CAS 2016/A/4776 Dorian Willes v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF)
Related case:
IBSF 2016 IBSF vs Dorian Willes
August 18, 2016
Para-skeleton
Doping (methylhexaneamine)
Insufficient evidence to justify invalidation of adverse analytical finding
Duty to avoid consumption of substances prohibited in or out of competition
Efforts by athlete not justifying sanction reduction based on no fault or no significant fault
1. Absent any specific circumstances neither a deviation from a test distribution plan nor the erroneous naming of the testing authority in the official doping control record may invalidate an adverse analytical finding.
2. Under the Anti-Doping Rules of the IBSF the athlete’s duty to avoid consumption of substances prohibited in or out of competition is a continuing duty, lasting until the end of the competition. Therefore, and given that the competition is defined to continue until the conclusion of the awards ceremony, any adverse analytical finding resulting from what an athlete ingested until the end of the awards ceremony does not assist the athlete in undermining his/her anti-doping rule violation. Put differently, the athlete would still be responsible for the presence of any prohibited substance in his/her body even if e.g. consumed in an allegedly uncontrolled awards ceremony environment.
3. Where an athlete restricts his/her research as to whether or not a supplement contains prohibited substances to the WADA Prohibited List app despite the fact that a variety of other sources of information are readily available to him/her (amongst others e.g. from the consultation of a doctor and/or a physician and/or his/her sporting federation as well as the fact that a simple internet research reveals that the supplement in question contains the prohibited substance) no reduction in the stipulated sanction on the grounds of no fault or no significant fault is justified.
On 18 August 2016 the Doping Hearing Panel of the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) decided to impose a 1 year period of ingeligiblility on the American Athlete Dorian Willes after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
The Panel considered in this case that the Athlete made clear in his statements that he had no intention to enhance sport performance, but that he used supplements because of the variety of sports he is involved in and that although not sufficient in the subject matter he is very thorough in checking his supplements on banned substances.
Hereafter in September 2016 the Athlete appealed the IBSF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel decision of 18 August 2016 and asserted that the Adverse Analytical Finding was invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the WADC, the ISTI and the IBSF ADR.
The IBSF contended that the laboratory analysis of the Athlete’s samples was unchallenged and was consistent with the Athlete’s admission of ingestion of the product containing the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine. The IBSF rejected the Athlete’s claim that no ADRV was committed because certain requirements of the IBSF ADR, ISTI and ISL were disregarded and failed on the facts and in law and that the challenge to the inclusion of Methylhexaneamine in the prohibited list was impermissible. There was also no evidence that the AAF for Methylhexaneamine was based on outdated science of analytical methods, and decisional limits contrary to international standards of testing and enforcement regulations.
The Panel finds that the Athlete had in effect either to show that the samples tested were not his, or that their integrity had been so compromised that the test results could not be relied upon. The Athlete did not seek to suggest the first and, in the Panel’s view, he did not succeed in establishing the second.
The Panel concludes that the test results were not invalidated by the deviation from the IBSF Test Distribution Plan (TDP), the erroneous naming of the testing authority and the late notification of Doping Control. The Panel finds that there was neither contamination nor substitution of the Athlete’s samples due to alleged shortcommings at the Doping Control Station and breach of the Chain of Custody. The doping control in question was fully compliant with all applicable rules and regulations under the WADC and the ADR and did not depart from an International Standard or the ADR.
The Panel acknowledges that the Athlete is not a drug cheat in the sense of someone who intentionally sought to enhance his sporting performance by use of a prohibited substance. However, even given his relative lack of experience in international competition and doping control (which the Panel recognizes) he fell far short (as even he himself conceded in his oral testimony) of standards of due diligence required of the modern athlete.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 July 2017 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Dorian Willes on 2 September 201 6 is dismissed.
2.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1 ,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Athlete, which is retained by the CAS.
3.) The present award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1 ,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) already paid by Mr. Dorian Willes, which is retained by the CAS.
4.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
