CAS 2014/A/3670 Traves Smikle v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), award of 23 February 2015 (operative part of 4 November 2014)
Related case:
- JADCO 2014 JADCO vs Traves Smikle
August 18, 2014 - CAS 2015/A/3925 Traves Smikle vs JADCO
June 22, 2015
- Athletics (discus throw)
- Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
- International-level athlete
- Denial of justice
1. An athlete is not an “international-level athlete” under IAAF Rule 35.7 simply because he previously competed in international competitions recognized by the IAAF and was tested as part of the IAAF’s drug testing program in 2009 and was drug tested from 2010-2013 in Jamaica and abroad. If the athlete has been tested positive based on a sample collected during his/her participationin a national track and field competition, which is not one of the international competitions listed in IAAF Rule 35.7, he/she is not to be considered as an “international-level athlete”.
2. Anational-level athlete who does not have the right to appeal a decision finding a doping violation and imposing a sanction directly to the CAS must be given the right to appeal to an independent and impartial body that will provide a timely hearingand a timely, written, reasoned decision. If the athletehas a pending appeal before an appealsbody, there has been no denial of any procedural justice but this might occur if the appeals body refuses without reasons to issue a decision or delays the issuanceof a decision beyond a reasonable time, thereby constituting a denial of justice, opening the way of an appeal to CAS against the absence of a decision.
On 1 July 2014 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrocholorothiazide.
On 15 July 2014 the Athlete appealed the decision of 1 July 2014 with the JADCO Appeal Tribunal. In addition on 22 July 2014 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 26 August 2014, more than one (1) year after he provided a sample on 22 June 2013 for drug testing, the JADCO Disciplinary Panel produced written reasons in support of the Decision of 1 July 2014.
The Athlete submitted to CAS that the JADCO Disciplinary Panel had violated his rights because it failed to arrange a timely hearing and provide timely written reasons about his alleged doping violation. The Athlete asserted there is a real risk that if he waited until he had exhausted the local legal remedy, he would have served most if not all of the 2 year period of ineligibility before any further appeal to CAS could be determinded.
Considering the WADC and IAAF Rules the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete is a national-level athlete and not an international-level athlete and therefore he must appeal first before the JADCO Appeal Tribunal and not to CAS.
The CAS Panel finds that although the completion of the hearing process before the JADCO Disciplinary Panel significantly exceeded the Anti-Doping in Sport Act’s time requirements and the Anti-Doping Rules’ requirement that the hearing before the JADCO Disciplinary Panel “should be completed (…) within three (3) months of the completion of the results management process”, the CAS Panel has no authority to assume jurisdiction prior to the resolution of his pending appeal before the JADCO Appeal Tribunal, which the Athlete does not contend is not an independent and impartial body.
Neither the WADC nor the IAAF Competition Rules authorize the CAS Panel to do so.
Because the Athlete has a pending appeal before the JADCO Appeal Tribunal, there has been no denial of any procedural justice but the CAS Panel notes this might occur if the JADCO Appeal Tribunal “refuses without reasons to issue a decision or delays the issuance of a decision beyond a reasonable time”, thereby constituting a “denial of justice, opening the way of an appeal [to CAS] against the absence of a decision”.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:
1.) Based on the record presented, it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Athlete Mr. Traves Smikle on 22 July 2014 against the decision of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission Disciplinary Panel of 27 June 2014.
(…)
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
