CAS 2015/O/4128 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Rita Jeptoo
Related case:
CAS 2015/A/3979 IAAF vs Athletics Kenya & Rita Jeptoo
October 26, 2016
In October 2014 Athletics Kenya reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).
On 30 January 2015 Athletics Kenya decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete without aggravating circumstances. Hereafter in March 2015 both the IAAF and the Athlete appealed the decision of Athletics Kenya with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
In June 2015 the Athlete withdrew her appeal (CAS 2015/A/3978). In November 2015 the IAAF filed a second appeal against the Athlete (CAS 2015/O/4228) for a new anti-doping rule violation.
In the first filed CAS case against the Athlete (CAS 2015/A/3979) the IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility for the use of rhEPO with aggravating circumstances.
In the second case (CAS 2015/O/4228) the IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 8 year period of ineligbililty as second anti-doping rule violation on the Athlete for Attempted Tampering.
The IAAF argued that the Athlete had provided false sworn statements as explanation and also had provided a fabricated Medical Record to support her explanation.
In July 2015, the IAAF and the Athlete in both cases (CAS 2015/A/3979 & CAS 2015/O/4228) were informed that the Panel in this procedure would also preside over the ordinary procedure. Accordingly, both procedures would be handled simultaneously for purposes of judicial economy.
Considering the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete committed tampering according to the IAAF ADR. The Panel finds that the submission of the forged document by the Athlete in her appeal CAS 2015/A/3978 did not occur as an isolated incident, but is the culminating peak in an overall strategy of the Athlete to cover up or hide the taking of prohibited substances by her and to prevent the competent authorities from issuing the appropriate sanctions. This strategy was employed by the Athlete from the very moment the adverse analytical finding was communicated to her in 2014.
The Panel notes that under the new IAAF rules the legal situation has changed dramatically. There is no longer a provision that provides a moving scale to increase the otherwise applicable sanction in case of aggravating circumstances.
Under the old (IAAF) rules, however, avoiding proper adjudication of an ADRV even though constituting tampering was not charged as a separate (second) offence, but was for the purpose of establishing the proper period of ineligibility taken only into account as an aggravating factor when adjudicating a first offense.
Since the first offense is not part of the matter in dispute CAS 2015/O/4128, the Panel is prevented from issuing a separate period of ineligibility for tampering in the case at hand. Instead, the Panel finds that the appropriate period of ineligibility has been exhaustively dealt with by applying ADR 40.6 in the other case CAS 2015/A/3979 against the Athlete.
For the sake of good order, the Panel emphasise that had the Athlete submitted the forged document as an isolated event in 2015, the Panel would have qualified this behaviour not only as tampering, but would have issued a separate period of ineligibility for this ADRV in line with the provisions for a second offence.
The Panel rules that in this case the IAAF has succeeded in the characterisation of the Athlete's behavior as tampering. However, it failed with its request to impose a separate period of ineligibility.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 26 October 2016 that:
1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Association of Athletics Federation on 10 November 2015 is partially upheld.
2.) Ms Rita Jeptoo has committed an anti-doping rule violation according to IAAF Rule 32.2(e).
3.) The International Association of Athletics Federation's request that Ms Jeptoo be sanctioned with an eight-year period of ineligibility for a second anti-doping rule violation is dismissed.
4.) The costs of these proceedings, which shall be specified and communicated separately by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne equally by the International Association of Athletics Federation and Ms. Jeptoo.
5.) Each party shall bear their own legal fees and expenses incurred in these proceedings.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
