Related case:
ISADDP 2011 IABA Disciplinary Decision 20111529
May 8, 2012
Facts
This is an appeal by the Athlete IS-1501 (the Athlete) against the decision, dated 8 May 2012, of the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ISADDP) in the matter of Irish Amateur Boxing Association vs the Athlete IS-1501 and the Trainer IS-1502.
History
The ISADDP held that the Athlete had satisfied the provisions of Article 10.3 of the Rules2 and the period of Ineligibility for the Athlete's violation should be reduced to nine (9) months.
While admitting the Rule violation by the Athlete the Notice submits that the Disciplinary Panel erred in reaching its decision for the following reasons:
(a) Due process/fair procedures were not applied;
(b) Very considerable weight should have been given to the fact that consumption of Furosemide by the Ahlete could not have conferred any benefit on him (given his change to a higher boxing weight) in circumstances where his consumption of the substance was inadvertent and not connected with masking the consumption of any other substance;
(c) The penalty imposed was not proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case, which was not a grave infraction of the Rules and the Athlete's fault should be regarded as negligible at most, as his brother and trainer, who had no training or education in the area of doping, administered the Specified Substance;
(d) The penalty was too severe as it will prevent the Athlete from competing at a regional competition in May 2012, thus rendering him ineligible for selection for the Irish boxing team for the World Championships in October 2012, in circumstances where he has already lost the opportunity to compete at the 2012 Olympics as a result of the provisional suspension;
(e) Insufficient weight was attached to the fact that the Athlete was a minor at the time of the Rule violation;
(f) There was a failure to consider the dependency of the Athlete on his brother and trainer influence over the Athlete;
(g) There was a failure to explain why the period of Ineligibility was not reduced to a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility as permitted by Article 10.3.1;
(h) The period of Ineligibility should have taken into consideration the period between the date the sample was given on 21-22 October 2011 and the date of provisional suspension as all intervening competition results are automatically disqualified;
(i) Article 10.4.2 of the Rules does not necessarily apply in this case as there is no minimum period of Ineligibility in circumstances where 10.2 and 10.3 apply. If the Disciplinary Panel purported to apply Article 10.4.2 in order to have an otherwise applicable period reduced, they erred in principle, because the sanction of nine months Ineligibility must then be read as being half of the period otherwise applicable, namely eighteen months. Eighteen months is a sanction clearly disproportionate in the circumstances of this case taking Article 10.2 and 10.3 to be applicable;
(j) The enhanced duty placed on a trainer when dealing with a minor under Article 10.2.3.1 must have as its corollary that a minor will, as a consequence of his minority, be treated more leniently than an adult;
(k) The worth and educative value of a sanction is lesser for a minor than for an adult and the Disciplinary Panel should have taken account of this. The mere fact of being sanctioned, including by a reprimand, can have a disproportionately significant effect on a minor. A minor may be more likely to learn their lesson as a result of a reprimand than an adult. At the time of the submission of the Notice of Appeal of the Athlete had served four months of the period of Ineligibility already and this had a significant impact on him in terms of illustrating the consequences of consumption of prescribed substances;
(I) Alternatively this an exceptional case in which the Disciplinary Panel should have allowed a full mitigation of the available period of Ineligibility.
Decision
The ISADAP decides to uphold the imposed ISADDP sanction.
