CAS 2006_A_1081 Motorcycling Australia vs Andrew Ledingham

CAS 2006/A/1081 Motorcycling Australia Limited v. Andrew Ledingham

  • Motorcycling
  • Doping (amphetamine and methamphetamine)
  • No Significant Fault or Negligence
  • Definition of “utmost caution”

1. To have the benefit of the mandatory sanction of 2 years ban reduced, an athlete must establish that there was No Significant Fault or Negligence on his/her part in using the Prohibited Substance. The athlete therefore, must establish that he/she did not, while taking the utmost caution, know or suspect and could not reasonably know or suspect, that he/she had used a prohibited substance.

2. To gain a reduction of sanction, the athlete must establish “utmost caution”, that is, that in all the circumstances, he/she took the highest degree of care to ensure he/she knew what the substance he/she ingested was, such that he/she could not know or suspect nor reasonably know or suspect that he/she had used a prohibited substance.



On 25 November 2005 the Judicial Committee of Motorcycling Australia (MA) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the motorcyclist Andrew Ledingham after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances amphetamine and methamphetamine. In first instance the Athlete admitted that 72 hours prior to the sample collection had used tablets that retard sleepiness and contained the substances.

Hereafter MA appealed the decision of 25 November 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
MA requested the Panel to set aside the decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Panel finds that the Athlete has established, in the totality of the circumstances, no unique nor exceptional circumstance to persuade the Panel that the sanction should be reduced. He was, on the evidence and accepting all he has put to the Panel in his submission, simply not at all cautious.

In the totality of the circumstance, the Panel does not believe the Athlete acted with the utmost caution, that is the highest level of care, to ensure he did not ingest a prohibited substance.

The Panel regards that the Judicial Committee accepted the word of the Athlete that No-Doz tablets contained the Prohibited Substances while on the evidence before the Panel this was an error of fact. Further, as to the determination it had to make of No Significant Fault or Negligence, the Judicial Committee failed to give its reasoning and as such made an error of law.

Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish that his fault or negligence in using a prohibited substance was Not Significant, in relation to his violation of the Anti-Doping rule. The Panel deems that the Athlete must be sanctioned for 2 years starting on the date of the sample collection.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 April 2006 that:

1.) Mr Andrew Ledingham is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 25 September 2005 for 2 years, expiring at midnight on 24 September 2007.

2.) There be no order as to costs.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
28 April 2006
Arbitrator
Buckley, Eugenie
Ellicott, Robert J.
Kavanagh, Tricia
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
Australia
Language
English
ADRV
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
Admission
Circumstantial evidence
Negligence
Sport/IFs
Motorcycling (FIM) - International Motorcycling Federation
Other organisations
Motorcycling Australia (MA)
Doping classes
S6. Stimulants
Substances
Amfetamine
Methamfetamine(d-)
Various
Supplements
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
25 October 2018
Date of last modification
9 August 2023
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin