CAS 2006/A/1032 Sesil Karatancheva v/International Tennis Federation
Related case:
ITF 2006 ITF vs Sesil Karatantcheva
January 11, 2006
On 11 January 2006 the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the minor tennis player Sesil Karatantcheva after her samples - provided in France in May 2005 and in Japan in July 2005 - tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
In first instance the ITF Tribunal rejected the Athlete's defence that the positive test results are on the balance of probabilities the result of endogenous production of Nandrolone by the Athlete consequent on her pregnancy.
Hereafter in January 2006 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and its sanction or alternatively for a reduced sanction.
The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and asserted that the elevated levels of 19-norandrosterone were due mainly to her pregnancy condition (physiological criteria) on one hand, and biochemical influence of the regularly taken food supplements, on the other.
Further the Athlete argued that due to a series of procedural deficiencies in the management of the tests by the ITF and its agents, and of failings in the laboratories’ testing procedures which occurred during and between the Paris test and the Tokyo test, the positive findings must be deemed invalid for one or more of the following main reasons.
The ITF contended that contrary to the Athlete's pregnancy defence, the 19-norandrosterone in her samples was not endogenously produced, this being established by documentary and expert evidence.
Also the ITF dismissed the Athlete's allegations that due to a series of procedural deficiencies in the management of the tests by the ITF and its agents, and of failings in the laboratories’ testing procedures which occurred during and between the Paris test and the Tokyo test, the positive findings must be deemed invalid.
Following weighing the scientific evidence in light of the facts of the case, the Panel considers that the concentrations of 19-norandrosterone found in the Athlete’s Paris sample deviate
from the values of 19-norandrosterone which might be found in a pregnant women in her 10th week of pregnancy, in a range that makes it very unlikely for the concentrations of 19-norandrosterone to be consistent with the normal endogenous production of 19-norandrosterone at that stage of pregnancy.
For such reason, the Panel finds that the Paris test must be deemed constitutive of a doping offence and considers it need not pronounce itself on the subsequent Tokyo test, as in any event the Paris and Tokyo tests have been treated as a single first offence for the purpose of imposing sanctions.
Furthermore the Panel finds there is no room for finding that the Athlete was not negligent or not significantly negligent. Accordingly, it need not further examine whether the Athlete met her burden of proving the exogenous source of 19-norandrosterone found in her system.
Therefore on 3 July 2006 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:
1.) Dismisses the appeal filed by Sesil Karatancheva on 27 January 2006.
2.) (…)
