CAS 2018_A_5784 WADA vs Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee & Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency & Tzu-Chi Lin

CAS 2018/A/5784 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee (CTOC) & Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency (CTADA) & Tzu-Chi Lin

  • Weightlifting
  • Doping (5a-androstane-3a,17b-diol; 5b-androstane-3a,17b-diol)
  • Intent for rule violation and source of the prohibited substance
  • Establishment of source of prohibited substance
    (Indirect) intent under Article 10.2.3 CT ADR


1. Article 10.2.3 Chinese Tapei Anti-Doping Rules (CT ADR) (as well as the corresponding rule in the World Anti-Doping Code) sets out that the term “intentional” is meant to “identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she 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”. As the athlete bears the burden of establishing that the violation was not intentional, except for in the most exceptional of circumstances the athlete must necessarily establish how the substance entered his/her body.

2. In order to establish the source of the prohibited substance it is not sufficient for the athlete to protest innocence and to suggest that the substance must have entered his/her body inadvertently from some supplement, medicine or other product which the athlete was taking at the relevant time. Rather, the athlete must adduce concrete and credible evidence to demonstrate that a particular supplement, medication or other product taken contained the substance in question. The athlete must furthermore provide actual evidence that (s)he did use the product and, in particular, that (s)he purchased the product at the relevant time.

3. In case on the package of a product it is stated in major letters, circled with a golden ring, that the product contains DHEA, the presence of a Prohibited Substance in the product could not be more obvious. If under those circumstances, an athlete takes the product for a week without even e.g. performing a simple internet research regarding the product, he or she manifestly disregards the risk and therefore commits the anti-doping rule violation with “indirect intent” in the meaning of Article 10.2.3 CT ADR i.e. the athlete “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”. Furthermore, a language barrier does not serve as defence to an athlete meeting the basic standard of conduct of all athletes. If the athlete cannot understand the ingredients listed on the product label then he or she either has to find someone who does, or simply not take the substance. The athlete cannot hide behind his or her native language as a way of avoiding responsibilities.



In 2017 the Anti-Doping Commission of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee (CTOC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Tzu-Chi Lin for her second anti-doping rule violation after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).

Hereafter in June 2018 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the CTOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the CTOC decision and to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her second anti-doping rule violation. WADA contended that the Athlete’s use of DHEA was intentional given her conduct or lack thereof to avoid ingesting DHEA.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that she suffered from severe menstrual problems that affected her daily life and training. On advice of her physician she had used the supplement Flovone as treatment for her condition. She stated that she checked all the ingredients on the label of the supplement before using. She claimed that she overlooked DHEA due to her language barrier but also claimed that she didn’t find the substance DHEA on the Prohibited List.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that there are major deficiencies in the Athlete’s explanation and establish that her physician prescribed several medication as treatment but not the Flovone supplement in question. Further the Athlete failed to demonstrate with any evidence that she had purchased the Flovone supplement.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that even if the Athlete was found to have sufficiently established the origin of the Prohibited Substance, she would nonetheless receive the same sanction because the Athlete's violation would necessarily qualify as indirectly intentional as stipulated in the Rules: that the Athlete "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".

In this case, the product that the Athlete claimed to have taken states in major letters circled with a golden ring that it contains DHEA. In the view of the Sole Arbitrator, the presence of a Prohibited Substance in this product could not be more obvious. She simply failed to read it or attempt to understand it. The Athlete was clearly careless in not even taking this elementary step.

Also the Sole Arbitrator holds that a language barrier is no defence to an athlete meeting the basic standard of conduct of all athletes. If she could not understand the ingredients label then she either had to find someone who did or simply not take the substance. She cannot hide behind her native language as a way of avoiding her responsibilities. Further she failed to ask her physician to review the ingredients of the product with her, in her native language, to determine if any ingredient was on the Prohibited List.

Accordingly the Sole Arbitrator determines that it has been established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation, that the use was intentional under the relevant rules, and that since it was a second offense she is to receive an 8 year sanction.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 November 2018 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 12 June 2018 against the undated decision rendered by the Anti-Doping Commission of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee is upheld.

2.) The decision of the Anti-Doping Commission of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee is set aside.

3.) Ms Tzu-Chi Lin is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) years starting on the date when the CAS award enters into force. Any period of provisional suspension or ineligibility that has been effectively served in connection with the anti-doping rule violation, whether imposed on, or voluntarily accepted by, the Athlete, before the entry into force of the CAS award, shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Tzu-Chi Lin from and including 24 June 2016 to the date of this Award are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne, jointly and severally, by the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and the Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency.

6.) The Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and the Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency are ordered to pay jointly and severally a total amount of CHF 5000 (five thousand Swiss francs) as contribution towards the expenses incurred by the World Anti-Doping Agency in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
14 November 2018
Arbitrator
Benz, Jeffrey G.
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
Taiwan
Language
English
ADRV
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
Case law / jurisprudence
Intent
Negligence
Second violation
Sole Arbitrator
Sport/IFs
Weightlifting (IWF) - International Weightlifting Federation
Other organisations
Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency (CTADA)
Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee (CTOC)
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
Laboratories
Tokyo, Japan: Anti-Doping Laboratory
Analytical aspects
Mass spectrometry analysis
Doping classes
S1. Anabolic Agents
Substances
Prasterone (dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA, 3β-hydroxyandrost-5-en-17-one)
Medical terms
Legitimate Medical Treatment
Various
Language
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
13 November 2019
Date of last modification
3 March 2022
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