CAS ad hoc Division (OG Athens) 04/003 Torri Edwards v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) & USA Track & Field (USATF)
Related cases:
- AAA No. 30 190 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Final Award
August 10, 2004 AAA No. 30 190 00675 04 USADA vs Torri Edwards - Interim Award
July 22, 2007 - CAS 2008_A_1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson vs IOC
July 16, 2010
- Athletics
- Doping (nikethamide)
- CAS ad hoc Division power of review
- Exceptional circumstances
- Negligence
- Sanction
1. The limitation in the IAAF Rules of the scope of review by CAS is not in line with Article 16 of the CAS ad hoc Rules, under which the Panel shall have unrestricted authority to review the facts and the law. It is also not in line with the WADA Code and, in particular, with the IAAF’s commitment thereunder to “incorporate (…) without any substantive changes”, inter alia, Article 13 (Appeals) of that Code.
2. Under the IAAF Rules, the exceptional circumstances provisions can only apply either when there is “no fault or no negligence”, as defined, in which case the athlete may have the period or ineligibility “eliminated”. Alternatively, if the athlete can demonstrate that there is “no significant fault or no significant negligence”, as defined, then the period of ineligibility may be reduced but the reduced period may not be less than half the minimum period of ineligibility otherwise applicable.
3. There is an obligation and a duty on an elite athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her body, tissues or fluid. There is negligence in failing to inquire or ascertain whether a product contains a prohibited substance. The negligence (at a minimum) of the athlete’s chiropractor who had access to the box which stated the substances contained in the product (including nikethamide) and to the leaflet which even contained a warning for athletes must be attributed to the athlete who uses him in supplying either a food source or a supplement. It would put an end to any meaningful fight against doping if an athlete was able to shift his/her responsibility with respect to substances which enter the body to someone else and avoid being sanctioned because the athlete himself/herself did not know of that substance.
4. In the fight against doping in sport, federations must be supported in their adoption of the WADA Code. Therefore, a sanction of two years of ineligibility in application of the newly promulgated IAAF rules is not inequitable even if all Olympic Movement sports athletes are currently not subject to the same sanction for the same type of doping offence because not all federations have yet implemented the WADA Code.
In June 2004 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Torrie Edwards after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Nikethamide.
Consequently on 10 August 2004 the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Panel decided in its final award to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of all her results.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the AAA decision of 10 August 2004 with the CAS ad hoc Division.
The Appellant didn't contest the occurrence of the doping infraction or the fact that Nikethamide was detected in her body fluids, but she argued that exceptional circumstances exist that should allow her to have the sanction eliminated or reduced pursuant to IAAF Rules 40.2, 40.3 and 40.4.
The Panel has considered, and was entitled to consider the materials before the IAAF Doping Review Board, its decision and the submissions and additional evidence placed by the parties before the Panel to determine whether or not the decision under appeal was correct. The Panel is satisfied that the determination of the IAAF Doping Review Board is the correct decision according to the terms of the IAAF Rules.
On the basis of the facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision on 17 August 2004:
1.) The appeal by Ms Edwards is dismissed.
2.) The decision issued by the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel dated 10 August 2004 is upheld.
