TAS 2002/A/363 Pastorello c./USADA

Related case:

AAA 2001 No. 31 190 00164 01 USADA vs Joseph Pastorello
Janaury 15, 2002

In March 2001 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone) due to a supplement he had used.

Consequently on 21 December the American Arbitration Association Panel decided to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2002 the Athlete appealed the AAA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance, nor that he acted negligently and therefore had not breached the AIBA Doping Regulations. He asserted that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positiv test.

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Following assessment of the case the Panel has considerable misgivings about the AAA's reduction of the sanction below the mandatory minimum, as well as about the condition imposed as a purported justification for that reduction and the jurisdictïon to impose such a condition. The Panel concludes, with considerable reluctance, that, on this occasion, it should not interfere with the AAA's decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 June 2002:

1.) The appeal fïled by Joseph Pastorello on the 7 February 2002 is dismissed.

2.) The decision of the AAA Panel dated the 18 January 2002 is affirmed.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500- (five hundted Swiss, Francs) paid by the Appellant, which is retainted by the CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

J. Banke, P. M. Prodinger, S. Waldt, G. Weirich, B. M. Holzapfel, R. Gradinger, H. Rechl
Int J Sports Med 2012; 33(10): 829-834

Abstract

Intramuscular oil injections generating slowly degrading oil-based depots represent a controversial subject in bodybuilding and fitness. However they seem to be commonly reported in a large number of non-medical reports, movies and application protocols for ‘site-injections'. Surprisingly the impact of long-term (ab)use on the musculature as well as potential side-effects compromising health and sports ability are lacking in the medical literature. We present the case of a 40 year old male semi-professional bodybuilder with systemic infection and painful reddened swellings of the right upper arm forcing him to discontinue weightlifting. Over the last 8 years he daily self-injected sterilized sesame seed oil at numerous intramuscular locations for the purpose of massive muscle building. Whole body MRI showed more than 100 intramuscular rather than subcutaneous oil cysts and loss of normal muscle anatomy. 2-step septic surgery of the right upper arm revealed pus-filled cystic scar tissue with the near-complete absence of normal muscle. MRI 1 year later revealed the absence of relevant muscle regeneration. Persistent pain and inability to perform normal weight training were evident for at least 3 years post-surgery. This alarming finding indicating irreversible muscle mutilation may hopefully discourage people interested in bodybuilding and fitness from oil-injections. The impact of such chronic tissue stress on other diseases like malignancy remains to be determined

CAS A2/2011 Kurt Foggo v. National Rugby League (NRL)

• Rugby
• Doping (1,3-dimethylpentylamine)
• Lex mitior
• Interpretation of “intent to enhance sport performance”
• Corroborating evidence
• Standard of proof
• Duty of utmost caution of the athlete

1. The doctrine of lex mitior permits a disciplinary tribunal to apply current sanctions to the case before it if those sanctions are less severe than those which existed at the time of the offence.

2. Having regard to the context of the rules as a whole, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in Rule 154 (WADC 10.4): “that such specified substance was not intended to enhance the Athlete’s sport performance” is to require the athlete to show that the ingestion of the product which contained the specified substance was not intended to enhance his sport performance. The time at which the absence of intent is to be shown is the time of ingestion of the substance. The athlete must negate an intention at that time to enhance his or her performance in the relevant sport by the taking of the substance. The rule focuses on the nexus or link between the taking of the substance and the performance as a player of the sport. Whether or not the link will be established will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Rule 154 (WADC 10.4) would not be satisfied if an athlete believes that the ingestion of the substance will enhance his or her sport performance although the athlete does not know that the substance contains a banned ingredient. The athlete must demonstrate that the substance “was not intended to enhance” the athlete’s performance. The mere fact that the athlete did not know that the substance contained a prohibited ingredient does not establish absence of intent.

