Related case:
CAS 2008_A_1489 Serge Despres vs CCES
September 30, 2008
Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) charges Serge Despres (the athlete) with a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Policy (CADP). On August 9, 2007, the CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in Calgary, Alberta. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. The sample contained nandrolone or precursors-norandrosterone which is a prohibited substance.
History
The athlete does not dispute that an anti-doping rule violation occurred in the circumstances of this case. However, the athlete claims there are "exceptional circumstances" that justify a reduction in the two-year period of suspension. The athlete has established that the taking of the Kaizen HMB supplements containing the prohibited substance caused the adverse analytical finding. After an accident he used the supplement for fast recovery, he did some examination to see if the product was safe to use.
Submissions CCES
The CCES claims there are "no exceptional circumstances" in this case and that the athlete is significantly at fault or negligent for the violation that occurred.
Decision
1. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties, establish that an anti-doping violation occurred involving the presence of nandrolone or precursors over the 2 ng/mL threshold set out in CADP Rules 7.16-7.20 and 7.37 in the athlete's collected sample.
2. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties establish there was fault or negligence by the athlete in ingesting this material. The source was found to be Kaizen HMB supplements, purchased by the athlete.
3. The issue before me is whether the two-year provisional suspension issued November 8, 2007 should be reduced, having
regard to the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the athlete. More specifically, the question is whether the athlete
bears "no significant fault or negligence" and if so, what is the appropriate reduction, if any, to the two-year period of
ineligibility of the athlete from competition.
4. In the unusual and particular circumstances of this case, after a careful review of the evidence, the arbitrator determines:
a. While the athlete bears fault or negligence, his conduct does not quite rise to the level of significant fault or negligence.
b. While there are grounds established by the evidence for a reduction in the imposed sanction, such reduction must be
proportional to the totality of the evidence and the underlying principles of the Rules.
c. Accordingly, the period of ineligibility is hereby reduced to twenty months, to July 8, 2009. The period of ineligibility shall commence November 8, 2007, the date of the provisional suspension, in accordance with CADP Rule 7.12.
