CAS 2014/A/3868 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Bhupender Singh and National Anti-Doping Agency of India (INADA)
- Wrestling
- Doping (evading a doping test)
- WADA’s right of appeal and CAS jurisdiction
- Significant fault or negligence
- Commencement of the period of ineligibility
1. According to the applicable national ADR, in cases of alleged violation of the anti-doping rules involving national-level athletes, the decision taken by a first instance adjudicating body may be appealed to an appellate body. WADA shall also have the right to appeal to CAS with respect to the decision of the appellate body. The rules provide for WADA to have the right to a second appeal to CAS in cases in which it has already been the appellant before the appellate body but is dissatisfied with the decision taken.
2. The standard penalty for evading a doping test under the relevant rules is a period of two years ineligibility. This penalty may be mitigated in certain exceptional circumstances, notably if an athlete can establish on the balance of probability that he/she bears no significant fault or negligence. Mere conjecture, youth and inexperience do not constitute a sufficient basis for finding “No Significant Fault or Negligence”. Likewise, an athlete who evidently chose not to consult either his/her coach or any doctor before drinking an energising drink and who followed a wrong advice by evading the test because of his/her fear that he/she would fail it cannot establish no significant fault or negligence.
3. According to the applicable rules, where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process not attributable to the athlete, the period of ineligibility may start at an earlier date commencing as early as the date on which the anti-doping rule violation last occurred.
On 1 October 2013 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Bhupender Singh for his refusal to sign the notification form and for running away from the from the doping control. WADA appealed this decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI) which dismissed the appeal and decided on 11 December 2014 to uphold the sanction.
Hereafter in December 2014 WADA appealed both Indian decisions of 1 October 2013 and 11 December 2014 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Panel to set aside both decisions and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that there was no compelling justification for the Athlete’s refusal and failure to submit to, and deliberate evasion of the sample collection.
The Sole Arbitrator concludes that there are no truly exceptional circumstances in this case for imposing a reduced sanction. While it might be easy to feel sorry for a young man who acted foolishly and later (after speaking to his coach) repented of his actions he has not shown that he was guilty of “No Significant fault or negligence” according Article 2.3 of the ADR. It follows that the WADA appeal must be allowed and the decisions of the Anti-Doping Panel dated 1 October 2013 and of the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel set aside. A period of two years ineligibility must be imposed.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 November 2015 that:
1.) The appeal of WADA is upheld.
2.) The decisions of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel dated 1 October 2013 and of the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India dated 11 December 2014 are set aside.
3.) Mr Bhupender Singh is sanctioned with a period of two years ineligibility commencing on 1 October 2014.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Bhupender Singh from 10 May 2013 through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility and in the period from 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015 are disqualified, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
5.) (…).
6.) (…).
