CAS 2003/A/452 IAAF v/MAR and Brahim Boulami
Arbitration CAS 2003/A/452 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v/ Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme (MAR) and B.
- Athletics
- Doping (r-EPO)
- Reliability of the testing method
- Accreditation of the testing laboratory
1. The direct urine test used by the laboratory is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine (the respondents have failed to cast doubt on the evidence brought forth by the IAAF that 80% is a reasonable cut-off point that largely eliminates the risk of false positives in urinary r-EPO test); this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes.
2. The laboratory’s lack of specific accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing is not fatal to the legal validity of its r-EPO tests. However, the lack of specific accreditation shifts the burden to the federation to show that the laboratory conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practices and procedures, and that it satisfied itself as to the validity of the method before using it. Such a burden-shifting rule provides the necessary balance between the needs of IOC laboratories to implement new, reliable testing methods as quickly as possible, on the one hand, and the interests of athletes and the sporting community in ensuring trustworthy test results, on the other.
In August 2002 the Marrocco Athletics Federation (Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme, MAR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brahim Boulami after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).
On February 6, 2003, the MAR Disciplinary Commission found the Athlete not guilty of a Doping Offense. The MAR provided the following reasons for the decision to the IAAF in a fax dated February 11, 2003:
i.) The athlete was not notified of his right to be accompanied by a representative when he provided a urine and blood sample on 15 August 2002 in breach of paragraph 2.9 of the IAAF's Procedural Guidelines;
ii.) The "B" sample which was provided on 16 August 2002 was analyzed even though the "A" sample result had never been communicated to the athlete;
iii.) The MAR representative Professor Stambouli was denied the opportunity to attend the analysis of the 15 August "B" sample (numbered B071981 in breach of IAAF Procedural Guidelines;
iv.) No results had been provided concerning the athlete's blood sample;
v.) The r-EPO method of testing has not been recognized scientifically or validated by the international scientific community;
vi.) The Lausanne laboratory does not have specific ISO accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing; and
vii.) The athlete categorically denies administering r-EPO.
Hereafter in April 2003 the IAAF appealed the MAR decision of 6 February 2003 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS Panel concludes that:
(i) on August 15, 2002, the prohibited substance r-EPO was present in the Athlete's urine,
(ii) the direct urine test used by LAD in this case, described both above and elsewhere, is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine,
(iii) this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes, and
(iv) LAD conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practice and procedures for r-EPO testing, and adequately satisfied itself as to the test’s validity prior to use.
For all these reasons, the Panel finds the Athlete guilty of a Doping Offense under the IAAF Rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that B. should be declared ineligible for two years, pursuant to IAAF Rule 60.2 (a)(i), with credit for suspension time already served from August 28, 2002, until the date of this Award. B. should therefore be eligible for competition on August 28, 2004.
Therefore 19 November 2003 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:
1.) Grants the appeal filed by the IAAF asking the Court to find B. guilty of a Doping Offense under IAAF Rules, and asking the Court to find that the Athlete should be declared ineligible for two years, less the period of suspension served by the athlete.
2.) Declares that the Athlete shall be declared ineligible for two years from August 28, 2002.
3.) (...).
