CAS 2016/A/4889 Olga Abramova v. International Biathlon Union (IBU)
Related case:
IBU 2016 IBU vs Olga Abramova
November 14, 2016
Biathlon
Doping (meldonium)
Establishment of No Fault or Negligence
Athlete’s discharge that s/he exercised his/her utmost caution
Elimination of sanction
1. In order for an anti-doping rule violation by an athlete to be analysed as not having involved any Fault or Negligence on his/her part, said athlete needs to establish how the prohibited substance entered his/her system and that s/he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that s/he had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule.
2. When analysing whether one athlete acted with utmost caution when using meldonium, the state of scientific knowledge about the excretion particularities of meldonium before 2016 and the athlete’s medical reasons for its prescription are to be taken into consideration.
3. According to art. 10.4. of the WADA Code, if an athlete establish in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility shall be eliminated. Additionally, pursuant to art. 10.7.3. of the WADA Code, an anti-doping rule violation for which an athlete has established No Fault or Negligence shall not be considered a prior violation for purposes of said article.
On 14 November 2016 the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (ADHP) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Ukrainian Athlete Olga Abramova after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. The Athlete stated that she used the medication Meldonium prescribed by her doctor between November and December 2015 before the substance was included on the WADA 2016 Prohibited List.
Hereafter in December 2016 the Athlete appealed the ADHP decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 14 November and to be cleared from any involvement in any anti-doping scandals in spite of the fact that she already had served the imposed 1 year period of ineligibility.
The Athlete argued that the administration of Meldonium before 1 January 2016 does not constitute an anti-doping rule violation and the concentration of Meldonium in her sample is acceptable. She asserted that WADA approved a transition period during which traces of Meldonium in the Athlete’s body are acceptable by establishing persmissible urinary concentrations during different periods after 1 January 2016. Also WADA made an exception to the Prohibited List by creating legitimate expectations.
The Panel finds that the available evidence in this case indicates that it was more likely than not that the Athlete did not take Meldonium on or after 1 January 2016. In view of scientific uncertainties, the Panel accepts the Athlete's assertion that she did not use Meldonium on or after 1 January 2016 and that a concentration of Meldonium of 7.3μg/ml is consistent with her administration of the substance before the Prohibited List entered into force, i.e. before 1 January 2016.
The Panel accepts that the Meldonium was administered because of medical reasons and not in order to enhance her sports performance. The Panel holds that the lack of scientific knowledge on the excretion particularities of Meldonium confirms that she could not reasonably have known or suspected that Meldonium could be detected in her blood after 1 January 2016. Further the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete fulfilled her obligation to ensure that Meldonium did not enter her body after 1 January 2016.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete has established the two components necessary for finding No Fault or Negligence, by establishing how the prohibited substance entered her system and by discharging her duty of utmost caution to ensure that the prohibited substance would not be detected in her body after the Prohibited List came to force.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 April 2017 that:
1.) The appeal filed on December 5, 2016 by Ms Olga Abramova against the decision rendered by the International Biathlon Union Anti-Doping Hearing Panel on November 14, 2015 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by the International Biathlon Union Anti-Doping Hearing Panel on November 14, 2015 is set aside.
3.) Ms Olga Abramova's results obtained between January 10, 2016 and February 3, 2016, are disqualified.
4.) Ms Olga Abramova's contribution of EUR 2000 towards the IBU's costs is cancelled.
5.) The present arbitration procedure shall be free, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 ( one thousand Swiss francs), which has already been paid by Ms Olga Abramova and is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
6.) The Parties shall bear their own costs.
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
