- CAS 2016/A/4627 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (Indian NADA), Geeta Rani (Case I)
- CAS 2016/A/4628 WADA v. Indian NADA, Geeta Rani (Case II)
- CAS 2017/A/5283 WADA v. Indian NADA, Geeta Rani (Case III)
- Weightlifting
- Doping (metandienone metabolites)
- No requirement to establish source in order to establish absence of intent
- Interpretation of a rule
- Degree of evidence required to establish how a sabotage occurred
1. The 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) does not explicitly require an athlete to show the origin of the substance to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional. While the origin of the substance can be expected to represent an important, or even critical, element of the factual basis of the consideration of an athlete’s level of fault, in the context of Article 10.2.3 WADC, panels are offered flexibility to examine all the objective and subjective circumstances of the case and decide if a finding that the violation was not intentional is warranted.
2. A fundamental principle of interpretation is that rules must be applied according to their spirit and not merely according to their letter, and that a panel must interpret the rules in question in keeping with the perceived intention of the rule maker and not in a way that frustrates it.
3. The mere raising of unverified hypotheses or allegations and speculations as to how the prohibited substance entered an athlete’s body is in no way sufficient proof of how the substance entered such system. A third party attack like sabotage by spiking food and/or drink requires a specific and substantial amount of criminal energy and must be regarded as a serious offence comparable to corruption and match-fixing charges. Therefore, as far as the quality of evidence is concerned, the standards that have been developed by CAS panels in the areas of corruption and match-fixing must also be met. Statements based on nothing more than hearsay that another athlete spiked an athlete’s drinks and based on no concrete and recognizable evidence are not enough to provide any explanation as to how and under which concrete circumstances the alleged third party attack might have happened and do not allow the athlete to discharge his/her burden to establish the way in which the prohibited substance entered his/her system.
The Indian Athlete Geeta Rani committed 2 anti-doping rule violations after her samples – provided on 5 February 2015 (the First Test) and on 5 March 2015 (the Second Test) – tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.
Consequently the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) rendered two decisions:
- In the First Test Decision a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete starting on 10 March 2015
- In de Second Test Decision a 2 year period of ineligibility was impose starting on 13 April 2015.
The Athlete appealed the Second Test Decision and on 6 July 2017 the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India (ADAPI) decided to uphold the 2 year period of ineligibility but ruled that the Athlete is entitled to the credit of the period of provisional suspension already served.
Hereafter in August 2017 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADAPI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Panel to set aside the ADDPI and ADAPI decisions, to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and to consider the two anti-doping rule violations as one single first violation. WADA contended that the Athlete failed to establish with evidence how the prohibited substance entered her system and that the violation was not intentional.
The Athlete argued that under the Indian NADA ADR there is no requirement to establish the source of the prohibited substance in order to establish absence of intent. Further the Athlete raised the hypothesis that an opponent might have spiked her food and drinking water referring to two witness statements.
The Sole Arbitrator established that the following main issues are to be resolved:
1.) In order to establish absence of intent for the purposes of the Indian NADA ADR, is it necessary for the Athlete to establish the source of the prohibited substance present in her samples? (“Proof of Source”)
2.) Has the Athlete established her lack of intent? (“Source of Prohibited Substance and Proof of Lack of Intent”)
3.) What, if any, sanction is to be imposed on the Athlete? (“Sanction”)
The Sole Arbitrator finds that the requirement of the proof of source of a prohibited substance is not mandatory but remains an important – not to say the crucial – factor in deciding whether the athlete has succeeded in discharging her/his burden of proving lack of intent. Rules must be applied according to their spirit and not merely according to their letter, and that a panel must interpret the rules in question in keeping with the perceived intention of the rule maker and not in a way that frustrates it.
Contrary to the findings in the Appealed Decisions, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has failed to establish the way in which the Prohibited Substance entered her system and therefore has failed to satisfy her burden of proof with respect to the origin of the Prohibited Substance. In addition there are no other exceptional circumstances and/or evidence submitted which could justify the assumption of lack of intent. The violation of the anti-doping rule must therefore be deemed intentional.
As per Article 10.2 of the Indian NADA ADR, the standard ineligibility sanction is a period of ineligibility of four years. Consequently, the period of ineligibility of the Athlete shall be four years instead of the two years set out in the Appealed Decisions.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 March 2018 that:
1.) The appeals filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 1 June 2016 against the Decisions issued on 13 April 2017 by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (CAS 2016/A/4627 and CAS 2016/A/4628) and on 9 August 2017 against the Decision issued on 6 July by the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (CAS 2017/A/5283) are upheld.
2.) The two Decisions dated 13 April 2016 rendered by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of Indian National Anti-Doping Agency and the Decision dated 6 July 2017 rendered by the Anti-Doping Appeal of Indian National Anti-Doping Agency are set aside.
3.) Ms. Geeta Rani is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years starting on the date of notification of the present award. Any period of provisional suspension or ineligibility effectively served by Ms. Geeta Rani before the entry into force of this award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Geeta Rani between 5 February 2015 and 13 April 2015 (both dates included) are disqualified, with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes.
(…)
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
