CAS 2015/A/4272 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA) & Rishan Pieris Rugby Doping (metandienone) Intent to take the prohibited substance Duty to inquire as to whether a product contains a prohibited substance 1. An athlete who ingested tablets in order to increase his body weight causing likely the positive analytical test, cannot be considered that he had no intent to take the prohibited substance solely on his stated ignorance as to the contents of the tablets. 2. The ability for an athlete to reduce a standard applicable period of ineligibility on the basis of an anti-doping rule violation on a “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence” rationale is reserved for specific circumstances. Abundant CAS case law underscores the athlete’s responsibility with respect to whatever he or she ingests or otherwise administers to his or her body. Indeed, such case law is replete with language to the effect that an athlete has “a duty of utmost caution to avoid that a prohibited substance enters his or her body”. Failing to inquire as to whether a product contains a prohibited substance constitutes significant fault in and of itself, according to CAS precedent. ________________________________________________ On 3 November 2014 the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Rishan Pieris after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone. Hereafter in October 2015 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the SLADA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the SLADA decision of 3 November 2014 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility due to the Athlete’s degree of fault is conversely very significant. SLADA and the Athlete did not file written submissions. The Sole Arbitrator finds that is uncontested that the Athlete ingested the “Anabole” tablets, did so with the stated intent to increase his body weight, and that this act likely caused the positive analytical test. The Appealed Decision, however, finds that he had no intent to take this prohibited substance. This finding appears to be based solely on the Athlete’s stated ignorance as to the contents of the tablets. If another basis exists, it does not appear in the Appealed Decision. In the present case, neither SLADA or the Athlete have attempted to meet its burden of proof with respect to establishing “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence”. Moreover, even if deduced in the light most favourable to the Athlete, the facts arising from the Appealed Decision do not even allow for a prima facie possibility of reduced fault. Since the SLADA ADR imposes a two-year period of ineligibility absent conditions that would meet the requirements of Articles 10.5.1 or 10.5.2, and these conditions are not met, the Appealed Decision cannot be deemed compliant with the applicable rules, and an additional period of ineligibility must be imposed in order to bring the sanction in line with the rules. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 March 2016: 1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 30 October 2015 against the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency and Mr. Rishan Pieris with respect to the decision rendered by the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency Disciplinary Committee on 3 November 2014 is upheld. 2.) The decision rendered by the SLADA Disciplinary Committee on 3 November 2014 is set aside. 3.) Mr. Rishan Pieris is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility commencing on the date of this award with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served by Mr Rishan Pieris between 8 July 2014 and 7 July 2015. 4.) (…). 5.) (…). 6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
Welcome to Doping.nl, the
Anti-Doping Knowledge Center.
This site has been established to host information about doping in the broadest sense of the word, and about doping prevention.
The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (the Dutch Doping Authority for short) established this site and maintains it. The Doping Authority was founded in 1989 and it is one of the oldest NADOs in the world. Doping.nl was developed with financial support from the Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport.
This website was established because of the importance that the Doping Authority and the Ministry attach to the dissemination of information relevant to doping prevention. Disclosing and supplying relevant information is one of the cornerstones in the fight against doping in sport. However, in practice, a significant amount of information is still not available, or only available to a limited group of users. We therefore decided to bring together all the relevant information in a single site: Doping.nl.
The Doping Authority aims to supply as much information through this website as possible on an ongoing basis. The information will be varied but will focus primarily on: WADA documents like the World Anti-Doping Code, the International Standards like the Prohibited List, Doping Regulations, scientific articles and abstracts, decisions by disciplinary bodies (mainly CAS decisions).As well as making documents available, the Doping Authority aims to supply searchable documents when possible, and to add relevant keywords to ensure easy access.
In the future, Doping.nl will also become a digital archive containing older information that is no longer available elsewhere.
This site has been designed for use by anti-doping professionals such as National Anti-Doping Organisations and International Federations but also for students, journalists and other people interested in the subject.
