CAS 2006/A/1099 Singh v/Athletics Federation of India & IAAF
Related case:
CAS 2006_A_1099 Neelam Jaswant Singh vs Athletics Federation of India & IAAF - Ruling ICAS on arbitrator
May 2, 2007
In August 2005 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Neelam Jaswant Singh after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Pemoline. Thereupon the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) opened disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the AFI Disciplinary Tribunal. Following substantial delays in the proceedings ultimately on 24 April 2006 the AFI Disciplinary Tribunal by majority decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Hereafter in June 2006 the Athlete appealed the AFI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete alleged that many departures from the ISL had occurred in the procedures of the testing process in the WADA-accredited Helsinki Laboratory. She claimed that there had been tampering, manipulation, interpolation, obliteration and forgery.
In a preliminary proceeding before the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) dismissed On 2 May 2007 the Athlete's challenge of the proposed Sole Arbitrator regarding his independence as arbitrator.
Furthermore in a second preliminary proceeding the Sole Arbitrator on 13 October 2006 dismissed the Athlete's application for a stay of execution of the 2 year suspension imposed on her by the AFI Disciplinary Tribunal on 24 April 2006.
In this case the Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues:
- (a) Was the Disciplinary Tribunal of the AFI permitted to review its recommendation/order once it had been given on 13 March 2006? That is, does the doctrine of functus officio apply? Which is, once the DT of AFI had issued its purported exoneration in its 13 March Report, it became a final and binding award and the DT became functus offïcio, that is, its authority to act had ceased as its reference had terminated.
- (b) Was there abuse of process by the IAAF?
- (c) Did the Athlete commit an anti-doping rule violation?
- (d) If the Athlete did commit such a violation, what is the sanction?
In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator is in no doubt and comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation because the mere presence of Pemoline, which is a prohibited substance, In the Athlete's urine sample is sufficient to constitute an anti-doping rule violation.
There is no WADA reporting threshold for Pemoline since Pemoline cannot be produced by the body endogenously. The Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete did not challenge this rather she chose to challenge on possible departures in the procedures of the testing process in their technical aspects.
The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete's technical objections in her attempt to establish breaches of procedures by the Helsinki Laboratory did not rebut the presumption. He deems that she failed to establish that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories had occurred.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 July 2007:
1.) The appeal filed by the athlete, Ms NEELAM JASWANT SINGH on 2 June 2006 against a decision of the ATHLETICS FEDERATION OF INDIA is dismissed.
2.) Ms NEELAM JASWANT SINGH committed an anti-doping rule vioiation in contravention of Rule 32.2(a)(ii) of the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETICS FEDERATIONS Rules and is declared to be ineligible for a period of two (2) years from 12 August 2005 to 11 August 2007.
3.) The award is rendered without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 500 (Five Hundred Swiss Francs) which had already been paid by Ms NEELAM JASWANT SINGH and which is retained by the CAS.
4.) Each party is to bear lts own costs.
