CAS 2005/A/831 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Eddy Hellebuyck
Related cases:
- AAA No. 30 190 00686 04 USADA vs Eddy Hellebuyck
December 9, 2004 - AAA No. 77 190 168 JENF USADA vs Eddy Hellebuyck
January 30, 2012
- Athletics
- Doping (recombinant EPO)
- Reliability of the testing procedure used for detecting rhEPO
- Beginning of the period of ineligibility
1. A mere hypothetical possibility of false positives, i.e. pure speculation about the unreliability of the testing procedure, is, on its own, not sufficient for calling into question the reliability of the testing procedure. Rather evidence must be shown that the test procedure results are unreliable and that false positives occur. The threshold for this is high; for it must be taken into account that 1) the various WADA accredited laboratories already have extensive experience with the testing procedure; 2) there is a long jurisprudential basis for the acceptance of the testing procedure within the CAS and other dispute resolution Institutions in sport; 3) the validity of the testing procedure has been the subject of a number of studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and was also the subject of scrutiny at various scientific meetings.
2. If the athlete was able to continue to participate in competitions in the period between the taking of the sample and the hearing of his/her case, if it was within the athlete’s control to determine the commencement of the two-year suspension by accepting a “provisional suspension”, and if the athlete himself/herself contributed very significantly to the delay in the proceedings, then it cannot be said that he/she has suffered any legal disadvantages through the excessively long duration of the proceedings. Therefore, there are no compelling reasons of fairness which would justify an (unwritten) exception stating that the two-year sanction shall begin to run on the day on which the sample was taken, contrary to the clear and unambiguous wording of the applicable rule according to which the suspension shall start from the date of the hearing at which it is decided that the Doping Offence has been committed.
Mr Eddy Hellebuyck is an elite-level distance runner in the sport of track and field. He was born on 22 January 1961. He is a member of USA Track and Field (USATF) the national governing body of the sport of athletics in the United States of America.
USADA has reported an anti doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete did not accept the provisional suspension and he participated in competitions during the entire period between the sample collection and the day he was heard for the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) on 30 November 2004.
On 9 December 2004 NACAS concluded that the Athlete violated the anti-doping rules and decided to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 31 January 2004.
Hereafter in February 2005 te IAAF filed an appeal against NACAS’s decision with CAS. On 21 February 2005 the Athlete filed a motion to dismiss the IAAF appeal.
In its preliminary decision dated 4 July 2005 the CAS Panel rejected the Athlete’s motion to dismiss the IAAF appeal and ordered the Athlete to file his statements and objection’s.
The Athlete argued that the method adopted by the Laboratory to detect rhEPO has not been scientifically validated and the Athlete’s samples and the control samples were poorly stored.
The Athlete's questioned the commencement of the period of ineligibility.
Further he invoked the principle of lex mitior, in order to justify a commencement of the two-year sanction in derogation for Rule 60 (2)(a) of the former IAAF Rules.
Finally, the he is also invoked Art. 10.8 WADA in order to justify a different commencement date of the period of ineligibility from that required by Rule 60 (2)(a) of the former IAAF Rules.
The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete has not established doubt about the reliability of the testing procedure. There is no evidence to establish that a false positive occurred. The Panel is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Athlete’s sample contained rhEPO.
Therefore the Athlete’s counter appeal is dismissed. The Panel deems that there is no legal basis for a point in time other than 30 November 2004 as a commencement date for the two-year sanction.
The NACAS’s decision must therefore be set aside and the IAAF appeal is admissible. The two-year period of ineligibility begins on the date of the hearing before NACAS on 30 November 2004 and ends on 29 November 2006. Furthermore the Athlete’s competition results achieved from the date on which the sample was provided, until the date of the hearing, shall be annulled.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 5 May 2006:
1.) Upon appeal by the IAAF, the decision of the NACAS dated 9 December 2004 is set aside.
2.) The Respondent, Eddy Hellebuyck, has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 60 (2)(a) of the IAAF Rules 2002-2003.
3.) The Respondent is declared ineligible for a period of two years. The period of ineligibility commences on 30 November 2004 and ends upon expiry of 29 November 2006.
4.) Any competition results between the 31 January 2004 and the date of the hearing on 30 November 2004 are annulled under Rule 59 (4) of the IAAF Rules 2002-2003.
5.) The counter appeal by the Respondent is dismissed.
6.) The Award is rendered without costs except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 500, which is retained by the CAS.
7.) Each party shall bear its own costs.
