Related case:
CAS 2013_A_3370 UCI vs Jack Burke & Canadian Cycling Association
July 17, 2014
Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jack Burke for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. The Athlete provided a urine sample during a stage of the competition held in Malartic, Quebec on 18 July 2013. The analysis of the sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.
History
It is submitted that the trace amount of HCTZ detected in the Athlete's samples entered his body through contaminated water obtained from a tap sourced by a well in Malartic, Quebec. The Athlete relies on expert testimony from Dr. Robert that HCTZ can be present in raw water, surface water, sludge, and treated drinking water to argue that on a balance of probabilities, contaminated water is the probable cause of the Athlete's adverse analytical finding. the concentration of HCTZ was not consistent with an effort to dilute the urine and was insufficient to have any masking effect.
Decision
I conclude that the Athlete's degree of fault falls at the lowest end of the spectrum. This case represents only a technical violation of the ADR. A two-year period of Ineligibility would be vastly disproportionate to the Athlete's degree of culpability. I therefore exercise my discretion in favour of the Athlete when his sport has done absolutely nothing to educate him about any aspect of anti-doping and no degree of utmost care other than not using tap water from a well would have prevented the circumstances. Therefore, I find there is no fault and that the appropriate sanction is a reprimand, which will still represent a first doping infraction. I do not impose any period
of Ineligibility.
