CAS 2007/A/1332 Jónsson v/ The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF)
- Powerlifting
- Doping (metandienone)
- Distinction between In-Competition Testing and Out-of-Competition Testing
- Burden of proof regarding departures from the International Standard
- De novo hearing
- Disciplinary sanction
1. According to the definitions of the applicable anti-doping Rules an “Event” is a series of individual competitions conducted together under the ruling body (e.g., the Olympic Games) whereas a “Competition” is, a single race, match, game or singular athletic contest (e.g. the finals of the Olympic 100-meter dash). For the purpose of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, unless provided otherwise in the rules of an international federation or other relevant anti-doping organization, an In-Competition test is a test where an athlete is selected for testing in connection with a specific competition. “Out-of-Competition” is defined as “any doping control which is not in-competition”. Therefore, a testing which takes place during an event between two competitions shall be considered as an Out-of-Competition Testing according to the International Standard of Testing.
2. According to the applicable anti-doping rules, departures from the International Standard for Testing which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding shall not invalidate such result. If an athlete establish that departures from the International Standard have occurred during testing, then the federation shall have the burden to establish that such departures did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping violation. In this regard, the fact that a doping session has been conducted by one person instead of two is a departure from the applicable guidelines. Likewise, the fact that a Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to identify himself with the official identification card provided by the international federation is a technical departure from the guidelines. However, where on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, no circumstances indicate that the departures from the rules did in fact have an effect on the result of the test, the federation will have to be deemed to have discharged its burden of proof.
3. Although it is inadequate and not proper in the sense of a fair hearing to choose a member of a federation’s doping hearing body as DCO, under Art. R57 of the CAS Code, a CAS panel has the full power to review the facts and the law. Therefore a CAS panel holds a trial de novo, evaluating all facts and legal issues involved in a dispute. This means that an athlete’s challenge of the federation’s doping hearing panel as not being impartial can be remedied by a de novo examination by CAS.
4. The athlete who has not given any explanation as to how an exogenous banned substance entered into his system nor rebut the presumption that the WADA accredited Laboratory has conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis, must be considered as having committed a doping offence involving a prohibited substance and must take responsibility for it.
The case concerns the issue whether the drug test of Audunn Jónsson should be invalidated because of an alleged breach of the applicable rules, in particular the IPF Anti-Doping Rules and the International Standard for Testing.
CAS Panel concludes that possible departures from the International Standard for Testing that may have occurred in this case did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. The CAS is therefore entitled to rely on the test results in its decision.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 21 December 2007:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr Audunn Jónsson on 18 July 2007 against a decision of the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is dismissed.
2.) The appealed decision issued on 20 June 2007 by the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is upheld.
3.) Mr Audunn Jónsson shall be declared ineligible for two years from 8 November 2006.
4.) This award is rendered without costs except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) already paid by Mr Audunn Jónsson, which is retained by the CAS.
5.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
