CAS A1/2007 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority vs. Sevdalin Marinov
Related case:
CAS 2007_A_1311 Sevdalin Marinov vs ASADA
September 26, 2007
On 14 November 2003 three packets each containing substances later certified to contain derivatives of prohibited substances were found by two members of the Victoria Police Force on a shelf in a wardrobe in a bedroom occupied by the Bulgarian Coach Sevdalin Marinov from August 2003 until sometime in November 2003.
Previously the Police had intercepted the car belonging to the owner of the house and found illegal drugs in his car. After the police obtained a search warrant to search the house they found great quantities of other illegal substances including the three packets in the bedroom belonging to the Coach.
Three years later in December 2006 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Coach for the possession and trafficking of prohibited substances in November 2003.
Thereupon in February 2007 the case was referred to the CAS Oceania Registry in February 2007 for a first instance decision.
ASADA contended that the Tribunal should be comfortably satisfied that the Coach was in continued occupation of the second bedroom in the house and the contents of the
wardrobe, from about July 2003 until he left for Canada on 12 November 2003, and knew that the three packets were in the wardrobe on the shelf during all or part of that period and
that the packets contained prohibited substances.
The Coach denied the violations and argued that there was no corroborating evidence that he was involved in possession and trafficking of prohibited subsances. He stated that at the material time that the packets were found in the wardrobe he was not longer living in that house whereas he was out of the country and had been out of the country for some time.
Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator determines that:
- The Coach was the sole occupier of the bedroom on the
first floor of the house from sometime in August 2003 until
sometime after 14 November 2003. - There were sufficient items of his clothing and personal effects in the bedroom, including photographs of his children, to conclude that he had not moved out.
- The Coach had custody or control of the three packets on 14 November 2003 and since August 2003.
- He occupied the bedroom exclusively from August 2003.
- He had custody or control (possession) of the room and its contents in which the prohibited substances were found.
- There is no evidence that the Coach was involved in supplying, distributing, offering, selling, exchanging or brokering the prohibited substances.
- The Coach committed a doping offence of trafficking by possessing and holding prohibited substances.
- Because this is the Coach his second anti-doping rule violation a lifetime period of ineligibility shall be imposed.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2007 that:
1.) The respondent has committed a doping offence contrary to clause 3.2(a) of the 2002 Australian Weightlifting Federation Anti-Doping Policy by being knowingly involved in trafficking constituted by his possessing and holding, in November 2003, prohibited substances, namely anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents.
2.) The respondent is, for the period of his life, banned from selection to represent Australia in international competition, from competing in any events and competitions conducted by or under the auspices of the Australian Weightlifting Federation, from receiving direct or indirect funding assistance from the Australian Weightlifting Federation and from holding any position within the Australian Weightlifting Federation.
3.) The period of ineligibility is to commence from 14 November 2003 the date of the offence.
4.) The respondent is to contribute the sum of $7000 towards the applicant’s costs to be paid within 60 days of this Award unless the parties come to an arrangement for payment to be made on terms acceptable to them.
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office and served on the parties in due course, shall be borne by the parties in the following proportions: 50% of the costs by the Appellant and 50% of the costs by the Respondent.
6.) This Award and the annexed Partial Awards be made public.