Recently added documents More »
CAS 2015/A/3881 Fatma Omar v. International Paralympic Committee (IPC) Paralympic powerlifting Doping (clomiphene) Duty of the CAS Panel to verify the bona fide nature of a settlement agreement embodied in an arbitral award Any settlement agreement may be embodied in an arbitral award rendered by consent of the parties. It is the task of the CAS panel to verify the bona fide nature of a settlement agreement to ensure that the will of the parties has not been manipulated by them to commit fraud and to confirm that the terms of the settlement agreement are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules of the law applicable to the dispute. __________________________________________________ In May 2014 the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Egyptian Paralympic Athlete Fatma Omar after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clomiphene. On 30 November 2014 the IPC Governing Board rendered the decision to impose € 1,500 fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension. Hereafter in December 2014 the Egyptian Paralympic Committee and the Athlete appealed the IPC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). After deliberations between the Parties a settlement was reached and the Parties signed copies of the settlement agreement. The Parties submitted signed copies to CAS and requested the Panel to ratify the Settlement Agreement into a Consent Award. The Parties agree on the following on 30 April 2015: 1.) In application of article 10.4 of the IPC Anti-Doping Code, the suspension imposed to Ms Fatma Omar by the International Paralympic Committee Governing Board on 30 November 2014 shall be reduced to one (1) year and shall therefore end on 15 May 2015. 2.) In all other respects, the decision of the IPC Governing Board of 30 November 2014 shall be confirmed. 3.) The Parties agree to keep the present Settlement Agreement confidential until the issuance of the final Consent Award by CAS. 4.) Each party will bear its own legal costs. 5.) All other motions and prayers for relief shall be rejected. 6.) The Parties request the Panel to issue a Consent Award confirming the present Settlement Agreement. After having discussed with the Parties the terms of the Settlement Agreement at the Hearing and after reviewing such terms, the Panel finds no grounds to object or to disapprove of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and is satisfied that the Settlement Agreement constitutes a bona fide settlement of the dispute brought to its attention. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 13 May 2015 renders the following Consent Award: 1.) The Panel, with the consent of Fatma Omar and the International Paralympic Committee, hereby ratifies the Settlement Agreement signed by the parties on 30 April 2015 and incorporates its terms into this Consent Award. 2.) The arbitral procedure CAS 2015/A/3881 Fatma Omar v. International Paralympic Committee is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll. 3.) Each party is hereby ordered to perform the obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement referred to above. 4.) (…). 5.) (…). 6.) All other motions and prayers for relief are rejected.
CAS 2013/A/3262 Joel Melchor Sánchez Alegría v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Football Doping (methylhexameanine) Admissibility of the appeal De novo hearing Lack of intent to enhance sport performance Degree of fault or negligence Personal duty of the athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his body 1. If particular items are missing in a Statement of Appeal, it can be reasonable for the CAS and in accordance with article R48 of the CAS Code, to accept the Statement of Appeal as filed and grant a short deadline of 5 days to supplement the initial submission and not deprive the appellant of its right to appeal based solely on the straightforward application of a procedural rule. 2. Pursuant to article R57 CAS Code, a CAS panel has full power to review the facts and the law de novo on an appeal, which may include, in certain circumstances, that potential violations of the principle of due process or of the right to be heard in prior instances, may be cured in the appeal before the CAS. 3. In order to satisfy lack of intent to enhance sport performance, the athlete shall demonstrate to the adjudicating body’s comfortable satisfaction that the prohibited substance was not intended to enhance his sport performance, and produce corroborating evidence in addition to his own statement that establishes a lack of intent to the comfortable satisfaction of the adjudicating body. In particular, the athlete needs to prove that the ingestion of the specified substance, rather than the product itself, was not intended to enhance his sport performance. In any case, the mere fact that the athlete allegedly did not know that the product contained the specified substance does not establish an absence of intent. An athlete may only argue an absence of intent to enhance performance when his behaviour was not reckless, but only oblivious. 4. There are several factors to determine the athlete’s degree of fault and eventually reduce the period of ineligibility, including (i) the fact that before taking the product for the first time the athlete consulted with personal trainers, (ii) read the product label, (iii) conducted internet research, (iv) consulted with the team’s physician about all the nutritional supplements and products he was taking. In this respect, the fact that the label of the product contains a warning in English which was allegedly not understood by the athlete is no excuse. The facts that no internet research was made, that no team doctor was consulted but only a nutritionist who does not work in the world of football, and that the athlete did not disclose the product in his doping control form, shall be considered not only as a clear lack of the minimum diligence, but also as a sign that the athlete was trying to conceal that he was taking the product. Therefore, the athlete’s degree of fault or negligence, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, is clearly significant in relation to the anti-doping rule violation and the sanction cannot be eliminated or reduced. 