CAS 2019/A/6313 Jarrion Lawson v. International Association of Athletics Federations
Related case:
IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Jarrion Lawson
May 24, 2019
On 24 May 2019 the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.
In First Instance the IAAF Panel was comfortable satisfied that the Athlete committed the Anti-Doping Rule Violation and did not accept that the meat the Athlete ate in the Restaurant in question was the likely source of the positive test. The Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to prove that his admitted violation was not intentional. In the Panel’s view the Athlete had established a possible, but not a probable case of lack of intention.
Hereafter in June 2019 the Athlete appealed the IAAF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the IAAF decision of 24 May 2019 on the basis of No Fault or Negligence or to impose a reduced sanction.
The Athlete’s raised the following assertions:
1.) The IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal was misled by Dr. Ayotte that, in her experience, every Trenbolone level she had ever reviewed was indeed as low as - or similarly low as – the Athlete's levels. However, in reality, the Athlete's Trenbolone levels in his A and B Samples were the lowest seen since 2013.
2.) The Athlete's burden to prove meat contamination was made more difficult by the IAAFs inexcusable failure to report his positive test results for almost 2 months after the test. This was a breach of the IAAF's duty pursuant to Article 7.3 of the WADC which requires anti-doping organizations to "promptly notify" athletes of positive test results. During this 2-month delay, the opportunity to secure vital evidence was lost.
3.) The Athlete underwent a hair sample test, as soon as he was notified of the positive test. The expert found that the Athlete's hair was clean and produced no positive results for Trenbolone.
4.) In the United States, Trenbolone use on cattle is legal. However, compliance with good veterinary practices cannot be assumed and injections of the substance into areas other than the ear is possible due to inadequate immobilization. The sudden increase in positive tests at the Montreal lab coincides with the decrease in inspections of beef because of the Trump administration. Even Dr. Ayotte commented that the risk of beef contamination in the United States is now on par with the risk of beef contamination in Mexico.
5.) The Athlete was routinely tested (20 times) by USADA. It was not his fault his last test was 52 days prior and he cannot be faulted for the gap between the two tests.
The IAAF’s contended that:
1.) There is no reported example of any cattle being subject to an administration of Trenbolone directly into the longissimus muscle nor would it make commercial or farming sense.
2.) Old cases cannot be relied upon because the cases cited involved findings of fact and regardless CAS cases are not binding.
3.) The alleged meat contamination would require two rare events: an off-site injection into longissimus and serving Athlete a cut of meat with the injection site.
4.) An accidental injection can be excluded because it would be hard to penetrate skin and the way the animal is secured would make it hard to accidentally injected into the body.
5.) Hair analysis does not rule out a single use.
6.) The polygraph examination was inadmissible, as ruled in previous CAS decisions.
The Panel assessed and addressed whether the Athlete has provided sufficient evidence to prove that his positive result was unintentional. In this regard the Panel's conclusions differ from those of the Disciplinary Tribunal:
- A.) the scientific evidence, such as it is, showed that it was reasonably plausible that the positive urine sample on 2 June 2018 resulted from consumption of beef the previous day which was contaminated by a hormone implant;
- B.) the Athlete's credibility and history, supported by the tests which he volunteered and the evidence of his manager and trainer, go beyond a mere denial and corroborate his explanation;
- C.) common sense must count strongly against it being a mere coincidence that he tested positive, for such a tiny amount of a dangerous and illegal prohibited substance as to be undetectable in his hair, and for no rational benefit, so soon after having eaten beef from hormone-treated cattle (after numerous tests over his previous career, always negative including tests during a period of injury in 2017/2018 and in competition on 20 May 2018);
- D.) the Panel finds it more likely than not, that the origin of the Epitrenbolone was contaminated beef innocently consumed and that this is indeed one of those rare cases where the impossibility of proving scientifically that the steak consumed did or did not contain hormone residues does not debar the athlete from establishing his innocent lack of intent under Art 10.2.1(a) of the IAAF ADR.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 March 2020 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Jarrion Lawson against the International Association of Athletics Federation with respect to the decision rendered by the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 24 May 2019 is upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 24 May 2019 is set aside.
3.) Mr. Jarrion Lawson is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation but bears no fault or negligence and no period of ineligibility shall be imposed on him.
4.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr. Jarrion Lawson which is retained by the CAS.
5.) The International Association of Athletics Federation is ordered to pay a contribution of CHF 10,000 (ten thousand Swiss Francs) toward the legal fees of Mr. Jarrion Lawson.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
