CAS 2004/A/690 D. Hipperdinger v/ATP
CAS 2004/A/690 H. v. Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP)
Related case:
ITF 2004 ATP vs Diego Hipperdinger
- Tennis
- Doping (cocaine)
- Use of a natural product (coca tea and coca leaves) for medical purpose
- Significant negligence
- Sanction
1. According to Rule S1. of Appendix Three of the ATP Rules, cocaine is considered a prohibited substance. When the presence of cocaine and metabolites in the athlete’s body is not disputed, the athlete committed a doping offence in the sense of Rule C.1.a of the ATP Rules, if he did not establish a granted therapeutic use exemption.
2. A professional athlete must be considered to be highly sensitive and alert to issues of doping. The principle of strict liability means that an athlete is responsible for whatever substance is in his body, without having regard to the reasons for such presence and the degree of any respective fault of the athlete. Every athlete must therefore be concerned about substances he or she is ingesting, in particular if this is done for a medicinal purpose. The athlete who did not comply with his duty of care acts negligently and cannot be considered as bearing no fault or negligence in the sense of Rule M.5.a of the ATP Rules or no significant negligence pursuant to Rule M.5.b of the ATP Rules.
3. Under the applicable anti-doping regulations, it is not the duty of the ATP to warn athletes against the use of certain substances. While it is certainly desirable that the ATP and any IF should make every effort to educate athletes about doping, it is principally the sole duty of the individual athlete to ensure that no prohibited substances enter his body. It is therefore irrelevant whether the ATP has warned athletes against the use of natural products. The list of prohibited substances is not intended to include each and every possible ingredient or base product – whether natural or synthetic – to a substance that is prohibited.
On 24 March 2005 the Court of Arbitration for Sport hereby decides:
1.) The Appeal filed by H. is partially allowed.
2.) The Decision of the ATP Anti-Doping Tribunal dated 23 July 2004 is upheld, save points 3 and 4 which are modified as follows: “
3. [Sentence 1 is annulled] The period of ineligibility has commenced on 9 February 2004 and will end on 8 February 2006.
4. [Sentence 1 is annulled] It is ordered that medals, titles, computer ranking points and prize money earned since 9 February 2004 be forfeited. [Sentence 3 is upheld].
(…)
