CAS 2022/ADD/46 United World Wrestling (UWW) v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson
- Wrestling
- Doping (boldenone)
- Burden and standard of proof
- Source of the prohibited substance and intentional doping
1. The anti-doping organization has the burden of establishing that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) has occurred. The standard of proof shall be to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. Facts relating to an ADRV may be established by any reliable means including any reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample establishing the presence of a prohibited substance. Where an ADRV has been established the burden of proof then shifts to the athlete to prove either that the ADRV should not be considered as such, that it was unintentional or that the applicable period of ineligibility can be reduced or eliminated. In that case, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probabilities. If the athlete is to eliminate the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility he must meet the threshold test required under the No Fault or Negligence standard i.e. demonstrate that his ADRV was not intentional and the source of the prohibited substance in the sample.
2. Under the WADA Code, although the requirement of the proof of the source of the prohibited substance is not mandatory, it remains a crucial factor in deciding whether the athlete has succeeded in discharging his burden of proof that the violation was not intentional and that consequently he bore Nor Fault or Negligence. Yet in some cases the proof of the source of the prohibited substance cannot be established. Thus, in a case of meat contamination due to the consumption of the subject meat, the athlete has to demonstrate on the basis of the objective circumstances of the ADRV and his behaviour, that circumstances existed which counteract to a sufficient degree, the likelihood of intentional doping. He must also offer persuasive evidence that the explanation he proffers is more likely than not to be correct, by providing specific, objective and persuasive evidence in support of his submission such as (i) scientific evidence and expertise to determine that it is more likely than not that boldenone is used as a growth promotor in livestock in the relevant country and that the concentration levels of boldenone in his sample are consistent with contamination of meat consumed in the relevant country, and (ii) other evidential factors which contribute to the general circumstances of the case such as the fact that the prohibited substances found in the athlete’s sample was detected among 10% of the total number of athletes tested and, the delayed notification of his positive test which was not satisfactorily explained and may well have caused potentially relevant evidence regarding the source of the prohibited substance to become unavailable to the athlete. Fairness suggests that the delay should be construed in favour of the athlete.
The American wrestler Dyamin Jackson competed for Indiana University and was the winner of the 2021 Senior Pan American Championships, which took place between 27-30 May 2021 in Guatemala City, Guatemala, where he competed in the freestyle-senior 92kg weight class discipline.
In December 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the United World Wrestling (UWW), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.
Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.
The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that the source of his positive test was the result of contaminated meat consumed prior to his sample collection in Guatemala in May 2021.
He argued that the delay in the notification of the anti-doping rule violation hampered him in the evidence gathering. He deemed that the violation should have been reported as an Atypical Finding (ATF) and not as an ADRV.
He demonstrated with evidence that Boldenone is used in livestock production in Guatemala. Also relevant is that two other athletes tested positive for Boldenone at the Championships, yet they were treated as ATF.
The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues in this case:
- (i) Has the Athlete established the source of the Boldenone present in his Sample?
- (ii) Is Boldenone used in livestock or poultry in Guatemala?
- (iii) Did the Athlete consume these products in the days leading up to his positive Sample?
- (iv) Has the Athlete demonstrated he bore No Fault or Negligence?
The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has set out in a systematic way to demonstrate that he was the victim of meat contamination in a country, Guatemala, which is known to use steroids in its livestock production.
Based on the persuasive evidence submitted the Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that meat consumed on the day before his Sample collection was likely contaminated with the Prohibited Substance and it was unintentional.
Having established that he bore No Fault or Negligence for the AAF, then consistent with Article 10.5 UWW ADR, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is eliminated and no period of Ineligibility is imposed.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 November 2022 that:
1.) Mr Nathan Dyamin Jackson is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.2 of the United World Wrestling Anti-Doping Rules (“UWW ADR”).
2.) Mr Nathan Dyamin Jackson has established in accordance with Article 10.5 of the UWW ADR, that he bore No Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation. No period of Ineligibility is imposed.
3.) In accordance with Article 9 UWW ADR, all the competitive results of Mr Nathan Dyamin Jackson from the Pan-American Championship of May 2021 are Disqualified, with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
4.) (…).
5.) (…).
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
