CAS 2014/A/3604 Ralfs Freibergs v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Related case:
IOC 2014 IOC vs Ralfs Freibergs
April 23, 2014
Ice hockey
Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
Presumption of regularity under Article 3.2 WADC and lack of registration of a laboratory as a legal entity
Purpose of the laboratory documentation packages
Form of consent for the opening of the B-sample
Validity of a DC decision if it was signed only by the Chairman of the DC
1. The principle “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta” – the presumption of regularity is codified in Article 3.2 of the WADC. A challenge of irregularity of an anti-doping laboratory based on the contention that the latter was not registered in the country as a legal entity and such an unregistered organization is not authorized to carry out any activity is a very formalistic approach. While it might be preferable for all the formal requirements of local laws to be strictly observed, in the context of international sport, the competence of laboratories to carry out analysis of doping samples is defined in the WADC. Whatever the consequences of non-registration might be, they don’t seem to matter.
2. Although the classic case for explaining corrections will be where the analytical material itself is corrected (for example where the first analysis was based on an insufficient sample and had to be reviewed after analysis of a fuller sample), this is not the only incidence where explanation for corrections may be required. The very purpose of the laboratory documentation packages is to provide the accused athlete an insight into the internal procedures of the laboratory in connection with the analysis of his sample. In this sensitive area where so much is at stake, it is important that there is no doubt as to what has occurred at the relevant laboratory.
3. There is no requirement in the applicable rules that an athlete’s consent to the opening of the B-sample must be issued in writing or on a specific form in order to be effective. It is only essential that the athlete concerned has in fact given his consent to the opening and analysis of his B-sample. The fact that an athlete only received the approved IOC form later and therefore could not use it as the vehicle for granting his consent matters not.
4. The signature of the Chairman alone of the DC decision does not invalidate the decision itself. There is no evidence of any requirement under Swiss law or any relevant regulation that the signature of all members of the DC is a pre-condition of its decision’s validity in law. Such a requirement, if it existed, which it does not, would represent the triumph of form over substance and is inconsistent with the practice of not only the DC but of other bodies of similar composition.
Mr. Ralfs Freibergs is a Latvian Athlete competing in the Latvian Men’s Ice Hockey Team at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games.
On 22 February 2014 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). After notification by the IOC the Athlete waived his right to be heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission and filed a statement in his defence.
On 23 April 2014 the IOC Disciplinary Commission dismissed the athlete’s arguments and decided that the Athlete is excluded from the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games and requested the International Ice Hockey Federation to make appropriate mention of this decision in the record of the sports results, and to consider whether it should take any further action within its competence.
Hereafter in May 2014 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete disputed the validity and reliability of the Sochi laboratory and its test results; the notification to the Athlete in relation to the B sample opening and analysis; and the alleged deviations from the ISL.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete’s sample was tested with the validated mass spectrometry method, the documentation packages clearly demonstrate the presence of a prohibited substance and the Athlete’s B-sample was opened in accordance with the Rules. The Panel has no doubt on the validity of the Sochi test and finds that the sanctions imposed by the IOC Disciplinary Commission were the inevitable consequence of the possible finding without scope for mitigation or aggravation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 December 2014:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr Ralfs Freibergs on 19 May 2014 against the decision issued by the IOC Disciplinary Commission on 23 April 2014 is dismissed.
2.) The decision issued by the IOC Disciplinary Commission on 23 April 2014 is confirmed.
(…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
