CAS 2003/A/448 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) / Fédération Camerounaise d’Athlétisme (CMR)
- Athletics
- Doping (nandrolone)
- Hearing de novo
- Consumption of wild boar meat
- Exceptional circumstances
1. By virtue of IAAF Rule 21.9, all appeals before the CAS constitute a re-hearing de novo of the issues raised by the case, and that in doping cases before the CAS the IAAF shall have the burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that a doping offence has been committed. However, the only issue raised by the present case concerns the sanction applicable in the circumstances, the athlete having apparently decided not to appeal the decision of the national federation acknowledging the doping offence. In that context, there is simply no need for the IAAF to revisit in its appeal materials the factual and scientific evidence of a doping offence.
2. The unintended consumption of foodstuffs or supplements responsible for the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s body is hardly an unusual occurrence, let alone a "truly exceptional circumstance". It is, rather, one of the very “mischiefs” at which the anti-doping provisions of the IAAF Rules, as indeed the rules of other sports federations, are aimed. Even if the athlete were able to demonstrate that the meat she consumed could, and did, cause the elevated levels of norandrosterone detected in her samples, indeed even if the entirety of the athlete’s evidence were taken as true, the wholly "unexceptional" nature of her explanation would preclude the Panel from making the recommendation to the IAAF Council that the period of ineligibility be reduced.
In May 2002 the Cameroon Athletics Federation (FCA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete (-M) after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
The Athlete submitted that her consumption of meat from an uncastrated male wild boar constituted, in the circumstances, a reasonable and plausible explanation for the elevated level of norandrosterone in her urine at the time of the testing in question.
The FCA accepted the Athlete's statement and decided on 15 January 2003 to impose a warning on the Athlete. Hereafter in March 2003 the IAAF appealed the FCA decision with the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS).
The CAS Panel unanimously finds that all of the elements of a doping offence are proven and that the IAAF has carried its burden of demonstrating that the athlete committed a doping offence within the meaning of the CAS Code and the IAAF Rules, which impose a two-year minimum suspension.
Given that the athlete competed several times while she knew that she was suspended and that the last date on which she competed was 8 May 2003, her period of ineligibility should run as of that date.
M.’s explanation regarding the cause of her elevated norandrosterone levels does not, in the opinion of the Panel, reveal circumstances of a truly exceptional nature such as to persuade it to recommend to the IAAF Council that the period of ineligibility be reduced in accordance with IAAF Rules.
The Athlete's request that the Panel recommend that the IAAF Council reduce such period of ineligibility is therefore denied, without prejudice to the athlete's right to apply directly to the IAAF Council for such a reduction.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 October 2003:
1.) The jurisdiction of CAS is affirmed.
2.) The appeal filed by the IAAF on 17 March 2003 is upheld.
3.) The decision issued by the Cameroon Athletics Federation on 15 January 2003 is annulled.
4.) M. shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 8 May 2003.
5.) (...)
