CAS 2013/A/3279 Viktor Troicki v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)
- Tennis
- Doping (failure to provide a blood sample)
- Anti-doping violation according to Art. 2.3 of the 2013 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme
- Compelling justification to be determined objectively
- Mitigation of the sanction in application of Art. 10.5.2 of the Programme
1. An athlete fails to provide a sample if he/she does not provide a blood sample collection after being notified by the chaperone that he/she has been randomly selected to provide one. As a result, unless he/she can prove, by a balance of probability, that he/she had a compelling justification to forego the test, he/she must be deemed to have committed a doping offense within the meaning of Art. 2.3.
2. Whether the athlete has compelling justification for failing to provide a blood sample needs to be determined objectively. The question is not whether the athlete was acting in good faith, but, whether objectively, he was justified by compelling reasons to forego the test.
3. Article 10.5.2 of the Programme permits a reduction of the period of ineligibility but sets as the minimum allowable period of ineligibility, in cases of no significant fault, to be one half of the period otherwise applicable. On the one hand, absent circumstances evidencing a high degree of fault bordering on serious indifference, recklessness, or extreme carelessness, a 24-months sanction would be at the upper end of the range of sanctions to be imposed. On the other hand, a sanction of 12 months should only be imposed where there is a very low degree of significant fault on the part of the athlete.
On 25 July 2013 the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Serbian tennis player Victor Troicki for his refusal to provide a blood sample in April 2013.
Hereafter in August 2013 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete denied he committed an anti-doping rule violation, nor that he acted intentionally. He asserted that he had a compelling justification for his conduct.
Because the Athlete did not provide a blood sample collection after being notified by the chaperone that he had been randomly selected to provide one, the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to provide a sample.
The Panel established that the Athlete was informed by the assistant DCO that he could face sanctions if he did not take the test and was told by her that it was not the DCO’s decision as to whether there would be consequences if he failed to provide a blood sample.
Objectively therefore, in the circumstances, the Athlete did not have a compelling justification to forego the test and his subjective interpretation of the events which led to the misunderstanding cannot amount to a compelling justification.
Having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes that the 18-month sanction imposed by the Tribunal was too severe. Considering the Athlete's degree of fault and, both the mitigating and aggravating factors, the Panel concludes that a just and proportionate sanction would be a period of Ineligibility of l2 months.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 November 2013 that:
1. The appeal filed by Mr Viktor Troicki on 6 August 2013 against the International Tennis Federation concerning the decision of the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal convened by the ITF of 25 July 2013 is partially upheld.
2. The decision of the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal convened by the ITF dated 25 July 2013 is set aside.
3. Mr Viktor Troicki is suspended for a period of 12 months from 15 July 2013.
4. Mr Viktor Troickis’s individual results obtained at the Monte Carlo Masters 2013 in April 2013 are disqualified. The prize money and ranking points obtained by Mr Viktor Troicki through his participation in that event are forfeited.
5. Mr Viktor Troicki’s prize money and ranking points obtained from his participation in all subsequent competitions in which he has participated until 15 July 2013 are not disqualified.
6. (…).
7. (…).
8. All other or further claims are dismissed.
