CAS 2019/A/6148 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Sun Yang & Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

Related cases:

• CAS 2019_A_6148 WADA vs Sun Yang & FINA - Annulled Award
  February 28, 2020
• FINA 2019 FINA vs Sun Yang
  January 3, 2019
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_287_2019 Sun Yang vs WADA & FINA
  January 6, 2020
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_413_2019 Sun Yang vs WADA & FINA
  October 28, 2019
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_318-2020 Sun Yang vs WADA & FINA
  December 22, 2020
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_406-2021 Sun Yang vs WADA & FINA
  February 14, 2021

On the evening of 4 September 2018, an attempt was made to collect blood and urine samples from the Athlete Sun Yang at the Athlete’s residence compound. This was an out-of-competition (OOC) sample collection mission. The mission was authorized by FINA as the Testing Authority. FINA has Results Management Authority. However, International Doping Tests and Management (IDTM) was the Sample Collection Authority. IDTM attempted to collect blood and urine from the Athlete during the Athlete’s previously selected ‘60-minute’ time slot from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 4, 2018.

No blood or urine samples were ever analysed as a result of the OOC mission conducted by IDTM. Blood was collected but the blood container was destroyed and the collected blood was never sent to the relevant WADA accredited laboratory. The blood remains in the possession of the Athlete’s doctor. No urine sample was provided by the Athlete. It is safe to describe the entire OOC mission as problematic, highly unusual and, at times, confrontational. Both FINA and the Athlete offer vastly different explanations regarding what happened, why the evening unfolded as it did and, critically, what consequences must result.

Consequently on 28 February 2020 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Sun Yang for committing a second anti-doping rule violation.

The CAS Panel concluded that the Athlete failed to establish that he had a compelling justification to act as he did and forego the Doping Control and accordingly that the Athlete committed a tampering violation under Article 2.5 FINA DC.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Award with the Swiss Federal Court. One of the Athlete's grievances was based on evidence of bias on the part of the presiding arbitrator by reasons of prior comments the presiding arbitrator had made on social media. The arbitrator in question spontaneously resigned shortly. The two remaining arbitrators on the CAS Panel also withdrew and on 22 December 2020 the CAS Award was annulled. A new second CAS Panel was arranged with an all new membership, charged with rehearing this case.

At first the Panel establishes that it has jurisdiction in this Appeal, that it was filed by an authorized representative and that it is admissible.

The Athlete and FINA asserted that the attempted sample collection on 4–5 September 2018 violated numerous provisions of the ISTI, violated the Athlete’s fundamental human rights, and were therefore null and void. These defects fully justified the Athlete to refuse to submit to a defective and unjust process.

WADA contended that the attempted sample collection on 4–5 September 2018 complied with all relevant provisions of the ISTI. Upon meeting the Athlete, the DCO notified the Athlete by showing a Letter of Authority from FINA, as well as a copy of her IDTM Doping Control Officer card. Although they were not required to do so under the ISTI, the DCA and BCA also showed valid identification documents. The DCO’s documents sufficed, in WADA’s view, to establish that the Sample Collection Personnel, under her leadership, was duly authorized and credentialed. The Athlete’s refusal to be tested despite having been properly notified by the DCO placed him in violation of Articles 2.3 and 2.5 of the FINA DC.

Considering the facts of what happened on 4-5 September 2018 at the Athlete’s residence compound the Panel assesses that the Athlete was told numerous times the samples had to leave with the DCO. He refused this. A last-ditch bid at persuading the Athlete’s entourage, perhaps ill-advised, ended in a sample’s destruction. The DCO multiple times tried to notify the Athlete of the potential consequences that this could entail. At the very least, these facts should have created questions in the Athlete’s mind whether his chosen course of action was correct.

As a result the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete tampered with any Part of Doping Control, at latest beginning with his refusal to allow the blood samples to leave with the Sample Collection Personnel. The Panel is also comfortably satisfied that the Athlete refused and failed to submit to sample collection.

The Panel regards that this is the Athlete's second offense and that under the 2021 FINA Rules and 2021 WADC a greater degree of mitigation is possible in determining the period of ineligibility for the Athlete's anti-doping rule violations.

