CAS 2001/A/318 V. vs Swiss Cycling

TAS 2001/A/318 V. / Fédération Cycliste Suisse (Swiss Cycling)

• Cycling
• Doping
• Calculation and duration of the suspension
• Equal treatment

1. The cyclist who has the habit of using doping continuously, and subject to a veritable programme, commits innumerable acts, each liable to punishment, however these are not considered as one single act in the sense of a continuous infringement. However, in such a case, the period of limitation does not begin to run for the duration of a continuous offence but only to start from the commission of the last infraction.

2. Given the importance of the doping use admitted by the cyclist (regular use of high numbers of erythropoietin (EPO), anabolic steroids, corticosteroids and caffeine), a suspension of nine months is not excessive. The sanction should be closer to the maximum margin stated in the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, i.e. 1 year. However, CAS has not the possibility to aggravate the sanction, because no conclusions have been rendered by one of the parties.

3. The suspension is not justified for the cyclist who has admitted to use of doping constrained later hereafter.

The Festina affair was a series of doping scandals that occurred during and after the 1998 Tour de France. The affair began when numerous doping products were found in a car belonging to the Festina cycling team just before the start of the race.

A resulting investigation revealed systematic doping, and suspicion was raised that there may have been a widespread network of doping involving many teams of the Tour de France. Hotels were searched by police, confessions were made by retired and current riders, and team personnel were arrested or detained. Several teams withdrew from the race.

In October 2000, during a criminal trial, the cyclist Virenque admitted the use of doping. As a consequence of his admission Swiss Cyling, at the request of the UCI, opened proceedings against the Athlete and decided on 29 December 2000 to impose a CHF 4.000,- fine and a 9 month period of ineligibility, without a suspended sanction, starting on 1 February 2001.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of Swiss Cycling with the Court of Arbitration for Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete accepted the fine and requested the Panel to impose a reduced or suspended sanction, starting on December 2000 in stead of 1 February 2001.

The Panel finds that Athlete’s guilt is great considering his use of high numbers of doping products between 1993 and 1998 and compared to the 3 other sanctioned cyclist in this affair.

Therefore on 23 April 2001 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to impose a CHF 4.000,- fine and a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 30 December 2000 and ending on 14 August 2001 regarding the time already served.

CAS 2000/A/312 L. / Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associées (FILA)

Relaterd case:

CAS 2000/A/310 L. vs IOC
October 22, 2002

• Wrestling
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Use of nutritional supplements
• Strict Liability Rule
• Interpretation of conflicting doping rules
• Mitigating circumstances

1. The subjective element of the doping offence must be considered in assessing the appropriateness of suspensions, fines and other similar sanctions, irrespective of the terms of the doping control rules at issue. If the CAS is satisfied that the athlete did not intentionally or negligently commit the offence of doping, it then becomes necessary to consider the nature of the athlete’s fault in relation to the impact of a two-year ban from international competition. In the event that a two-year suspension appears disproportionately severe, the CAS has a general discretion to reduce this sanction.

2. On the basis of the circumstances of this appeal (the athlete had likely consumed food supplements containing a nandrolone precursor and had an outstanding and unblemished sports career), the CAS Panel concludes that there exist « specific and exceptional attenuating circumstances » which justify a reduction of the athlete’s two-year suspension in accordance with the FILA Doping Regulations.

On 23 October 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify and to exclude the German Athlete L. for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

On 22 October 2000 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal against the IOC decision of 23 October 2000 (CAS 2000/A/310) and on 24 October 2000 the International Wrestling Federation (FILA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his anti-doping violation committed at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

Hereafter in November 2000 the Athlete appealed the FILA decision of 24 October with CAS. Again the Athlete disputed the validity of the testing results and requested the Panel to set aside the FILA decision of 24 October 2000.

The CAS Panel finds that the Athlete L. has not proven that he did not intentionally or negligently commit the offence of doping. The Panel concludes that after carefully considering all of the circumstances of this appeal that there exist “specific and exceptional attenuating circumstances” which justify a reduction of the Athlete’s two-year suspension in accordance with Article 26.5 of the FILA Doping Regulations.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 October 2001:

1.) The appeal filed by L. on 27 November 2000 against the decision made by the FILA Sports Judge dated 24 October 2000 is granted in part.

2.) The decision made by the FILA Sports Judge dated 24 October 2000 shall be modified as follows: L. is suspended for a period of one year (12 months) from 30 September 2000 to 29 September 2001.

3. (...).

