CAS (Oceania registry) A2/2009 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), on behalf of Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and Golf Australia (GA) v. Daniel Nisbet
Golf
Doping (DHEA)
Possession of a Prohibited Substance
No Significant Fault or Negligence
Disqualification of results in competitions subsequent to commission of an anti-doping rule violation
1. In considering the defence of No Significant Fault or Negligence, evidence such as the young age and the inexperience of the athlete, his exemplary record, his good character, his full co-operation with the investigation authorities, the absence of consumption of any prohibited substance, the fact that the substance was acquired at an over-the counter retail pharmacy and not on the black market, the incorrect labelling of the bottle, or the fact that the substance was for the use of another person, can be taken into consideration.
2. So long as the decision-maker exercises its discretion in good faith, without bias, error, or undue influence, the provision according to which all competitive results obtained in competitions subsequent to commission of an anti-doping rule violation, through the commencement of any provisional suspension or ineligibility period, shall be disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise, extends to the decision-maker discretion to determine what fairness requires.
In August 2010 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Daniel Nisbet for possession of the prohibited substance dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) after the Australian Customs seized several products in the baggage of the Athlete entering Australia.
ASADA on behalf of the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and Golf Australia (GA) seeks from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) an Award imposing a sanction for the Athlete’s anti-doping violation.
The Sole Arbitrator Panel considers that Athlete was young and relatively inexperienced; there was no consumption of the prohibited substance; the substance was purchased at an over-the-counter retail pharmacy and not on the black market; and the product was purchased for a friend, a ‘non-athlete’.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 February that the appropriate saction is a 18 month period of ineligibility starting on 25 November 2009.
