CAS 2011/A/2414 Zivile Balciunaite v Lithuanian Athletics Federation & International Association of Athletics Federations
- Athletics
- Doping (testosterone)
- Transformation of the endogenous substance to an exogenous substance due to bacterial contamination
- Effect of physical stress and endocrinal disorders/internal hormonal imbalance on testosterone
- Performance-enhancing effect of testosterone and relevance of that effect regarding a non-specified substance
- Standard of “utmost caution”
1. Samples for doping controls are always collected under non-sterile conditions. If only two hours elapsed between the collection and the delivery of samples to the laboratory, the sample being transported at all times in a refrigerated package and received intact by the laboratory, it is unlikely that bacteriological degradation could have occurred. Even if bacterial activity had occurred with significant changes in measured steroid profiles, this would be irrelevant: when the sample is analysed through the IRMS and the result demonstrated the exogenous origin of the substance contained in the sample, it is scientifically not possible that the bacterial contamination and activity could have transformed the origin of the endogenous substance to an exogenous substance.
2. A marathon race and similar physical stress may not lead to a hormonal imbalance and severe cellular damages in an athlete’s body. In any case, nothing related to endocrinal disorders/internal hormonal imbalance and any possible influence on testosterone is found in the literature. And even if an increase in the production of testosterone would result from an internal hormonal imbalance, this would be without any influence on an IRMS test result clearly showing the presence of exogenous testosterone. Further, there is no scientific evidence of any influence of female athletes’ endocrinal disorders/internal hormonal imbalance on testosterone values. Even severe physical training does not have any influence on testosterone.
3. The use of testosterone results in helping to recover faster and better as well as to stabilize the haematocrit. Therefore, at least indirectly, testosterone enhances the performance. In any case, as it is not a specified substance within the meaning of Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code, it is irrelevant whether it enhances or is capable to enhance the performance. Exogenous testosterone is a forbidden substance.
4. In order to show “utmost caution”, the athlete must establish, to the satisfaction of the adjudicating panel, that s/he took all of the steps that could reasonably be expected of him/her to avoid ingesting prohibited substance and it would be unreasonable to require him/her to take any other steps. The athlete is responsible for the presence of a prohibited substance in her bodily specimen.
In August 2010 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Lithuanian Athlete Zivile Balciunaite after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone.
Consequently the Disciplinary Commission of the Lithuanian Athletics Federation (LAF) decided on 5 April 2011 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 6 September 2010.
Hereafter in April 2011 the Athlete appealed the LAF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues raised by the Athlete:
- Was there a violation of the Athlete's fundamental rights during the B sample opening/testing?
- Is the LAF's letter of 7 December 2010 to be considered as decision made based on the Athlete's hearing of 1 December 2010?
- Was the Athlete deprived of the right to a timely and fair hearing?
- Did the experts from the LAF consider all of the Athlete's arguments?
- Did the LAF fail to prove the Athlete's doping offence?
- What were the impact of Athlete's medical situation and the special circumstances of the sample collection?
- Is it true that Testosterone does not help in long distance running?
- Existence of conditions to claim there was no fault or negligence or that there was no significant fault or negligence by the Athlete.
The Panel determines that:
- The Athlete failed to provide any realistic explanation how the exogenous Testosterone had entered her system.
- It is not possible to establish that the Athlete exercised with utmost caution.
- The Athlete acted at least in a negligent way and is fully responsible for what happened.
- The elimination of the Period of Ineligibility is not possible in the case at hand.
- The Athlete cannot benefit from a reduction of her sanction based on her allegation that she bears no significant fault or negligence.
- The Athlete’s positive doping test result and her anti-doping rule violation is confirmed and consequently a ban of two years.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 March 2012:
1. The appeal filed by Mrs. Zivile Balciunaite against the decision no. 3 of the Disciplinary Commission of the Athletic Federation of Lithuania, dated 5 April 2011, is dismissed.
2. The decision no. 3 rendered on 5 April 2011 of the Disciplinary Commission of the Athletic Federation of Lithuania is confirmed, including the ban of two years, starting on 6 September 2010.
3. (…).
4. (…).
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
