CAS 1999_A_223 ITF vs Petr Korda

31 Aug 1999

CAS 99/A/223 International Tennis Federation (ITF) / K.

  • Tennis
  • Doping (nandrolone)
  • Collection procedure
  • Exceptional circumstances

1. Pursuant to the ITF Anti-doping Programme, any deviation or deviations from the anti-doping control procedures, including, but not limited to, sample collection, chain-of-custody or laboratory analysis, do not invalidate any finding, procedure or positive test result, unless that deviation or deviations raises a material doubt as to the reliability of the finding, procedure, decision or positive test result.

2. It is for the ITF to establish with appropriately convincing evidence the existence of a doping offence, including compliance with anti-doping control procedures. A player who seeks to rely upon 'Exceptional Circumstances' to mitigate penalty must do so on the balance of probabilities. Exceptional circumstances are defined to mean that circumstances occurred in which the player had no knowledge that he had taken or been administered the prohibited substance found in his body.



In March 1999 the ITF filed an Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the light sanction imposed on K. after his A and B samples tested positive for 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 August 1999:

1.) The appeal by the ITF is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Appeals Committee of the ITF of 22 December 1998 shall be modified as follows:
K. is suspended for a period of 12 months from 1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000.
(...)

CAS 2011_A_2518 Robert Kendrick vs ITF

10 Nov 2011

CAS 2011/A/2518 Robert Kendrick v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Related case:

ITF 2011 ITF vs Robert Kendrick
July 29, 2011


  • Tennis
  • Doping (methylhexaneamine)
  • Specified substance
  • Scope of the panel’s powers in an appeal procedure
  • No Fault or Negligence
  • No Significant Fault or Negligence

1. Where, as is the case with Article R57 of the Code, rules or legislation confer on an appellate body full power to review the facts and the law, no deference to the tribunal below is required beyond the customary caution appropriate where the tribunal had a particular advantage, such as technical expertise or the opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses. This is not, of course to say that the independence, expertise and quality of the first instance tribunal or the quality of its decision will be irrelevant to a CAS panel. The more cogent and well-reasoned the decision itself, the less likely a CAS panel would be to overrule it; nor will a CAS panel concern itself in its appellate capacity with the periphery rather than the core of such a decision. However, the fact that a CAS panel might not lightly overrule the decision of a first instance tribunal, would not mean that there is in principle any inhibition on its power to do so.

2. To succeed with a plea of “No Fault or Negligence”, an athlete must show that he or she used “utmost caution” to keep him- or herself clean of any prohibited substances, i.e. that the athlete did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had ingested the prohibited substance. The athlete must show that he or she has fully complied with this duty of utmost caution, that is, that he or she has made every conceivable effort to avoid taking a prohibited substance and that the substance got into his or her system despite all due care on his or part.

3. The major difference regarding a plea of “No Significant Fault or Negligence” in a Specified Substance case compared to a Prohibited Substance case is that there is no 50% cap limiting a panel’s discretion to reduce the presumptive period of ineligibility. Instead, the Panel can make whatever reduction it considers properly reflects the athlete’s degree of fault, within the zero to 24 month spectrum. The analysis of relative fault is exactly the same that is made by reference to the degree to which the athlete has departed from the standards of behaviour expected of him or her.



On 29 July 2011 the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 12 month period of inelgibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 4-Methylhexan-2-amine (methylhexaneamine, 1,3-dimethylamylamine, 1,3 DMAA). Undisputed in this case was that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete used the product Zija to counteract the negative effects of jetlag.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the ITF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete admitted the violations and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction.

The Panel assessed and addressed whether there should be any deferece to the Appealed Decision and whether the Athlete's degree of fault merits a reduction or change of the period of ineligibility of 12 months imposed by the ITF Decision.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the evidence which was not before the ITF panel, the CAS Panel finds that the 12 month sanction imposed by the ITF Decision was too severe. This Panel has not, however, been persuaded that a 3 month sanction, put forward by the Athlete, would be appropriate.

