CAS 2007/A/1415 Michael Benjamin v/Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI)
CAS 2007/A/1415 B. v/ Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)
Related case:
FEI 2007 FEI vs Michael Benjamin
September 25, 2007
- Equestrian
- Validity of the notification to undergo an anti-doping test
- Refusal to submit to doping control
- No compelling justifications and mitigating circumstances
- Determination of the sanction
1. No exact time limit is prescribed in the International Standard for Testing (IST). Even if the notification takes place when the Athlete had finished his ride, dismounted from his horse and proceeded to the bar it cannot be said that the notification is too late. The 15 minutes elapsed from the end of the ride to the notification cannot be considered excessive. Even if the Athlete had left the place of the Competition he could have been subject to an Out-of-Competition Test.
2. The intentional refusal to submit to doping control with the purpose to hide that the Athlete had drunk alcohol, which he was not sure was prohibited in connection with a competition, and also to cover the fact that he had taken another medication, which he was not sure of, constitutes anti-doping rule violation.
3. The possibility for the athlete of establishing No Fault or Negligence does not apply to violations under Art. 2.3 (refusal to submit to doping control). According to Art 10.5.4 and 10.2 the sanction therefore has to be two years ineligibility.
In November 2006 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Michael Benjamin after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing. Consequently on 25 September 2007 the FEI Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter in October 2007 the Athlete appealed the FEI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS Panel determines that aim of the Athlete was to avoid that the test would establish that he had taken alcohol and a medication that might be forbidden substances. This is exactly what the Rule in Art. 2.3 intends to prevent.
If the Athlete considers the alternatives of refusing the test or of revealing at the occasion of a test that he has taken some contingently forbidden substances, the sanction shall be the same in both cases.
The Panel rules that towards this background the Athlete in this case cannot be deemed to have had any compelling justifications. On the contrary he has acted in a way which the relevant Rule aims to forbid.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 April 2008:
1.) The Appeal filed by the Athlete is only partially admitted.
2.) The decision issued by the FEI Tribunal is upheld except regarding the commencement date of the period of ineligibility which is fixed on 1 June 2007 instead of 27 October 2007. The period of Ineligibility thus will end on the 30 May 2009.
3.) The Athlete is disqualified from the Event CSI-W Cape Town, which took place between 23 and 26 November 2006, and his results obtained at this Event are annulled.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
5. (…).