3. Rule 154 (WADC 10.4) also requires the production of corroboration evidence in addition to the athlete’s word which establish “…the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance”. Accordingly, the corroborating evidence must be sufficient to demonstrate the absence of intent, e.g. conduct inconsistent with intent at the relevant time. This is to be determined by the hearing panel undertaking an objective evaluation of the evidence as to the facts and circumstances relevant to the issue of intention.

4. Where the Policy or the WADC places the burden of proof upon the athlete to rebut a presumption or to establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof borne by the athlete is a balance of probability. But the athlete must satisfy “a higher burden of proof” when the athlete seeks an elimination or reduction in the period of ineligibility under Rule 154 or WADC 10.4.

5. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the athlete is under a continuing personal duty to ensure that ingestion of a product will not be in violation of the Code. Ignorance is no excuse. To guard against unwitting or unintended consumption of a prohibited or specified substance, it would always be prudent for the athlete to make reasonable inquiries on an ongoing basis while ever the athlete uses the product.

In October 2010 the National Rugby Leage (NRL) reported an anti-doping rule violaton against the rugby player Kurt Foggo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Becaus of his use of the supplement Jack-3d the NRL Tribunal decided on 15 November 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2011 the Athlete appealed the NRL decision with the Oceania Registry 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 accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. Undisputed is that the supplement Jack-3d he had used was the source of the prohibited substance.

The Athlete asserted that on the ASADA website 1,3-dimethylamylamine, also known as Methylhexaneamine, could not be identified as constituent ingredient in Jack-3D. The NRI contended that the Athlete failed, deliberately or otherwise, to make enquiries as to the content of the supplement and so claiming ignorance of the violation.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues:

• The Athlete's intention to enhance sports performance;
• The existence of corroborating evidence;
• The Relevant Tests under Rules 154 and 156 of the Policy/Article 10.4 and Article 10.5.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code

The Arbitrator determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The doctrine of lex mitior is applicable in this case.
• The prohibited substance was an ingredient of the supplement Jack-3d.
• The Athlete's use of the supplement Jack-3d was not intentional.
• Although it was not on the ASADA website, when the Athlete had conducted more exhaustive inquiries he may have been able to locate information about the product which could have alerted him to the risk of violation if he used it.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 May 2015:

1.) The appeal filed on 15 February 2011 by Kurt Foggo against the decision of the National Rugby League (NRL) Tribunal of 15 November 2010 is declared admissible and is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the NRL Tribunal is amended as follows: The period of ineligibility of Kurt Foggo shall be 6 months from 11 October 2010.

(…)

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

CAS 2008/A/1652 Appeal by WADA v Mr Luke Troy & ARU
CAS 2008/A/1664 Appeal by IRB v Mr Luke Troy

Related cases:

• CAS 2008_A_1664 IRB vs Luke Troy & ARU - Final Award
  August 6, 2009
• CAS 2008_A_1664 IRB vs Luke Troy & ARU - Partial Award
  August 6, 2009

In September 2008 both the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Ruby Board (IRB) appealed a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Austrailian Rugby Union (ARU). In this Appealed Decision the Judicial Committee decided to dismiss an allegation that Mr. Luke Troy had committed and anti-doping rule violation under the ARU Anti- Doping By-Law, Clauses 5.2.2 and 5.2.6.

WADA requested that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) conduct a de novo hearing on the issues in accordance with the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (CAS Code) and sought a finding that Mr. Luke Troy had committed an anti-doping rule violation by purchasing over the internet the prohibited substances DHEA and testosterone-1.

The CAS Panel determines that WADA has failed to seek a review within the time provided for in the ARU By-law and therefore has also failed to comply with R47 of the CAS Code which requires that an appellate has exhausted the legal remedies available to him prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulation of the sports-related body.

By contrast the Panel determines that the appeal by the IRB was made within the set time limits contained in IRB 21.

Therefort Court of Arbilration for Sport decides on 18 March 2009:

1.) The appeal by WADA (CAS 2008/A/1652) is inadmissible and is dismissed.

2.) The appeal by IRB (CAS 2008/A/1664) is admissible.

