Related case:
World Rugby 2016 WR vs Rubén Ricco
March 30, 2017
On 30 March 2017 the World Rugby Judicial Committee decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Argentine rugby player Rubén Ricco after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomiphene.
Here the Committee didn’t accept the Athlete’s statement as it found it highly unlikely that he purchased Clomiphene over the counter at a pharmacy and failed to produce any corroborating evidence in support. Also the Committee didn’t believe that the Athlete purchased and used Clomiphene to treat a skin condition. Further the Committee regarded it improbable that more than 5 months had elapsed between his administration of Clomiphene and the sample collection.
Hereafter in April 2017 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision with the World Rugby Post-Hearing Review Body. The Athlete requested the Review Body to annul the decision of the Judicial Committee and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Athlete disputed the findings of the Judicial Committee and argued that the Clomiphene was used only as treatment for his skin condition and not for performance enhancement.
The Review Body establish that the postitive test result for Clomiphene was valid and that World Rugby produced no direct evidence of the availablilty of the Clomiphene in Argentina. However the Athlete neither had gone back to the pharmacist in question to obtain evidence of his purchase nor to obtain a statement confirming the availability of Clomophene over-the-counter. The Review Body finds that in first instance there was no inconsistency in the factual findings where parts of the witness’ evidence were accepted and other parts were rejected by the Judicial Committee.
The Review Body agrees that it was improbable that more than 5 months had elapsed between his administration of Clomiphene and the sample collection. Also it agrees that the Athlete was engaged in conduct which he knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. Thus the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation was intentional and without grounds for a reduced sanction the applicable sanction was a 4 year period of ineligibility.
Therefore the World Rugby Review Body decides on 5 October 2017 to uphold the decision of the Judicial Committee rendered on 30 March 2017.
