CAS 2007_A_1332 Audunn Jónsson vs The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF)

21 Dec 2007

CAS 2007/A/1332 Jónsson v/ The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF)

  • Powerlifting
  • Doping (metandienone)
  • Distinction between In-Competition Testing and Out-of-Competition Testing
  • Burden of proof regarding departures from the International Standard
  • De novo hearing
  • Disciplinary sanction

1. According to the definitions of the applicable anti-doping Rules an “Event” is a series of individual competitions conducted together under the ruling body (e.g., the Olympic Games) whereas a “Competition” is, a single race, match, game or singular athletic contest (e.g. the finals of the Olympic 100-meter dash). For the purpose of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, unless provided otherwise in the rules of an international federation or other relevant anti-doping organization, an In-Competition test is a test where an athlete is selected for testing in connection with a specific competition. “Out-of-Competition” is defined as “any doping control which is not in-competition”. Therefore, a testing which takes place during an event between two competitions shall be considered as an Out-of-Competition Testing according to the International Standard of Testing.

2. According to the applicable anti-doping rules, departures from the International Standard for Testing which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding shall not invalidate such result. If an athlete establish that departures from the International Standard have occurred during testing, then the federation shall have the burden to establish that such departures did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the anti-doping violation. In this regard, the fact that a doping session has been conducted by one person instead of two is a departure from the applicable guidelines. Likewise, the fact that a Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to identify himself with the official identification card provided by the international federation is a technical departure from the guidelines. However, where on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, no circumstances indicate that the departures from the rules did in fact have an effect on the result of the test, the federation will have to be deemed to have discharged its burden of proof.

3. Although it is inadequate and not proper in the sense of a fair hearing to choose a member of a federation’s doping hearing body as DCO, under Art. R57 of the CAS Code, a CAS panel has the full power to review the facts and the law. Therefore a CAS panel holds a trial de novo, evaluating all facts and legal issues involved in a dispute. This means that an athlete’s challenge of the federation’s doping hearing panel as not being impartial can be remedied by a de novo examination by CAS.

4. The athlete who has not given any explanation as to how an exogenous banned substance entered into his system nor rebut the presumption that the WADA accredited Laboratory has conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis, must be considered as having committed a doping offence involving a prohibited substance and must take responsibility for it.



The case concerns the issue whether the drug test of Audunn Jónsson should be invalidated because of an alleged breach of the applicable rules, in particular the IPF Anti-Doping Rules and the International Standard for Testing.

CAS Panel concludes that possible departures from the International Standard for Testing that may have occurred in this case did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. The CAS is therefore entitled to rely on the test results in its decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 21 December 2007:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Audunn Jónsson on 18 July 2007 against a decision of the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is dismissed.

2.) The appealed decision issued on 20 June 2007 by the IPF Doping Hearing Panel is upheld.

3.) Mr Audunn Jónsson shall be declared ineligible for two years from 8 November 2006.

4.) This award is rendered without costs except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss francs) already paid by Mr Audunn Jónsson, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

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

UK Anti-doping: world's first growth hormone anti-doping rule violation

22 Feb 2010

An interview with UK Anti-Doping CEO Andy Parkinson and Christiaan Bartlett from Drug Control Centre King's College on the world's first growth hormone anti-doping rule violation.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace: the Ben Johnson story

6 May 2010

At the Olympic Games 1988 in Seoul, Ben Johnson won the 100 meter Track & Field sprint final. He lowered his own world record to 9.79 seconds. Three days later he was disqualified, because his urine samples were found to contain the prohibited substance stanozolol.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace

6 May 2010

The 'Fall from grace' video shows a few of the world's greatest athletes, who have been tested positive for doping. The athletes are Tommy Simpson, Diego Maradona, Marion Jones, Ben Johnson and Michelle Smith. The goal of the video is to show the true values of sport.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport.100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace: the Ian Sibbit story

