CAS 2010/A/2110 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Colombian Athletics Federation (CAF) & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia
- Athletics
- Doping (stanozolol)
- Obligation of IAAF Members to abide by the IAAF Rules and Regulations
- Election of the governing law by tacit agreement
- No participation of the respondent in doping proceedings and procedural fairness
- Obligation of a doping control officer to deliver the samples to the laboratory “as soon as practically possible”
- Departure from the ISL and cause of the adverse analytical finding
1. According to the IAAF Constitution, the IAAF members agree to abide by the IAAF Constitution and by its Rules and Regulations. Furthermore, the IAAF members have the obligations to comply with all applicable IAAF Rules and Regulations. In this regard, the application for membership to the IAAF by a national governing body for athletics must include a formal undertaking to observe and abide by the IAAF Constitution, Rules and Regulations.
2. The election of governing law by tacit agreement is possible. For instance, by their behaviour, the parties could have clearly given their assent to the application of a specific law. Nevertheless, to admit this, it must undoubtedly emerge through the parties’ conclusive acts, that they agreed on the applicable law when they entered into the disputed contractual relationship.
3. The participation of the respondent is mandatory in an appeal, otherwise the appeal would be inadmissible due to the absence of a valid legal procedural relationship between the parties to the proceedings. Especially in doping proceedings concerning the magnification of the sanction imposed on the athlete, it would be procedurally unacceptable to make a decision on the merits if the athlete concerned has not been properly included in the proceedings or, at least, received knowledge of the proceedings in such a way that enables the person to legally defend himself. If the respondent was aware of the proceedings and had the opportunity to present his case, the legal relationship can be adequately established between the parties and the non-participation of the respondent should not put into question the validity of the proceedings in respect of procedural fairness.
4. The International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) do not prescribe a more specific period of time from the samples collection to their delivery to the laboratory but only stipulate that this should be done “as soon as practicably possible”. The phrase undoubtedly implies that transportation should be made at the first reasonable opportunity. A delay of ten days from the date of collection to the date of delivery should be justifiable only in exceptional circumstances, whereas an excuse in relation to other professional commitments is untenable. When a person accepts to assume the responsibility of a doping control officer, he must dedicate himself to comply and fulfil all the required duties expected of him and constantly be aware of the seriousness of his mission as well as the severe consequences that his actions may have upon the career of an athlete. Once a sample is collected, the requirement of “as soon as practicably possible” receives priority over other work commitments. Therefore, a ten-day delay is totally unacceptable and constitutes a departure from the ISL.
5. A delay in the transportation of the samples to the laboratory and/or their storage conditions cannot reasonably cause the materialization of an exogenous steroid where it was not otherwise present.
In June 2009 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian Athlete Johana Triviño-Urrutia after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
On 20 August 2009 the Disciplinary Commission of the Colombian Athletics Federation (FECODATLE) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed the decision and the General Disciplinary Commission (GDC) of the Colombian Olympic Committee decided on 12 February 2010 to set aside the test results and the sanction imposed on the Athlete due to several departures had occurred from the WADA ISL standard.
Hereafter in April 2010 the IAAF appealed the GDC decision of 12 February 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the GDC decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblilty on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation.
The IAAF contended that the Chain of Custody was well documented and the samples were intact and in a suitable condition delivered in spite of a delay of 10 days between the sample collection and the delivery to the Laboratory in Bogota.
The Panel holds as unacceptable the fact that 10 days have elapsed between the date of the samples collection and the date of their delivery to the Laboratory in Bogota. This delay is totally unacceptable and constitutes a departure from the International Standards for Laboratories.
However, considering the evidence the Panel is convinced that a breach in the chain of custody did not occur and that a departure from the International Standards for Laboratories caused due to the delay in the delivery of the samples, did not cause the adverse analytical finding.
In addition, the Respondents failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that would indicate manipulation of the sample by an ill-disposed person.
On these findings of the evidence, it has been proven by the IAAF as well as by the circumstances that the Athlete committed a doping offence prohibited by the applicable Anti-Doping Regulations.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 January 2011 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations against the decision issued by the General Disciplinary Commission of the Colombian Athletics Federation on 12 February 2010 is upheld.
2.) The decision issued by the General Disciplinary Commission on 12 February 2010 is set aside.
3.) Ms Johanna Trivino-Urrutia is guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule violation committed during the 54th Colombian Senior Championship which took place in Bogota, Colombia between 23 and 24 May 2009.
4.) Ms Johanna Trivino-Urrutia shall be declared ineligible for two years. The period of ineligibility to be imposed upon her shall commence on the date of the notification of this award to Ms Trivino-Unuita. The periods of Provisional Suspension shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility be served.
5.) Ms Johanna Trivino-Urrutia's results, her eventual medals, points and prizes obtained during the 54th Colombian Senior Championship, since 23 May 2009 and/or during the above-mentioned period of ineligibility, are forfeited.
6.) This award is pronounced without cost, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid and to be retained by the CAS.
7.) Each party shall bear its own costs.
8.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
