CAS 2017/A/5320 United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Ryan Bailey
Related case:
AAA 2017 No. 01 17 0002 7722 USADA vs Ryan Bailey
July 26, 2017
- Bobsleigh
- Doping (dimethlylbutylamine, DMBA)
- Departure from the expected duty of care excluding a finding of No Significant Fault
- Determination of the proportionate sanction
1. An athlete bears a personal duty of care in ensuring compliance with anti-doping obligations. The standard of care for top athletes is very high in light of their experience, expected knowledge of anti-doing rules, and public impact they have on their particular sport. An athlete’s primary and personal responsibility is to ensure that no prohibited substances enter his/her body. The conduct of an elite athlete who did not ask anyone for assurances that the substances s/he ingested were “safe”, did not do any research of his/her own, and in fact, did not even take the most basic step of reading the product label before taking it represents a marked departure from the expected standard of behaviour of an athlete of his/her age and experience. Therefore, the athlete’s conduct does not warrant a finding of No Significant Fault. The same conclusion should be reached for an athlete who suffers from a disability or impairment such as an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder which is found not sufficiently disabling so as to prevent him/her from exercising any degree of due diligence. Moreover, an athlete who suffers from a disability or impairment that prevents him/her from complying with primary WADC obligation should either not compete at all or ensure that s/he is accompanied by a responsible adult when s/he takes any supplement or medicine, or take other appropriate measures, including medically recommended measures, to achieve compliance.
2. If the athlete did not exercise any degree of care, there can be no reduction to the otherwise applicable two-year period of ineligibility.
In January 2017 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bobsled Athlete Ryan Bailey after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance dimethylbutylamine (DMBA).
In this case USADA accepted after the Athlete's prompt admission that the source of the Athlete’s positive test was the supplement “Weapon X”. Detailed analysis conducted on the supplement by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Salt Lake City confirmed that the supplement contained DMBA. Although DMBA was not listed on the Supplement Facts label, another closely related prohibited stimulant, methylhexaneamine, also known as 1,3-Dimethylamylamine (DMAA), was listed on the label.
As a result the current version of the supplement that caused the Athlete’s positive test, which lists DMAA as an ingredient, but in fact contains DMBA, was added in April 2017 to the USADA High Risk List of supplements maintained on USADA’s online dietary supplement safety education and awareness resource, Supplement 411.
The Panel of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribunal ruled that the Athlete has sustained his burden of proof, by a balance of probability to qualify for a reduction on the Athlete’s period of ineligibility, based on his light degree of fault.
Therefore the AAA Commercial Arbitration Tribunal decides on 26 July 2017 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 20 January 2017.
Hereafter USADA appealed the AAA decision of 26 July 2017 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
USADA challenged the determination regarding degree of fault, sanction length and sanction start date.
The case against the Athlete was expedited for resolution in advance of team selection decisions related to the upcoming Winter Olympic Games.
USADA finds that the CAS Panel’s award confirms the fundamental principle that athletes must maintain heightened awareness, at all times, of their anti-doping responsibilities, both in and out-of-competition. The two-year sanction determined by the Panel is standard for those who choose to use, in close proximity to a competition, an over-the-counter dietary supplement marketed for performance enhancement and labeled with a prohibited substance. In this case, the Athlete used such a product listing a prohibited stimulant on the label of the product without apparently even looking at the label. Consequently, USADA’s appeal was required to uphold the fair, consistent and predictable application of the rules for all athletes.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 November 2017 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency on 15 September 2017 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the American Arbitration Association dated 23 August 2017 is set aside.
3.) Mr. Ryan Bailey is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility commencing on the date of this award with credit given for the period of suspension already served by Mr. Bailey between 29 January and 9 July 2017. Any results achieved by Mr. Bailey between 10 January and 29 January 2017 shall be disqualified.
4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Mr. Ryan Bailey.
5.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
