CAS 2012/A/2696 Steve Mullings v. Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), award of 4 March 2013
Related cases:
CAS 2012_A_2696 Steve Mullings vs JADCO (2012-05-04)
May 4, 2012
JADCO 2011 JADCO vs Steve Mullings
November 21, 2011
Athletics
Doping (furosemide)
Conditions to allow DNA testing
Factors to be considered in assessing the appropriate sanction in a second anti-doping violation case
1. DNA testing is complex and expensive, and it cannot be ordered whenever an athlete requests. Rather, the athlete should first be able to present some reasonable basis for questioning the lab results to justify any DNA testing.
2. The circumstances surrounding the first anti-doping violation are relevant factors to be considered in assessing what the appropriate sanction is in a second anti-doping violation case.
On 21 November 2011 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) Disciplinary Panel decided on 21 November 2011 to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.
Hereafter in December 2011 the Athlete appealed the JADCO decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In addition in January 2012 the Athlete also filed a Legal Aid Application to the CAS Court Office which was granted by CAS on 4 May 2012. The Panel dismissed the Athlete’s request for DNA testing of his samples.
The Athlete requested the CAS Panel for a reduced sanction and argued that the JADCO process of imposing the life ban was not careful and thorough. The Athlete asserted that the JADCO Disciplinary Panel did not fully consider all the facts and arguments; the Athlete was not permitted to provide evidence at the first hearing; and he disputed the test results and hearing in 2004 and the test results in 2011.
The Panel finds that there are no grounds to question the validity of reliability of the test results as evidence of doping and concludes that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation in 2011. The Panel accepts that the circumstances surrounding the first offense in 2004 are relevant factors to be considered in assessing what the appropriate sanction is in this case. However the Athlete did not produce any evidence that would lead the Panel to overlook its findings.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 March 2013 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Steve Mullings on 19 December 2011 against the decision issued by JADCO on 21 November 2011 is dismissed.
2.)The decision of JADCO imposing lifetime ineligibility on Steve Mullings is confirmed.
(…)
5.) All further and other claims for relief are dismissed.
