CAS ad hoc Division (OG Rio) 16/025 World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) v. Narsingh Yadav & National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA)
- Wrestling
- Doping (metandienone)
- Time when the dispute arises
- Dispute “in connection with” the Olympic Games
- Type and weighing of evidence
1. When WADA is challenging with the ad hoc Division the decision of a national anti-doping organisation’s anti-doping body to exonerate an athlete from the charges of violating the anti-doping rules of the national anti-doping organisation, it is the day of that decision that triggers the time when the dispute arises. It is not the date of the out-of-competition testing that led to the decision or of the decision to provisionally suspend the athlete.
2. The decision to exonerate an athlete from the charges of violating the anti-doping rules of the national anti-doping organisation and to allow him or her to participate in the Olympic Games is clearly “in connection with” the Olympic Games.
3. A CAS panel can accept both circumstantial evidence and witness evidence and, indeed, other evidence, but it is for the panel to determine what weight to attach to all the evidence before it and the panel can only be guided by the evidence proffered by each party in support of its case.
Mr. Narsingh Yadav is an Indian Athlete qualified to compete the 74 kg Men's Free Style Wrestling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
On 15 July 2016 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP). The Athlete's food and supplements were tested without result and he filed a complaint with the police alleging he has been the victim of sabotage.
The Athlete Narsingh Yadav had an ongoing issue with his wrestling competitor and rival Sushil Kumar. The Athlete asserted, sustained by witnesses, that Mr. Jithesh (a junior wrestler and member of Kumar's entourage) attempted in June 2016 to contaminate the food in the kitchen of his team.
Also in June 2016 Mr. Sushil Kumar's appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi against Mr. Yadav's selection for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. Later in June 2016 the Athlete alleged that Mr. Jithesh had contaminated his energy drink.
Considering the circumstances in this case the Indian ADDP Panel convened 4 hearings before the Panel ruled that there is no fault or negligence on his part due to the Athlete being the victim of sabotage done by a competitor. Therefore the ADDP decided on 1 August 2016 for the acquittal of the Athlete.
Hereafter on 13 August 2016 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADDP decision of 1 August 2016 with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio. After a provisional suspension was ordered the Athlete and INADA filed evidence with affidavits in their defence.
WADA requested the CAS Panel to to set aside the Indian ADDP decision of 1 August 2016 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete argued that he is the victim of sabotage because one of the Athlete's competitor mixed the prohibited substance in his drink in June 2016.
The Panel finds that due to the positive test results the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel rules that the Athlete had failed to satisfy his burden of proof and the Panel was satisfied that the most likely explanation was that the Athlete simply and intentionally ingested the prohibited substance in tablet form on more than one occasion.
Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel decides on 21 Augustus 2016:
1.) The ad hoe Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear the application filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 13 August 2016.
2.) The application filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 13 August 2016 is partially upheld.
3.) The decision rendered by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the National Anti-Doping Agency on 1 August 2016 is set aside.
4.) Mr Narsingh Yadav is sanctioned with a four-year ineligibility period starting today. Any period of provisional suspension or ineligibility effectively served by Mr Narsingh Yadav before the entry into force of this award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
5.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Narsingh Yadav from and including 25 June 2016 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
