CAS 2008/A/1473 Joe Warren v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
Related case:
AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00782 07 USADA vs Joe Warren
January 14, 2007
- Wrestling
- Doping (marijuana)
Presence of a specified substance - Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on exceptional circumstances
- Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on the principles of proportionality
- Determination of the applicable sanction for a second violation for the use of a specified substance
1. An anti-doping rule violation has been committed when the presence of a “specified substance” at a concentration greater than what is authorised in an athlete’s bodily specimen has been demonstrated.
2. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can establish the existence of exceptional circumstances. A pre-condition to obtaining a reduced period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances is that the appellant must establish how the prohibited substance entered his system. Under the circumstances of a particular case, it is not necessary to require the athlete to establish with precision when the prohibited substance use giving rise to the positive test occurred in order for him to meet his burden of establishing how the substance entered his system. Doubts about when and/or how often the athlete used the substance could, however, have a bearing on the athlete’s credibility generally. In any event, where the medical evidence demonstrates that the athlete was able to differentiate between right and wrong it cannot be accepted that his actions and decisions can be relegated to the category of “no significant fault or negligence” especially when the use of the prohibited substance was neither prescribed nor medically necessary. In this regard, the acute stress the athlete was under can be at best understandable, but not excusable.
3. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can also persuade the panel that the proportionality principle can and should be applied to reduce the otherwise applicable sanction. However, it is not appropriate to invoke principles of proportionality to vary a sanction which, even though it seems severe in all of the circumstances, is nevertheless in accordance with the rules in force at the time of the infraction, at the time of the hearing before the first instance authority and at the time of the hearing before the CAS panel.
4. If a doping violation involving a specified substance occurs for the second time for the same athlete and if the athlete concerned has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, no reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances can be granted. Moreover where there is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality, the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility.
On 14 January 2008 the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the wrestler Joe Warren for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Athlete admitted that he had committing an anti-doping violation for which the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility. He asserted that in first instance the Panel misapprehended the evidence and erred in failing to reduce the sanction based on exceptional circumstances and/or application of the principles of proportionality.
Following assessment of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Panel determines:
- a.) The Athlee has committed an anti-doping rule violation, namely, the presence in his Bodily Specimen of Carboxy-THC at a concentration greater than 15 ng/mL;
- b.) Carboxy-THC is a cannabinoid and, as such, a “specified substance” for the purposes of Article 10.3 of the Regulations;
- c.) This violation is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation, the first such violation having involved the same Prohibited Substance and having occurred in April 2006;
- d.) The violation arises from the Athlete’s use of marijuana prior to the test which gave rise to the positive finding noted above;
- e.) The Athlete has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for this anti-doping rule violation and, as such, the Tribunal declines on that basis to set a reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances under Article 10.5.2 of the Regulations;
- f.) There is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the Regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality;
- g.) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 July 2008:
1.) The appeal filed at the Court of Arbitration for Sport by Mr Joe Warren on 2 February 2008, against the United States Anti-Doping Agency, is dismissed.
2.) The period of ineligibility of 2 years from 23 July 2007, imposed by the Doping Tribunal on Mr Warren, is confirmed.
(…)
5.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.
