CAS 2004/A/628 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. USA Track & Field (USATF) & Y.
Related case:
CAS 2004/A/725 USOC & IAAF vs Michael Johnson, Antonio Pettigrew, Angelo Taylor, Alvin Harrison, Calvin Harrison
- Athletics
- Doping (nandrolone)
- Jurisdiction of the IAAF
- Arbitration Panel to review a decision made by a national body Sanction
1. Pursuant to its own confidentiality rules then in effect, USATF did not notify the IAAF of the positive doping test so as to enable the IAAF to bring the matter before its Arbitration Panel. In those special circumstances, it is fair and reasonable for the CAS to accept the jurisdiction of the IAAF Arbitration Panel to review a decision made by a national body outside the time limit defined by the International Federation Rule (IAAF Rule 21.1 applicable in 2000-2001), given the fact that the IAAF was effectively disabled from reviewing the Appellant’s case until it had seen a copy of the decision challenged and also considering that the IAAF acted prudently in seeking disclosure of that decision before referring the Appellant’s case to arbitration.
2. It would be appropriate to apply the 1999-2000 Rules to the question of the sanction to be applied to the athlete. The consequence of this finding is that the athlete should not have been eligible to compete in any competition during that period, including the Olympic Summer Games in Sydney in 2000 and that the other members of the United States relay team would inevitably lose their Gold Medals. However, it is a matter for the IOC and/or the IAAF to consider, and not for the CAS.
On 11 March 2000 the USATF Doping Hearing Panel sanctioned the Athlete Jerome Young after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
However the USATF Doping Appeals Board (DAB) exonerated the Athltete on 10 July 2000. The DAB found that the fact of the negative test results produced in six days after the sample in this case was taken raised a reasonable doubt as to whether a violation had been committed.
On 27 August 2003 the Los Angeles Times revealed that Jerome Young was the athlete who had competed in Sydney 2000 Olympic Games following a positive test. Shortly afterwards, on 29 August 2003, Young himself confirmed in the media that he had tested positive in June 1999 but that he had subsequently been exonerated of a doping violation.
This was the first time that Young had been identified. On 28 August 2003, the IOC wrote to the IAAF, USOC and WADA requesting information on Young’s case. On 29 August 2003 WADA wrote to the IAAF demanding that it take action in the light of the new information.
After delibarations between the parties about this case the matter was referrred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Panel received voluminous pleadings from the parties about the two issues that it has to decide.
Issue 1) “Pursuant to IAAF Rule 21.1 in IAAF Handbook 2000-2001, would it be fair and reasonable for a Panel in the position of the IAAF Arbitration Panel to accept jurisdiction in this case outside the six month deadline?”
Issue (2) “Did the USATF Doping Appeals Board misdirect itself or otherwise reach an erroneous conclusion on 10 July 2000 when it exonerated Young of a Doping Offence?”
On 28 June 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that:
1.) In respect of Issue 1, the answer is that it is fair and reasonable for it to accept jurisdiction outside the six month time limit.
2.) In respect of Issue 2, the answer is that the Doping Appeals Board did misdirect itself and reach an erroneous conclusion when it exonerated Young.
(…).
