CAS 2002/A/362 IAAF vs Czech Athletic Federation (CAF) & Roman Zubek
CAS 2002/A/362 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) / CAF & Z.
- Athletics
- Doping (DHEA)
- CAS jurisdiction
- Time-limit for appeal by IAAF
- Distinction between exogenous administration and endogenous production of DHEA
1. The CAS has jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 21 of the IAAF Rules which provides that all the appeals to the CAS be made within sixty days of the date of communication to the prospective appellant of the decision that is to be referred. When a national federation issues several decisions related to the same case, any activity or decision which goes beyond stating that the previous decision is final and therefore untouchable constitutes a new decision. The last decision considered as final by the national federation starts a new time period for appeal under the IAAF Rules.
2. Pursuant to the IAAF Rules, a doping offence takes place when a prohibited substance is present within an athlete’s body tissues or fluids. DHEA is listed as a prohibited substance. The doping offence is established if the testing procedures show that the concentration of DHEA in the A and B samples greatly exceeds the concentration that might result from endogenous production and if the isotope radio mass spectrometry (IRMS) analysis clearly indicates the synthetic origin of DHEA.
The Czech Athletic Federation (CAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation after sprinter Roman Zubek’s A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). The Czech Athletic Federation (CAF) notified Zubek of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension. Zubek was heared for the Disciplinary Committee and requested additional testing of his sample.
The CAF Disciplinary Commission decided not to punish Zubek for the positive test result of the DHEA urine sample for the reason that in their opinion the found substance is [the body‟s] own substance. There is no limit for this substance in the body that should be understood as doping given by any competent authority (COC, IOC, and AC CR). As a matter of principle, the Disciplinary Commission of the Czech Athletic Federation cannot fairly evaluate the quantity of the substance in the body, if it was delivered artificially or if it was a body-own quantity. The CAF decided to cease Zubek’s suspension and not to punish him further.
Nevertheless Zubek’s sample was sent to the Cologne Laboratory for IRMS-testing for testing and revealing a high concentration of DHEA. After several deliberations with CAF the IAAF appealed CAF’s decision.
The Tribunal unanimously concludes that both tests in Praque and Cologne individually provide sufficient evidence to find a doping violation. Therefore, even if Zubek’s challenge to the second procedure had merit, it would be irrelevant. The tribunal also unanimously concludes that the original decision of the CAF not to sanction Z. for the doping violation was wrong.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 27 August 2002:
1.) Upholds the appeal filed by the IAAF on 31 January 2002.
2.) Finds that tests of Zubek’s samples from the 13 May 2000 athletics meeting in Prague provide evidence of a doping violation.
3.) Finds that the CAF failed to appropriately declare Zubek ineligible.
4.) Suspends Zubek from competition for 21 months, 13 days (two years less the two months, seventeen days served under the provisional suspension) from the date of this decision; i.e., until 10 May 2004.
