CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Sydney) 00/011 Andreea Raducan / International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Related cases:
- IOC 2000 IOC vs Andreea Raducan & Oana Ioachin
September 26, 2000 - Swiss Federal Court 5P_427_2000 Andreea Raducan vs IOC
December 4, 2000
Gymnastics
Doping (pseudoephedrine)
Disqualification from the event
Principle of strict liability
1. The discrepancy in the volume of urine reported in the doping control form and by the laboratory cannot reasonably be considered to have affected the results of what is a valid test, provided that the laboratory received sufficient volume of urine to conduct a valid analysis.
2. The Anti-Doping Code considers doping as a strict liability offence. This means that no intentional element is required to establish a doping offence. The mere presence of a forbidden substance in the urine sample is sufficient. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the CAS.
3. To establish a doping offence, it is not required to demonstrate that a competitive advantage was reached.
Ms Andreea Raducan is a Romanian minor Athlete (16) competing in the Gymnastics (Artistic) Women’s Individual All-Around event at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
On 25 September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the IOC threshold.
After hearing the IOC Medical Commission and the IOC Executive Board established that the minor Athlete suffered from a headach, a running nose and a feeling of congestion. As treatment the team physician prescribed and provided to the Athlete a Nurofen Cold and Flu tablet on 20 and 21 September 2000.
Consequently the IOC Executive Board decides on 26 September 2000 to disqualify the Athlete including withdrawal of her medal and diploma.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the CAS ad hoc Division at the Sydney Olympic Games.
The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the IOC decision of 26 september 2000 and for restoring the gold medal and diploma to the Athlete.
The Athlete accepted the test results and the validity of the samples analysis. However she argued that the sample volume of urine was unclear and not in accordance with the Anti-Doping Code and as a result the test result should be invalidated. Further she contended that she was not responsible for the anti-doping rule violation since the Nurofen was provided by her team physician.
The Panel finds the minor irregularity revealed in the record showing the volume of urine taken cannot reasonably be considered to have affected the results of what is a valid test. The Panel further finds, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the volume of urine reported, the laboratory received sufficient volume of urine to conduct a valid anaysis.
Also the Panel finds the subjective elements argued in the attack on the finding of doping by the IOC do not affect the decision on the existence of a doping offence and are submissions only related to the assessment of any disciplinary sanction imposed.
Therefore the CAS ad hoc Division decides on 28 September 2000:
1.) The Panel is aware of the impact its decision will have on a fine, young, elite athlete. It finds, in balancing the interests of Miss Raducan with the commitment of the Olympic Movement to drug-free sport, the Anti-Doping Code must be enforced without compromise.
2.) Accordingly, the Panel finds:
- a. The application is dismissed.
- b. The decision of the IOC of 26 September 2000 is upheld.