CAS 2000/A/310 L. / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:

CAS 2000_A_312 L. vs FILA
October 22, 2001

• Wrestling/Olympic Games
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Use of nutritional supplements
• Strict Liability Rule
• Validity of the testing procedure

1. The express terms of Chapter II, Article 2.2 of the Olympic Movement Antidoping Code (OMAC) clearly provide for the application of the principle of strict liability in regard to the offence of doping. The IOC has the initial burden of proving the presence of a prohibited substance in the body of the athlete that is the objective elements of the offence of doping. If the IOC meets its initial burden of proof, the principle of strict liability creates a presumption that a doping offence has been committed. The burden of proof then shifts to the athlete who may rebut the presumption.

2. From a purely scientific perspective, there may always exist a possibility that concentrations of 19-norandrosterone above 2 ng/ml could occur endogenously. It may well be that further indeed better studies should be undertaken. However, absent expert evidence to the contrary, the CAS has no basis for questioning the reliability of the studies conducted by experts in this field or the experience of the IOC-accredited laboratories.

3. In the present case, the athlete has failed to rebut the resulting presumption of a doping offence:
(i) failure to prove any discrepancies in the volume of urine recorded on the doping control documents,
(ii) failure to prove a broken chain of custody,
(iii) failure to prove any procedural irregularity in regard to the opening and analysis of the B sample. Any minor irregularity cannot be considered to have affected the results of an otherwise valid test.

The German Athlete L. competed at the freestyle wrestling event at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

In September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete L. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

On 23 October 2000 the IOC Executive Board decided for the disqualification of the Athlete, withdrawal of medal and exclusion from the Syndney 2000 Olympic Games.

Hereafter in November 2000 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete disputed the validity of the testing results and requested the Panel to set aside the IOC decision.

The Panel dismisses the Athletes arguments and concludes that the Athlete committed a doping offence under the IOC Rules during the freestyle wrestling competiotion held at the Olympic Games in Sydney.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 October 2000:

1.) The appeal filed by L. on 7 November 2000 against the decision made by the Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee dated 23 October 2000 is dismissed.

2.) (...).

As a consequence of the Athlete's anti-doping violation at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) decided on 24 October 2000 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete L. which was revised by the Court of Arbitratrion for Sport (CAS) on 22 October 2001 to a 1 year period of ineligibility (CAS 2001/A/312).

CAS 2000/A/289 UCI vs C. & Fédération Française de Cyclisme

TAS 2000/A/289 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) /C. & Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)

• Cycling
• Doping
• Confession of a rider

1. In accordance with the general principle of non-retroactivity, which is widely applied in criminal matters, the UCI Rules effective at the time of the anti-doping violation must be applied in order to determine the nature of the anti-doping violation and the sanctions as result of the same violation.

2. According to the principle of lex mitior, applied in criminal matters and the regulatory adopted by CAS in accordance with to the constant jurisprudence, the competent authority in charge of sanctioning must apply the new law, if this is more favourable for the accused, even when the violations occurred before these came into force. In addition, the principle of lex mitior can be applied to anti-doping rules in view of the quasi-criminal character of the disciplinary sanctions they are permitted to impose.

In April 2000 the French elite level Athlete C. mentioned in an interview with the French magazine his cycling experiences with doping for many years and the effect on the athlete’s health and the falsification of sport results.

He acknowledged that he had used EPO in 1996 when he became winner of the 1996 UCI Mountain Bike World Championships. With his confession the athlete wanted to attract attention to the current and persistent phenomenon of doping in cycling.

As a consequence of his confession the Disciplinary Commission of the French Cycling Federation (FCC) decided on 28 June 2000 to impose a 1 year period ineligibility on the Athlete as suspended sanction, a CHF 4.000,- fine including disqualification of the 1996 UCI Mountain Bike World Championships.

Hereafter the International Cycling Union (UCI) appealed the FCC decision of 28 June 2000 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the FCC decision and to impose an active sanction on the Athlete C.

The Panel considers the particular circumstances of this case and finds it appropriate to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the day of the hearing, i.e. on 24 November 2000.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 January 2001 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete with 3 months as suspended sanction, including a CHF 4.000,- fine and disqualification of the 1996 UCI Mountain Bike World Championships.

CAS 2000/A/281 H. / Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM)

• Motorcycling
• Doping (ephedrine)
• Strict liability

1. As a general rule, in cases of strict liability offences it is sufficient that the federation is able to show that a forbidden substance was found in the urine of the athlete and that the positive test result of the sample was not affected by procedural defects in the laboratory. Under the FIM Rules it is not a requirement that the forbidden substance is contained in medication. The FIM Medical Code also expressly prohibits the use of chemical identical substances. This includes herbal or homeopathic substances. More generally, it can also be found in the jurisprudence of the CAS that it is sufficient that the active substance appears on the doping list. The name of the product is not relevant.