TAS 2002/A/378 Filippo Simeoni vs. UCl and FCI
CAS 2002/A/378 S. / Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and Federazione Ciclista Italiana (FCI)

• Cycling
• Acknowledgement of doping
• Duration of the suspension/probation period
• Calculation of the period of inactivity of the rider

1. The UCI Antidoping Examination Regulations (AER) apply to all licence holders irrespective of whether they admitted having been doped on the occasion of a specific race.

2. The period of normal inactivity should be construed restrictively, and should only be applied if there are no races during the period that the rider would otherwise participate in.

3. According to UCI AER, a probation to a sanctioned cyclist may be granted by CAS. In the present case, the athlete, who admitted having used prohibited and doping substances, did contribute in a relevant way to the fight against doping, insofar as he broke the «wall of silence» and contributed with his testimony to the criminal indictment and sporting penalisation of other people.

The Appellant, Filippo Simeoni, is a professional road cyclist. He is an Italian citizen and holder of a licence issued by the FCI. In the context of an investigation conducted by the Italian criminal authorities on the use of doping substances in cycling, the Athlete was called to testify as a witness in July 1999. In the course of that investigation, he admitted having used prohibited and doping substances from November 1996 until July 1997, at a time when his medical support was provided by Dr. Ferrari.

As a consequence of his anti-doping violation the FCI decided on 6 December 2001 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. However the UCI Commission Antidopage decided to set aside the FCI decision and imposed on 10 April 2002 a fine of CHF 2'000.- and a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In April 2002l the Athlete appealed the imposed sanction with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and made the following assertions:

a) By rendering its decision of 10 April 2002 «automatically», the UCI violated fundamental rights of defence of the Appellant, i.e. his right to a fair trial and to cross-examination, the principle of ne bis in idem, the principle of separation between the investigating body and the disciplinary authority;

b) The UCI, by rendering its decision on 10 April 2002, did not act in due course and infringed upon the principle of certainty of law;

c) The rules on which the UCI based its decision of 10 April 2002 were either not in force or not applicable;

d) The UCI made an erroneous calculation of the period of inactivity applied in the Appellant’s case;

e) The Appellant should be rewarded for his co-operation and spontaneous recognition of his faults and, therefore, should have been granted probation.

The Panel feels that the Athlete did not show a fully co-operative and spontaneous behaviour since he only admitted having used doping substances in the course of the criminal investigation and, subsequently, he did not disclose this fact immediately to the national and international cycling bodies.

However, the Athlete did contribute in a relevant way to the fight against doping, insofar as he broke the «wall of silence» and contributed with his testimony to the criminal indictment and sporting penalisation of other people – in particular, one well-known physician – responsible of doping practices. The Panel concluded to follow the UCI’s proposal and to grant probation for two months to the Appellant.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the Panel holds that the term of suspension of the Athlete must be calculated.

• Beginning of the suspension: on the day following the decision of suspension rendered by the FCI: 24 November 2001.
• Minimum suspension of six months starting from 24 November 2001, thus ending on 24 May 2002.
• Period of inactivity for the Athlete.: from 24 November 2001 till 20 January 2002, i.e. 58 days to be added to the term of suspension.
• End of the term of suspension taking into account the period of inactivity of The Athlete (24 May 2002 plus 58 days): 21 July 2002.
• Addition of the period of time between 6 March 2002 and 10 April 2002 during which the Athlete was under no suspension and was free to compete (35 days): 25 August 2002.
• Reduction of two months of the term of suspension as a probation period: 25 June 2002 (end of the term of effective suspension imposed on the Appellant).

Therefore on 8 August 2002 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that:

1.) The Appeal filed by the Athlete, on 16 April 2002 is partially admitted.

2.) The Athlete is suspended, taking into account a period of inactivity, from 24 November 2001 until 25 June 2002. The fine of CHF 2'000.- is confirmed.

3. (...).

