete.

2. Even if an athlete undertakes a series of actions in order to find out the source of the prohibited substance assuming that it originated from one of the supplements or a cream he/she used or meat he/she ate, the failure of providing any proof as to the origin of the prohibited substance cannot be repaired through his/her efforts in this respect.

3. As to the athlete’s intent, according to Article 10.2.1.1 of the IPC Code (WAD Code), the burden of proof lies with the athlete, who has to establish, at a balance of probability, that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

4. The argument that an athlete belongs to the relevant Registered Testing Pool subject to the respective whereabouts commitments and, due to excellent sportive results, has to undergo frequent doping controls is an argument which is true for all athletes on a Registered Testing Pool. However, general experience shows, that irrespective of such obligation and experience of all top-level athletes, belonging to a Registered Testing Pool does not protect against taking prohibited substances. Such an argument has no evidentiary relevance for the question of intent or lack of intent as to the commitment of an anti-doping rule violation.

5. The argument that a specific promotional race was of no sportive relevance for a marathon sportsman is not relevant for the question of intent or lack of intent but merely belongs to the list of speculations.

In August 2015 the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Polish Paralympic Athlete Tomasz Hamerlak after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol. On 27 December 2015 the Anti-Doping Committee of the IPC decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February the Athlete appealed the IPC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Panel for a reduced sanction and did not dispute the violation. The Athlete asserted that the violation was non intentional and probably the result of the use of a contaminated food product or contaminated meat in June or July 2015.

The Panel finds that the Athlete could not demonstrate that the use of stanozolol happened without intent. All that he could present were mere speculations and assumptions. The Panel even wishes to emphasize that the Athlete acted risky by taking a long list of supplements, knowing from scientific articles he himself quoted, that they may be contaminated. Besides, the number and kind of supplements, indicated by the Athlete, was changed by him in the course of the proceedings, a fact, which shakes reliability and credibility of the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 July 2016 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Tomasz Hamerlak on 3 February 2016 is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the International Paralympic Committee dated 27 December 2015 imposing a four-year period of ineligibility is upheld.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2015/A/4285 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Serguei Prokopiev

Beach volleyball
Doping (dehydrochloromethyl-testosterone)
Consent award

In cases of appeals against the sanctions initially imposed by the competent anti-doping organisation, if all parties agree that the initially imposed sanctions have been incorrect, the panel may impose the sanctions agreed upon by all parties concerned, provided those sanctions comply with the applicable anti-doping rules.

In May 2015 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Serguei Prokopiev after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (Turinabol).
The Athlete explained that he had used Turinabol provided by a friend to recover from a knee injury that he suffered.
On 17 August 2015 the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of RUSADA decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in November 2015 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the RUSADA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Panel to set aside the RUSADA decision of 17 August 2015 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the intentionally committed anti-doping rule violation.
RUSADA contended that the Athlete could prove that the violaton was not intentially committed as justification for the imposed sanction under the Rules.

In January 2016 the parties agreed that a 4 year period of ineligibility shall be imposed on the Athlete.
The Sole Arbitrator finds no legal or factual basis to reject the Athlete’s concession of liability of an anti-doping rule violation and a four-year period of ineligibility. Moreover, the Sole Arbitrator finds no reason to reject the parties’ agreement to memorialize such concession to this anti-doping rule violation and period of ineligibility in an award. The proposed four-year period of ineligibility complies with the sanctioning regime of both the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”) and the RUSADA ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 26 February 2016 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the Russian Anti-Doping Agency and Mr. Serguei Prokopiev with respect to the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of RUSADA dated 17 August 2015 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of RUSADA dated 17 August 2015 is set aside. Mr. Serguei Prokopiev is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility from the date of this Award, with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served.
3.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Serguei Prokopiev from 24 May 2015 through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.
(…)
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2015/A/4215 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Korea Football Association (KFA) & Kang Soo Il

Football
Doping (methyltestosterone)
CAS jurisdiction
Admissibility of a cross or subsequent appeal
Notion of contaminated product
Determination of the applicable sanction for a non-specified substance
Burden of proof regarding the establishment of the absence of significant fault
Absence of reduction of a sanction on grounds of “prompt admission”

1. According to FIFA ADR, FIFA has an option of filing a direct appeal to the CAS against any anti-doping rule violation decision rendered at national level without necessarily having to first exhaust the remedies available at the relevant National Anti-Doping organisation if no other party has appealed the said decision. This is regardless of whether or not the player in question is an international-level player.