2. The established IOC testing procedures need to be applied strictly and do not leave room for the transfer of certain methods from one testing procedure to another on a case by case basis. If there was a need for the application of a correction factor in ephedrine cases this decision had to be taken by the competent authorities of the IOC. It cannot be the task of the CAS to amend on a case by case basis the rules established by the International Olympic Committee and applied by the IOC accredited doping laboratories.

3. In a case of strict liability it is irrelevant whether the athlete was aware that he was using a substance appearing on the doping list. The CAS considers that products and homeopathic substances that do not give the chemical name of the substances but the names of herbal substances need to be examined with great care by the athlete.

On 2 June 2000 the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) decided to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete H. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance ephedrine. Thereupon on 15 June 2000 the FIM International Tribunal of Appeal (TIA) decided to uphold the Athlete’s disqualification and to reduce the imposed sanction to 3 weeks.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FIM TIA decision with the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).
In addition the Athlete H. requested CAS for interim relief to stay the execution of the FIM TIA decision which CAS dismissed on 6 July 2000.

In favour of the Athlete the Panel considers that there is no evidence that the he acted intentionally. Furthermore it is not easy to recognise the substance MaHuang as a herbal sister of ephedrine.

The Panel also notes that the concentration of ephedrine in his urine sample tested was only slightly over the limit. Finally the Athlete presented himself as an honest man during the hearing and showed great regret for what he had done.

On the other hand, the Athlete also admitted that he made a terrible mistake and acted carelessly. His behaviour shows a certain degree of negligence which makes it necessary to raise the sanction above the minimum.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 December 2000:

1.) The appeal filed by H. on 4 July 2000 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the FIM International Tribunal of Appeal on 30 June 2000 is annulled.

3.) The CAS renders the following decision:

• a.) H. is disqualified from the second race of the FIM World Championship event held in Kyalami on 2 April 2000 and has to return all trophies, prizes and any other entitlements won;
• b.) The disqualification of H. in connection with the first race of the FIM World Championship event held in Kyalami on 2 April 2000 is invalid; H. is entitled to the trophies, prizes, points and any other entitlements on the basis of the result achieved;
• c.) H. is suspended from any competition under the governance of FIM for a period of three weeks beginning 12 October 2000, exclusive of the suspension already served (7 days).

CAS 2000/A/274 S. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

Related case:

CAS 2000_A_274 S. vs FINA - Preliminary Award
May 26, 2000

• Swimming
• Doping (testosterone)
• Burden of proof
• Right to be heard
• Prohibition of the retroactive application of substantive rules

1. The fundamental evidentiary nature of the IRMS Rule is not altered by the fact that this provision precludes athletes from raising a defence based upon evidence of a physiological or pathological condition. The T/E Rule only permits such a defence because an elevated T/E ratio does not constitute direct and conclusive evidence of the exogenous administration of testosterone. There may be other physiological or pathological reasons for an elevated T/E ratio. By contrast, IRMS analysis provides direct evidence of the exogenous administration of testosterone and, accordingly, there is no place for such a defence under the IRMS Rule.

2. Where a party adopts a position contrary to one it has previously taken, its conduct may constitute an abuse of right when the other party has relied on the initial position to its detriment. The prohibition against venire contra factum proprium does not however preclude a party from tendering new evidence or raising new arguments in an appeals arbitration procedure.

3. Under the Swiss Private Law Act, the right to be heard in adversarial proceedings specifically guarantees each party’s right to participate in the evidentiary proceedings, to rebut allegations made by the opposite party, to examine and criticize evidence adduced by the opposite party and to bring its own evidence in rebuttal before an award is rendered to its detriment. However, a party must immediately protest if it considers that its right to be heard has been violated, failing which, the party shall be deemed to have waived the right to protest at a later stage.

4. In general, it is necessary to apply the laws, regulations or rules that were in force at the time that the facts at issue occurred. This general principle is, however, subject to several exceptions, including an exception for laws or rules that are procedural in nature. In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, laws and rules relating to procedural matters apply immediately upon entering into force and regardless of when the facts at issue occurred.

On 25 March 2000 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Italian Athlete S. after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the threshold.

Hereafter in May 2000 the Athlete S. appealed the FINA decision of 25 March 2000 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the FINA decision and disputed the validity of the testing results related to the IRMS analysis of the samples.

