CAS 2011/A/2675 Mita Overvliet v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
- Weightlifting
- Doping (norandrosterone; furosemide)
- Scope and applicability of the WADA Code
- Interpretation of statutes and regulations of a federation
- Interpretation of an IF’s rule providing a four years ineligibility for a first offence contrary to the WADA Code
- Compatibility with Swiss law
1. The WADA Code is neither a law nor an international treaty. It is rather a contractual instrument binding its signatories in accordance with private international law. To become applicable, the WADA Code must be accepted and implemented according to the signatory’s authority and within its relevant spheres of responsibility. To become applicable, the WADA Code and its provisions need to be transformed into the regulations of a signatory.
2. According to Swiss law, statutes and regulations of associations have to be construed and interpreted in the same way as public laws. The Swiss Federal Tribunal and leading commentators tend to interpret the statutes and regulations of associations in an objective way, comparable to the interpretation of statutory law. Accordingly, CAS jurisprudence requires the interpretation of the statutes and rules of sport associations to be objective and always to start with the wording of the rule. It follows that the adjudicating body has to consider the meaning of the rule, looking at the language used, the appropriate grammar and the syntax. The intentions (objectively construed) of the association including any relevant historical background may be taken into consideration.
3. By way of interpretation of an International Federation’s (IF) Anti-Doping Program (ADP) it has to be examined whether the ADP provides a four or a two years’ ineligibility for a first doping violation. The wording of the relevant article of the ADP is specific, clear and unambiguous and provides for a four years’ ineligibility for a first violation. However, there is an inconsistency between the preface of the ADP, which forms an integral part of the ADP, and the relevant article since in the preface it is stated that the IF accepted the revised (2009) WADA Code providing a two years’ ineligibility. Interpreted from the perspective of a systematic interpretation, the article providing specifically a four years’ period should prevail over the preface of the IF’s ADP and its general reference to the WADA Code as it is a lex specialis.
4. The four years’ sanction of ineligibility for a first doping offence does not violate the personality rights of an athlete nor Swiss public policy.
On 2 December 2012 teh IWF Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Dutch weightlifter Mita Overvliet after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
Hereafter in December 2012 the Athlete appealed the IWF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed these issues raised by the Athlete:
- Scope and applicability of the WADA Code;
- WADA's compliance reports are not decisive;
- Has the 2 years' period of ineligibility become part of the IWF's own regulations?;
- No discretion to reduce the period of ineligibility;
- Article 10.2 IWF ADP does it violate Swiss Law.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 May 2012:
1.) The Appeal filed by Ms. Mita Overvliet on 23 December 2011 against the decision dated 2 December 2011 rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel on 2 December 2012 is confirmed. Ms. Mita Overvliet being ineligible to compete in weightlifting competitions for a period of four years starting from 23 May 2011.
(…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
