CAS 2012/A/2979 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Nirupama Devi Laishram & National Anti-Doping Agency of India (NADA)
- Judo
- Doping (methylexaneamine)
- Elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility
- Starting point of ineligibility
1. From the strict liability principle follows that, once WADA has established that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, it is up to the athlete to demonstrate that the requirements foreseen for an elimination or a reduction of the period of ineligibility are met.
2. According to article 10.9.3 of the NADA ADR, the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel may start the period of ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of doping control not attributable to the athlete. Moreover, the two-year period of ineligibility shall start with a deduction for the period of voluntarily served period of ineligibility.
In April 2012 the National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nirupama Devi Laishram after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification by INADA the Athlete accepted a provisional suspension and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Panel of India (ADDPI).
On July 2012 the ADDPI decided to impose a warning on the Athlete. Hereafter INADA appealed the ADDPI decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI), which confirmed the ADDPI decision and dismissed INADA’s appeal.
On 12 November 2012 WADA appealed the ADAPI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested to set aside the ADAPI decision, to sanction the Athlete with a 2 year period of ineligibility and to disqualify her results.
The Athlete submitted that the geranium oil was a natural source of methylhexaneamine; the methylhexaneamine must have been caused due to the use of beauty products; and the substance found in her system can in no way improve her performance.
Both WADA and the Athlete referred in this case to scientific articles in their submissions.
The CAS Panel concludes that the presence of the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine in the Athlete’s samples was established and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 November 2013 that:
1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 12 November 2012 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India is set aside.
3.) Nirupama Devi Laishram is sanctioned by a two year period of ineligibility, which shall commence on 1 May 2013. The period of voluntarily served provisional suspension of 89 days shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Nirupama Devi Laishram from 11 January 2012, including the results in the Senior Judo Championships in Kolkata, shall be disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5.) The costs of arbitration, to be determined and notified by the CAS Court office, shall be borne entirely by Nirupama Devi Laishram.
6.) Each party shall bear its own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
