Related cases:
- CAS 2007_A_1312 Jeffrey Adams vs CCES
May 16, 2008 - SDRCC 2010 CCES vs Jeffrey Adams
December 21, 2010
Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jeffrey Adams for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On 28 May 2006, in accordance with the Doping Control Rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (the "CADP Rules" or the "CADP Rule"), the Athlete submitted to an in-competition doping control test administered by the CCES. the presence of cocaine metabolites caused an adverse analytical finding (the "AAF") in the Athlete’s "A" sample. Cocaine is a prohibited substance in-competition as provided for by the 2006 WADA List of Prohibited Substances.
History
The Athlete provided a written response to the AAF, that response included an allegation that errors were made in the doping control
procedure by the CCES and that the Athlete had used a contaminated catheter to provide the urine sample. The other possible source of contamination was on 21 May 2006, the Athlete and Karir visited the Vatican bar at Queen St. West in Toronto. Around eleven o'clock in the evening, the Athlete alleges that an unknown woman inserted cocaine into his mouth with her fingers while seated beside him on a sofa in the bar. He claims this was done against his consent. The witness Karir testifies that following the alleged assault she verbally confronted the woman, whom she believed was on drugs. Karir states she observed that the woman was carrying a plastic pouch, which the woman confirmed to her contained cocaine. In the following doping test he used an unclean catheter which was possibly contaminated with cocaine. The chaperon didn't made any remarks using an unclean catheter.
The only disagreement is whether the catheter used by the Athlete was contaminated, and which party is responsible for any contamination. The Athlete alleges that he used the Vatikan Catheter to provide a sample of urine because it was the only catheter he had brought to the Competition.
Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is found to have occurred under CADP Rule. This being a first violation the period of Ineligibility prescribed by CADP Rule is two years.
2. The period of Ineligibility prescribed by this Award is to commence on 18 August 2006 in accordance with CADP Rule being the date on which the Athlete voluntarily elected not to compete and filed a letter to that effect with the Arbitrator. In accordance with this award and the CADP Rules the period of Ineligibility will terminate on 17 August 2008.
3. The competition result achieved by the Athlete at the ING Ottawa Marathon held at Ottawa, Ontario on 28 May 2006 is disqualified by virtue of CADP Rule and he is to forfeit any medals, points or prizes in accordance with the CADP.
4. In accordance with CADP Rule 7.37 the Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.
5. Under Rule 7.69 of the CADP, the Doping Tribunal may award costs to any party payable at its discretion. Unless applied for, there shall be no award of costs in this matter.
Costs
Any application for costs is to be in written form addressed to the SDRCC and received not later than 10 days following the receipt of this Award.
