CAS 2002/A/399 P. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)
Related case:
FINA 2002 FINA vs Claudia Poll
June 3, 2002
- Swimming
- Doping (nandrolone)
- Validity of the sampling procedure
- Reliability of the analyses
- Sanction
1. The CAS has neither authority to apply or interpret the rules set by ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation), IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) and ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation), or to force any laboratories to comply with those rules. The CAS is in no way a supervising authority for laboratories, being either IOC – ISO/IEC accredited or not. The CAS relies upon the accreditation process and is without authority to intervene and impose its views on the laboratory procedures to be applied by accredited labs. The absence of the “global uncertainty” in the A and B reports cannot, by any means, be considered as a gross violation of the ISO/IEC and ILAC guidelines, and therefore lead to arbitrary results and should consequently be corrected by the CAS Panel.
2. There is no provision which stipulates that a sampling agent is under no circumstances allowed to repeat a sample procedure and provides for that the possibilities to take another test is in any case exhausted after a first try. This does not mean that a sampling agent is more or less and always respectively allowed to make more than one urine collection. However, there is no provision which hampers him to do so when there are doubts about the regularity of the first test, especially when the athlete is casting doubts about that regularity.
3. Regarding the duration of the suspension, the CAS already had the opportunity to establish in previous awards that a four-year ban and even a life time ban were not disproportionate. Therefore, in a straightforward case of doping and when no circumstances tend to diminish the responsibility of the athlete, the policy set by FINA, IOC and other sporting federations in relation to doping is strict and consequently a four-year suspension and a six-month retroactive period involving cancellation of all result achieved shall be considered as proportionate.
In March 2002 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Claudia Poll after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance norandrosterone (nandrolone).
On 3 June 2002 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in July 2002 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the FINA decision of 3 June 2002 and claimed that the doping test upon which FINA's decision was based has no legal basis under FINA's own rules, as the Doping Officer was not authorised to perform a second sampling procedure. In addition the Athlete disputed the validity of the test results and the competence and capability of the laboratory.
The CAS Panel considers, that this is a straightforward case of doping, that the policy set by FINA, IOC and other sporting federations in relation to doping is strict and that no circumstances are present in this case which would tend to diminish the responsibility of the athlete.
Regarding the duration of the suspension, the CAS already had the opportunity to establish in previous awards that a four-year ban and even a life time ban were not disproportionate. Therefore, both sanctions imposed on her shall be considered as proportionate and shall be confirmed.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 January 2002 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Claudia Poll of 8 July 2002 is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the FINA dated 3 June 2002 is confirmed.
3.) (...)