Having regard to Athlete’s degree of fault and, to both the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, the Panel concludes that an appropriate sanction would be a period of Ineligibility of 8 months.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 November 2011:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Robert Kendrick on 2 August 2011 against the International Tennis Federation (ITF) concerning the decision taken by the International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal on 29 July 2011 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the International Tennis Federation Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of 29 July 2011 is set aside.

3.) Mr Robert Kendrick is suspended for a period of eight months from 22 May 2011.

4.) Mr Robert Kendrick’s individual results obtained at the French Open 2011 are disqualified. The 10 ranking points and EUR 15,000 in prize money obtained by Mr Robert Kendrick at the French Open 2011 are forfeited.

5.) Mr Robert Kendrick is permitted to retain the prize money obtained by him from his participation in the subsequent UNICEF Open.

(…)

8.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2006_A_1130 WADA vs Darko Stanic & Swiss Olympic

4 Jan 2007

CAS 2006/A/1130 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Darko Stanic & Swiss Olympic

  • Handball
  • Doping (benzoylecgonine; methylecgonine)
  • Athlete’s burden of establishing how the prohibited substance entered her/his body
  • Applicable standard of proof

1. In attempting to establish “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence”, an athlete must in all events meet the precondition of establishing how the prohibited substance entered her/his system. This precondition is important and necessary; otherwise an athlete’s degree of diligence or absence of fault would be examined in relation to circumstances that are speculative and that could be partly or entirely made up. To allow any such speculation as to the circumstances in which an athlete ingested a prohibited substance would undermine the strict liability principle.

2. The balance of probabilities is the most adequate standard of proof to apply where an athlete is seeking to establish how a substance entered her/his system because the principle of strict liability under which a positive test creates a presumption of fault is already demanding on athletes.



On 6 July 2006 the disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the handball player Darko Stanic after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. The disciplinary Chamber accepted that the Athlete out-of-competition had smoked a cigarette while he was unaware the it contained Cocaine.

Hereafter in July 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Swiss Olympic decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Since the existence of a doping offence as defined by Swiss Olympic’s doping Statute is not contested, the only question to examine is whether the Athlete was correctly sanctioned for such offence by the disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic, under the applicable rules.

The Panel considers that on the balance of probabilities the Athlete has clearly not provided evidence making it more probable than not that Cocaine or crack entered his system as a result of him smoking a cigarette that he asked a stranger for in a discotheque.

As a result the Panel finds that the Athlete has not met the conditions required to prove lack of fault or no significant negligence. Consequently the Panel deems that the Athlete must be suspended for a period of two years.

The Panel would like to stress that this finding does not imply or mean that the Athlete has been untruthful or that he intentionally doped himself. It simply means that he did not meet the burden of proving how the Cocaine entered his system, as required by the applicable rules based on the principle of strict liability.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 January 2007 that:

1.) The decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic dated 6 July 2006 is set aside.

2.) Darko Stanic shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 22 May 2006.

(…).

CAS 2006_A_1133 WADA vs Michel Stauber & Swiss Olympic

18 Dec 2006

CAS 2006/A/1133 WADA v/Michel Stauber & Swiss Olympic


In April 2006 Swiss Olympic reported an anti-doping rule violation against the amateur handball player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Following the positive test the Athlete was granted a TUE for the prescribed use of the medication Co-Diovan© for the treatment of his High Blood Pressure. Furthermore in July 2006 the Athlete retired from handball.

On 6 July 2006, the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to impose only a warning and a reprimand considering the prescribed medication Co-Diovan© was used for a Legitimate Medical Treatment.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Swiss Olympic decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel rendered a decision based on the written submissions on the Parties.

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a minimum 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that he was unaware the prescribed medication Co-Diovan© contained a prohibited substance.

The Athlete's team doctor, a specialist in sport medicine, testified and confirmed his failure to check this medication. As a result he made no application for a TUE nor informed the Athlete about this medication containing a prohibited substance.

