CAS ad hoc Division (OG Turin) 06/010 Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) v. Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing (FIBT)
Bobsleigh
Eligibility of a bobsleigh team to participate in the Olympic Games
Distinction between an adverse analytical finding and an anti-doping rule violation
An adverse analytical finding is simply a report by the Anti-Doping laboratory that a sample is positive for a prohibited substance. Thereafter, the applicable Anti-Doping regulations (FIBT Regulations in this case) provide for an extensive process, including the athlete’s rights: to ask for a B sample test, be present at the testing of the B sample, and to have a hearing to contest the adverse analytical finding. Only after that process has been completed and the adverse analytical finding is confirmed is an anti-doping rule violation found. As a result, a sanction is imposed on the athlete in the form of Consequences as defined in the FIBT Regulations.
In February 2006 the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian bobsledder Armando Dos Santos after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone. As a consequence the BOC decided to exclude the Athlete to compete at the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games.
Hereafter the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) filed an application with the CAS Ad hoc Division at the Turin Olympic Games and requested the Panel for an order to declare the Brazilian 4-man bobsleight team ineligible to compete in the Olympic Winter Games and to declare instead the Australian 4-man bobsleigh team eligible to compete in the same Games.
In order for the AOC to succeed, the Panel must first find that in accordance with the FIBT Regulations, there has been a finding of an anti-doping rule violation by a member of the Brazilian 4-man Bob team. The team member, Dos Santos, has not as of this date been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation. No decision that Dos Santos committed an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered by any authority. The adverse analytical finding announced by the BOC in apparent disregard for Rule 14.14 of the FIBT Regulations that prohibit such public disclosure is not a decision pursuant to Article 13 of the FIBT Regulations which may be appealed to CAS. The Panel finds that to date Dos Santos has not been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, nor has he been provisionally suspended. The BOC has chosen to remove Dos Santos from the Olympic team based on its internal policies.
Because there has been no anti-doping rule violation found, the remainder of the AOC’s submissions do not need to be addressed by the Panel. The Application fails at the outset and therefore there is no need to interpret the meaning of Article 11 of the FIBT Regulations with respect to the effect that his doping infraction would have had on the “team” of which Dos Santos was a part at the Challenge Cup.
On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision on 20 February 2006:
1.) The appeal filed by the Australian Olympic Committee against the Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing is denied.
2.) (…).