CAS 2008/A/1489 Despres v/CCES
CAS 2008/A/1510 WADA v/Despres, CES & Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton

CAS 2008/A/1489 Serge Despres v. Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport (CCES) & CAS 2008/A/1510 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Serge Despres, CCES & Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton (BCS)

Related case:

SDRCC 2007 CCES vs Serge Despres
January 31, 2008

• Bobsleigh
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Significant fault or negligence
• Enhancement of sport performance
• Proportionality of the sanction
• Starting date of the sanction

1. The athlete who did not contact the manufacturer of a nutritional supplement directly to seek a guarantee before ingesting it, has not taken a clear and obvious precaution. Simply believing such guarantees to be generic fails to explain why he/she did not take this additional, prescribed step. As a consequence, the athlete has not exercised a standard of care meriting a “no significant fault or negligence” reduction to the mandated two year period of ineligibility. The advice of a team nutritionist also constitutes an inadequate claim for establishing “no significant fault or negligence”.

2. The ingestion of a nutritional supplement for faster recovery after a surgery is a performance-related reason.

3. The proportionality doctrine gives the CAS panels flexibility in cases involving extreme or exceptional circumstances. As the risk of contamination in nutritional supplements is widely known, the circumstances surrounding an athlete’s adverse analytical finding are neither extreme nor unique in such case. As a result, there is no reason to reduce the two-year suspension period required under the applicable regulations.

4. Whatever effects a two-year ineligibility period would have on an athlete’s ability to qualify for the Olympics or any other competition should in the ordinary course not have any bearing on when the ineligibility period begins or how long it lasts. An athlete’s personal history or how severely the penalty would impact him or her given the particularities of his or her sport cannot be taken into account when fixing the penalty. This notwithstanding, and in accordance with the applicable regulations, fairness may require that the start date of an athlete’s ineligibility be the date of his or her first sample collection.

In November 2007 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Serge Despres after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Thereupon the SDRCC Tribunal decided on 31 January 2008 to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. In first instance the Tribunal accepted that a contaminated prescribed supplement was the source of the positive test.

Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete and in March 2008 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the SDRCC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel determined that the Athlete acknowledged having made a mistake, has expressed regrets and hopes to act as a spokesperson on this issue. However, he essentially argued that whenever an athlete can prove that the supplement is contaminated, he or she should be found to have acted with “no significant fault or negligence”.

Given the numerous warning about the risks of contaminated supplements, the Panel deems that contamination alone cannot be a sufficient basis for finding “no significant fault or negligence”.

Furthermore the Panel finds that the facts of this case do not warrant a reduction in the Athlete's period of ineligibility based on a proportionality analysis. As a result, the Panel does not reduce the two-year suspension period required under the WADC and the CADP.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 September 2008 that:

1.) The award of the SDRCC of January 31, 2008 is set aside.

2.) Mr. Serge Despres is declared ineligible for a period of two years, commencing on the date of his sample collection, August 9, 2007, and concluding on August 8, 2009. All results from competition on or after August 9, 2007 shall be considered void.

3.) To the limited extent specified in the prior paragraph, each of the appeals filed by Mr. Despres on February 19, 2008 and by WADA on March 31, 2008 is upheld.

4.) (…).

5.) All other prayers for relief are rejected.

Appealed case:
ISR 2010 KNBB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2010075 T
June 1, 2011

Related cases:

ISR 2010 KNBB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2010075 TU1
March 21, 2011

ISR 2010 KNBB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2010075 TU2
April 5, 2011

The Royal Dutch Billiards Association (KNBB) has reported against this person for violating the Anti-Doping Rules of the ISR. In the A portion of the urine sample concerned is the prohibited substance benzoylecgonine (cocaine metabolite) and cocaine. In the interlocutory judgment, the Disciplinary Commission opinion on the defence of the person concerned, that the positive results of the sample is not legally valid in connection with the small amount of urine produced, maintained. The Disciplinary Committee has written ruling.

