CAS 2019/A/6319 Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero v. IAAF
CAS 2019/A/6319 María Guadalupe González Romero v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)
Related cases:
- IAAF 2018 IAAF vs María Guadalupe González Romero
May 9, 2019 - World Athletics 2020 WA vs Maria Guadalupe González Romero
July 30, 2021 - CAS 2021_A_8311 María Guadalupe González Romero vs IAAF
December 29, 2023
- Athletics (race-walking)
- Doping (epitrenbolone)
- Consequences of signing a DCF
- Lack of conflict of interest in a situation where the DCO and the chaperone are married
- Invalidation of an AAF and balance of interest
- Evidence of lack of intent
1. By signing a Doping Control Form, an athlete is estopped from claiming violation of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI) at a later stage, short of evidence of manipulation of the records, or fraud, or any similar fact.
2. As long as they both are independent from the athlete, a Doping Control Officer and a chaperone have no specific interest in the outcome of the sample collection and there is no conflict of interest nor any risk of conflict of interest established arising solely from the fact that they are married.
3. Only significant departures from the ISTI, such as the violation of the athlete’s right to attend the opening and analysis of his/her B-sample, warrant invalidation of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) for procedural irregularity. There must be an appropriate balance between the rights of the athletes to have their samples collected and tested in accordance with the mandatory testing standards, and the legitimate interest in preventing athletes from escaping punishment for doping violations on the basis of inconsequential or minor technical infractions of the ISTI.
4. In order to demonstrate that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional, the athlete must demonstrate how the substance entered his/her body, on the basis of the “balance of probability” standard. Mere allegation that the AAF was the result of the ingestion of contaminated meat is insufficient. The athlete must provide actual evidence as opposed to mere speculation.
On 9 May 2019 the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Mexican Athlete María Guadalupe González Romero after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.
In First Instance the Sole Arbitrator deemed that the explanation together with the evidence produced by the Athlete were not convincing, contradicting and not reliable. Consequently her explanation was rejected for lack of credibility due to she failed to establish that her violation was not intentional.
Hereafter in June 2019 the Athlete appealed the IAAF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to set aside the IAAF decision and to impose a reduced sanction on the basis of No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence.
The Athlete denied the intentional use of Trenbolone and asserted that her consumption of Mexican contaminated meat was the source of the positive test. In addition the Athlete claimed that during the sample collection in question irregularities occurred that would invalidate the test results.
The Athlete admitted freely before the Panel, and in her Appeal Brief, that she had not told the truth at the hearing in first instance before the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal, that her evidence had been falsified, and that documents and evidence were fabricated. The Appellant apologised for her conduct and for what she had said and done before the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal, but said that she was following advice of her then-legal team.
The IAAF contended the Athlete’s assertions regarding the alleged departures of the ISTI lacks any credibility since she produced contradictory set of facts regarding her consumption of contaminated meat. The Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the prohibited substance entered her system.
The Panel dismissed the Athlete’s claim regarding the alleged departures of the ISTI since it is not convinced by the Athlete's submission that any irregularity, be it ever so minor, should invalidate a positive test result. Neither that the alleged procedural irregularities (which the Panel does not accept) in the present matter are so fundamental that they should invalidate the positive test result.
Because the Athlete acknowledged that she gave false evidence and that fabricated evidence and documents were produced at the first instance she now relies on a polygraph test, commonly known as "lie detector test", that she had taken prior to this hearing. In this case the Panel does not accept that such test is reliable to establish the truthfulness of the Athlete's latest version of the facts. Even if such a test were admissible, the Panel is of the view that in this case it would not assist the Athlete to overcome the requisite burden of proof to establish how the Trenbolone was in her body.
The Panel finds that the Athlete did not demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, how the substance entered her body nor otherwise demonstrate that she acted unintentionally. As a result, the conclusion must be that the Anit-Doping Rule Violation was intentional.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 July 2020 that:
1.) The appeal of Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the International Association of Athletics Federations Disciplinary Tribunal on 9 May 2019 is confirmed.
3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 ( one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Appellant, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
4.) Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero shall pay to the International Association of Athletics Federations a contribution in the amount of CHF 2,000 toward its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
