CAS 2012/A/2773 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Hellenic Amateur Athletic Association (SEGAS) and Irini Kokkinariou
- Athletics (3000m steeplechase)
- Doping (Athlete’s Biological Passport, ABP)
- Blood manipulation detected through the ABP
- Aggravating circumstances
- Range of penalties under aggravating substances
- Standard of proof applicable to aggravating circumstances
1. The Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) may reveal doping on a single or several occasion(s). Therefore, longitudinal hematological profile need not contain multiple irregular figures in order to be used effectively. The haematological module of the passport is simply a tool that allows for the extrapolation of an individual’s blood data over time to assist in determining an anti-doping rule violation in the form of the use of a prohibited substance or method.
2. The IAAF provision related to aggravating circumstances (Rule 40.6) does not contain any specific requirements on how aggravating circumstances are to be detected, and absent such requirements, it must be presumed that the IAAF’s ABP program can ground claims under IAAF Rule 40.6, in much the same way as it can ground claims under IAAF Rule 32 (anti-doping violation).
3. IAAF Rule 40.6 allows for a range of penalties. A 4-year ineligibility period is therefore not automatically applied wherever aggravating circumstances in the context of anti-doping violation are identified. The imposition of an increased Ineligibility Period is at the discretion of the relevant body and a single example of aggravating circumstances may warrant the maximum period, while multiple examples may call only for a lesser penalty.
4. IAAF Rules do not specify the “higher” burden of proof applicable to aggravating circumstances. This “higher” burden of proof is unlikely to be higher than the standard that applies to the IAAF pursuant to IAAF Rule 33.1, given that the standard of proof on athletes to rebut an allegation of an anti-doping rule violation is generally lower than that of the alleging authority. As a result, the standard of comfortable satisfaction shall be applicable on both sides.
In August 2011, the IAAF initiated an investigation into a potential anti-doping rule violation by the Athlete Ms. Kokkinariou after her ABP, through application of the Adaptive Model, was identified as abnormal with a probability of more than 99%.
The IAAF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after three Experts, upon reviewing the Athlete’s ABP, unanimously concluded that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it was highly likely that she had used a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.
In September 2011 the Athlete filed an explanation in her defence to the Expert Panel. However after reviewing the Athlete’s explanation, the Experts remained of the unanimous opinion that there was no reasonable explanation for the Athlete’s blood profile other than the use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.
On 20 January 2012 the Hellenic Amateur Athletic Association (SEGAS) Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the reported doping violation.
Hereafter in April 2012 the IAAF appealed the SEGAS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 20 January 2012 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to aggravating circumstances under the Rules.
Considering the statements of the Experts regarding Ms. Kokkinariou’s ABP and ferritin levels the Sole Arbitrator finds that Ms. Kokkinariou committed a violation of IAAF Rule 32 under two separate categories of aggravating circumstances pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.6.
Ms. Kokkinariou has been found to have repeatedly used a Prohibited Substance over a protracted period as part of a doping scheme, and on the basis of this multiple triggering of IAAF Rule 40.6, the Sole Arbitrator finds that Ms. Kokkinariou’s Ineligibility Period should be extended to the maximum permitted period of four years.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 November 2012:
1.) The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations on April 16, 2012 against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Hellenic Amateur Athletic Association of January 20, 2012 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Hellenic Amateur Athletic Association of January 20, 2012 finding Ms. Irini Kokkinariou guilty of anti-doping violation under IAAF Rule 32.2(b) is upheld.
3.) The decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Hellenic Amateur Athletic Association of January 20, 2012 finding that there were no aggravating circumstances under IAAF Rule 40.6 are set aside.
4.) Ms. Irini Kokkinariou is held to have committed a violation of IAAF Rule 32 under aggravating circumstances pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.6.
5.) Ms. Irini Kokkinariou is declared ineligible to compete in any IAAF or IAAF Member competition for a period of four years starting from the date of this award. Credit shall be given to the period of provisional suspension served by Ms Irini Kokkinariou since October 27, 2011.
6.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Kokkinariou on or after July 2, 2009 through to the commencement of her provisional suspension on October 27, 2011 are disqualified.
(...)
9.) All other requests for relief are rejected.