The Panel finds that in this case it is common ground that the elevated T/E ratio detected on 24 January 1999 did not recur over the period of the Athlete’s longitudinal hormonal study. The Panel does not accept the Athlete’s submission that the sole finding of an elevated T/E ratio on 24 January 1999 can be explained by her physical condition.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the longitudinal hormonal study constitutes additional evidence that the Athlete’s elevated T/E ratio was due to an exogenous administration of testosterone.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed a doping offence under FINA Rules and decides on 19 October 2000:

1.) The Appeal filed by S. on 4 May 2000 is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the FINA Doping Panel on 25 March 2000 is confirmed.

CAS 2000/A/274 S. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), order of 26 May 2000

Related case:
CAS 2000_A_274 S. vs FINA
October 19, 2000

Conditions for granting a stay of a decision

On 25 March 2000 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Italian Athlete S. after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the threshold.

In May 2000 the Athlete S. appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the CAS Panel in this proceedings for the stay of the execution of the FINA decision in order to compete at the European Swimming Championships (in Helsinki between 29 June and 6 July 2000) and to be able to qualify for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

In this Preliminary Award the CAS Panel finds that a doping offence has been established and that the FINA decision of 25 March 2000 is not contrary to the FINA Doping Control Rules.

Therefore the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division decides on 26 May 2000:

1.) Dismiss the application for provisional measures filed by S. on 4 May 2000.
2.) States that the present order is pronounced without costs.

CAS 1999/A/230 B. vs Fédération Internationale de Judo
TAS 99/A/230 B. / Fédération Internationale de Judo (FIJ)

Related case:

CAS 1998_214 B. vs International Judo Federation
March 17, 1999

• Judo
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Absence of legal basis to sanction the athlete

1. Neither the IJF Anti-Doping Rules nor the IOC Medical Code provide for the disqualification in the case of an out-of-competition positive test result. In casu, the results of the appellant can’t be invalidated, from the moment he has obtained his title and medal, certainly after the positive out of competition control, but before the notification of the decision informing him of his suspension.

2. According to its jurisprudence, CAS can not invent sanctions, when these don’t exist. Where regulatory instruments define penalties and their conditions of application to specific facts, the principle of strict interpretation must be respected in all its rigor by sports bodies and by CAS. In casu, neither the IJF Anti-Doping Rules nor the IOC Medical Code provide for disqualification in the matter of an out-of-competition positive test result.

On 17 March 1999 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decided to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the French Athlete (TAS 98/214) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibitied substances 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

As a consequence of the CAS decision of 17 March 1999 the International Judo Federation (IJF) decided in April 1999 to disqualify the Athlete’s results obtained at the World Championships in October 1997 including withdrawal of his medal. This decision was notified to the Athlete on 8 June 1999.

Hereafter in June 1999 the Athlete appealed the IJF decision of 8 June 1999 with the Court of Arbitation for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel finds that the imposed sanction on the Athlete started on the date of the notification of the anti-doping violation on 22 October 1997 and not on the date of his participation to the World Championships from 8 to 11 October 1997.

herefore the IJF was not authorized to invalidate the Athlete’s results obtained at this event and also neither the IJF Anti-Doping Rules nor the IOC Medical Code provide for disqualification in the matter of an out-of-competition positive test result.

Therefore on 20 December the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to allow the Athlete’s appeal and to cancel the IJF decision for the Athlete’s to annul his results and medal won at the 1997 World Championships.

CAS 98/218 H. / Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

• Swimming
• Doping (cannabinoids)
• Adoption of IOC Medical Code by International Federations
• Out-of-competition testing for cannabinoids

1. The requirement of an agreement between the IOC and the relevant federation in order to proscribe cannabinoids applies only in the context of Olympic competition. Outside that context, the IOC Medical Code is applicable only to the extent it is voluntarily adopted by the relevant federation.

2. According to FINA Regulations, cannabinoids fall within the list of prohibited substances which are the target of out-of-competition testing.

On 6 November 1998 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) Doping Panel decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete H. after he tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

Hereafter on 24 November 1998 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 30 November 1999 the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division of CAS dismissed the Athlete’s appeal for preliminary relief.

Also on 30 November 1999, the Athlete H. obtained a Temporary Restraining Order from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona which purported to order FINA not to enforce the suspension of H. decided by the Doping Panel, and furthermore purported – without any explanation of the basis for its jurisdiction with respect to events taking place outside Arizona and indeed the United States – to declare that H. was permitted “to participate in any activities of FINA or any of its member federations, including international competition, as a competitor until further notice of this Court.”