2. Article 75.4 in the FIFA ADR (like Article 13.2.4 in the 2015 WADA Code) does not establish a right of a party to submit a cross appeal within the answer. These regulations respect and adopt the change that was made against the 2010 edition of the CAS Code which no longer allows a counter or cross appeal to be submitted as part of the answer. Instead, under these new provisions, a party wishing to challenge a decision is obliged to file a separate, independent appeal within the time limits stipulated in the CAS Code. So Article 75.4 FIFA ADR do nothing more than extend the time period in which a party to a doping appeal may file a cross appeal (or any subsequent appeal). In such cases, the time limit for a party to submit its cross or subsequent appeal is extended until the moment it submits the answer. This time limit can thus be longer than the normal filing period of 21 days. This possibility is perfectly in line with Article R49 of the CAS Code which gives preference to the time-limits set forth in a federation’s regulations. The standard 21-day deadline remains the default situation otherwise. In addition, any cross appeal must specifically comply with the usual procedural requirements set forth under Article R47 et seq of the Code.

3. Pursuant to the FIFA ADR, a contaminated product is one which contains a prohibited substance that is not disclosed on the product label or in information available in a reasonable internet search. In this regard, the fact that the ingredients are written in a language unfamiliar to a player does not take away the fact that the contents of the product are clearly disclosed on the product label as required by the FIFA ADR.

4. Subject to the player establishing the existence of circumstances warranting a reduction or elimination of the period of ineligibility, the maximum ineligibility period applicable for the non-intentional use of a non-specified substance is 2 years as provided for under the FIFA ADR.

5. As the party claiming not to have been significantly at fault or negligent, a player bears the burden of proof which, in accordance with the FIFA ADR is on a “balance of probability”. The totality of the circumstances vis-à-vis the criteria for No Fault or Negligence to establish whether the player’s fault was not significant in comparison to the anti-doping rule violation must be considered. Notably the fact that the player did exercise utmost caution to avoid the use of a prohibited substance is relevant. In this respect, lack of knowledge of a foreign ingredient label should heighten a player’s duty to investigate the substances contained therein and proceed to have such ingredient translated before using the product. The lack of evidence that the player made such efforts suggests negligence on his part and therefore excludes a reduction of the otherwise applicable sanction based on no significant fault or negligence.

6. No grounds exists for reducing the maximum 2-year period of ineligibility on the grounds of prompt admission. In this respect, the FIFA ADR is only applicable to players who are otherwise liable to the maximum 4 year ineligibility period.

In June 2015 the Korea Football Association (KFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Football Player Kang Soo Il after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methyltestosterone.

On 22 June 2015 the Disciplinary Committee of the Korea Professional Football League (K-League) decided to sanction the Athlete with a 15-match ban from playing in any K-League competition. After interference by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) the KFA Disciplinary Committee reversed the K-League decision and decided on 12 August 2015 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
In its decision the Disciplinary Committee considered that the Athlete’s violation was non intentional, he gave a prompt admission and he acted without significant fault or negligent due to his use of a contaminated facial cream product with Japanese information on the label.

Hereafter in September 2015 the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the KFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the KFA decision of 12 August 2015 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
FIFA accepted that the Athlete’s violation was non intentional but contended that there was no prompt admission, the facial cream Microgen was not a “contaminated product”, the Athlete failed to establish that he bears no significant fault or negligence and he failed to consult his team doctor or to conduct a reasonable research on the internet befor using the product.

The Athlete argued that the 6-month period of ineligibility should be upheld on grounds that he was not significantly at fault or negligent. He stated that Microgen was a contaminated product, meaning he is entitled to a reduction of the otherwise applicable 2-year period of ineligibility under the FIFA Rules. Also he asserted that in the event that the Panel finds Microgen not to be a contaminated product, he is still entitled to a reduction of the 2-year period of ineligibility on the grounds that he was not significantly at fault or negligent. The KFA wants the 6-month period of ineligibility upheld, saying it was arrived at after a consideration of the Athlete’s conduct, the particulars of the substance he applied and the prompt admission he gave.

The Panel establish that the violation was non intentional and holds that the used Mocrogen cream was not a contaminated product due to the product label mentioned in Japanes that it contained the prohibited product Methyltestosterone. There are also no grounds for reducing the sanction for the Athlete’s prompt admission.

