CAS 2018/A/5583 Joshua Taylor v. World Rugby
- Rugby
- Doping (DHCMT)
- Athlete subjected to the applicable regulation
- Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance
- Unintentional breach by the athlete
- Degree of fault and sanction
1. An athlete is subject to the international federation anti-doping rules if when he consumed the prohibited substance, and when his sample was collected he was playing for the club of a university, member of a sport association, itself part of the national federation.
2. In order for an athlete to prove how the substance entered his/her body, it is insufficient to establish that the explanation provided is more likely than any other possibilities. Such finding is indeed relevant to but not dispositive of the crucial question, that is to say whether that explanation passes the 50% threshold. In order to establish the origin of a Prohibited Substance by the required balance of probability, an athlete must provide actual evidence as opposed to mere speculation.
3. It is for the athlete to establish that the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) was not intentional. Establishment of source does not by itself prove negative intent although it may be a powerful indicator of the presence or absence of intent to be defined. In contradistinction to the provisions which bear on disproof of fault or negligence the provision as to disproof of intention makes no reference to proof of source as a sine qua non condition. For the purpose of satisfying this burden of disproof, several CAS cases have held that the athlete must necessarily establish how the substance entered his/her body whereas other CAS cases have held that such establishment, while not always necessary, will normally be so and that the exceptions to that norm will be extremely rare. On any view, the presence or absence of such proof of source is obviously material to the issue of intention.
4. It is a sine qua non of establishing no or no significant fault that the athlete can establish the source of the prohibited substance in his/her system. Accordingly if the athlete is also able to establish on a balance of probabilities, that his/her fault or negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances was not significant in relationship to any violation found, then his/her sanction would fall between a reprimand and a period of ineligibility of 24 months. A young, inexperienced athlete is not absolved from taking any steps whatsoever. If an athlete entertaining the prospect of one day playing professional sport takes no step in discharge of his/her duty to avoid the presence in his/her system of prohibited substances and is consuming supplements without undertaking any form of research, s/he acts in a careless manner and demonstrates a perplexing lack of curiosity. Notwithstanding the mitigating factors, the athlete’s level of fault is significant or considerable and places him/her at the highest point of the sanction range after taking into consideration the earlier finding that the ADRV was not intentional.
In June 2016 World Rugby reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Australian minor rugby player Joshua Taylor (17) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.
Accordingly on 16 July 2017 the World Rugby Judicial Committee decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligiblity on the Athlete. When appealed this sanction was upheld thereafter by the World Rugby Post-Hearing Review Bode on 7 February 2018.
Hereafter in February 2018 the Athlete appealed the decision of 7 February 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Athlete denied the intentional use of the product Deca-Plexx and stated that it was used to get his body in shape after breaking his ankle and he was unable to play rugby for months. He asserted that prior he had not received anti-doping education and acknowledged that he had not researched the product before using.
Further he argued that the product Deca-Plexx he had used - 10 months before the test - was the source of the prohibited substance and that at the time he used the product - May until August 2015 - he was not subject to the Anti-Doping Rules.
The Panel established that the Athlete was subject to the World Rugby anti-doping rules from May until August 2015 when he used the product and in May 2016 when his sample was collected. Further the Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete had provided circumstantial evidence that the source of the metabolite in his system was the Deca-Plexx het had used in between the period of May en July 2015, 10 months before the test.
Also the Panel finds that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the product was used to enhance the Athlete's body image not his sporting performance. Yet the Panel deems that the Athlete acted with a significant degree of fault and considers that there had been no substantial delays not attributed to the Athlete for backdating any period of ineligibility.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 June 2019 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Joshua Taylor against World Rugby with respect to the decision of World Rugby’s Post-Hearing Review Body dated 7 February 2018 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision rendered by World Rugby’s Post-Hearing Review Body dated 7 February 2018 is amended as follows:
A period of ineligibility of two (2) years is imposed on Mr. Joshua Taylor as from the date of his provisional suspension (i.e. 17 June 2016).
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
