CAS 2012/A/2701 WADA v. IWWF & Aaron Rathy
CAS 2012/A/2701 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Waterski and Wakeboard Federation (IWWF) & Aaron Rathy
- Wakeboard
- Doping (methylhexaeamine)
- Athlete’s duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his body to benefit from no significant fault or negligence
- Conditions for the elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility for specified substances
- Determination of the applicable sanction in light of the athlete’s degree of fault
1. An athlete, in order to fulfill his/her duty of care according to Art. 2.1 IWWF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) to benefit from the No Significant Fault or Negligence regime, has to be active to ensure that a medication or a supplement s/he uses does not contain any compound that is on the prohibited list. If the athlete has not done enough to ensure this then s/he has not established that s/he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence. In this respect, an athlete who did not take any basic precautions, by consulting a doctor or simply by reading the official website of a dietary supplement manufacturer departed from his/her duty of care. Enquiries towards a store’s salesman are evidently not sufficient to satisfy his/her duty of care.
2. To benefit from an elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility for specified substances under specific circumstances as provided under Art. 10.4 IWWF ADR or Art. 10.4 WADC, an athlete must first (i) establish how the specified substance entered his/her body and then (ii) that such specified substance was not intended to enhance the athlete’s sport performance.
3. The Comment to Art. 10.4 WADC indicates that, in assessing an athlete’s degree of fault, the circumstances considered must be specific and relevant to explain the athlete’s departure from the expected standard of behavior. It is anticipated that the period of ineligibility will be eliminated entirely in only the most exceptional cases. According to Art. 10.4 IWWF ADR a first violation should lead to at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of ineligibility from future events, and at a maximum, two years of ineligibility. If an athlete has relied on a supplement which s/he had not used before and on the answers given by a seller, s/he has been very negligent and his/her fault is significant. A mitigating factor can be that the athlete, by purchasing a dietary supplement, did not intend to enhance his/her performance but rather reduce his/her weight. In spite of the athlete’s expressed regret, of his cooperation and honesty about the circumstances resulting in the violation, a sanction amounting to a sole reprimand is however evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence. A period of more than 12 months of ineligibility is appropriate.
On 29 December 2011 the International Waterski & Wakeboard Federation decided to impose a reprimand on the Canadian Athlete Aaron Rathy after he tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (1,3-dimethylamylamine).
Hereafter in January 2012 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Appealed the IWWF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction between 12 and 24 months.
The Athlete had admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he underwent knee surgery and thereupon had purchased and used the product OxyElite Pro in order to lose some weight to reduce the physical stress on his knee.
He was unaware that the product contained a prohibited substance and asserted that he had researched the ingredients of the product before using.
The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Considering his conduct the Panel deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate No Significant Fault or Negligence.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 November 2012 that:
1.) The appeal of WADA is admissible.
2.) The decision of the IWWF Anti-Doping Hearing Panel is set aside.
3.) Aaron Rathy is sanctioned with a 15 month’s period of ineligibility, starting on 1 August 2012. Any period of ineligibility, whether imposed on, or voluntarily accepted by Aaron Rathy 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 Aaron Rathy from 22 October 2011 shall be disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5.) (…).
6.) (…).
7.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.
