CAS 2016/A/4626 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) & Mhaskar Meghali
- Weightlifting
- Doping (metandienone)
- Presence of a prohibited substance
- Burden of proof regarding the athlete’s lack of intent involving the use of a non-specified substance
- Absence of reduction of the sanction if the athlete cannot explain how the prohibited substance entered his system
1. According to the applicable anti-doping rules, the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample constitutes an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). Pursuant to the rules, sufficient proof of such ADRV is established by the presence of a prohibited substances or its metabolites or markers in the athlete’s A-sample where the athlete waived the right to have the B-sample analysed.
2. For an ADRV to be committed non-intentionally, the athlete must prove that, by a balance of probability, he did not know that his conduct constituted an ADRV or that there was no significant risk of an ADRV. According to established case-law of CAS the proof by a balance of probability requires that one explanation is more probable than the other possible explanation. For that purpose, an athlete must provide actual evidence as opposed to mere speculation.
3. According to the anti-doping rules, where no specific substances or contaminated products are involved, the period of ineligibility may be reduced if an athlete establish that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. However, the sanction cannot be reduced if the athlete cannot fulfil the precondition to any reduction in this respect i.e. explain how the prohibited substance entered his system.
On 30 March 2016 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Mhaskar Meghali for the unintentional use of the prohibited substance metandienone considering No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case.
Hereafter in June 2016 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADDPI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Panel to set aside the ADDPI decision of 30 March 2016 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation and argued that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was non intentional and how the prohibited substance entered her system.
The Athlete denied the intentional use of illegal supplements and stated that she was the victim of jealousy of other competitors who may have mixed drugs in her edibles during the competition. She asserted that she did not know that the medications administered for her injury contained prohibited substances.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that none of the two medications used for the Athlete’s injury contain metandienone and therefore cannot be the source of the Adverse Analytical Finding. Furthermore the Athlete did not mention these medications in her Doping Control Form nor was she in the possession of a TUE. Hence, the Athlete did not even offer an alternative possible explanation for the finding of metandienone in her system. The Athlete’s submission made before the ADDPI and repeated in her “affidavit” that she was a victim of jealousy of other competitors who may have mixed drugs in her edibles during the competition is pure speculation with no evidentiary weight.
The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete did not establish that the ADRV was “not intentional” and the period of ineligibility to be imposed on the Athlete shall be four years.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 September 2016 that:
1.) The appeal filed by WADA on June 1, 2016, against the decision rendered by the NADA Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel on March 30, 2016, is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by the NADA Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel on March 30, 2016, is set aside.
3.) Ms. Mhaskar Meghali is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the sense of Article 2.1 of the NADA Anti-Doping Rules and thus, according to Article 10. 2. 1 of such rules, is imposed a period of ineligibility of four years from the date of the present award.
4.) All previous period of ineligibility already served by Ms. Mhaskar Meghali shall be deduced from the above four-year period of ineligibility.
5.) All competitive results, if any, obtained by Ms. Mhaskar Meghali from and including January 14, 2015, through February 9, 2015, are disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.
6.) (…).
7.) (…).
8.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
