CAS 2012/A/2732 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Athletics Federation of lndia (AFI) & Mandeep Kaur & Jauna Murmu
- Athletics
- Doping (metandienone; stanozolol)
- CAS scope of review
- Standard of proof of establishing how the prohibited substance entered the athletes’ system
- Reduction of sanction based on no significant fault or negligence
- Personal responsibility of the athlete
- Duty of care to establish no significant fault or negligence
1. According to Article R57 of the CAS Code, the CAS has full power to review the facts and law of the case. However, prayers for relief challenging an appealed decision must be part of an appeal against that decision, not a part of the response to an appellant’s appeal, as they are otherwise beyond the scope of review of the CAS.
2. The standard of proof of establishing how the prohibited substance(s) entered the athletes’ systems, in accordance with Rule 33.2 of the IAAF Rules, is a balance of probability, a standard that has been held to mean that an athlete alleged to have committed a doping violation bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of a specified substance is more probable than its none occurrence; alternatively that the innocent explanation provided is more likely than not the correct explanation.
3. A reduction of sanction based on no significant fault or negligence may be appropriate in cases where the athlete clearly establish that the cause of the positive test was the contamination in a common multiple vitamin purchased from a source with no connection to prohibited substances, but only where the athlete otherwise exercised due care in not taking other nutritional supplements.
4. CAS jurisprudence is clear that athletes cannot shift their responsibility on to third parties simply by claiming that they were acting under instruction or that they were doing what they were told. That would be all too simple and would completely frustrate all the efforts being made in the fight against doping.
5. Even in the case where athletes may not be deemed informed athletes due to a lack of anti-doping education, they must be aware of the basic risks of contamination of nutritional supplements. If athletes have been taking a cocktail of supplements despite the numerous warnings in place about taking supplements, have failed to contact the manufacturers directly or arrange for the supplements to be tested before using them, did not seek advice from a qualified doctor or nutritionist, have failed to conduct a basic review of the packaging of the supplements and any basic Internet research about the supplements, they cannot be deemed to have taken any of the reasonable steps expected of them and cannot establish on the facts that they bear no significant fault or negligence.
In June 2011 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against 2 Indian athletes after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances metandienone and stanozolol (Mandeep Kaur) and for metandienone (Jauna Murmu).
The cases of the Athletes were heard together with the cases of four of their teammates in a consolidated procedure before the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP). On 23 December 2011 the ADDP decided to impose a reduced sanction of 1 year period of ineligibility in each case on the athletes due to they has established "no significant fault or negligence".
The ADDP Panel considered in its decision that the supplements were provided to the Athlete’s by their entrusted coach and he was selected and appointed by the Athletics Federation of Indian (AFI). As the AFI used to provide the supplements to the athletes they could not be expected to verify their supplements provide to them by the authority responsible for sports in the country.
Hereafter in February 2012 the IAAF appealed the ADDP decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the ADDP decision and to impose on the athletes a more severe sanction under the IAAF Rules.
By way of context, the IAAF asserted that there was a serious doping problem in India. When the Athletes tested positive for steroids, they blamed the Coach, the NIS and the National Federation for running out of nutritional supplements. The Athletes blamed everyone except themselves, yet bear the responsibility for anti-doping offences.
The IAAF argued that the Athletes completely failed in their duty to ensure that no prohibited substance entered their system. They took none of the precautions that were expected of them as athletes competing on the international stage and they were negligent in the extreme. Also the Athletes had not established how the prohibited substance(s) entered their systems to the requisite standard of proof.
The IAAF contended that the Coach had devised a separate sophisticated doping regimen for his athletes, including administering the type of steroids for which the Athletes tested positive. That doping regimen was put before the CAS.
The Sole Arbitrator notes that there is no evidence on the file that the Athletes deliberately ingested steroids. Further, the Sole Arbitrator also notes that the Athletes were in fact taking a number of supplements purchased from outside of the training centre which were not from official sources.
Considering the evidence the Sole Arbitrator finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Kianpi Pills were the source of the Athletes' adverse analytical findings. The Sole Arbitrator rules that the Athletes were in fact guilty in a number of respects of serious fault or negligence in their conduct and that they must now serve the full 2 year period of suspension.
However, the Sole Arbitrator emphasize that the IAAF and the AFI need to take further positive action to educate
athletes directly in relation to the risks of taking supplements in India.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 November 2012:
1.) The appeal filed on 20 February 2012 by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against the decision issued on 23 December 2011 by the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel is admissible and upheld;
2.) The decision of the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of 23 December 2011 is set aside;
3.) Ms. Mandeep Kaur and Ms. Jauna Murmu shall both be declared ineligible for a period of two (2) years starting from the date of the present award, given credit of the period of their previous period of ineligibility and subsequent provisional suspension already served;
4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Mandeep Kaur from 25 May 2011 and by Jauna Murmu from 26 June 2011 until the commencement of their previous period of ineligibility shall be disqualified, with all resulting consequences, in accordance with IAAF Rule 40.8;
5.) The costs of the present procedure, to be determined and served separately by CAS to the parties, shall be borne by half (1/2) by the AFI and by one quarter( 1/4) by each Athlete;
6.) Each party shall bear its own legal costs;
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
