CAS 2018/A/5768 Dylan Scott v. International Tennis Federation
Related case:
ITF 2017 ITF vs Dylan Scott
May 9, 2018
On 9 May 2018 the ITF Independent Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the American tennis player Dylan Scott after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT) ‘Turinabol’.
In First Instance the Athlete argued - with an expert witness - that the metabolite found in his positive sample was not caused by the substance DHCMT but maybe caused by his use of the product Halodrol 22 months earlier. This product has a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and is not listed as a prohibited substance on the WADA List.
However the ITF Independent Tribunal accepted the ITF scientific evidence and concluded that Halodrol, Promagnon and Methylclostebol are all substances with a similar chemical structure to DHCMT and that they all constitute Prohibited Substances for the purpose of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).
Hereafter in May 2018 the Athlete appealed the Tribunal decision of 9 May 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested the Panel for an elimination or reduction of the imposed sanction. He contended that the Independent Tribunal was wrong to find that the presence of the M4 metabolite (4-chloro-18nor-17β-hydroxymethyl, 17α-methyl-5-andros-13-en3-ol) in his 8 July 2017 sample constituted an anti-doping rule violation.
Considering the Parties submissions the Panel notes that, the main issues to be resolved are the following:
A.) Was the Athlete bound by the TADP at the relevant time?
B.) if the aforementioned question is answered in the affirmative, did the Athlete committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV)?
C.) lf the aforementioned question is answered in the affirmative, are there any procedural reasons that prevent this Panel from finding that an ADRV has been committed?
D.) lf the aforementioned question is answered in the negative, could the Athlete establish that he did not act intenionally?
E.) What are the consequences of the finding under paragraph D, supra?
The Panel established that the Athlete was undoubtedly bound by the TADP, that there was no question here of any retroactive application of the TADP and he indeed committed an ADRV within the meaning of the TADP. Further the Panel finds that there were no procedural impediments to preclude this Panel from establishing an ADRV.
The Panel concludes that it is - on a balance of probabilities - not persuaded by the submission of the Athlete that he stopped using the Quad supplement in question in September 2015 and that the results of the Athlete's doping tests could be explained by an ingestion of the Quad supplement in September 2015.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete has failed to discharge his burden of proof that he did not act intentionally when committing the ADRV. Due to the Athlete failed to establish that he did not act intentionally the Panel cannot consider whether the imposed period of ineligibility may be reduced according to the Rules.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 September 2019 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Dylan Scott with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 29 May 2018 against the International Tennis Federation with respect to the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal on 9 May 2018 is dismissed.
2.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr. Dylan Scott and for a contribution of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as participation to the costs of the hearing, paid in half by each party, which are retained by the CAS.
3.) Mr. Dylan Scott is ordered to pay the International Tennis Federation a total amount of CHF 2,000 as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
