CAS 2015/ A/3925 Traves Smikle v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), award of 10 August 2015 (operative part of 22 June 2015)
Related case:
- JADCO 2014 JADCO vs Traves Smikle
August 18, 2014 - CAS 2014/A/3670 Traves Smikle vs JADCO
November 4, 2014
- Athletics (discus)
- Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
- Departure from international standards requirements
- Non-compliance with IST partial sample collection procedures
1. Violations of some International Standard for Testing (IST) are so serious that thebreach precludes a CAS panel from being comfortably satisfied a doping violation hasbeen committed. On the other hand, it cannot always be assumed that the violation of an IST erodes the integrity of a sample; determination of whether its breach has a"significant or material impact on a testing result,, generally is a question of factrequiring careful review of all evidence and witness testimony.
2. Non-compliance with IST partial sample collection procedures does not automatically invalidates the sample's test results. Doing so would invalidate a positive test result even if the possibility of contamination is factually implausible based on the evidence and conflict with the express language of Article 3.2.2 of the JADCO Anti-Doping Rules and the 2009 W ADC, which requires an athlete to establish a departure from an IST "could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding,,.
On 1 July 2014 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrocholorothiazide.
On 15 July 2014 the Athlete appealed the decision of 1 July 2014 with the JADCO Appeal Tribunal and in addition on 22 July 2014 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 26 August 2014, more than one (1) year after he provided a sample on 22 June 2013 for drug testing, the JADCO Disciplinary Panel produced written reasons in support of the Decision of 1 July 2014.
Considering the WADC and IAAF Rules the CAS Panel rules on 4 November 2014 (CAS 2014/A/3670) that the Athlete is a national-level athlete and not an international-level athlete and therefore he must appeal first before the JADCO Appeal Tribunal and not to CAS.
On 12 February 2015 the Jamaica Appeals Tribunal orally affirmed the Jamaica Disciplinary Panel's decision and the imposition of a 2 year suspension on the Athlete Mr. Smikle and dismissed his appeal.
Hereafter on 14 February 2015 the Athlete filed a new appeal with CAS. The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the decision of the JADCO Appeal Tribunal and denied the intentional use of prohibited substances.
The Athlete argued, supported by expert witnesses, that during the sample collection procedure on 22 June 2013 there were several departures from the IST resulting in contamination of his samples.
The Panel finds that the evidence in this case is sufficient to enable JADCO to establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping violation.
The Panel is unable to reasonably conclude there is "more than a negligible possibility" that the Respondent's breach of the IST partial sample collection procedures caused environmental water or sweat containing HCTZ to contaminate his urine sample collection container.
Also the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to establish that there are grounds for a reduced sanction and rules that the imposed sanction should start on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 22 June 2013.
Therefore on 22 June 2015 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:
1.) The appeal fìled by Traves Smikle against the 12 February 2015 decision of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal that Traves Smikle committed an anti-doping violation and is suspended for a period of two (2) year commencing on 22 June 2013 is upheld.
3.) All competitive results, prizes, earnings, and awards earned by Traves Smikle in any athletic event from 22 June 2013 through the conclusion of his suspension are disqualified and forfeited.
(…)
6.) All other claims, motions, or prayers for relief are dismissed.
