CAS 2008/A/1500 Denis Roberts v. Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associés (FILA)
- Wrestling
- Doping (amphetamine)
- Validity of a TUE delivered by a national federation
- CAS power of review
- Publication of a provisional suspension
- Apology as a remedy for damages
1. According to the applicable regulation of FILA, an athlete who is not registered on the International Federation’s Registered Testing Pool (RTP) and who is not competing at an international event is not required to possess a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) approved by the International Federation (IF). A TUE granted by the national federation is valid as long as a national event is concerned.
2. Claims for consequential remedies are not in principle excluded in the framework of appeals proceedings. To the extent an appellant challenges a decision rendered by a sports-related body, no limits are per se imposed by the CAS Code to the relief that can be requested by the appellant (see Article R48 of the Code) and granted by the panel. Article R57 of the Code, in fact, meaningfully allows the panel to decide the dispute de novo, directly considering the facts and the law, and does not reduce its powers to the mere setting aside of the challenged decision.
3. Disclosing on its website the provisional suspension of an athlete prior to the determination in a hearing that an antidoping rule violation has occurred, constitutes a breach by the IF of the its antidoping rules and an illegal publication.
4. Under Swiss law, the conditions for the issuance on an IF’s website of an apology as a remedy for damages caused to one’s personality is only allowed for grave and lasting infringements.
Mr. Denis Roberts is an Australian Athlete competing in the 2007 Wrestling Qualification Tournament in Canberra, Australia, in December 2007 where he provided a sample for drug testing.
The Athlete suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder and had a national TUE since April 2007 for the use of dexamphetamine as treatment for his disorder. A TUE application with FILA was denied in April 2007.
Thereupon in January 2008 FILA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance amphetamine. After notification FILA ordered a provisional suspension without a hearing and published the details on the FILA website.
ASADA disputed the FILA action and contended to FILA and WADA that the Athlete had a valid national TUE. Further it contended that the Tournament in Canberra was a national level competition and not a competition under FILA Rules.
ASADA argued that imposing a provisional suspension on the Athlete without a hearing was a violation of the Athlete’s rights and a breach of the FILA Rules.
Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Panel deems that the publication of the Athlete’s provisional suspension on the FILA website was a breach of the FILA Rules and it rejects the Athlete’s request that FILA be ordered to publish an apology.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 January 2009:
1.) The requests for relief sought by Mr Denis Roberts are partially granted.
2.) The Panel declares that the publication by the Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associés in its website of Mr Roberts’ provisional suspension breached Article 14.4 of the FILA Anti-Doping Rules.
3.) (…).
4.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.
