CAS 200I/A/317 Aanes v/FILA
CAS 2001/A/317 A. / Fédération Internationale de Luttes Associées (FILA)
- Wrestling
- Doping (nandrolone)
- Use of nutritional supplements
- Strict Liability Rule
- Mitigating circumstances
1. The legal relations between an athlete and a federation are of a civil nature and do not leave room for the application of principles of criminal law. This is particularly true for the principles of in dubio pro reo and nulla poena sine culpa and the presumption of innocence as enshrined in Art. 6 ECHR.
2. It is perfectly proper for the rules of a sporting federation to establish that the results achieved by an athlete at a competition during which he was under the influence of a prohibited substance must be cancelled irrespective of any guilt on the part of the athlete. This conclusion is the natural consequence of sporting fairness against the other competitors. The interests of the athlete concerned in not being punished without being guilty must give way to the fundamental principle of sport that all competitors must have equal chances.
3. If the federation is able to establish the objective elements of a doping offence, there is a presumption of guilt against the athlete. The principle of presumed fault on the part of the athlete does not, however, leave him without protection because he/she has the right to rebut the presumption, i.e. to establish that the presence of the prohibited substance in his/her body was not due to any intent or negligence on his/her part.
4. An athlete cannot exculpate himself/herself by simply stating that the container of the particular product taken by him/her did not specify that it contained a prohibited substance. It is obvious that the sale of nutritional supplements, many of which are available over the internet and thus sold without an effective governmental control, would go down dramatically if they properly declared that they contain (or could contain) substances prohibited under the rules governing certain sports. Therefore, to allow athletes the excuse that a nutritional supplement was mislabelled would provide an additional incentive for the producers to continue that practice. In summary, therefore, it is no excuse for an athlete found with a prohibited substance in his/her body that he/she checked the label on the product he took and that the label did not specify that the product contained a prohibited substance.
In September 2000 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Norwegian weightlifter Fritz Aanes after he tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrostenedione and 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
Consequently on 1 October 2000 he was disqualified and excluded from the Sydney Olympic Games. Thereupon on 24 October 2000 the FILA Sport Judge decided to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.
Hereafter in Januari 2001 the Athlete appealed the FILA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to declare it invalid.
The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance nor that he acted negligently. He asserted that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test and because of exceptional circumstances there were no grounds to impose a sanction.
The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Panel determines that the violation was not intentional and that he had acted negligently. Further the Panel deems that mitigating circumstances justify the imposition of a reducted sanction.
Therefore on 9 July 2001 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:
1.) The appeal filed by A. on 3 January 2001 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the FILA Sport Judge of 24 October 2000 shall be modified as follows: A. is suspended for a period of 15 months from 27 September 2000 to 26 December 2001.
3.) (…).