The Panel deems that the circumstances surrounding the Sample Collection of 4-5 September 2018 merit a period of ineligiblility at the lower end of the range starting on the date of the Annulled Decision, i.e. on 28 February 2020.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 July 2021 that:

1. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute.

2. The appeal filed on 14 February 2019 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 3 January 2019 by the Doping Panel of the Fédération Internationale de Natation is admissible and is partially upheld.

3. The decision issued on 3 January 2019 by the Doping Panel of the Fédération Internationale de Natation is set aside.

4. Mr. Sun Yang is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 4 (four) years and 3 (three) months, beginning on 28 February 2020.

5. (…).

6. (…).

7. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020/A/7536 Ashley Kratzer v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Related case:

ITF 2020 ITF vs Ashley Kratzer
October 28, 2020

• Tennis
• Doping (GHRP-6)
• Duty of particular care of an athlete when applying medications
• Distinction between “reckless” and “oblivious” conduct
  
  

1. It is well-known in the world of sport that particular care is required from an athlete when applying or administering substances for therapeutic purposes, because the danger of a prohibited substance entering the athlete’s system is particularly high in such context, i.e. significant.

2. In order to qualify a behavior as “intentional” the person concerned must have accepted or consented to the realization of the offence or at least accepted it for the sake of the desired goal. On the other hand, a conduct is negligent or oblivious only, if the offender does not agree with the occurrence of the offence that is recognized as possible and, in addition, credibly – not only vaguely – trusts that the offence will not materialize. Thus, in order to separate negligence from (indirect) intent one must – in particular – look at this voluntative element. Of course, such element is difficult to determine ex post. However, as a general rule one may say that the more remote the realization of the offence is in the offender’s mind, the less he or she may be deemed to have accepted it and, thus, to have acted intentionally within the above meaning. Whether a certain behavior is “reckless” or only “oblivious” must be decided based on all relevant circumstances. Both types of behaviors are only separated by a very thin line.

On 28 October 2020 the ITF Independent Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the American tennis player Ashley Kratzer after she tested positive for the prohibited substance GHRP-6.

In First Instance the Athlete demonstrated that she suffered from a longstanding, severe blistering problem on her heels, toes and sides of her feet. During her stay in China in April 2019 and thereafter she had used an effective Cream provided in an unlabelled bottle. Analysis of this Cream revealed that it contained a significant amount of GHRP-6.

Although the Tribunal accepted that the Athlete had not deliberately used the prohibited substance it deemed that she engaged in conduct knowing that there was a significant risk that it might result in an anti-doping rule violation and that she manifestly disregarded that risk.

Hereafter in November 2020 the Athlete appealed the ITF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Sole Arbitrator Panel to set aside the ITF Decision of 28 October and for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Undisputed between the Parties are the positive test results for GHRP-6 and that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. What is contested between the Parties is the appropriate period of ineligibility as a consequence of this anti-doping rule violation.

The Athlete denied that she intentionally tried to cheat or that she knew that the Cream contained a prohibited substance while it only was used as medical treatment for her severe blistering problems. She asserted that did not know that there was a risk of an anti-doping rule violation and consequently that she manifestly had disregarded such risk.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that it is more likely than not that the Athlete recognized her conduct to be akin to self-medication and that she knew that there was a significant doping risk when applying or administering substances for therapeutic purposes.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that during her stay in China in April 2019 the Athlete did not act intentionally or recklessly. However in view of her conduct in the months after she had returned from China the Sole Arbitrator deems that she indeed acted intentionally.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 June 2021 that:

1. The appeal filed by Ms Ashley Kratzer on 18 November 2020 against the International Tennis Federation with respect to the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal on 28 October 2020 is dismissed.

2. All results obtained by Ms. Ashley Kratzer from 28 March 2020 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, ranking points, and prize money obtained at the Oracle Challengers Tournament in Newport Beach, California, USA.

3. The Award is pronounced without costs with the exception of the Court Office fee, already paid by Ms Ashley and which is retained by CAS.

4. Ms. Ashley Kratzer is ordered to pay the International Tennis Federation a total amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss francs) as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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

Related case:

FEI 2018 FEI vs Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho
April 25, 2019

On 25 April 2019 the FEI Tribunal decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Salvadorean Athlete Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

In first instance the Panel ruled that the Athlete failed to establish the source of the Boldenone, nor that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Hereafter in May 2019 the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to eliminate or reduce the imposed period of ineligibility.

