Related case:
CAS 2019_A_6376 Stirley Jones vs USADA
June 17, 2019
In October 2018 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete Stirley Jones after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Tribual.
The Parathlete accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction. The Athlete claimed that one of his supplements he used was contamined and they were sent to a Lab for testing. Analysis of these supplements in question revealed that the supplement Nitro Tech Whey Protein was contaminated with Stanozolol which was recommended by the Athlete’s nutritionist. Reanalysis in the WADA Salt Lake City Lab confirmed the presence of Stanozolol.
USADA was able to obtain an unopened case of six sealed containers from the manufacturer from the same lot number as the supplement in question, which, when tested, did not contain Stanozolol.
As a result USADA contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the positive test was caused by a contaminated product and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The Panel considered the facts and circumstances in this case and accepts that this is a different inquiry entirely from the requirements on ameliorating a sanction on the basis of fault or lack thereof, which analysis expressly requires the athlete to meet the balance of probabilities burden on source. It is entirely possible for an Athlete to prevail on the finding of lack of intention only to fail to establish source to get a further reduction; such a result is not logically inconsistent and is in fact possible under the very different tests provided by the IPC ADC.
A majority of the Panel concludes that there was insufficient proof of lack of intention while the minority of the Panel concludes that there was sufficient proof of lack of intention. Consequently the Athlete did not establish by a balance of probability to the satisfaction of the majority of the Panel that the ingestion of the Stanozolol was unintentional.
Unanimously, the Panel does not believe that the Athlete was a cheater and the Panel would have welcomed additional evidence to support that belief. Unfortunately, under the existing rules, that belief alone is insufficient and adducing such evidence is acknowledged by the Panel as being difficult to accomplish; the majority is of the view that its hands are tied to issue a sanction of 4 years ineligibility.
Therefore by a Majority the Arbitration Tribunal decides on 17 June 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 October 2018.
