Related case:
World Rugby 2017 WR vs Aaron Davis
November 27, 2017
On 27 November 2017 the World Rugby Judicial Committee decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the American rugby player Aaron Davis after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). Here the Athlete asserted that the violation was inadvertent and was caused by his use of a contaminated multi-vitamin/multi-mineral product called “Animal Pak”.
However the Judicial Committee established that neither the Montreal Lab or the Salt Lake City Lab found any 19-norandrosterone or other Nandrolone substance in their analysis of the product Animal Pak.
As a consequence the Committee deemed that the Athlete failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his positive test was caused by a contaminated supplement or that his anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.
Hereafter in December 2017 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision op 27 November 2017 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 Judicial Committee and argued that the violation was not intentional and caused by a contaminated supplement. He rejected the conclusion in first instance that he 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.
Considering the evidence in this case the Review Body establish that:
- The Judicial Committee made no error in its conclusion that the Athlete failed to identify the product Animal Pak as the origin of the 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
- The Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.
- The Athlete’s use of the product without seeking professional guidance over several years was reckless in that he failed to exercise extreme caution.
- There were no substantial delays in the first instance case.
- 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.
- Without grounds for a reduced sanction the applicable sanction was a 4 year period of ineligibility.
Therefore the World Rugby Review Body decides on 19 July 2018 to uphold the decision of the Judicial Committee rendered on 27 November 2017.
