CAS 2013/A/3151 Jonathon Millar v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)

Related case:
FEI 2013 FEI vs Jonathon Millar
March 28, 2013

Equestrian
Doping (DHEA)
Beginning of the period of ineligibility

According to Art. 10.9.2 of the FEI Anti-Doping Rules for Human Athletes based on the World Anti-Doping Code, where the athlete promptly admits the anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with it, the Panel has discretion to decide that the period of ineligibility may start as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred and to fix the length of this period, provided that the athlete has served at least half of it going forward from the date he accepted the imposition of a sanction, the date of a hearing decision imposing a sanction or the date of the sanction is otherwise imposed.

In August 2011 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jonathon Millar after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance prasterone (dehydroepiandrosteron, DHEA).

The Athlete stated that in 2008 he suffered from his mother's death and from health problems due to a diagnosed DHEA deficiency syndrome. Therefore he used DHEA drops daily, as prescribed by his doctor, and filed an application for a TUE with CCES and later with FEI. In May 2009 CCES, and in February 2010 FEI, dismissed the Athlete’s TUE applications, but due to miscommunication, and an incorrect email address that was used, the two refusals for the TUE application didn’t reach the Athlete and he continued using his medication as prescribed.

The FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete committed an ADRV, he had not met his burden of proof and he had not made an admission. Therefore the FEI Tribunal decided on 28 March 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 August 2013. FEI also fine the Athlete CHF 2,0000 and ordered that he contribute CHF 4,000 towards the legal costs of the FEI’s judicial procedure.

Hereafer the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision of 28 March 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete argued that:
- he made a voluntary admission pursuant to the rules;
- he bore no significant fault or negligence;
- FEI failed to apply the doctrines of contra proferentem, in dubio contra stipulatorem and ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit
- the FEI denied the Athlete a fair trial and natural justice due to bias and unfairness of the Tribunal
- the imposed sanction, the fine and cost order were harsh, unjust and disproportionate.

Having heard the live evidence of the witnesses, which the FEI Tribunal did not hear, the CAS Panel concludes that the FEI Tribunal acted as they thought appropriate based on the facts before them. The Panel also accepts that the Athlete’s family were handling their difficult situation in the manner which they thought was appropriate as they saw fit at the time.
Since the appeal has been upheld in part, the Panel exonerates the Athlete from the costs of the FEI Tribunal judicial procedure and reduces the fine imposed upon by him by one-half. This decision is with respect to any and all ADRVs consisting of DHEA-s use from October 2008 through the date of the sample collection of 30 June 2011.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 October 2013 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete Jonathon Millar on 24 April 2013 is upheld in part.
2.) The FEI decision of 28 March 2013 is amended as follows:
- Jonathon Millar's period of ineligibility shall expire as of the date of this Award.
- The fine imposed on Jonathon Millar is fixed at CHF 1,000.
- Jonathon Millar is exonerated from the costs of the FEI judicial procedure.
3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Jonathon Millar, which is retained by the CAS.
4.) Each party shall bear its own legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Facts
The French Wrestling Federation (Fédération Française de Lutte, FFL) charges respondent M45 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 8, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of te sample showed the presence of prednisolone which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent had used medication containing the prohibited substance. It was used as a anti-inflammatory drug to treat pain in the neck and right arm. The medication was mentioned on the doping control form and the application for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) was sent in late because the respondent was unfamiliar with the procedure.
The disciplinary committee of the FFL had sanctioned a period of ineligibility of three months but the appeal committee of the FFL changed it in a warning.
The panel has viewed his medical record including reports of medical examinations. The administration of the drug is consistent with the treatment of the injury.

Decision
1. The decision (a warning), dated April 27, 2009, from the appeal committee of the FFL doesn't need to be modified.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Ice Hockey Federation (Fédération Française de Hockey sur Glace, FFHG) charges respondent M44 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 1, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't produce any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which the respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHG.
2. The decision will start on the date notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Basketball Federation (Fédération Française de Basket-Ball, FFBB) charges respondent M43 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on October 13, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a prednisone and prednisolone. Prednisone and prednisolone are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent had medication to treat allergy symptoms of mites and pollen. He has a prescription for this medication and did mention the use of the medication on the doping control form.
However the panel considers his medical state doesn't correspond with the medication he uses.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFBB.
2. The decision (acquittal) January 11, 2008, of the disciplinary committee of the FFBB should be modified.
3. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period served by the decision of January 11, 2007.
4. The decision starts on the date of notification.
5. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Free Flight Federation (Fédération Française de Vol Libre, FFVL) charges respondent M42 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a Free Flight event on June 17, 2007, a sample for doping test purposes was taken. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
Respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFVL.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Free Flight Federation (Fédération Française de Vol Libre, FFVL) charges respondent M41 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a Free Flight event on October 27, 2007, a sample for doping test purposes was taken. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a specified substance.