In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence in view of the prescribed medication he used for his high blood pressure as Legitimate Medical Treatment. Under the Rules the Panel deems there are grounds for a reduced sanction, starting on the date of the Athlete's retirement.

Therefore on 18 December 2012 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA is admissible;

2.) The decision rendered on 6 July 2006 by the Disciplinary Chamber for doping cases of Swiss Olympic is set aside;

3.) Mr Stauber is suspended for a period of one year, i.e. the minimum period of ineligibility provided for by the Statute. The period of ineligibility shall start retroactively from May 31, 2006;

4.) Each party shall bear all of its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this arbitration.

CAS 2007_A_1413 WADA vs FIG & Nadzeya Vysotskaya

20 Jun 2008

CAS 2007/A/1413 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) & Nadzeya Vysotskaya

  • Gymnastics
  • Doping (furosemide)
  • Time limit to appeal a decision according to the WADA Rules
  • Doping offense and intended purpose for using the prohibited substance
  • Minor athletes and elimination or reduction of the fault or negligence

1. Provisions set out in the rules governing sports associations may derogate to Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code. In particular, they may provide for a different statute of limitations or they may provide that the time limit starts to run when the decision has been formally notified to the appellant. In this respect, the mere fact that a press release was posted on the FIG’s website is in itself not sufficient to impose a good faith obligation on WADA to enquire about a decision issued by such federation.

2. In accordance with Article 2.1.1 of the FIG Antidoping Rules, the presence of a prohibited substance, such as furosemide, in the bodily specimens of a gymnast is sufficient in itself to constitute a doping offence. In this respect, the intended purpose for using the substance is irrelevant.

3. The fact that a gymnast was a minor at the time s/he was tested does not constitute either a circumstance eliminating or reducing his/her fault or negligence. The FIG Antidoping Rules do not anticipate a different regime for minors. There is no automatic exception based on age. Such an exception is not spelled out in the Rules and would not only potentially cause unequal treatment of gymnasts, but could also put in peril the whole framework and logic of anti-doping rules, not least in the light of the fact that in gymnastics (like in other sport) it is not uncommon to have minors compete at the highest level.


In September 2006 the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Belarussian gymnast after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

Consequently the FIG Disciplinary Commission decided on 12 November 2006 to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete, from 13 May 2006 unit 31 December 2006.

Hereafter in September 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FIG Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Preliminary the Panel concludes that WADA's appeal is admissible due to FIG had not timely notified its decisions to WADA. As a result it had received the Appealed Decision in September 2007, almost one year after it had been rendered.

The Panel holds that it is undisputed that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Panel deems that the mere statement by the Athlete is far from sufficient to establish how Furosemide had entered her body since in essence her defense is limited to a speculative suggestion that her drink could have been spiked, without any evidence of any such action.

Although the Athlete was a minor at the time she was tested the Panel regards that under the Rules there are no grounds for elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 June 2008:

1.) The decision of the FIG Disciplinaiy Commission of 12 November 2006 is set aside.

2.) Ms Nadzeya Vysotskaya is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, starting on 12 September 2006 and ending on 12 September 2008.

3.) All results achieved during the foregoing period of ineligibility are disqualified and any medals, points and prizes obtained are forfeited.

4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served on the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne jointly by the FIG and Ms Nadzeya Vysotskaya.

5.) The FIG and Ms Nadzeya Vysotskaya shall pay jointly to WADA an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as compensation for expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS OG_2000_11 Andreea Raducan vs IOC

28 Sep 2000

CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Sydney) 00/011 Andreea Raducan / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related cases:

  • IOC 2000 IOC vs Andreea Raducan & Oana Ioachin
    September 26, 2000
  • Swiss Federal Court 5P_427_2000 Andreea Raducan vs IOC
    December 4, 2000


Gymnastics
Doping (pseudoephedrine)
Disqualification from the event
Principle of strict liability


1. The discrepancy in the volume of urine reported in the doping control form and by the laboratory cannot reasonably be considered to have affected the results of what is a valid test, provided that the laboratory received sufficient volume of urine to conduct a valid analysis.