5. The FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations impose a personal duty upon each football player to ensure that no prohibited substance enters the football player’s body, which necessarily means that the player must have taken all available precautions to avoid any anti-doping rule violations. Accordingly, the fact that this is a personal duty, means the player cannot avoid liability by simply arguing that another person was negligent. ________________________________________________ In December 2012 the International Football Federation (FIFA) has reported an Anti-Doping Rule violation against the Peruvian football player Joel Melchor Sanchez Alegria after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). On 1 March 2013 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. On 6 May 2013 the FIFA Appeal Committee rejected the Athlete’s appeal and confirmed the FIFA decision of 1 March 2013. Hereafter in June 2013 the Athlete appealed the FIFA Appeal Committee decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the FIFA decision of 6 May 2013 and to impose a reduced sanction or only a reprimand. The Athlete argued that a violation occurred of the principle of due process and the right to be heard and the Athlete’s statement was misinterpreted. After having examined the file, the Panel considers that the Athlete has not substantiated the allegations. The Athlete simply states that there has been apparent infringement of these rights, but he does not contribute any convincing evidence in this respect, which leads the Panel to conclude that any of the aforementioned rights was actually infringed. The Panel finds that the presence of the substance methylhexaneamine in the Athlete’s samples is proven and objectively constitutes an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel and the parties agree that the source of the Athlete’s violation was the ingestion of Hermo Rage Black, which contained the specific substance methylhexaneamine. Accordingly, the Panel hold that the Athlete successfully established how the substance entered his system. However the Panel finds that the Athlete has not demonstrated an absence of intent to enhance his sport performance to its comfortable satisfaction. The Panel rules that the Athlete’s degree of fault or negligence, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, is clearly significant in relation to the anti-doping rule violation and the Athlete’s sanction cannot be reduced. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 September 2014 that: 1.) The appeal filed on 20 June 2013 by Mr. Joel Melchor Sánchez Alegría against the decision adopted by the FIFA Appeal Committee on 6 May 2013 is dismissed. 2.) The decision adopted by the FIFA Appeal Committee on 6 May 2013 is confirmed. 3.) (…). 4.) (…). 5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
CAS 2013/A/3071 Ana Beatriz di Rienzo Bulcão v. Fédération Internationale d’Escrime (FIE) Fencing Doping (boldenone; androstatrienedione) Burden of the athlete to establish a departure from the IST by a balance of probability Signature of the doping control form without making any comment about the sample collection process Delay of more than 30 days between the date of the urine sample collection and the date the samples arrived at the laboratory Starting date of the period of ineligibility in case of substantial delay not attributable to the athlete 1. According to the FIE anti-doping rules, the burden is on the fencer to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standards for Testing (IST) that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF). If the fencer does so, the burden shifts to the FIE to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal (or the CAS panel) that the departure did not cause the AAF. 2. The fact that, first, the athlete could not choose the kit and the collection vessel and, second, it was the DCO and not she who closed the bottles and manipulated the seals system cannot establish validly a departure from the IST if the athlete signed the doping control form and certified that the entire process has been performed according to the rules, without making any comment. 3. A delay of more than 30 days between the date of the urine sample collection and the date the samples arrived at the laboratory does not respect the 14 days time limit provided for in the FIE Rules. However, such a departure from the FIE Rules does not lead to the nullity of the result of the analysis performed. That would only be the case, should the athlete reasonably demonstrate that such delay has been the origin of the AAF. 4. The period of ineligibility starts on the date of the hearing decision providing for ineligibility or may start at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of the sample collection in case there has been substantial delay in some aspects of the doping control not attributable to the athlete. ________________________________________________ In May 2012 the International Fencing Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian fencer Ana Beatriz di Rienzo Bulcão after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione (androstatrienedione) and boldenone. On 7 January 2013 the FEI Anti-Doping Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in January 2013 the Athlete appealed the FEI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the FEI decision of 7 January 2013 and to impose a reduced santion. The Athlete argued that several departures occurred from the IST during the sample collection and alleged that her sample vessel could have been manipulated. Considering the evidence in this case the Panel finds it impossible that the Athlete’s urine sample could have been mixed, tampered with or contaminated; furthermore, the Athlete does not give any reason why she would have been victim of a conspiracy. The Panel rules that the Athlete failed to establish that, if occurred, a departure of the IST could have caused the AAF; thus, the sample collection process was duly conducted according to the IST and the FIE Rules. The Panel concludes that the presence of the prohibited substances boldenone and ATD of exogenous origin in the Athlete’s sample is established and it is undisputable that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 August 2013 that: 1.) The appeal filed by Ms Ana Beatriz Di Rienzo Bulcão on January 23, 2013 is partially upheld. 2.) Ch. 2 Part 2 of the Decision of the FIE Doping Disciplinary Tribunal dated January 7, 2013 is modified as follows: Ms Ana Beatrziz Di Rienzo Bulcao is automatically disqualified of her results in the Pan-American Fencing Championships of March 2012 and is ineligible to compete for a period of two years starting from May 6 2012. 3.) (…). 4.) (…). 5.) All other and further claims or prayers for relief are dismissed.