CAS 2019/A/6249 Roman Balandin v. Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)
- Basketball
- Doping (meldonium)
Criteria for the determination of the intentionality of an ADRV
CAS panels have to conduct fact-based and case-specific analyses. In the case of a young professional player not contesting the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), the following elements can be relied upon in order to determine intent: relative experience level (with the sport and the relevant anti-doping rules), general anti-doping education (or lack thereof), level of awareness of previous cases involving the same prohibited substance, motivation to consume the product containing the prohibited substance, circumstances surrounding the player’s visit to his team’s doctor and the accounts of the various participants and witnesses, consistency of the player’s explanations with the levels of prohibited substance found in his system.
On 28 June 2018 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Russian basketball player Roman Balandin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.
Hereafter in April 2019 the Athlete appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the DADC decision of 28 June 2018 and to impose a reduced sanction on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence.
The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, argued that he is very young and lacked any formal anti-doping education. He acknowledged that his behavior was careless but not intentional nor significantly negligent.
He explained that he had used the Meldonium as an over-the-counter product. It was recommended by their team doctor and he further had confirmed that he could take this product. Only later the Athlete became aware that the product was prohibited in sports he stopped using it. The team doctor later admitted his fault in allowing the Athlete to use the meldonium which ultimately led to his dismissal from the basketball club.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete very narrowly, by a balance of probabilities, has met his burden of proving that his violation was not intentional. However the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete’s level of fault is significant and considerable. Consequently that there are no grounds to further reduce the period of ineligibility.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 September 2019 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Roman Balandin on 16 April 2019 against the decision issued by the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee on 28 June 2018 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision issued by the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee on 28 June 2018 is set aside.
3.) Mr Roman Balandin is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility commencing as from the date of his provisional suspension (i.e.19 May 2017).
4.) (…).
5.) (…).
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
