CAS 2020/A/7528 Christian Coleman v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Christian Coleman
October 22, 2020

In June 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the American Athlete Christian Coleman for his Whereabouts Filing Failure and 2 Missed Tests in a 12 month period.

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 22 October 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In First Instance the Panel rejected the Athlete's allegations that the authorities had developed a strategy in an effort to catch him out, and finds that he persisted in an exculpatory version of events as to what happened on 9 December 2019. The Panel deemed that the Athlete's behaviour was very careless at best and reckless at worst.

Hereafter in November 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 22 October 2020 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete did not challenge the Missed Test of 16 January 2019 or the Filing Failure of 26 April 2019. The challenge is
limited to the Missed Test of 9 December 2019. It follows that, if the Missed Test of 9 December 2019 is sustained, then there will be three Missed Tests and/or Filing Failures within a 12-month period and an ADRV will have been committed.

The Athlete asserted that the Doping Control Officer (DCO) did not do what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete on 9 December 2019. Specifically because the World Athletics had instructed the DCO not to call the Athlete thereby precluding the DCO from doing what was reasonable.

World Athletics contended that the Athlete in fact was not home at any time during the 60-minute slot. Futher the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to try and locate the Athlete at that time on that date. The fact that the DCO was instructed not to call the Athlete does not mean that the DCO failed to act reasonably.

The Panel concludes that, on 9 December 2019, the DCO did do what was reasonable in all the circumstances, given the nature of the residential premises and the time of day, to try to locate the Athlete at his home in Lexington, Kentucky. On the evening of 9 December 2019, the DCO knocked on the door and rang the bell in such a manner, as is accepted by the Athlete, that if anyone were home at the time they would have been made aware that the DCO was there.

The Panel is more than satisfied that, had the Athlete been at home, the attempts made by the DCO on the night in question would have been perfectly adequate to let the Athlete know that someone was at the door. Had he been at home and answered the door, the test could have been conducted without issue.

The Panel does not accept the Athlete's evidence and finds the Athlete's account wholly implausible. The Panel concludes that there was no evidence supporting any claim that the Athlete was at the location identified by him at any time during the 60-minute slot specified by him for testing on 9 December 2019.

By contrast the Panel holds there is no reason at all not to accept the evidence of the officers that they were at the Athlete's home on 9 December 2019 during the 60-minute slot.

The Panel considers the Athlete's conduct on 9 December 2019, and deems that the his degree of fault falls to be characterised as "medium", i.e. within the 16-20 months band, with a midpoint of 18 months.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Christian Coleman against World Athletics on 19 November 2002 is partly upheld.

2.) The decision of the AIU Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2020 is set aside and replaced as follows:

Mr Christian Coleman has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.4 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules and shall serve a period of ineligibility of eighteen (18) months as from 14 May 2020.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Christian Coleman, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) Mr Christian Coleman is ordered to pay World Athletics a total amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In September 2021 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Jaspreet Singh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and Methyltestosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to respond to the communcations, nor attended the hearing of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) and a decision was rendered in absentia of the Athlete.

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited susbstances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Because the Athlete didn't respond he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance had entered his system.

Therefore the ADDPI decides on 20 April 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 September 2021.

Related case:

CAS 2021_A_7983 Brianna McNeal vs World Athletics | World Athletics vs Brianna McNeal
July 2, 2021

Brianna McNeal is a track and field athlete from the United States and was previously sanctioned for 1 year in 2017 for 3 missed tests in a 12-month period.

In January 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

In this matter the AIU had established that the Athlete had provided false statements and in support had produced falisified documents in order to explain her missed test on 12 January 2020. When interviewed in August 2020 the Athlete admitted that she had altered documents.

The AIU contended that the Athlete deliberately provided false information for her missed test as she had altered medical documents for an improper purpose and engaged in conduct deliberately designed to subvert the Doping Control.

The Athlete denied that she intentionally had committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested for a reduced sanction. She argued that this is entirely a case about an abortion she underwent. She argued that the abortion is the reason for the missed test and that her post procedure trauma is the sole reason she mistakenly altered the dates on her medical notes.

Considering the evidence in the case the Panel establishes that the Athlete intentionally had altered evidence on two different occasions during the results management process, thereby subverting Doping Control. Consequently the Athlete committed a Tampering violation under the 2021 ADR.

