CAS 2007/A/1348 IAAF v/ Bulgarian Athletics Federation & Vania Stambolova & Venelina Veneva
- Athletics (sprint; high jump)
- Doping (testosterone)
- Scientific reliability and reliance of the IRMS testing
- Standard of proof
- Right of the IAAF to request an IRMS analysis in the absence of an elevated T/E ratio and/or an abnormal steroid profile
- Limit of IAAF’s discretion
1. An IRMS analysis is an independent and sufficient basis upon which to determine that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred with respect to the exogenous administration of testosterone.
2. In order to succeed in rebutting the presumption set out in the IAAF Rules, the Respondents have to prove the veracity of their arguments by a balance of probability. Proof by balance of probability means that the CAS panel needs more than unfounded scientific hypotheses in order to accept the rebuttal of presumption and to invalidate results provided by a WADA-accredited laboratory which clearly show the presence of a prohibited substance.
3. Effective anti-doping policies require target testing conducted by the Anti-Doping Organisations. Target testing does not only entail selection of a specific athlete, who will undergo a doping control at a specific time and place; it may also include the choice of the type of sample (urine or blood) to be collected or even the type of the analysis to be applied in order to detect a prohibited substance. There is no rule which would prohibit IAAF from requesting an IRMS analysis on a sample that is owned by IAAF itself.
4. Like any other right, IAAF’s discretion as regards target testing is not to be abused and target testing should be used for anti-doping reasons only. However, a missed test and/or a missed test evaluation procedure is/are an objective indication that the concerned athlete might have been using prohibited substances which justifies the decision to request IRMS analysis of the athlete’s samples. Furthermore, even without such justification, the balancing of interests between the international federation’s role in representing all competing athletes equally and fairly may require the IAAF to order that additional laboratory analytical work be carried out in order to ensure the protection of the integrity of the sport and instil confidence in athletes who are competing fairly that their representative organisation has acted in the best interests of the sport.
In March 2007 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bulgarian Athlete’s Vania Stambolova and Veneline Veneva after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
In spite of the analysis reports of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne and the opinions of Dr. Saugy and Professor Ayotte, the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletic Federation (BFLA) concluded and decided on 18 July 2007 that the test results of the athletes were inconclusive and insufficient for proving the use of prohibited substances as ground for sanctioning the athletes.
Hereafter in August 2007 the IAAF appealed the BFLA decision of 18 July 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the two athletes for committing an anti-doping rule violation.
The IAAF argued that the athlete’s samples clearly demonstrated the presence of exogenous testosterone including that there is clear and sufficient evidence of the IRMS analysis. The athletes explanation that the ingestion of Tribulus Terrestris would give rise to a positive IRMS result or an adverse analytical finding must be dismissed.
The BFLA and the Athletes contended that the IRMS analytical results do not exclude completely endogenous origin and may be explained with the effect of the medicines, food supplements and the use of Bulgarian sunflower oil.
Taking into account the level of independence, qualification and experience of each expert, the Panel has reached their conclusions in this case concerning the scientific issues raised by the parties.
The Panel is satisfied that the lAAF has completely satisfied its burden of proof with respect to a doping offence committed by Ms Stambolova and Ms Veneva under the lAAF Rules. On the other hand, the Athletes have failed to demonstrate any deviations from the International Standard of Laboratories or that the results could be explained by reasons other than administration of exogenous testosterone.
Proof by balance of probability means that the Panel needs more than unfounded scientific hypotheses in order to accept the rebuttal of presumption and to invalidate results provided by a WADA-accredited laboratory which clearly show the presence of a prohibited substance. As a result, the analysis findings were not attributable to Tribulus Terrestris and/or contraceptive tablets and/or sunflower oil and the Lausanne Laboratory was not obliged by any applicable rule to obtain a full steroid profile before reaching a conclusion on the adverse analytical finding.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 February 2008 that :
1.) The appeal filed on 3 August 2007 by the International Association of Athletics Federation against the decision issued on 18 July 2007 by the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletics Federation is upheld.
2.) The decision issued on 18 July 2007 by the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletics Federation is set aside and nullified.
3.) A suspension of two years is imposed on Ms Vania Stambolova and Ms Venelina Veneva commencing on the date of this decision, less the period of provisional suspension already served.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the International Association of Athletics Federation, which is retained by the CAS.
6.) The Bulgarian Athletics Federation is ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federation a contribution towards all its costs incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure in an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs).