The Panel finds the Athlete failed to establish that he was not significantly at fault or negligent. He is therefore liable to the maximum 2-year period of ineligibility. As a professional sportsman, the Athlete should have perceived a higher degree of risk when applying the facial cream, and consequently exercised greater care and investigation given that (i) he was applying cream stored in a tube which had already been opened (ii) the cream had not been prescribed by a doctor but had merely been recommended to him by a friend; and (iii) the ingredients of the cream were inscribed in a language he was unfamiliar with. His failure to consider these factors amounted to a significant fault and a breach of duty to take appropriate care.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 June 2016 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association against the Korea Football Association’s 5th Disciplinary Committee decision dated 12 August 2015 is upheld.
2.) The Korea Football Association’s 5th Disciplinary Committee decision dated 12 August 2015 is set aside.
3.) Mr. Kang Soo Il is sanctioned with a two (2)-year period of ineligibility as from the date of this award with credit given for any period of ineligibility served by Mr. Soo Il, as well as an additional forty-three (43) days credit due to delay in the underlying procedure unattributable to him.
4.) (…).
5.) (…).
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2015/A/4160 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) & Davit Gogia

Weightlifting
Doping (stanozolol)
Determination of the standard applicable sanction and of the sanction applicable for a second anti-doping rule violation
Absence of reduction of the standard applicable sanction justified by proportionality

1. Where an athlete has not established, on the balance of probabilities, how a non-specified substance entered his body and has not produced any corroborating evidence - in addition to his word - which establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body the absence of intent from his side to enhance sport performance, it is not sufficient for him to simply assert a state of fact for the panel to accept as true. Considering that the athlete did not offer substantial assistance in discovering or establishing anti-doping rule violations, did not admit an anti-doping rule violation in the absence of other evidence or promptly admitted an anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with a violation, he cannot obtain a reduction of the period of ineligibility under the IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP). Therefore, the standard period of ineligibility to be imposed upon the athlete is four years, and this sanction must be increased to eight years if it is the athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation.

2. Bearing in mind that the athlete was suspended for two years because he admittedly used a prohibited non specified substance 2 years before and was caught using the same prohibited substance five days after the end of his first ban, there are not sufficient grounds to even consider the possibility of reducing the standard sanction on the basis of proportionality, simply because the athlete “devotes a large part of his life to weightlifting”. Such an argument is applicable to most – if not to all – international athletes. Furthermore, neither the athlete nor its federation brought forward any personal circumstances of the athlete, which could lead the panel to examine the issue relating to the proportionality of the anti-doping sanctions set out by the IWF ADP.

In May 2015 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Georgian Athlete Davit Gogia after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
Previously the Athlete was sanctioned on 31 October 2013 with a 2 year period of ineligibility also testing positive for stanozolol.
On 10 June 2015 the IWF Hearing Panel decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Panel to set aside the IWF decision of 10 June 2015 and to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that there are no convincing arguments for imposing a reduced sanction by the IWF due to there are no mitigating factors in this case and the application of the principle of proportionality wasn’t justified.

The Panel finds that the Athlete has not established, on the balance of probabilities, how the non-specified substance entered his body. In particular, he has not produced one shred of evidence to substantiate a) that traces of stanozolol could be detected in his bodily specimen two years after its administration, b) if, ever this should be the case, why he tested negative in the tests taken on 20 February and on 31 March 2015 respectively; i.e. before the positive finding resulting from the in-competition test performed on 18 April 2015, during the 2015 European Championships.
Also the Athlete has not produced any corroborating evidence - in addition to his word - which establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel the absence of intent from his side to enhance sport performance. Finally, considering that the Athlete did not offer substantial assistance in discovering or establishing anti-doping rule violations, did not admit an anti-doping rule violation in the absence of other evidence or promptly admitted an anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with a violation sanctionable under the IWF ADP, he cannot obtain a reduction of the period of ineligibility.

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

1.) The appeal filed on 27 July 2015 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the IWF Hearing Panel dated 10 June 2015 is partially upheld.
2.) The paragraphs 1 and 2 of the decision of the IWF Hearing Panel, dated 10 June 2015, are amended as follows:

Mr. Davit Gogia is suspended for a period of eight years running from 7 May 2015, with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served. The remainder of the IWF decision of 10 June 2015 is confirmed.

3.) (…)
4.) (…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed

CAS 2015/A/4049 Romela Aleksander Begaj v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

Weightlifting
Doping (stanozolol)
Experienced, international-level athletes and principle of strict liability under Article 2.1.1 IWF ADP
Non-threshold substances and Adverse Analytical Finding
Advanced testing method applied by specific laboratories and equal treatment of athletes in cases of non-threshold substances

1. An experienced, international-level athlete who has undergone numerous doping controls should be knowledgeable of the principle of strict liability imposed by Article 2.1.1 IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), which provides that “It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1”.

