CAS 2008/A/1470 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associées (FILA) & Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelfattah
Related case:
CAS 2007_A_1365 WADA vs FILA & Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelfattah
December 11, 2007
- Wrestling
- Doping (refusal to submit to an out of competition doping control)
- Identification of the entities entitled to conduct out-of-competition testing
- Standard of proof under Swiss law
- Absence of departure from the applicable standards
1. Based upon the applicable rules of the relevant international federation, WADA as well as the national anti-doping organization of any country where an athlete is present is authorized to conduct out-of-competition testing on any athlete affiliated to the international federation.
2. Swiss law allows for a wide variety of methods of proof, ranging from a magistrate’s deductions from presumptions and evidence to direct proof such as written documents, witness statements, confessions, evidence of facts, experts, etc. It is on the basis of the evidence before them that the members of a CAS panel, in full discretion, must come to an opinion – their firm conviction (“intime conviction”) – as to facts established. A CAS panel may consider any evidence, even circumstantial evidence. Therefore, based on objective criteria, a panel must be convinced of the occurrence of an alleged fact. However, no absolute assurance is required; it suffices that the tribunal has no serious doubts on a specific fact or that the remaining doubts appear to be light. Those methods of proof are applicable for the evaluation by a CAS panel of an athlete’s actual command of the English language. Accordingly, a panel can consider than an athlete was able to understand the statements that were being made to him in English and to answer and to ask questions such that the sample-collection session could take place in a fair manner and that no interpreter was needed.
3. The requirements included in the applicable regulations regarding notification process, identification requirements, sample collection process, information about rights and duties and planning obligations are fully complied with when, based on the facts and evidence submitted by the parties, (i) the alleged deviations by the doping control officer from the anti-doping rules and the International Standard for Testing are not proven and (ii) the panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the doping control officer correctly identified himself to the athlete who was informed of and understood his/her rights and obligations.
In July 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Egyptian wrestler Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelfattah after he refused to provide a sample out-of-competition to USADA agents acting as representative of WADA.
However the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) decided on 31 July 2007 to impose a warning on the Athlete for his anti-doping violation.
WADA appealed this decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on 11 December 2007 (CAS 2007/A/1365) the Panel decided to annul the Appealed Decision and to refer the case back to FILA.
During the CAS proceedings a set of FILA disciplinary decisions were rendered between July 2007 and September 2007 including the imposition on the Athlete of a 6 months sanction on 28 September 2007.
As a result of the CAS decision of 11 December 2007 (CAS 2007/A/1365) the Athlete's case was referred back to FILA and on 19 December 2007 the FILA Federal Appeal Commission decided to confirm the previous sanction imposed on 28 September 2007.
Hereafter WADA filed a new appeal with CAS against the confirmed FILA sanction of 6 months. WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
WADA contended that the USADA agents had the authority to conduct the out-of-competition testing on the Athlete. He was duly informed of his rights and obligations as well as of the consequences of a refusal to submit to doping control.
WADA asserted that the Athlete’s allegations are in contradiction with the statements made by the USADA agents. Here the Athlete alleged that departures from the Rules and the IST occurred and that serveral of his personal rights were violated, notably because of his lack of ability in English.
The Panel establishes that USADA had the authority to conduct the out-of-competition sample collection on the Athlete and that no departure from the applicable regulations occurred during the notification process. The Panel finds beyond any doubt that the Athlete’s level of English must have been sufficient to permit him to understand the statements that were being made to him in English.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and he failed to establish that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case.
Therefore on 3 September 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:
1.) The Appeal of the WADA against the decision rendered on 19 December 2007 by the FILA Federal Appeal Commission is admissible.
2.) The decision rendered on 19 December 2007 by the FILA Federal Appeal Commission is set aside.
3.) Mr Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelfattah is declared ineligible for a period of 24 months running from 18 June 2008, less a period of 6 months which has already been served by the athlete.
4.) All results achieved between 24 January 2008 and 17 June 2008 are disqualified and any medals, points and prizes obtained during such period are forfeited.
5.) This award is pronounced without cost, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid and to be retained by the CAS.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
