CAS 2018_A_5695 Bernadette Coston vs SAIDS

On 19 February 2018 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the South African hockey player Bernadette Coston after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). Here the Panel deemed that the Athlete did fall short of the high standards imposed on an athlete to exercise utmost caution to avoid an anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the First Instance decision of 19 February 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction, denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and introduced new evidence that could demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system.

Here the Athlete relied on the witness statement of her brother, and argued that she was unaware that her brother had contaminated the supplement recovery drink that she was using, known as Evolve Nutrition Prolong BCAA, with a different Evolve Nutrition supplement that he was using known as Chemical X, thereby giving rise to her ingestion of the Substance for which she was tested positive. The Athlete asserted that she could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the possibility of such contamination and that she was unaware of the contamination until after the First Instance Decision of 19 February 2018.

SAIDS requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the First Instance decision. It objected against the testimony of the Athlete’s brother as evidence which was new introduced after the First Instance Decision was rendered on 19 February 2018.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that SAIDS did not establish that the Athlete intended to cheat, the sanction should drop to two years of ineligibility, unless the Athlete can establish No Fault or No Significant Fault of Negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that even if the testimony of the Athlete and her brother were deemed fully justifiable, the Athlete's explanation of how the Substance entered her body is based exclusively on her word and that of her brother. Such explanations, particularly in cases involving contamination scenarios (or scenarios where the Athlete's brother deliberately comingled her product with the Substance), based solely on the word of the accused and his/her entourage, must be approached with caution. It would otherwise be too easy for athletes to cast blame on a family member, partner, friend, etc. who is not subject to any anti-doping rules or consequences.

Moreover the Sole Arbitrator finds that no scientific evidence was adduced to explain whether the reported concentration of the Substance in the Athlete's system (approximately 69 ng/ml) would or could have resulted from the approximate 7 servings the Athlete's brother added to her partially filled container. This evidence would however be needed to support the Athlete's theory. Otherwise, it cannot be determined whether the Athlete's brother transferred sufficient quantities of the Substance to the Athlete's container such that she would produce the reported urinary concentration of approximately 69 ng/ml.

Regarding that the Athlete did not establish the source of the Substance, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete cannot qualify for a reduction based on No Fault or No Significant Fault.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 February 2019 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 16 April 2018 by Ms. Bernadette Coston against the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport concerning the decision of the SAIDS Tribunal of 20 March 2018 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the SAIDS Tribunal of 20 March 2018 is set aside.
3.) Ms. Bernadette Coston is declared ineligible for a period of two (2) years, commencing as from 19 February 2018.
4.) All competitive results achieved during the period of ineligibility shall be disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in equal parts by Ms. Bernadette Coston and SAIDS.
6.) Each party shall bear its own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
7.) All other or further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
8 February 2019
Arbitrator
Raouf, Mohammed Abdel
Original Source
South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS)
Country
South Africa
Language
English
ADRV
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
Burdens and standards of proof
Case law / jurisprudence
Circumstantial evidence
Contra proferentem
Negligence
No intention to enhance performance
Period of ineligibility
Sole Arbitrator
Sport/IFs
Hockey (FIH) - International Hockey Federation
Other organisations
South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS)
Laboratories
Ghent, Belgium: DoCoLab Universiteit Gent-UGent
Doping classes
S6. Stimulants
Substances
4-Methylhexan-2-amine (methylhexaneamine, 1,3-dimethylamylamine, 1,3 DMAA)
Various
Contamination
Supplements
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
1 July 2019
Date of last modification
25 July 2019
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