The Panel finds that the subjective elements of this case are very specific and exceptional. The Panel holds that the personal circumstances and trauma the Athlete was suffering at the time she committed her Tampering violation justify a reduction of her degree of Fault and reduction of the period of ineligibility for her second anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 21 april 2021 to impose a reduced 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 15 August 2020.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-017 Appeal Decision - Football
  June 30, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-018 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 23, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-027 Appeal Decision - Football
  November 12, 2021

In June 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. He stated that he and two other football players had received Citoneurin and Miofibrax injections administered by the football club's physiotherapist as recommended by a doctor.

In view of the evidence in this case the Panel was troubled whether ABCD had established with sufficient evidence that the Athlete had acted intentionally, rather it had established that the football club's Athlete Support Personell were responsible for the violation.

Furthermore it remained unclear for the Panel whether the physiotherapist by mistake the medication Dexa Cetoneurim had administered instead of the Citoneurin and Miofibrax medication. Finally the Panel considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 22 April 2021 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 12 August 2019. The Athlete already had served this sanction.

In January 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). 

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and accepted a provisional suspension. He acknowledged that he was struggling with addiction problems after a motorcycle accident in 2012. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 22 April 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 December 2019.

In October 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). 

The Athlete declined an acceptance of sanction of 6 months proposed by ABCD, accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested for a reduced sanction due to No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He asserted that the source of the prohibited substance was an unprescribed medication Doralgin he had used for his headache. The Brazil Lab confirmed that the positive test result was consistent with the Athlete’s use of this medication. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction in view of the Athlete’s degree of fault. Further the Rapporteur considers that in similar cases reduced sanctions were imposed by the TJD-AD and that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel dedices on 22 April 2021 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 1 September 2020.

• CAS 2020/A/6695 Nicole Walker v. PANAM Sports
• CAS 2020/A/6700 Equestrian Canada v. PANAM Sports
• CAS 2020/A/7386 PANAM Sports v. Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada

Related case:

FEI 2019 FEI vs Nicole Walker
June 4, 2021

In August 2019 the Pan American Sports Organization (PASO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canadian Athlete Nicole Walker after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

On 11 December 2019 the Panam Sports Disciplinairy Commission decided to disqualify the Athlete and her results. Consequently under the PANAM Rules Team Canada's 4th place result in the Team Competition was also disqualified.

Hereafter in January 2020 the Athlete and Equestrian Canada appealed the PANAM Sports Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). PANAM Sports filed a Cross-Appeal in March 2020. Each of the appeals was heard together and all are dealt with collectively in this one single award.

In these appeals also the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), the Argentinian Equestrian Federation (FEA) and the Argentinian Olympic Committee (COArg) particpated and filed their positions in this matter.

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the PANAM Sports Decision and to reinstate her results obtained at the PANAM Games. Equestrian Canada appealed only in relation to the issue of the substraction of the Athlete's scores from Team Canada's results. It adopted, in writing and orally, all arguments and submissions made on behalf of the Athlete.

The Athlete demonstrated with corroborating evidence that the positive test was the result of her ingestion of tea at the hotel where she stayed at the occasion of the Pan American Games. She was not aware at that time that the green tea she took was in fact coca tea.

The Athlete did not challenge the disqualification of her individual results obtained on 7 and 9 August 2019 but did challenge the disqualification of her results she had obtained on 6 and 7 August 2019 for the team competition which consequently resulted in disqualification of Team Canada's 4th place result.

PANAM Sports contended that the Athlete had failed to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was the result from the consumption of tea containing Cocaine at the relevant time. Further PANAM Sports asserted that under the PANAM Rules it was clearly mandated to automatically disqualify the results of the Athlete and Team Canada because of the Athletes anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel:

• (a) Accepts that the Athlete did not intentionally ingest Cocaine at any relevant time on or prior to 7 August 2019;
• (b) Accepts that there was no unintentional ingestion of cocaine by the Athlete at any relevant time prior to 7 August 2019;
• (c) Finds that the AAF was the result, and only the result of, the unintentional ingestion of cocaine by the Athlete on the morning of 7 August 2019 as a result of her using a teabag containing cocaine which she took from the breakfast service area of the Los Incas Lima Hotel.

The Panel deems that PANAM Sports was mandated under the Rules to disqualify the results of Team Canada obtained on 7 August 2019. However the Panel finds that there is no basis for the automatic disqualification of the Athlete's results obtained on 6 August 2019.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 April 2021 (Operative Part 12 January 2021) that:

1. The appeals filed by Ms Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada on 2 January 2020 against PANAM Sports with respect to the decision rendered by the PANAM Sports Disciplinary Commission on 11 December 2019 are dismissed.

