CAS 2013/A/3361 Dominique Blake v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO)
Related cases:
JADCO 2013 JADCO vs Dominique Blake
July 8, 2013
JADCO 2013 JADCO vs Dominique Blake – Appeal 1
September 11, 2013
JADCO 2013 Dominique Blake vs JADCO – Appeal 2
October 1, 2013
Athletics (sprint)
Doping (methylhexanamine – MHA)
Proof of the absence of intent to enhance sport performance
Timing of the ingestion
No significant fault or negligence
Correctness of sanctions
1. Article 10.4 WADC requires the production of corroborating evidence, in addition to the athlete’s own statement, to establish the absence of intent to enhance sport performance. This requires in turn the adjudicating body to make an objective evaluation of all this evidence. The non-exhaustive list of examples of the type of objective circumstances which might corroborate an athlete’s non performance-enhancing intent includes the fact that the nature of the specified substance or the timing of the ingestion would not have been beneficial to the athlete, the athlete’s open use or disclosure of his use of the specified substance, and a contemporaneous medical records file substantiating the non sport-related prescription of the specified substance.
2. An intent to enhance performance is present when a substance is taken to help an athlete recover from physical effort or better prepare for a sporting performance. Therefore, it cannot be maintained that the ingestion of a stimulant helping to combat fatigue one hour prior to a race would not have been beneficial to the athlete, as the nexus between the ingestion and the race is very close, especially if the reason to take the stimulant was to help the athlete recover from practice the day before.
3. Under Article 10.5.2 WADC, the athlete must establish that his or her fault or negligence, viewed in the totality of the circumstances and having regard to the criterion for “No Fault or Negligence”, is not significant having regard to the doping offence. The criterion of “No Fault or Negligence” is defined under the WADC as requiring that an athlete did not know or suspect, or could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she used the prohibited substance. The athlete’s fault is measured against the fundamental duty that he or she has under the WADC to do everything in his or her power to avoid ingesting any prohibited substance.
4. Although consistency of sanctions is a virtue, correctness remains a higher one: otherwise unduly lenient (or, indeed, unduly severe) sanctions may set a wrong benchmark inimical to the interests of sport.
On 8 July 2013 the JAD Disciplinary Panel imposed a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to she tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) as second violation, and folowwing on 11 September 2013 the JAD Appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal. On 1 October 2013 the JAD Appeals Tribunal also dismiss the Athlete’s second appeal but decides to uphold the Athlete’s request to start the period of ineligibility on 24 July 2012 instead of 13 June 2013.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 1 October 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Panel for a reduced sanction and argued that she had no intention to enhance her performance and that she bears no fault or negligence in ingesting the substance considering mitigating and unusual circumstances in this case.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel the absence of an intent to enhance her sport performance when she ingeted the supplement the morning of her competition. The Panel finds that the Athlete’s conduct in the circumstances amounts to a total disregard of her positive duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters her body.
The Panel agrees that the imposed 6 years sanction was too severe and concludes that an appropriate sanction would be a period of ineligibility of 4 years and 6 months.
Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 May 2014 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Ms Dominique Blake on 17 October 2013 against the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission concerning the decision of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal of 1 October 2013 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal of 1 October 2013 is set aside.
3.) Ms Dominique Blake is suspended for a period of 4 years and 6 months from 1 July 2012.
(…)
6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.