The Athlete H. accordingly competed in a World Cup competition in December 1998 in disregard of both the FINA Doping Panel’s decision and the Order of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division.

The CAS Panel is not impressed with H.’s reliance on alleged oral representations made to him and to his father to the effect that cannabinoids were not the target of out-of-competition testing. The proper reflection of such concern on their part would have been for them to read the relevant rules, rather than to rely on any oral statements that there was a “policy” of, in effect, selective application.

Given H.’s unwillingness to accept rules of competition designed to be applied in the interest of all athletes, his persistence in pursuing an unmeritorious challenge, and his de facto evasion of sanctions legitimately imposed upon him by going outside the dispute resolution mechanism to which both he and FINA are subjected, the Panel awards costs to FINA.

Therefore on 27 May 1999 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

1.) Rejects the appeal against the FINA decision dated 6 November 1998.

2.) Declares that any results achieved by H. in competitions during the period of his suspension shall be considered null and void.

3.) Orders H. to pay FINA the amount of CHF 10’000.-- with interest running at 5% per annum starting with the 30th day after notification of this Award.

TAS 98/214 B. / Fédération Internationale de Judo (FIJ)

Related case:

CAS 1999_A_230 B. vs Fédération Internationale de Judo
December 20, 1999

• Judo
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Extension of a national decision to international level
• CAS Power to investigate
  strickt liability of the athlete
• Endogenous substance
• Mitigating circumstances

1.) It is imperative that international sports federations have the possibility to revise the decisions of national federations in anti-doping cases. The purpose of the power assigned to the International Federation is in particular to prevent the risk that international competitions are disrupted, in the situation that a national federation doesn’t sanction or sanctions too lenient one of its members, to enable it to participate in an important event or on the basis of an international convention.

2.) In accordance with Article R57 of the Code of Sports Arbitration, CAS reviews the facts and law with full power to investigate. The Court can scrutinize again the facts of the case to pass a new judgement about the case in its entirety. Consequently, given the devolving effect of the appeal, it is not necessary to refer the case back to the respondent authority for a new decision, the CAS award substitutes the contested decision.
Observed in this matter is that, according to a rule known in most legal system, a complete investigation, before a body of appeal which has full power of complete cognition, it can repair the procedural faults of the lower bodies, such as the violation of the right to be heard. Such a procedure is also in accordance with the principle of procedural economy.

3.) Every athletes has the advantage of the presumption of innocence until the presence is established of a prohibited substance in his or her body. According to the constant CAS jurisprudence, the system of strict liability must prevail when sports fairness is at stake. The presence of a prohibited substance in the body of an athlete has two consequences. The first consequence is that the athlete is disqualified from the competition where the anti-doping control took place. This sanction is imposed due to sports fairness towards the other athletes who participated in the competition. The second consequence is that the presence of the prohibited substance involves a presumption of guilt which can be reversed by the athlete.

4.) According to CAS jurisprudence, a fixed tariff system for anti-doping sanctions is not preferable and a more flexible system, which extends over de duration of the suspension, is preferable. Thus, an anti-doping rule of an international federation, providing for a system of fixed sanctions, maybe modulated considering the specific circumstances in each case, provided that this modulation is specifically motivated.

In October 1997 the French Judo Federation, Fédération Française de Judo (FFJ), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete B. after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibitied substances 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance; disputed the validity of the testing method; and argued that the positive test could be the result from the possible ingestion of food contaminated with nandrolone.

A scientific commission of experts concluded that the test results of the accredited laboratory were valid, showing the presence of nandrolone, and rejected the Athlete’s arguments.
On 18 April 1997 the FFJ Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with the second year as suspended sanction.

The Athlete filed for an appeal, however on 25 May 1998 the FFJ Appeal Commission concluded that it had no jurisdiction.

The Athlete’s case was referred to the French National Anti-Doping Commission (CNLD), who had doubts about the origin of the presence of nandrolone metabolites in the Athlete’s samples and decided on 9 July 1998 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In the meantime in May 1998 the test results were reported of a second more elaborate counter analysis performed on the Athlete’s samples and confirming the presence of the prohibited substances.

The International Judo Federation (IJF) was already informed in October 2007 about the Athlete’s anti-doping violation and on 10 October 1998 the ordered suspension was extended by the IJF pending a final decision was redenered against the Athlete. Hereafter in October 1998 the Athlete filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

With full power to investigate and all the facts reviewed in this case the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete failed to prove that he was not at fault and therefore that he is guilty.

Considering the circumstances and the proportionality in this case the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 March 1999 to cancel the IJF decision of 10 October 1998 and to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, ending on 19 March 1999.