2. The appeal filed by PANAM Sports on 14 March 2020 against Ms Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada with respect to the decision rendered by the PANAM Sports Disciplinary Commission on 11 December 2019 is partially upheld.

3. The results for Team Canada in the jumping competition at the 2019 Pan Am Games are disqualified, which includes forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4. The costs of the arbitration to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office shall be borne by ¼ by Ms Nicole Walker, ¼ by Equestrian Canada and ½ by PANAM Sports.

5. Each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

6. The amici curiae, Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), Federation Internationale Equestre (FEI), the Argentinian Equestrian Federation (FEA) and the Argentinian Olympic Committee (COARG), shall each bear their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

The Athlete's anti-doping rule violation was referred to FEI in November 2019. Both the Athlete and FEI agreed that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence with a light degree of Fault or Negligence. The Athlete accepted the proposed FEI sanction and agreed to fulfil the Education Requirement within 1 year.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 4 June 2021 in accordance with the mutual consent of the Parties to impose a fine and a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 26 September 2019.

Related case:

ISR 2021 KNAU Decision Appeal Committee 2020004 B
March 16, 2022

In December 2020 the Royal Dutch Athletics Association (KNAU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee.

The Person denied the intentional use and could not explain how it the substance had entered his system. He assumed that a contaminated supplement had caused the positive test. Yet Analysis of 2 supplements in question did not reveal the presence of any prohibited substance.

The Dopingautoriteit contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Person's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Disciplinary Committee finds that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how the substance had entered his system. It observes that the Person, after analysis of 2 supplements, made no additional requests for analysis of other supplements or medication in order to find the source of the positive tests.

Therefore the ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee decides on 22 April 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 October 2020.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

Anabolic androgenic steroid-induced hypogonadism, a reversible condition in male individuals? : A systematic review / José de Oliveira Vilar Neto, Carlos Alberto da Silva, Carlos Antônio Bruno da Silva, Daniel V. Pinto, Juan de Sá Roriz Caminha, Robson S. de Matos, Júlio C.C. Nunes Filho, Felipe R. Alves, Saulo C. Magalhães, Elizabeth De Francesco Daher. - (Andrologia (2021) e14062 (22 April))

• PMID: 33887077
• DOI: 10.1111/and.14062

Abstract

The anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are clinically used as an androgen replacement, in hypogonadism treatment, to induce puberty, and also in the treatment of chronic degenerative diseases. The AAS use out of clinical context is becoming massively, being used merely for aesthetic reasons. AAS abuse may cause severe disarrangement on the HPG axis and generate a significant decrease in testosterone synthesis and secretion by the testes. This review aims to evaluate whether the hypogonadism induced by AAS abuse is reversible and under what circumstances the reversibility is possible. For this, PRISMA guidelines and several databases are used between July and September 2020. Altogether, this systematic review identified and analysed 179 cases of AAS users. Of these, 168 cases had the hypogonadism clearly diagnosed and proven to be linked exclusively to AAS abuse. However, between these 168 cases, only 38 cases presented fully known outcomes and among these, merely in 4, the hypogonadism was completely reversible (2 based on drug therapy) with HPG axis recovery. In conclusion, this review presents evidences that AAS-induced hypogonadism is a seriously underestimated problem, and in the majority of cases, full recovery is very difficult to succeed.

Related case:

ADAK 2020 ADAK vs George Nganga Kimotho
July 28, 2020

On 28 July 2020 the Sports Disputes Tribunal decided  to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete George Nganga Kimotho after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

In First Instance the Panel concluded that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted negligently. Further the Panel considered that he gave a prompt admission, provided substantial assistance en demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Hereafter in October 2020 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) appealed the Decision. ADAK requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Decision of 28 July 2020 and for the imposition of a sanction of 4 years.

ADAK contended that the Athlete had failled to demonstrate with evidence that the violation was not intentional and that the prohibited substance was used for medical purposes and not for performance enhancement.

The Athlete denied that the violation was intentional and that he had demonstrated how the substance had entered his system as a result of medical treatement for his erectile dysfunction.

The Appeal Panel establishes that the Athlete had admitted the violation and accepted the test result. Further the Panel finds that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate with evidence that the positive test result was caused by the injections he had received as treatment for his erectile dysfunction.

Accordingly the Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to prove that the violation was not intentional, nor how the prohibited substance had entered his system, nor that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Appeal Panel decides to set aside the Decision of 28 July 2020 and to impose 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 December 2019.