The "first sample" had a too low specific gravity and the "second sample" contained less (60 ml) than the prescribed quantity of urine (90 ml). The declaration in this disciplinary case is based on the results of the analysis of the second sample. Unlike the lawyer concerned in his defence suggests, make deviations from the DR or the IST not demonstrably led to the Adverse Analytical Finding The audit results are not valid. The prescribed amount of 90 ml is primarily dictated that there is not enough in order to prevent urine would be available in some specific cases, in which a number of additional analyzes to be carried out. This was in this case no. The "first sample" was also suitable to be analyzed. Here, too, in the A-part of cocaine. Shall have the doping control form, which clearly indicated that only 60 ml was produced, signed and checked on the form that he agreed with the procedure. The Disciplinary Committee considers the offense sufficiently plausible.

For concerned this is a second doping offense. Such cases are punishable by a period of exclusion for a period of at least eight years and a maximum of life imprisonment. The Disciplinary Committee is of the opinion that the person using cocaine the league has not seriously distorted. But there is evidence of a violation of doping rules. An exclusion of eight years in the eyes of the Disciplinary Commission to adjust. To the handling of this case costs are borne by individual charged.

Related cases:

• ISR 2010 KNBB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2010075 TU1
  March 21, 2011
• ISR 2010 KNBB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2010075 TU2
  April 5, 2011
• ISR 2010 KNBB Decision Appeal Committee 2010075 B
  November 29, 2011
  
  

The Royal Dutch Billiards Association (KNBB) has reported against this person for violating the Anti-Doping Rules of the ISR. In the A portion of the urine sample concerned is the prohibited substance benzoylecgonine (cocaine metabolite) and cocaine. In the interlocutory judgment, the Disciplinary Commission opinion on the defence of the person concerned, that the positive results of the sample is not legally valid in connection with the small amount of urine produced, maintained. The Disciplinary Committee has written ruling.
The "first sample" had a too low specific gravity and the "second sample" contained less (60 ml) than the prescribed quantity of urine (90 ml). The declaration in this disciplinary case is based on the results of the analysis of the second sample. Unlike the lawyer concerned in his defence suggests, make deviations from the DR or the IST not demonstrably led to the Adverse Analytical Finding The audit results are not valid. The prescribed amount of 90 ml is primarily dictated that there is not enough in order to prevent urine would be available in some specific cases, in which a number of additional analyzes to be carried out. This was in this case no. The "first sample" was also suitable to be analyzed. Here, too, in the A-part of cocaine. Shall have the doping control form, which clearly indicated that only 60 ml was produced, signed and checked on the form that he agreed with the procedure. The Disciplinary Committee considers the offense sufficiently plausible.
For concerned this is a second doping offense. Such cases are punishable by a period of exclusion for a period of at least eight years and a maximum of life imprisonment. The Disciplinary Committee is of the opinion that the person using cocaine the league has not seriously distorted. But there is evidence of a violation of doping rules. An exclusion of eight years in the eyes of the Disciplinary Commission to adjust. To the handling of this case costs are borne by individual charged

CAS 2005/A/990 Pobyedonostsev v/IIHF

CAS 2005/A/990 P. v. IIHF

• Ice Hockey
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Strict liability
• No fault or negligence
• Liability for failing to disclose a medical treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE

1. It is generally accepted and has been recognised by the CAS in numerous awards that the so-called strict liability principle is not objectionable under Swiss law as long as the athlete has a right to adduce counter evidence as to his/her fault or negligence in connection with his/her doping violation.

2. Art. 10.5 WADC burdens the athlete with proving the absence of (significant) fault or negligence on his/her part thus shifting the burden of proof to the athlete. This principle has been recognised by CAS as not being in violation of Swiss law. The standard of proof is a balance of probability (Art. 3.1 WADC).

3. The clear evidence that a prohibited substance was administered by the treating doctor in an emergency situation and that the athlete had no means of preventing its administration because of his/her very bad physical and psychological condition is a sufficient reason to discharge the athlete’s burden of proof of no fault or negligence in the circumstances of the case.