2. The Anti-Doping Code considers doping as a strict liability offence. This means that no intentional element is required to establish a doping offence. The mere presence of a forbidden substance in the urine sample is sufficient. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the CAS.

3. To establish a doping offence, it is not required to demonstrate that a competitive advantage was reached.



Ms Andreea Raducan is a Romanian minor Athlete (16) competing in the Gymnastics (Artistic) Women’s Individual All-Around event at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

On 25 September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the IOC threshold.

After hearing the IOC Medical Commission and the IOC Executive Board established that the minor Athlete suffered from a headach, a running nose and a feeling of congestion. As treatment the team physician prescribed and provided to the Athlete a Nurofen Cold and Flu tablet on 20 and 21 September 2000.

Consequently the IOC Executive Board decides on 26 September 2000 to disqualify the Athlete including withdrawal of her medal and diploma.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the CAS ad hoc Division at the Sydney Olympic Games.
The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the IOC decision of 26 september 2000 and for restoring the gold medal and diploma to the Athlete.

The Athlete accepted the test results and the validity of the samples analysis. However she argued that the sample volume of urine was unclear and not in accordance with the Anti-Doping Code and as a result the test result should be invalidated. Further she contended that she was not responsible for the anti-doping rule violation since the Nurofen was provided by her team physician.

The Panel finds the minor irregularity revealed in the record showing the volume of urine taken cannot reasonably be considered to have affected the results of what is a valid test. The Panel further finds, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the volume of urine reported, the laboratory received sufficient volume of urine to conduct a valid anaysis.

Also the Panel finds the subjective elements argued in the attack on the finding of doping by the IOC do not affect the decision on the existence of a doping offence and are submissions only related to the assessment of any disciplinary sanction imposed.

Therefore the CAS ad hoc Division decides on 28 September 2000:

1.) The Panel is aware of the impact its decision will have on a fine, young, elite athlete. It finds, in balancing the interests of Miss Raducan with the commitment of the Olympic Movement to drug-free sport, the Anti-Doping Code must be enforced without compromise.

2.) Accordingly, the Panel finds:

  • a. The application is dismissed.
  • b. The decision of the IOC of 26 September 2000 is upheld.

CAS 2011_A_2403 WADA vs FIG & Anastasiya Melnychenko

25 Aug 2011

CAS 2011/A/2403 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) & Anastasiya Melnychenko

  • Gymnastics
  • Doping (furosemide)
  • Panel’s evaluation of experts working on the account of one of the parties
  • Panel’s considerations before imposing the appropriate sanction on the athlete

1. When appraising conclusions raised by experts working on the account of one of the parties, a panel takes into consideration the fact that such persons are not acting as independent experts in the case.

2. An athlete bears a high responsibility in the choice of his medical attendant and caution must be exercised in the ingestion of medication. However, for an athlete of 15 years of age at the time of the offence, much of the responsibility normally accorded to the athlete must be expected of the athlete’s coaches and the federation. When considering the appropriate sanction, the panel must also consider if the decision relating to the health of the athlete had to be taken quickly, or if the athlete did ask the treating doctor whether the medication prescribed could lead to a violation and the response given was inaccurate.



In December 2010 the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Ukrainian Athlete Anastasiya Melnychenko after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. The Athlete admitted the use of prescribed medication Lasix when she underwent treatment in a hospital.

Consequently the FIG Disciplinary Commission decided on 25 February 2010 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Hereafter in April 2010 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FIG Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Undisputed in this case between the parties is that the medication Lasix was justifiably prescribed for the treatment of the Athlete's medical condition.

The Panel determines that it was justified for the FIG Disciplinary Commission to reduce the standard period of ineligibility and to exercise its discretion under Article 10.4 of the FIG Rules, however not to the extent they did.

