Related cases:
- CAS 2019_A_6319 Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero vs IAAF
July 2, 2020 - IAAF 2018 IAAF vs María Guadalupe González Romero
May 9, 2019 - CAS 2021_A_8311 María Guadalupe González Romero vs IAAF
December 29, 2023
On 9 May 2019 the IAAF (now: World Athletics) Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Mexican Athlete María Guadalupe González Romero after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.
In First Instance the Sole Arbitrator deemed that the explanation together with the evidence produced by the Athlete were not convincing, contradicting and unreliable. Consequently her explanation was rejected for lack of credibility since she failed to establish that her violation was not intentional.
The Athlete appealed in June 2020 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However on 2 July 2020 the CAS Panel confirmed the Appealed IAAF Decision of 9 May 2019. During the CAS hearing the Athlete acknowledged that she had provided false statements and evidence.
Hereafter in July 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering because of the false statements, fabricated evidence and false documents she had provided to the AIU.
Regarding the Athlete's Tampering the AIU contended that:
- the Athlete provided two contradictory sets of facts with regards to her consumption of meat in the days before the sample collection;
- the hospital report submitted by the Athlete was forged;
- the receipts for the restaurants in question were also forged;
- the Athlete acknowledged that she had asked her friend to provide false testimony to support her story about eating beef at the restaurant in question.
The Athlete argued that she never had the intention to manipulate evidence or to lie during the proceedings neither before the First Instance Proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, nor before CAS. Indeed, the Athlete discharged any possible responsibility on her first lawyers, who did not disclose or inform her about any falsification or manipulation of documents and even forged her signature.
The Sole Arbitrator finds the conclusions reached by both, the First Decision and the CAS decision of the utmost relevance, since they are convincing and persuasive enough to conclude that the Athlete indeed lied and presented fabricated evidence during the First Instance Proceedings.
The Sole Arbitrator rejects the Athletes arguments alleging that she was unaware of the content, evidence and documents filed in her defence. Whereas he concludes that the Athlete's conduct shall be qualified as Tampering pursuant to the definition established in the ADR.
Considering the principle of lex mitior and the application of Article 10.9.3(c) of the ADR 2021 the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete committed a stand-alone first violation with the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility (instead of 8 years).
Therefore on 30 July 2021 the Sole Arbitrator decides that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation for Tampering and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility.
This new sanction shall run consecutively to the period of ineligibility already imposed on the Athlete unitl 15 November 2022, thus starting on 16 November 2022 until 15 November 2026.