4. The WADC is not entirely clear as to whether the athlete has to prove that he/she is without fault or negligence not only in connection with the entering of the substance into his/her body but also in respect of that substance staying there. In other words, the question is whether an athlete is still liable for an anti-doping violation if he/she negligently fails to disclose his/her medical treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE. This question can remain unanswered in the present case due to its unique circumstances.

On 14 November 2005 the International Ice Hockey Federation Disciplinary Committee (IIHFDC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Ukranian ice hockey player Oleksandr Pobyedonstev after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IIHFDC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On the basis of the evidence the Panel finds that sufficient evidence has been provided by the Athlete that under the unique circumstances of this case he was unable to influence or control the medical treatment applied to him in an emergency situation. In these circumstances he was unable to prevent the treating doctor from administering a prohibited substance.

The Panel is thus of the opinion that the Athlete demonstrated that he was without fault or negligence for the anti-doping rule violation and that the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility must be eliminated.

The Panel holds that the Athlete would in fact have been obligated to apply for a retroactive TUE and that his failure to do so makes him liable for sanctions under the Code unless he establishes that he bears no fault or negligence in connection with this failure.

The Panel does not have to decide whether this is the proper construction of the Code because in the unique circumstances of this case the Athlete bears no fault or negligence for his failure to disclose his treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE. The evidence has shown that the Athlete found out long after his positive test that he had been treated for a heart condition.

From the Athlete’s perspective, he was taken to the hospital after he was body checked and had hit the boards very hard. He left the hospital less than 24 hours after the incident and was able to resume training soon thereafter.

Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Athlete had no reason to suspect that he was treated with a substance which – contrary to practice in Western Europe – was being applied for a heart condition. Therefore, the Athlete was without fault or negligence in connection with his failure to disclose his treatment and to apply for a (retroactive) TUE.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 August 2006 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by Oleksandr Pobyedonstev on 1 December 2005 is upheld.

2.) The decision and the suspension imposed on P. by the Disciplinary Committee of the International Ice Hockey Federation on 14 November 2005 are annulled.

(...)

CAS 2008/A/1490 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) & Eric Thompson

• Athletics (high jump)
• Doping (cocaine)
• Reduction of the period of ineligibility
• Factors to consider when reducing the sanction
  
  

1. In determining whether a period of ineligibility may be reduced pursuant to Rule 40.3 of the IAAF Rules, the adjudicating body must determine whether exceptional circumstances exist which, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances of the specific case, demonstrate that the athlete’s fault or negligence is not significant. When the athlete has established how the prohibited substance entered his system, the threshold for consideration of a reduction of the period of suspension pursuant to IAAF Rule 40.3 is met.

2. It is a series of factors all of which taken together in the factual context which gives rise to the exceptional nature of a case and justifies the reduction of the athlete’s period of ineligibility. Among those factors are the athlete’s complete lack of experience in doping matters and as a national or international athlete the lack of guidance and support from his coaches or others; the lack of intention to influence or enhance his/her performance at the relevant time; and his/her relatively young age.

Mr. Eric Thompson is a track and field Athlete and at the time student at the University of Arkansas.

USADA has reported an anti doping rule violation against Respondent after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine. After notification the Athlete accepted a provisional suspension and he was heard for the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS).

The Athlete acknowledged he had used a small amount of cocaine at a school party two days before the competition and he had no intention to enhance sports performance. The result of the doping test confirmed the Athlete’s statement.
Considering the circumstances in this case the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 31 January 2008 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2008 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the NACAS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the NACAS decision and to sanction the Athlete with a 2 year period of ineligibility.

The CAS Panel concludes that exceptional circumstances permit a reduction of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility of two years. However the CAS Panel arrive at the same conclusion for somewhat different and more comprehensive reasons that those of the NACAS Arbitrator.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 June 2008:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 20 February 2008 is dismissed.

2.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 paid by WADA, which is to be retained by the CAS.

3.) Each party shall bear its own costs.