CAS 2012/A/3037 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Luiza Galiulina & Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG)
Related case:
IOC 2012 IOC vs Luiza Galiulina
August 1, 2012
Gymnastics
Doping (furosemide)
Defence of ignorance and careless use of an unspecified “medication” or “product”
Need to establish objective criteria for the use of prohibited substances by athletes
1. Notwithstanding an athlete’s candidness in admitting a careless use of the unspecified “medications” or “products”, there is no such thing as “innocent” violation of the rules. In the interest of fair competition, the anti-doping rules must be applied with equality to all competitors, and ignorance is no defence. Athletes and their coaches and teams must take care to conduct themselves in accordance with the rules and regulations that correspond to their sport and to their level of competition.
2. It is not desirable that doping sanctions be decided on the basis of personal knowledge of the athletes, because that introduces elements of subjectivity which can lead to favouritism. Nor is it possible to consider that prohibited substances are somehow less prohibited because some persons or groups believe that they do not really belong there. On that basis, the fight against doping would become chaotic and unpredictable.
The International Olympic Committee has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide at the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
On 1 August 2012 the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided that the Athlete was excluded from the Olympic Games and further disciplinary action would be taken by the FIG.
On 6 November 2012 the FIG Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter WADA appealed the FIG decision with CAS on 21 December 2012.
After hearing the positions of the parties, the CAS Panel finds that it is undesirable that doping sanctions be decided on the basis of personal knowledge of the athletes, because that introduces elements of subjectivity which can lead to favouritism. Nor is it possible to consider that prohibited substances are somehow less prohibited because some persons or groups believe that they do not really belong there. On that basis, the fight against doping would become chaotic and unpredictable.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 May 2013 that:
1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 21 December 2012 against the decision rendered by the FIG Disciplinary Commission on 6 November 2012 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the FIG Disciplinary Commission of 6 November 2012 is set aside.
3.) Ms. Luiza Galiulina is subject to a two year period of ineligibility starting on 1 August 2012, Any period of suspension already served by Ms. Luiza Galiulina shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) All competitive individual results obtained by Ms. Luiza Galiulina from 25 July 2012 through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be annulled.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, expect for the CAS Court Office fee already paid by the Appellant, to be retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.
7.) All other requests for relief are rejected.
