CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Sydney) 00/015 Mihaela Melinte / International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF)
- Athletics
- Doping (nandrolone)
- Provisional suspension imposed by an IF during the Olympic
- Games CAS jurisdiction
- Principle of strict liability
1. By reason of their commitment to the Olympic Movement and their participation in the Olympic Games, the international federations must be deemed to have subscribed to the arbitration clause in the Olympic Charter.
2. If an athlete is removed from the field of play moments before his/her turn to compete, such action creates a dispute arising during the Games within the meaning of Article 74 of the Olympic Charter. On that basis CAS has jurisdiction to rule on the dispute.
In September 2000 the IAAF has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Romanian Athlete Mihaela Melinte after her sample tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification to the Romanian Athletic Federation a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete was participating at the Sydney Olympic Games and not notified when she was informed on 27 September 2000 that she has been removed from the participants’ list on account of a doping violation. She was then escorted off the field.
Hereafter on 28 September the Athlete filed an appeal with the CAS Sydney Ad hoc division.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel rendered the following oral ruling on the Application:
- a.) This is an Application for urgent relief affecting the Applicant’s eligibility to compete in the hammer throw later today.
- b.) The Panel finds that the manner in which the Applicant was advised of her suspension and removed from the athletic field was embarrassing and disrespectful. During the hearing, the IAAF expressed its apology for this circumstance.
- c.) The Panel finds that it does have jurisdiction to order the relief requested if it deems that relief justified.
- d.) The Applicant’s essential contention is that the IAAF failed to follow its own rules - particularly because the athlete never had a chance to put forth her position explaining this positive test result.
- e.) However, the Applicant acknowledged at this hearing that she had the opportunity to present to this Panel the positions which she would have provided to the IAAF. The Panel has also heard the explanations of the IAAF.
- f.) The Panel has considered all of the forgoing and finds no violation by the IAAF of its rules which justifies granting the relief requested.
- g.) The Application is therefore denied.
