Related cases:
- World Athletics 2020 WA vs Maria Guadalupe González Romero
July, 30, 2021 - CAS 2019_A_6319 Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero vs IAAF
July 2, 2020 - IAAF 2018 IAAF vs María Guadalupe González Romero
May 9, 2019
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.
In June 2020 the Athlete appealed 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.
Thereupon in July 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of 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.
Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 30 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. This new sanction shall run consecutively to the period of ineligibility already imposed on the Athlete until 15 November 2022, thus starting on 16 November 2022 until 15 November 2026.
Hereafter in September the Athlete appealed the Tampering Decision with CAS. She requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Tampering Decision and to annul or reduce the imposed sanction.
Regarding the preliminary and procedural issues raised by the Athlete the Panel is confident that the present proceedings has been conducted with full respect for the principles of legality and the right to be heard. In particular, the Athlete's multiple procedural requests and objections have all been fully considered.
Furthermore the Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:
- Is the Evidence of Tampering in the Presence/Use Proceedings irrebuttable?;
- Did the alleged Tampering take place during a Doping Control process?;
- What are the implications of the other evidence relating to the Tampering Charge?;
- Ne bis in idem / res judicata: are the Tampering Proceedings unnecessary and abusive?;
- Other Arguments of the Appellant; and
- Sanctions.
Accordingly the Panel concludes:
- There was no breach of natural justice affecting the CAS Presence/Use Award dated 2 July 2020 and therefore pursuant to Article 3.2.5 of the 2019 ADR the factual findings of lying and falsification of evidence in this decision constitute irrebuttable evidence against the Athlete of these facts;
- The falsification of evidence referred to in the Notice of Charge occurred within the Doping Control process;
- The Athlete is guilty of conduct which subverts the Doping Control process within the meaning of Article 2.5 of the 2019 ADR through the presentation of false evidence in the Presence/Use proceedings with the intention of deceiving the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal.
- The charge of an ADRV for Tampering has been established.
- The principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata have no application to the determination of the Tampering Charge or its sanction.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 December 2023 that:
1.) The appeal of Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the World Athletics' Disciplinary Tribunal on 30 July 2021 is confirmed.
3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
4.) Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero shall pay to World Athletics a contribution in the amount of CHF 6,000 (six thousand Swiss Francs) toward its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