The Panel considers that a suspension of 4 months from the date of the present award, less the 2-month ban already served would better reflect the seriousness of the offense, the fundamental responsibility of the athlete and her young age and lack of experience.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 August 2011:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 7 April 2011 against the decision issued on 25 February 2011 by the FIG Disciplinary Commission is partially upheld.

2.) The FIG Disciplinary Commission’s decision dated 25 February 2011 is set aside.

3.) Ms Anastasiya Melnychenko is sanctioned with a 4-month period of ineligibility as from the date of the present award; any period of ineligibility already served from 25 February 2011 to the date of this award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6. All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2008_A_1607 Kaisa Varis vs International Biathlon Union

13 Mar 2009

CAS 2008/A/1607 Kaisa Varis v. International Biathlon Union (IBU)

CAS 2008/A/1607 Varis v/ IBU

  • Biathlon
  • Doping (EPO)
  • Second violation of an anti-doping rule
  • Right to attend or have the athlete’s representative attend the B’ sample opening and analysis

An athlete’s right to be given a reasonable opportunity to observe the opening and testing of a “B” sample is of sufficient importance that needs to be enforced even in situations where all of the other evidence available indicates that the Appellant committed an anti-doping rule violation. Especially in cases where the Athlete is facing a lifetime ban as the result of an alleged anti-doping rule violation and because of the significance of the consequences of such ban for the Athlete, it is important that procedures are followed correctly and that information concerning the rights and remedies of an athlete is communicated clearly.



On 11 February 2008 the International Biathlon Union (IBU) decided to impose a lifetime ban on the Athlete Kaisa Varis as a second violation after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoietin (EPO).
Previously in May 2003 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years also after she tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter in July 2008 both the Athlete and the IBU appeald this decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The athlete asserts that the decision of the IBU Executive Board should be overruled and either

  • (a) the Appellant’s B sample taken in a doping test on 6 January 2008 in Oberhof, Germany, should be analysed in accordance with IBU Anti-Doping Rules section 7.2.3e (WADA Code, section 7.2) in the presence of the Appellant’s “biochemical” representative; or
  • (b) if that were not possible, the sanctions imposed by the IBU should be declared null and void.

Following assessment of the case the CAS Panel determines that an athlete’s right to be given a reasonable opportunity to observe the opening and testing of a “B” sample is of sufficient importance that it needs to be enforced even in situations where all of the other evidence available indicates that the Appellant committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 March 2009:

1.) The appeal filed by Ms Kaisa Varis on 15 July 2008 is allowed.

2.) The decision rendered by the IBU Executive Board on 11 February 2008 is annulled.

(…)

CAS 2009_A_1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU

12 Nov 2009
  • CAS 2009/A/1931 E. & A. v. International Biathlon Union (IBU)
  • CAS 2009/A/1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
  • CAS 2009/A/1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova v. International Biathlon
    Union

Related cases:

  • IBU 2009 IBU vs Albina Akhatova
    August 11, 2009
  • IBU 2009 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
    August 11, 2009
  • IBU 2013 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
    July 14, 2014
  • IBU 2014 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
    June 30, 2015
  • Swiss Federal Court 4A_620_2009 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
    May 7, 2010

  • Biathlon
  • Doping (recombinant EPO)
  • Definition of the International Standards for Laboratories (ISL)
  • Use of the most recent state of the art technology and knowledge
  • Duty of the accredited laboratories in applying the standards
  • No more requirement that a different analyst perform the analytical procedures
  • Principle of lex mitior

1. The ISL is a mandatory level 2 International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADAC). The ISL includes requirements for WADA accreditation of doping laboratories, operating standards for laboratory performance and description of the accreditation process. Its main purpose is to ensure laboratory production of valid test results and evidentiary data. It is also intended to ensure that the accredited laboratories achieve uniform and harmonized results and reporting thereon. The ISL, including all Annexes and Technical Documents, is mandatory for all Signatories to the WADAC. The ISL is therefore not directly applicable to athletes but rather to the signatories to the WADAC.

