Facts
Sebastian Kolasa, appellant, appeals against the decision of the UK respondent for an anti-doping rule violation. The appeal is against a two year period of ineligibility imposed on the appellant by the National Anti-Doping Tribunal in a decision dated February 24, 2014, imposed in respect of a charge of evading sample collection on August 31, 2013.
History
The reason for the evasion was that the appellant was afraid to be tested positive for the use of cannabis. The Appellant thinks his period of ineligibility should be shortened because of his early admission, this is in accordance with the ruling. However his admission was during interview. And evading his samplers by wearing a crash-helmet for not being recognized is difficult to prove and seen as circumstantial evidence.
The panel considers that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and cooperated fully once he was confronted in interview with the facts known to UK Anti-Doping. His admissions saved UK Anti-Doping from proving the case against him from circumstantial evidence, a case that might have failed for reasons already given. His youth and inexperience are of some relevance. Nevertheless, this is not a case in which we feel able to reduce his ban by the maximum amount of one year. In all the circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the appropriate period of ineligibility is 15 months.
Decision
1. The Appeal Tribunal accepts the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to a reduction of the period of ineligibility.
1.The period of ineligibility imposed by the Tribunal is replaced by a period of ineligibility of 15 months from 1 September 2013.
