CAS 2014/A/3685 Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle v. International Biathlon Union (IBU)
Related cases:
CAS OG_2006_04 Deutscher Skiverband & Evi Sachenbacher vs FIS
February 12, 2006
IOC 2014 IOC vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle
February 21, 2014
IBU 2014 IBU vs Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle
July 14, 2014
Biathlon
Doping (methylhexaneamine)
Conditions for the application of Article 10.4 of the WADC
Athlete unaware that a prohibited substance is contained in a product and exclusion of intent
Accidental use of a food supplement containing a specified substance
Measurement of an athlete’s fault in the CAS jurisprudence
1. For Article 10.4 of the WADC to apply three conditions have to be satisfied: i) the substance found the competitor’s sample is a “Specified Substance” according to the Prohibited List; ii) the athlete can establish how the “Specified Substance” entered his or her body; iii) the athlete can establish that such “Specified Substance” was not intended to enhance his or her sport performance.
2. When discussing whether the mere fact that an athlete is unaware that a prohibited substance is contained in a product is sufficient to rule out his intent to enhance sport performance, an athlete’s behaviour can be qualified to be indirectly intentional if it is preliminarily focused on one result, but in case a collateral result materializes, the latter would be equally accepted by the athlete.
3. In order to be relevant, the acceptance of risk must be cognizant and specific to the peculiar case, and cannot be generally related to the use of a food supplement. Indeed, the risks associated with food supplements are well known among athletes, years after the first cases of anti-doping rule violations caused by contamination or mislabelled products were detected and considered in the CAS jurisprudence. However, the “Specified Substances” are more likely to be “accidentally” used. Food supplements are at risk of containing undisclosed prohibited specified substances, and by using them the athletes always take the risk of ingesting a prohibited substance: yet, the use of supplements, in whatever doses, is not in itself prohibited. In other words, the simple fact of consuming a food supplement is not per se an “acceptance of risk” excluding the applicability of Article 10.4 of the WADC.
4. An impressive body of jurisprudence has defined the circumstances relevant to the measurement of an athlete’s fault, and translated them into the determination of a proper sanction. Although precedents provide helpful guidance, each case must be decided on its own facts and although consistency of sanctions is a virtue, correctness remains a higher one: otherwise unduly lenient (or, indeed, unduly severe) sanctions may set a wrong benchmark inimical to the interests of sport. In order to determine into which category of fault (significant degree, normal degree or light degree of fault) a particular case might fall, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective level of fault. The objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation. The subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in light of his personal capacities. The objective element should be foremost in determining into which of the three relevant categories a particular case falls. The subjective element can then be used to move a particular athlete up or down within that category.
In February 2014 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the German Athlete Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). On 21 February 2014 the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided to exclude the Athlete from the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games and to disqualify her results obtained at the Biathlon events.
As a consequence of the IOC sanction the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 14 July 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter in August 2014 the Athlete appealed the IBU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel for a reduced sanction and argued that the violation was non intentional and the result of the use of contaminated supplements prior to the competition and mentioned on the Doping Control Form.
The Panel, contrary to the IBU Decision, finds that the Athlete has produced evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion, to its comfortable satisfaction, that she did not intend to enhance her sport performance by using the Substance and was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 February 2015 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle on 4 August 2014 against the International Biathlon Union (IBU) concerning the decision of the IBU Anti-Doping Panel of 14 July 2014 is partially upheld.
2.) Section II of the decision of the IBU Anti-Doping Panel dated 14 July 2014 is modified as follows:
Ms. Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of six (6) months, commencing retroactive as of the date of sample, that is, 17 February 2014.
3.) All competitive results of Ms. Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle obtained as from 17 February 2014 through the conclusion of her six (6) month period of ineligibility are forfeited.
(…)
6.) All other or further requests or motions for relief are dismissed.
