CAS 2015/A/4049 Romela Aleksander Begaj v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
Weightlifting
Doping (stanozolol)
Experienced, international-level athletes and principle of strict liability under Article 2.1.1 IWF ADP
Non-threshold substances and Adverse Analytical Finding
Advanced testing method applied by specific laboratories and equal treatment of athletes in cases of non-threshold substances
1. An experienced, international-level athlete who has undergone numerous doping controls should be knowledgeable of the principle of strict liability imposed by Article 2.1.1 IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), which provides that “It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1”.
2. Any concentration of non-threshold substances which is detected in the samples must be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding resulting in the strict liability set down in Article 2.1 IWF ADP. WADA Technical Document TD2014MRPL sets out analytical parameters of technical performance with which WADA-accredited laboratories must comply when testing for the presence of a particular Prohibited Substance, its Metabolite(s) or Marker(s). It is that concentration of a Prohibited Substance which laboratories must be able to routinely detect and identify in order to function as a WADA-accredited laboratory.
3. The advanced testing method applied by a specific laboratory does not violate the equal treatment of athletes when the method applied is not a quantitative test and the prohibited substance found is a non-threshold substance. WADA recognizes in the introductory paragraph to Technical Document TD2014MRPL that “some Laboratories will be able to identify a wider range or lower concentrations of Prohibited Substances than other Laboratories”. The Technical Document also states specifically that “individual capabilities in laboratories are encouraged by WADA in order to improve the overall system”.
In December 2014 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Albanian Athlete Romela Alesander Begaj after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The IWF Hearing rejected the Athlete’s submission that scientific evidence showed that meat marketed in Albania was contaminated with stanozolol and decided on 29 March 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter in April 2015 the Athlete appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the IWF decision of 29 March 2015 and disputed with an expert witness the validity of the test results.
The Panel rejects the notion that the small concentration detected in the Athlete’s urine sample justifies by itself consideration of the “no fault” or “no significant fault” reduction in the sanction. The Athlete has not satisfied the Panel, on the basis of the applicable standard of proof, namely on the balance of probability, that the Prohibited Substance stanozolol entered her body by the inadvertent contamination from an external sources. Also the Panel has not been persuaded, based on the applicable standard of proof and the evidence submitted by the Athlete, that an elimination or reduction of the ineligibility sanction is fair and appropriate.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 October 2015:
1.) The Appeal filed by Romela Aleksander Begaj against the decision of the IWF Hearing Panel of 29 March 2015 is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the IWF Hearing Panel of 29 March 2015 is confirmed.
3.) (…).
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