History
Respondent admits the use of cannabis regularly three times a week during a period of three years. There was no intention to enhance sport performance the usage was for recreational reasons only.
The panel takes in consideration the semi-professional status of the respondent and his admittance for the use of cannabis for recreational reasons.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFVL.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

CAS 2012/A/2960 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Angela Covert & Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)

Related case:
FEI 2012 FEI vs Angela Covert
September 4, 2012

Equestrian (jumping)
Doping (methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine))
Destruction of the samples
Methylhexaneamine in geranium oil
Failure to establish the source of the specified substance
Beginning of the ineligibility period in case of delays not attributable to the athlete
Disqualification of results during the period of ineligibility

1. The International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) rules clearly require laboratories to retain samples of adverse findings for at least three months. If the laboratory has been informed by the testing authority that the analysis of a sample is “challenged” or “disputed,” the laboratory is required to hold onto the sample until “completion of any challenge”. However, if the laboratory has not been informed by the testing authority or the athlete that the analysis of the athlete’s samples is being challenged or disputed, the laboratory shall either use the sample for research purposes or dispose of it. A “purposive” interpretation of the provision(s), so as to find that the laboratory is required to retain the sample even though the laboratory has not been given notice to do so, would only be appropriate if the ISL provision in question contained some ambiguity so that consideration of the underlying purpose of the text would help to clarify the meaning of the provision. However, if the provision is clear as to what laboratories are required to do, there is no need for a “purposive” interpretation, as it would in fact be an inappropriate re-writing of the article.

2. Based on the current expert opinions and scientific studies it does not seem (based on the balance of probabilities) that geranium oil contains methylhexaneamine.

3. If the athlete fails to establish the source of the specified substance in his/her sample, i.e. how the prohibited substance entered his/her system, he/she cannot benefit of an ineligibility period reduction or elimination.

4. Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the athlete or other person, the federation or Anti-Doping Organization imposing the sanction may start the period of ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred.

5. It would be incongruous to the definition of ineligibility if an athlete were permitted to retain his/her results, including medals, points and prizes, during any period of ineligibility, even during a period that has been backdated.

In June 2011 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Angela Covert after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylphentylamine).

The Athlete submitted that she used a nasal spray (Euvanol Spray), due to she suffered from a fractured nose injury to stop the bleeding. The prohibited substance was not listed as an ingredient on the label and she had no intention to enhance her sport performance.
Based on the written material the FEI Tribunal decided on 4 September 2012 to sanction the Athlete with a reprimand and a fine of CHF 500.

Hereafter on 24 October 2012 WADA appealed the FEI decision of 4 September 2012 with the Court of Arbitation (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the FEI decision, to sanction the Athlete with a 2 year period of ineligibility and to disqualify her results.

Considering the evidence and statements, the CAS Panel finds it highly unlikely that the methylhexaneamine found in the Athlete’s sample could come from one bottle of Euvanol, used by the Athlete over the course of a week. As a result the Athlete has failed to establish the source of the substance in het sample and cannot rely on reduction or elimination of het sanction.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 January 2014 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 24 October 2012 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the Federation Equestre Internationale Tribunal dated 4 September 2012 is set aside.
3.) The Athlete Ms. Angela Covert is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, which shall commence on 30 June 2011.
4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Angela Covert from 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2013, including the results of the CS14*-W event in Spruce Meadows AB (Calgary, Canada), shall be disqualified with all the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any edals, points and prizes.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1’000 paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which shall be retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
6.) Each party shall bear her/its own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
7.) All other prayers of relief are dismissed.

Facts
The French Ice Hockey Federation (Fédération Française de Hockey sur Glace, FFHG) charges respondent M40 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a training on November 19, 2007, respondent didn't attend a doping test.

History
The respondent didn't attend the doping test because of his disappointment for not being selected to get a certificate as physical trainer and he was afraid of a positive test because he had used creatine to create more muscle mass.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of twenty months in which the respondent can't take place in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFHG.
2. The period of ineligibility will be reduced by the period already served in voluntary suspension.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation of Bullfighting (Federation Française de course camarguaise, FFCC) charges respondent M39 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on July 15, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of metabolites of cannabis and of cocaine. These substances are prohibited according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent blames the samplers for negligence, they were handling eight athletes that needed to be tested. He even wants a DNA test to prove that the taken samples came out of his body. He even contacts the samplers to make them admit the circumstances where in poor conditions.
However there was no proof of any errors during the sample collecting procedure.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFCC, as pronounced in the decision of September 24, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFCC.
2. The period of ineligibility should be reduced with the time already served by the decision of September 24, 2007, by the disciplinary committee of the FFCC.
3. The decision start on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Cycling Federation (Fédération Française de Cyclisme, FFC) charges respondent M37 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a cycling event on December 2, 2007, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. They are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent didn't provide any information about how the prohibited substances had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFC.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.