CAS 2004/A/726 Maria Luisa Calle Williams v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
CAS 2005/A/726 Maria Luisa Calle Williams v/IOC
- Track cycling
- Doping (Isometheptene)
- CAS jurisdiction
- Substance with “a similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effects” to the substances listed as prohibited
- Criteria to be considered when deciding to treat a substance as similar to a listed substance
1. In contrast to a decision to include a particular substance on the Prohibited List, a WADA determination to treat a substance as “similar” to a listed substance can be challenged by athletes.
2. The classification of a substance as having “a similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effect(s)” requires a similarity to one or several of the particular substances on the list. It is not sufficient for WADA or the IOC, or any other anti-doping agency, simply to assert that a substance, such as Isometheptene, is “a stimulant” and thus a prohibited substance (when that assertion is disputed by an athlete) without specifying the particular substance on the List with which similarity is supposed to exist.
3. Before treating a substance as similar, the three criteria mentioned in 4.3 of the WADA Code (potential performance enhancement, health risk, violation of the spirit of sport) must be considered. Only if two of these three are met can a substance be treated as similar and thus prohibited.
Ms Maria Luisa Calle Williams is a Colombian Athlete competing in the Women’s point race for track cycling at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games.
On 29 August 2004 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol.
Here the Athlete stated that she had used the prescribed medication Neo-Saldina containing Isometheptene as treatment for a migraine headache.
Hereafter in October 2004 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
In this case during the proceedings with CAS the parties accepted the findings en conclusion of an expert report:
- that both Heptaminol and Isometheptene, even though not expressly listed in WADA’s Prohibited List, have a “similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effect(s)” as those substances expressly named as “S.1-stimulants” in the WADA Prohibited List; and
- that both Heptaminol and Isometheptene are prohibited substances pursuant to the IOC Rules; and
- that Heptaminol is a marker for Isometheptene, i.e. “a compound, group of compounds or biological parameters that indicates the use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method”.
Subsequent UCI and the Lausanne Lab also concluded that the substance Isometheptene has not a similar chemical structure or pharmacological effect as the stimulants listed on the WADA 2004 list and can thus not be considered to be prohibited under IOC Rules.
The parties in this case, including WADA, agreed that the presence of Heptaminol in the Athlete’s sample was not due to she ingested that substance but the result of metabolizing Isometheptene into Desmethyl-Isometheptene which transformed in Heptaminol during laboratory analysis.
Initially, the IOC Decision argued that as a result of the strict liability principle the mere finding of Heptaminol - which the IOC claims was a prohibited substance at the relevant point in time - in the Athlete’s sample must lead to her disqualification.
However, during the proceedings before the Panel the IOC agreed that contrary to its original submissions the substance for which the Athlete tested positive was Isometheptene not Heptaminol. This was the result of the her’s admission to having taken Neo-Saldina and the biological and chemical process. Therefore, the Panel does not have to determine whether Heptaminol is in fact a prohibited substance.
The Panel is unanimously of the view that the classification of a substance as having “a similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effect(s)” requires a similarity to one or several of the particular substances on the list.
It is not sufficient for WADA or the IOC, or any other anti-doping agency, simply to assert that a substance, such as Isometheptene, is “a stimulant” and thus a prohibited substance (when that assertion is disputed by an athlete) without specifying the particular substance on the List with which similarity is supposed to exist.
In summary, the Panel is unanimous in finding:
- that a decision by WADA to treat a substance as “similar” is subject to challenge;
- that the S1-Stimulants category of the 2004 Prohibited List is not an “open list” and that similarity must exist with a particular substance before a non-listed substance can be treated as similar; and
- that before treating a substance as similar the three criteria mentioned in 4.3 of the WADA Code must be considered.
Further, the majority of the Panel finds that the IOC failed to discharge the burden of proving that Isometheptene is a prohibited substance under the applicable rules.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 October 2015:
1.) The decision of the IOC of 29 August 2004 is set aside.
2.) The award to Maria Luisa Calle Williams of the bronze medal for the women’s Point race at the 2004 Olympic Games is confirmed.
(…)
