- TAS 2014/A/3510 Sandra Ristivojević v. International Skating Union (ISU)
- CAS 2014/A/3510 Sandra Ristivojević vs ISU
- CAS 2014/A/3510 Sandra Ristivojevic v. International Skating Union (ISU)
Related case:
ISU 2014 ISU vs Sandra Ristivojević
February 1, 2014
- Skating
- Doping (failure to submit to sample collection)
- Violation of Article 2.3.1 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules: failure to ensure the selection for anti-doping testing
- Youth or lack of experience as a factor justifying the failure
Interpretation of Article 2.3.1 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules including ISU’s “duty to recall”
Appropriate sanction
1. The fact for a skater to leave the ice rink after the event without first ensuring that no selection for anti-doping testing occurred is a violation provided under Article. 2.3.1 of the ISU doping rules. Article 2.3.1 is a specific anti-doping rule, which is found in the ISU Anti-Doping rules, and not in the WADA Code. Article 2.3.1 constitutes a separate anti-doping violation that is to be determined individually. Article 2.3.1 is thus not a subsection of Article 2.3 in the sense that a violation of Article 2.3.1 automatically leads to a violation of Article 2.3 providing for the refusal or failure without compelling justification to submit to sample collection.
2. Youth or lack of international experience are not factors which could or should justify failure to ensure that the athlete has not been selected for Anti-Doping testing before leaving the ice rink.
3. Article 2.3.1 should be interpreted as though leaving the ice rink after the event in which a skater has participated without first ensuring that he or she has not been selected for anti-doping testing constitutes an anti-doping rule violation. However, the second sentence of the provision, “after having been recalled”, clearly shows that the skater under these circumstances may be granted “a second chance” to return in due time to the competition site in order to comply with the anti-doping testing for the event. Given the serious consequences of failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection, in order to treat an athlete fairly, an attempt to recall her to comply with the anti-doping testing is a necessary and important obligation in accordance with the ISU’s own anti-doping procedures. Otherwise, the duty to “recall” loses its legal significance for the athlete’s rights. If the ISU failed to establish that a proper recall has been made and the athlete has established his/her genuine desire and wish to be tested the next day, Article 10.3.1, second sentence, should be construed in such a way that the athlete shall be deemed to have complied with the testing on recall, as she was in fact not recalled the night before and showed up the next day with the – unsuccessful – attempt to be tested.
4. According to Article 10.3.1 paragraph 2, the sanctions set for in Article 10.4 ISU Anti-Doping Regulations shall apply. Therefore, the Athlete must be sanctioned at minimum with a reprimand and at maximum with a 2-year ban: in casu a 9 month ban is the appropriate sanction.
On 1 February 2014 the Disciplinary Committee of the International Skating Union (ISU) decided to imose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the minor Serbian skater Sandra Ristivojević for her failure to submit to sample collection.
Hereafter in February 2014 the Athlete appealed the ISU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.
The Athlete testified that she got sick and after the match she went to her Hotel without attending the doping control. Her team leader (her mother) also felt ill and failed to inform the organisation. Thereupon they made however an effort to attend the doping control the next day when they found out about missing the doping test, but this was refused by the DCO.
The following issues fall to be determined by the Panel in these proceedings:
1.) Did the Athlete violate Article 2.3 or 2.3.1 in the ISU Anti-Doping Rules?
2.) If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, what is the appropriate sanction for such a violation?
The Panel concludes that the minor Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel does not consider her youth or lack of international experience to be factors which could or should justify her failure to ensure that she had not been selected for Anti-Doping testing before leaving the ice rink.
In reaching this conclusion, the Panel has also put emphasis on the fact that her mother, who was acting as team leader for the Serbian team, was with her during the entire competition. As team leader for the Serbian team and coach for her daughter, she was or should have been aware of the doping control procedures, which was explained to the team leaders prior to the competition.
The Panel is satisfied in concluding that the Athlete had a genuine desire to be tested the next day together with the male skaters at the competition. The Panel finds no compelling reasons not to believe the statements made by the Athlete and her mother that they on several occasions tried to get in contact with a person who could authorize a doping testing the next day.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 September 2014 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Ms Sandra Ristivojevic on 21 February 2014 is partially upheld.
2.) Point 2 of the Decision issued by the ISU Disciplinary Commission on 1 February 2014 is modified as follows:
"A period of ineligibility of nine months beginning on 1 February 2014 is imposed on Sandra Ristivojevic".
3.) The counter-claim filed by the International Skating Union is inadmissible.
4.) Each party shall bear its own legal fees and expenses.
5.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
