CAS 2013/A/3151 Jonathon Millar v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)
Related case:
FEI 2013 FEI vs Jonathon Millar
March 28, 2013
Equestrian
Doping (DHEA)
Beginning of the period of ineligibility
According to Art. 10.9.2 of the FEI Anti-Doping Rules for Human Athletes based on the World Anti-Doping Code, where the athlete promptly admits the anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with it, the Panel has discretion to decide that the period of ineligibility may start as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred and to fix the length of this period, provided that the athlete has served at least half of it going forward from the date he accepted the imposition of a sanction, the date of a hearing decision imposing a sanction or the date of the sanction is otherwise imposed.
In August 2011 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jonathon Millar after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance prasterone (dehydroepiandrosteron, DHEA).
The Athlete stated that in 2008 he suffered from his mother's death and from health problems due to a diagnosed DHEA deficiency syndrome. Therefore he used DHEA drops daily, as prescribed by his doctor, and filed an application for a TUE with CCES and later with FEI. In May 2009 CCES, and in February 2010 FEI, dismissed the Athlete’s TUE applications, but due to miscommunication, and an incorrect email address that was used, the two refusals for the TUE application didn’t reach the Athlete and he continued using his medication as prescribed.
The FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete committed an ADRV, he had not met his burden of proof and he had not made an admission. Therefore the FEI Tribunal decided on 28 March 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 August 2013. FEI also fine the Athlete CHF 2,0000 and ordered that he contribute CHF 4,000 towards the legal costs of the FEI’s judicial procedure.
Hereafer the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision of 28 March 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete argued that:
- he made a voluntary admission pursuant to the rules;
- he bore no significant fault or negligence;
- FEI failed to apply the doctrines of contra proferentem, in dubio contra stipulatorem and ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit
- the FEI denied the Athlete a fair trial and natural justice due to bias and unfairness of the Tribunal
- the imposed sanction, the fine and cost order were harsh, unjust and disproportionate.
Having heard the live evidence of the witnesses, which the FEI Tribunal did not hear, the CAS Panel concludes that the FEI Tribunal acted as they thought appropriate based on the facts before them. The Panel also accepts that the Athlete’s family were handling their difficult situation in the manner which they thought was appropriate as they saw fit at the time.
Since the appeal has been upheld in part, the Panel exonerates the Athlete from the costs of the FEI Tribunal judicial procedure and reduces the fine imposed upon by him by one-half. This decision is with respect to any and all ADRVs consisting of DHEA-s use from October 2008 through the date of the sample collection of 30 June 2011.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 October 2013 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Jonathon Millar on 24 April 2013 is upheld in part.
2.) The FEI decision of 28 March 2013 is amended as follows:
- Jonathon Millar's period of ineligibility shall expire as of the date of this Award.
- The fine imposed on Jonathon Millar is fixed at CHF 1,000.
- Jonathon Millar is exonerated from the costs of the FEI judicial procedure.
3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Jonathon Millar, which is retained by the CAS.
4.) Each party shall bear its own legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