2. Any concentration of non-threshold substances which is detected in the samples must be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding resulting in the strict liability set down in Article 2.1 IWF ADP. WADA Technical Document TD2014MRPL sets out analytical parameters of technical performance with which WADA-accredited laboratories must comply when testing for the presence of a particular Prohibited Substance, its Metabolite(s) or Marker(s). It is that concentration of a Prohibited Substance which laboratories must be able to routinely detect and identify in order to function as a WADA-accredited laboratory.

3. The advanced testing method applied by a specific laboratory does not violate the equal treatment of athletes when the method applied is not a quantitative test and the prohibited substance found is a non-threshold substance. WADA recognizes in the introductory paragraph to Technical Document TD2014MRPL that “some Laboratories will be able to identify a wider range or lower concentrations of Prohibited Substances than other Laboratories”. The Technical Document also states specifically that “individual capabilities in laboratories are encouraged by WADA in order to improve the overall system”.

In December 2014 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Albanian Athlete Romela Alesander Begaj after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The IWF Hearing rejected the Athlete’s submission that scientific evidence showed that meat marketed in Albania was contaminated with stanozolol and decided on 29 March 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in April 2015 the Athlete appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the IWF decision of 29 March 2015 and disputed with an expert witness the validity of the test results.

The Panel rejects the notion that the small concentration detected in the Athlete’s urine sample justifies by itself consideration of the “no fault” or “no significant fault” reduction in the sanction. The Athlete has not satisfied the Panel, on the basis of the applicable standard of proof, namely on the balance of probability, that the Prohibited Substance stanozolol entered her body by the inadvertent contamination from an external sources. Also the Panel has not been persuaded, based on the applicable standard of proof and the evidence submitted by the Athlete, that an elimination or reduction of the ineligibility sanction is fair and appropriate.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 October 2015:

1.) The Appeal filed by Romela Aleksander Begaj against the decision of the IWF Hearing Panel of 29 March 2015 is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the IWF Hearing Panel of 29 March 2015 is confirmed.
3.) (…).
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2014/A/3787 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Confederação Brasileira de Canoagem (CBC) & Igor Alex Tofalini

Related case:
CAS 2014_A_3786 WADA vs Confederação Brasileria de Canoagem & Denise Consuelo Oliveira
May 4, 2015

Canoe
Doping (stanozolol)
CAS jurisdiction
Athlete’s degree of fault or negligence

1. WADA has the right to appeal a final decision that has not been appealed by the athlete directly to CAS, which has jurisdiction to hear the case.

2. The simple fact that an athlete has not duly established how the Prohibited Substance entered his/her body is enough to conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances that may lead to the reduction of the sanction. In any event, a late and shallow research conducted by the athlete after the notification of the adverse analytical finding clearly demonstrates that the athlete was at least careless, and does not meet the personal duty of the athlete to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his/her body. Moreover, the low-level of the sport (i.e. canoe) and the fact that the athlete is not a professional are of no relevance when determining the athlete’s degree of fault.

In January 2014 the Brazilian Canoe Confederation (CBC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Igor Alex Tofalini after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had a food supplement without knowledge that it contained a prohibited substance and that the violation was non intentional. The Athlete argued that he was Paracanoeing only for 7 months and never properly informed about doping by the CBC.
On 3 April 2014 the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD), the Brazilian High Sports Court, decided to impose a 1 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in October 2014 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the STJD decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the STJD decision of 3 April 2014 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to the Athlete cannot validly invoke any mitigating factors which would justify a reduction of the sanction.

The Sole arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s sample establish the presence of the substance stanozolol as anti-doping rule violation which wasn’t challenged by the Athlete before the STJD and before CAS and the Athlete’s fault in this case is clearly significant without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 May 2015 that:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA against the Decision rendered by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva de Canoagem on 3 April 2014 with regard to the athlete Mr. Igor Alex Tofalini is upheld.
2.) The referred Decision of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva de Canoagem dated 3 April 2014 is set aside.
3.) Mr. Igor Alex Tofalini is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, starting on the date on which this award is communicated to the athlete. Any period of suspension (whether imposed to or voluntarily accepted by the Athlete) shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility imposed.
4.) Mr. Igor Alex Tofalini is disqualified of the competitive results obtained during the “Campeonato Brasileiro de Canoagem e Velocidade e Paracanoagem”, and of all the results obtained from 15 December 2013 through the one year period of ineligibility already fulfilled by the Athlete (i.e. from the 15 December 2013 to the 15 December 2014), with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5.) (…).
6.) (…).
7.) Any other prayers for relief are rejected.