2. The laboratories must always use the most recent state of the art technology and knowledge to identify prohibited substances and methods. The ISL is intended also to ensure that the accredited laboratories achieve uniform and harmonized results and reporting thereon. Therefore, the ISL ought to indicate that the use of the most recent state of the art technology and knowledge will be used in testing, particularly in a transitional period between use of an existing and effective TD and a replacing one.

3. It is the duty of the accredited WADA laboratories to be strict in meeting the requirements of the ISL and applying the standards.

4. The 2009 ISL removed the requirement that a different analyst perform the analytical procedures. The only requirement of article 5.2.4.3.2.2 in the 2009 ISL is that the “B” sample confirmation shall be performed in the same laboratory as the “A” sample confirmation.

5. The principle of lex mitior is generally understood to mean that, if the law relevant to the offence of the accused has been amended, the less severe law should be applied. Therefore, the principle of lex mitior relates more specifically to the applicable sanction and is not applicable to the technical rules underlying the scientific basis of the evidence.



In December 2008 the International Biathlon Union (IBU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the two Russian Athletes Ekaterina Iourieva and Albina Akhatova after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).

After notifitcation a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athletes were heard for the IBU Doping Hearing Panel. On 11 August 2009 the ISU Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes Ekaterina Iourieva and Albina Akhatova, starting on the date of the sample collection.

Hereafter in August 2009 the Athletes appealed the IBU decision of 11 August 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

They argued that the laboratory failed to analyse the samples and to report the test results in conformity with the 2008 ISL and related Technical Documents (TD).

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel establishes  no departures from the applicable ISL and its accompanying technical documents. Without diminishing the importance of improvement in the future the aspect of meeting the “Documentation and Reporting” aspects of the ISL and the description of the analytical finding, the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) of the Lab in this case can be fully relied upon by the sanctioning and reviewing bodies.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 November 2009 that:

1.) The Appeal of Ms Ekaterina Iourieva and Ms Albina Akatova is dismissed.

2.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the Appellants, which is retained by the CAS.

3.) Ms Ekaterina Iourieva and Ms Albina Akatova shall each pay the IBU a contribution towards the legal fees of the IBU in the amount of CHF 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss Francs), within 30 (thirty) days of notification of this award.

CAS 2009_A_1892 WADA vs CONI, Ronaldo Slay & Guillermo Diaz Gonzalez

7 Jan 2010

CAS 2009/A/1892 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Ronaldo Sylvester Slay & Guillermo Jose Diaz Gonzalez

  • Basketball
  • Doping (failure or refusal to submit to doping control
  • Insufficient evidence establishing a liability


“Refusal” or “failure” to submit to doping control or an “otherwise evading a doping control” has not been established according to the applicable comfortable satisfaction standard of proof when the evidence submitted is not sufficient to establish that the athletes were told in an unequivocal and understandable manner not to leave the doping control station so as to enable them to understand that they would be in breach of their duties if they did so.



In November 2008 the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball players Ronaldo Slay and Guillermo Diaz Gonzalez for their refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

Consequently the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 8 May 2009 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

Hereafter WADA appealed the CONI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Panel deems that WADA has not succeeded in establishing when and in what form the Athletes were made aware that they were told let alone directed not to leave the anti-doping station in a manner which enabled them to understand that they would be in breach of their duties if they did so.

Furthermore the Panel is not satisfied that even if it were established that the Athletes left the doping control station despite an unequivocal instruction not to do so, the behaviour of the Athletes would constitute a “refusal” or a “failure” or an “otherwise evading” under Article 2.3 of the CONI Anti-Doping Rules.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 January 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 24 June 2009 is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued by the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal on 8 May 2009 is upheld.

3.) (…).

4.) All further or other prayers for relief are dismissed.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin