CAS 2014/A/3485 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Daria Goltsova and International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
- Weightlifting
- Doping (cocaine)
- Applicable law
- WADA time limit to appeal
- Scope of CAS review
- Degree of fault or negligence
- Commencement of the period of ineligibility in case of substantial delays
1. In anti-doping cases where at the time of an anti-doping rule violation a different version of the applicable anti-doping rules is in force than at the time an appeal to CAS is lodged against a first instance decision rendered with respect to the anti-doping rule violation, the substantive elements of the appeal are governed by the rules in force at the time of the alleged violation – subject to any application of the principle of lex mitior. However the procedural aspects of the appeal are governed by the rules in force at the time of the appeal.
2. Under the IWF anti-doping policy, the deadline for an appeal by WADA is determined – amongst others – by WADA’s receipt of the complete file relating to the decision. In cases of appeals by WADA where the length of time elapsed between the decision appealed and the date of the appeal is considerable, consideration should be given as to whether there was any evidence from which it could be inferred that there was a good faith obligation on WADA to have inquired as to the existence or progress of any disciplinary proceedings against the athlete so as to impose a duty on WADA to commence any appeal to the CAS earlier than it did in the given case.
3. Even if an athlete does not appeal against a first instance decision by which he or she has been found to have had no significant fault/negligence for an anti-doping rule violation, upon appeal by another party (e.g. by WADA) the CAS Panel in charge must start with the question whether the athlete has established that there was no fault or negligence on his or her part. This is because CAS has full power to review the facts and the law (i.e. to treat the matter de novo and not merely as a review of the first instance decision, though it will pay proper regard and respect to the first instance decision).
4. Over the years, athletes have had their obligation to ensure that they do not ingest any prohibited substance drummed into them. An athlete cannot now be regarded as being absolved from all responsibility when choosing to make up a drink from a sachet containing an unknown herbal substance, particularly one with the word “Coca” in its name, even when that substance is made freely available to all the guests in a hotel dining room.
5. Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the athlete, for example an delay in the commencement of the appeal proceedings brought about by the failure of the International Federation or Anti-Doping Organization to comply with its obligation to notify WADA of the result of the hearing before the first instance hearing body, the International Federation or Anti-Doping Organization imposing the sanction may start the period of ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred.
In May 2011 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Daria Goltsova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.
The Russian Athlete stated in her defence that during the World Youth Championships in Lima, Peru, she drank juice and tea. The Athlete didn’t speak English and didn’t know she consumed in her hotel free available tea Mate de Coca. After she tested positive analysis of this tea by Rusada showed that the tea bags contain 0.08 mg of cocaine per 100 gram tea.
On 20 November 2011 the IWF Doping Hearing Panel (DHP) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 July 2011.
Hereafter in February 2014 WADA appealed the IWF decision of 20 November 2011 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA accepted the Athlete’s explanation and requested the CAS Panel to set aside the IWF decision and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with no significant fault or negligence.
Considering the exeptional circumstances the Panel finds that the Athlete wasn’t warned by the Russian Weightlifting Federation to avoid any product related to the coca plant and she acted without intention to enhance performance and without significant fault or negligence.
The Panel notes that there was an unconscionable delay in the commencement of the WADA appeal with CAS due to apparent unexplained failure of the IWF to notify WADA of the result of the hearing before the DHP. The Athlete was entitled to believe that the matter had been closed and to get on with her career. It would be unconscionable for her now to be required to serve any further period of ineligibility. In these circumstances the appropriate course is to commence the period of 1 year period of ineligibility from the date of the sample collection on 13 May 2011.
Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 August 2014 that:
1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel dated 20 November 2011 in the matter of Ms Daria Goltsova is upheld.
2.) The decision, of the IWF Doping Hearing Panel is set aside and replaced with the following:
A period of one year's ineligibility shall be imposed on Ms Daria Goltsova, such period of ineligibility to run from 13 May 2011.
3.) All sporting results obtained by Ms Daria Goltsova between 13 May 2011 up to the expiry of the period of ineligibilty shall be invalidated.
4.) The International Weightliftmg Federation shall pay a contribution of CHF 1,000 to the costs and expenses of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency which shall be retained by the CAS.
6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.