6 May 2010

In 2009, rugby player Ian Sibbit has been reprimanded by the Rugby Football League for the overuse of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol. In this video he warns others for the risk of unintentional doping use by using medication.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

show » details »
Type:
video

Fall from grace: the Marion Jones story

6 May 2010

Marion Jones won five medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Australia. In October 2007 she admitted to have taken performance-enhancing drugs for the biggest part of her carreer. Consequently, she was striped off all medals and prizes dating back September 2000. Marion Jones was one of the most famous athletes to be linked to the BALCO case on the development and distribution of the designer steroid THG.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

show » details »
Type:
video

CAS 2008_A_1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson vs IOC

16 Jul 2010

CAS 2008/A/1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson v/ IOC

Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson are all track and field athletes from the United States of America. The Athletes participated in the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 as members
of the U.S. Olympic team sent by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

The issue to be solved in this case is whether, under the applicable rules in force at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the results obtained by the US track and field
teams in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m relay events should be annulled and the medals withdrawn from those teams because one team member – Ms Marion Jones –
has been subsequently disqualified due to an admitted anti-doping rule violation.

Following investigations the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported in 2003 that the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. These substances were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing.

BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Thereupon multiple athlete's were charged and convicted for the use of various performance-enhancing drugs.

Consequently on 10 April 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the USOC women relay teams and their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games because of their use of prohibited substances provided by BALCO.

Hereafter in April 2008 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to reverse the disqualifcation of their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

The Athletes argue that the IOC violated their rights to due process, fundamental fairness and natural justice through proceedings conducted in violation of the Olympic Charter.

In particular, according to the Athletes, the IOC knowingly and repeatedly disregarded the Olympic Charter and violated their right to be heard in the following ways:

  • a) the IOC consistently refused to acquaint the Athletes with the charges and evidence against them;
  • b) the Athletes were not granted any meaningful opportunity to tender a defence, in writing or in person;
  • c) the IOC Disciplinary Commission and Executive Board were composed of individuals who had prejudged the matter, as demonstrated by some public statements;
  • d) the Executive Board never adopted a valid decision.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that at the time of the Sydney Olympic Games there was no express IOC rule or IAAF rule that clearly allowed the IOC to annul the relay team results if one team member was found to have committed a doping offence.

As a result, the Panel is unanimously of the opinion that, on the basis of the IOC and IAAF rules applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the Appealed Decision taken by the IOC Executive Board on 10 April 2008 is incorrect and must be set aside. The Panel reaches this conclusion with all due respect to the IOC Executive Board and its fundamental role under the Olympic Charter.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 Juy 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by the Appellants Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson on 30 April 2008 is upheld.

2.) The Decision of the IOC Executive Board dated 10 April 2008 is hereby set aside.

3.) On the basis of the IOC and IAAF Rules in force and applicable at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the United States’ teams that competed in the women’s 4×100m and 4×400m athletics relay events at those Games shall not be disqualified; the medals and diplomas awarded to the above noted Appellants in those events shall not be returned to the IOC.

4.) All other requests, motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

5.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.- already paid by the Appellants and which is retained by the CAS.

6.) The IOC shall pay a global amount of CHF 10’000.- to the above noted Appellants as contribution towards their expenses incurred in this arbitration.

UKAD - The World Anti-Doping Code

6 May 2010

The World Anti-Doping Code / UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Explanation of the World Anti-Doping Code, the five International Standards and the principle of Strict Liaibility by UK Anti-Doping.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

show » details »
Type:
video

Panel questions: WADA challenges (2009)

2 Nov 2011

Panelists discuss about the challenges facing the World Anti-Doping Agency. Speakers include UK Anti-Doping CEO Andy Parkinson, British Olympic Association Director of Elite Performance Sir Clive Woodward, three-time London Marathon winner Paula Radcliffe, and 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Ambassador Steve Cram.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes.

show » details »
Type:
video

What does 100% me mean to you?

22 Dec 2011

Some UK's top athletes talk about 100% me and what it means to them.

100% me is UK Anti-Doping's education programme which aims to prevent doping in sport. 100% me is about being a true athlete. It's about being able to say my performance is 100% me. There is no secret to my success - just hard work, determination and talent.

UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. This involves planning, implementing and monitoring the UK’s anti-doping policy and implementing effective anti-doping programmes

show » details »
Type:
video
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