CAS 2012/A/2857 Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Deutschland v. Patrik Sinkewitz
Related cases:
DIS 2011 NADA vs Patrick Sinkewitz
June 19, 2012
Swiss Federal Court 4A_178_2014 Patrik Sinkewitz vs NADA
June 11, 2014
CAS 2011_A_2479 Patrik Sinkewitz vs UCI (2011-09-13)
September 13, 2011
CAS 2011_A_2479 Patrik Sinkewitz vs UCI (2011-07-08)
July 8, 2011
In June 2007 the Bund Deutscher Radfahrer (BDR), the German Cycling Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Patrik Sinkewitz after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. The Athlete admitted the use of testosterone, erythropoietin (EPO) and blood transfusions. Due to the Athlete’s substantial assistance the BDR Sports Court decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
In March 2011 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported to BDR a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance human growth hormone (hGH).
After notification by the UCI the Athlete was provisional suspended. On 8 July 2011 and on 13 September 2011 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed in two Awards the Athlete’s appeal (CAS 2011/A/2479) and confirmed the UCI decision of 3 June 2011 which rejected the Athlete’s request to lift the provisional suspension.
In July 2011 the Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA), the German National Anti-Doping Agency, requested the Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtbarkeit (DIS), the German Institution for Arbitration, to sanction the Athlete for the reported second anti-doping rule violation.
After two hearings and after various experts having been heard, by an decision dated 19 June 2012, the Athlete was acquitted of an ADRV. The Sole Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the calculation of the Decision Limits (DL) for the rec/pit ratio found in the Athlete’s samples was not sufficiently documented and, therefore, the ADRV not validly proven.
On 12 July 2012 NADA appealed the DIS decision of 19 June 2012 with CAS and requested the Panel to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, considering the first anti-doping rule violation in 2007. Also NADA requested CAS for an extension of the time limit for the submission of the Appeal Brief.
The Athlete disputed the reliability of the hGH test and argued that there were several departures from the International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) during the procedure.
Having thoroughly considered the submissions and expert testimonies provided by the Parties and heard at the hearing, the CAS Panel finds that NADA has established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the ratio of rec/pit hGH found on the Athlete Patrik Sinkewitz’s samples reveal the presence of recGH. Based on the foregoing considerations of the facts and the law, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation on 27 February 2011 in the form of the presence of recombinant hGH.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules decides on 21 February 2014:
1.) The appeal of the Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA) is partially upheld.
2.) The Decision of the DIS Arbitral Decision dated 19 June 2012 is set aside.
3.) The Athlete Patrik Sinkewitz is guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the form of the presence of recombinant hGH in his body specimen.
4.) A period of 8 years of ineligibility for a second Anti-Doping Rule Violation is imposed on the Athlete.
5.) The period of ineligibility starts three months prior to the date of the pronouncing of this Decision. A period of 1 year, 3 months, and 4 days is credited against the period of 8 years.
6.) A fine of € 38’500 shall be imposed on the Athlete.
7.) All competitive results which the Athlete may have obtained in the competition “Grand Prix de Lugano” of 2011 and between 27 February 2011 and 18 March 2011 are disqualified.
8.) The costs of the arbitration, to be separately determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Athlete.
9.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
10.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
