Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Joseph Frans (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. Pursuant to the rules of CADP the Athlete provided a urine sample for testing on 8 March 2005. His sample tested positive for cocaine and its metabolites, these substances are on the Prohibited List of the
International Standard issued by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
History
The athlete has no idea how he got contaminated. He does visit parties where he smokes.
Decision
I am satisfied that the Athlete was given every opportunity to participate in a hearing before me. He failed to respond to the various attempts made to acquire his participation in a hearing or waiver of the same. The parties were advised that I was closing the hearing in this matter and that it would proceed merely upon the written record I had received.
The proper selection of the Athlete for testing, the integrity of the sample collection and the chain of custody of the urine sample are all established on the record. The Lab has reported an adverse analytical finding and there is no indication that the chemical analytical process used by the Lab was in any way flawed.
Rule 7.17 and 7.18 make an athlete responsible for any prohibited substance found in the urine sample analysis. As was held in the decision of Arbitrator it is not necessary that intent, fault or knowing 'use* by an athlete be demonstrated to establish this anti-doping rule violation. I am comfortably satisfied that, on a review of all of the evidence before me, an anti-doping rule violation has occulted.
Cocaine is not a "specified substance" identified in Rule 7.7. It is a prohibited substance when it is detected at any level; a point made in the recent cocaine case, supra, by Arbitrator Mew. The failure of the Athlete to participate in these proceedings means that there is no necessity for me to refer to the Exceptional Circumstances Rules 7.38 and 7.39. There must be evidence from the Athlete, or presented on his behalf, that there was either no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence. The only evidence before me from the Athlete is the 11 April 2005 explanation sent to the CCES. That statement is one of denial and an inability to explain what has occurred. I take notice of the fact that cocaine cannot enter the human body by the consumption of alcoholic drink or the smoking of tobacco as referred to in the Athlete's explanation. In short, the Athlete has provided no explanation of the adverse analytical finding. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence, by way of explanation from the Athlete, I need not address further the Exceptional circumstances provisions of the Rules. They have no application in this case.
I find that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred under the CADP and the Rules prohibiting the use of a prohibited substance. In the circumstances I have no other choice than to impose the sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation of a two-year period of ineligibility and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada. The foregoing period of ineligibility starts on the date of this decision in accordance with the Rules.
Costs
No submission was made on costs. Unless applied for, I make no order in respect of the same.
