CAS 2006/A/1067 International Rugby Board (IRB) v. Jason Keyter
- Rugby
- Doping (benzoylecgonine)
- Burden and standard of proof
- Duty to establish the route of ingestion
- Significant negligence
1. The burden of proof is initially on the party asserting that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. As to the standard of proof, the same party shall establish “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body” that a violation has occurred. This standard of proof is greater than “a mere balance of probability” but less than “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Once the Sport Federation has discharged the above burdens, the athlete accused of the anti-doping rule violation is subject to “strict liability”. This means that the presence in the athlete’s body or bodily specimen of a prohibited substance, regardless of the athlete’s intent, knowledge, fault or negligence, is sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation and thus the athlete’s presumptive guilt. The athlete may rebut the presumption of guilt by proving absence of fault or negligence or, alternatively, absence of significant fault or negligence. The athlete is required to establish that the fault or negligence was not significant on the “balance of probability”.
2. The failure to establish how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension. The mere allegation that the athlete has no idea how a forbidden substance entered into his body, and relies as a possible explanation on the ingestion of cocaine through a “spiked drink” that was offered him by strangers in a night club is not sufficient to establish the route of ingestion.
3. An athlete is significantly negligent when he/she failed to exercise any caution (let alone the utmost caution), thereby failing both the “No Fault or Negligence” test and the “No Significant Fault or Negligence” test. The submission that getting drunk, and possibly not realizing and/or remembering what was going on, cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance excusing an athlete from his/her fault or negligence.
On 16 March 2006 the Review Panel of the Rugby Football Union (RFU) decided to uphold the sanction of 12 months imposed on the rugby player Jason Keyter after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.
Hereafter in April 2006 the International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed the RFU Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). IRB requested the Panel to set aside the appealed decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:
- The Athlete alleged to have committed a doping violation bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of a specified circumstance is more probable than its non-occurrence.
- The Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation is proven to its comfortable satisfaction, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation.
- The Athlete's failure to establish how the prohibited substance had entered his bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 October 2006:
1.) The appeal filed by the International Rugby Board on 7 April 2006 is upheld and the Decision issued by the Review Panel of the RFU on 16 March 2006 is varied to impose a two year sanction.
2.) Mr Jason Keyter is declared ineligible for a period of two years, from 15 November 2005 to 14 November 2007.
(…).
