CAS 2013/A/3341 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Daniel Pineda Contreras & Chilean Olympic Committee
- Athletics (long-jump, sprint)
- Doping (refusal to submit to sample collection)
- Time limit to appeal against a decision of the sports association rendered in a doping matter
- Restrictive interpretation of the compelling justification to the refusal to submit to sample collection
- Sample collection equipment
- Tampering
1. The fact that the statutes of a sports association specify a 21-day time limit to appeal a decision of the sports association to a State court shall not be interpreted as a constraint on the time limits specified in the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) or the WADC. The ADR (and therefore not the sports association’s statutes) are relevant to determine the applicable time limit for the appellant to appeal against a decision of the sports association rendered in a doping matter and within the framework of the ADR.
2. As established in CAS jurisprudence, the defence of compelling justification of the refusal to submit to sample collection is to be interpreted restrictively. The logic of the anti-doping tests demands and expects that whenever physically, hygienically and morally possible, the sample be provided despite objections by the athlete. If that does not occur, athletes would systematically refuse to provide samples for whatever reasons, leaving no opportunity for testing. Furthermore, if the athlete is not satisfied with any of the equipment available for selection, this shall be recorded by the doping control officer.
3. After the doping control officer orders additional urine collection equipment to be delivered to the doping control station, the athlete is not entitled to simply leave the doping control station based on his/her assertion that no appropriate sample collection equipment was available.
4. To establish that the athlete has tampered or attempted to tamper with any of the steps or processes that make up the doping control process, the party supporting this has the burden of establishing to the comfortable satisfaction of the adjudicating body that the athlete engaged in one or more of the actions specified in the definition of tampering. All of the actions specified in the definition of tampering require intent and certain actions also require fraudulent conduct, or the intent to deceive, on the part of the person involved.
On 30 June 2012 at the Bogota Grand Prix athletics competition during the first attemd to provide a sample, the Athlete dropped the urine collection container into the toilet bowl.
During the second attempt the open container fell on the floor after the Athlete had placed the urine collection container on a surface above the partition between the toilets. The Athlete refused to continue using this container due to the risk of contamination and left the Doping Control Station.
On 3 June 2013, one year later, the Chilean Olympic Committee (COC) Court of Honor decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Daniel Pineda Contreras, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 March 2013.
Hereafter in October 2013 WADA appealed the COC decision of 3 June 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the COC decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the refusal to provide a sample for drug testing without compelling justification.
The Athleted argued that WADA’s appeal was inadmissible due to it wasn’t filed within the time limit and he denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that under the Rules WADA had appealed the case within the time limit. Considering the submissions the Arbitrator concludes that is was physically, hygienically and morally possible for the Athlete to provide a sample during de doping control session on 30 June 2012 without compelling justification.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:
1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency is admissible and partially upheld.
2.) The decision issued on 3 June 2013 by the Chilean Olympic Committee Court of Honor and Sports Arbitration in the matter of Mr. Daniel Pineda Contreras is set aside.
3.) Mr. Daniel Pineda Contreras is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, starting on 5 March 2013. The three-month period of served provisional suspension shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) All competitive results obtained by the Athlete from 30 June 2012, through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be disqualified, with all resulting consequences for the Athlete including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, point and prize and appearance money.
5.) The COC shall bear the costs of the proceedings, to be determined and served on the Parties by the CAS Court Office.
6.) The COC is ordered to pay WADA a total amount of CHF 4,000.- as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.
