CAS 2014_A_3866 USADA vs Mohamed Trafeh

CAS 2014/A/3866 United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) v. Mohamed Trafeh

Related case:

AAA No. 01 14 0000 4694 USADA vs Mohamed Trafeh
December 2, 2014

• Athletics (long distance)
• Doping (rhEPO)
• Possibility of the parties to request the review of a part of the appealed decision
• Justifications for starting the period of ineligibility earlier than the start date of the hearing decision

1. A party appealing a decision before the CAS may request the CAS panel to review only a part of the decision appealed against and not seek a de novo review of the entire appealed decision.

2. Comment to Article 10.9 of the WADA Code expressly states there are only two justifications for starting the period of ineligibility earlier than the start date of the hearing decision: substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of doping control not attributable to the athlete. In accordance with CAS jurisprudence, it is appropriate to consider official comments when interpreting the provisions of the WADC and anti-doping rules based on the WADC.

On 2 December 2014 the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Mohamed Trafeh for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations:

1.) Purchase of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO);

2.) Possession and transport of rhEPO from Morocco to the United States;

3.) Intentionally providing USADA with false or misleading information regarding his whereabouts in order to avoid having to submit to testing;

4.) Refusal to accept full responsibility for his past doping offense or take redemptive measures to help stem future occurrences of prohibited doping activity in sport, and refusal to participate in these proceedings.

Hereafter in December 2014 USADA appealed the AAA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to start the period of ineligibility on the date of the hearing decision, i.e. on 2 December 2014.

The Sole Arbitrator determines that there is no evidence establishing that the Athlete promptly and unequivocably admitted his anti-doping rule violations after being confronted with evidence of their occurrence by USADA. The Athlete could have raised this issue as well as any other potential defenses by participating and testifying in this proceeding by video or telephone conference, but he choose not to do so.

Nevertheless, even if the Athlete had done so, pursuant to Article 10.9.2 of the WADC (the period of Ineligibility may start as early as the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred), the latest possible start date of his period of ineligibility would be 1 January 2014 based on credible and undisputed evidence he admitted purchasing EPO in January 2014.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 August 2015 that:

1. The appeal filed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 23 December 2014 is upheld.
2. The 2 December 2014 decision by the American Arbitration Association/North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “Appealed Decision”) determining that Mr. Mohamed Trafeh committed multiple anti-doping rule violations; aggravated circumstances exist justifying an enhanced period of ineligibility of four (4) years; and all benefits, awards, titles, medals, points, or remuneration from his participation in sport from 1 January 2012 through and including 2 December 2014 are invalidated is affirmed.
3. The Appealed Decision’s determination that the start date for Mr. Mohammed Trafeh’s four (4) year period of ineligibility is 1 January 2012 is vacated, and its start date is amended to 2 December 2014.
4. (…).
5. (…).
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.