CAS 2005/A/908 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Coetzee Wium
- Paralympic powerlifting
- Doping (testosterone)
- Departures from standards with regard to transportation, collection and testing
- Burden to establish the cause of the Adverse Analytical Finding
- Standard of proof required by CAS
1. In a case where departures from the WADC International Standard for Testing and/or the WADA Technical Documents for Laboratory Analysis are established, the question a CAS panel has to answer is: “Do these deviations cast sufficient doubt on the reliability of the test results to an extent that the finding of a Prohibited Substance in the athlete’s urine was not sufficient to establish a doping offence to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel”?
2. If an athlete establish that departures occurred during transportation, collection and/or testing, then the Anti-Doping Organisation shall have the burden to establish that such departures did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.
3. The standard of proof required by CAS in all such cases is comfortable satisfaction, that is, greater than mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
On 14 March 2005 the IPC Anti-Doping Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the South African Parathlete Coetzee Wium after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone with a T/A ratio above the WADA threshold.
Thereupon on 2 May 2005 the IPC Management Committee decided to reinstate the Parathlete because a significant departure of the ISTI had occurred.
The IPC deemed that the chain of custody was broken because following the sample collection the Parathlete's samples were left unattended for 45 minutes, during which time they sealed Berlinger Test Kit had been moved around by a cleaning lady. Accordingly the IPC could not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that these events had not caused the Adverse Analytical Finding.
Hereafter in June 2005 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IPC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The Parathlete asserted that departures from standards occurred with regard to transportation, collection and testing. He argued that the case was conducted far away from standards.
WADA admitted that a departure from standards did occur, but holds that this was of minor significance and that, by no means, did this departure have any impact on the result of the IPC establishing an Adverse Analytical Finding for Testosterone in the Parathlete’s sample.
Following assessment of the evidence the Panel determines that:
- The delayd pick-up by DHL of the Athlete's samples resulting in a delay of one day could not cast any doubt on the reliability of test results under the given circumstances.
- The athlete could not rebut the presumption that a WADA-accredited laboratory conducted Sample Analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the WADC International Standard for Laboratories.
- No departure from the International Standard, which would undermine the validity of the Adverse Analytical Finding, was established, once the exogenous origin of the Prohibited Substance had become clear.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 November 2005 that:
1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 21 June 2005 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the IPC Management Committee of 2 May 2005 is annulled.
3.) Coetzee Wium is sanctioned under art. 12.2 IPC Anti-Doping Code by a two (2) years ineligibility period, which starts on the date of this decision. The period of suspension from 13 December 2004 – 2 May 2005 shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) Coetzee Wium is sanctioned under art. 12.7 IPC Anti-Doping Code by the disqualification of all competitive results obtained by Coetzee Wium from 13 December 2004. This includes forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
(…).