The Athlete asserted that there were 4 scenario's that could have caused the positive test results:

• (i) the consumption of meat contaminated by Boldenone in Guatemala or El Salvador 19 to 23 days prior to the Sample being collected at the Event;
• (ii) the transdermal contamination by Boldenone while injecting non-FEI registered horses in El Salvador;
• (iii) the contamination of his Sample during the sample collection process that departed from the WADA standards; and
• (iv) the contamination of the Sample by the Athlete touching a contaminated faucet (or another surface) in the bathroom that was used by the Athlete next to the Doping Control Station at the Event.

FEI contended that the Athlete failed to establish, on a balance of probability, how the Boldenone had entered his system. Neither of the submitted explanations provided a plausible scenario, and the FEI therefore deemed it extremely unlikely that the positive finding of Boldenone in the Athlete is a result of any of the provided explanations.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Panel assessed and addressed the four scenarios of the Athlete's Boldenone contamination. 

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had not provided clear and convincing evidence that prove how Boldenone had entered his system. He also failed to provide an explanation that is plausible, on a balance of probability, and failed to establish a plausible link between the positive finding and either of the four potential contamination sources alleged by the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 June 2021 that:

1) The appeal filed by Mr. Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho on 16 May 2019 against the decision rendered by the FEI Tribunal dated 25 April 2019 is dismissed.

2) The decision rendered by the FEI Tribunal dated 25 April 2019 is confirmed in its entirety.

3) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Appellant, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

4) Mr. Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho's request for an order that the Fédération Equestre Intemationale make a contribution towards the costs he has incurred in making the Appeal is dismissed.

5) Mr. Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho is ordered to pay CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss francs) as a contribution towards the expenses incurred by the Fédération Equestre Internationale in defending this appeal.

6) All other or further requests or motions for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/O/7668 World Athletics v. Danil Lysenko

Related cases:

• World Athletics 2019 WA vs Alexander Parkin
  February 16, 2021
• World Athletics 2019 WA vs Artur Karamyan & Dmitry Shlyakhtin
  February 8, 2021
• World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Ikonnikova (1)
  March 6, 2020
• World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Ikonnikova (2)
  February 16, 2021
• World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova (1)
  August 21, 2020
• World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova (2)
  February 16, 2021

In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the Russian high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures.

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. It also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete. 

As a result in November 2019 the AIU issued charges against Mr Dmitry Shlyakhtin (RusAF President), Mr Artum Karamyan (RusAF Board Member), and several other RusAF officials for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations: 

• Tampering or Attempted Tampering
• Complicity
• Refusal or failure to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Refusal or failure to cooperate with investigations.

All those charged by the AIU have been sanctioned and their decisions are now final and binding.

In a separate proceeding, the athlete’s coach, Evgeniy Zagorulko, admitted to violations of Tampering and Complicity in connection with the AIU’s investigation into the Lysenko whereabouts case and accepted a 4-year period of ineligibility under the applicable rules. The coach provided Substantial Assistance to the AIU in connection with the charges against Shlyakhtin and Karamyan.

The AIU referred the case against the Athlete Danil Lysenko to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed multiple breaches of the Anti-Doping rules including whereabouts failures and tampering with the results management process.

The CAS Panel deems that 2 years of the 6 year period of ineligibility should be suspended on account of the Substantial Assistance that the athlete provided to the AIU in bringing charges against former RusAF officials, Dmitry Shlyakhtin and Artur Karamyan.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 21 May 2021 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against Mr Danil Lysenko on 1 February 2021 is partially upheld.
2. Mr Danil Lysenko is found to have committed (i) a first anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.4 (Whereabouts Failures) of the 2018 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules; and (ii) a second anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.5 (Tampering and/or Attempted Tampering) of the 2018 and 2019 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules.
3. Mr Danil Lysenko is subject to a two (2) year period of ineligibility with respect to the first anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.4) and a four ( 4) year period of ineligibility
   with respect to the second anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.5).
4. The total period of ineligibility with respect to the first and second anti-doping rule violations is six ( 6) years, starting as of the date of this Award, with credit given for the
   ineligibility period already served by Mr Danil Lysenko (i.e. from 3 August 2018).
5. The total period of ineligibility to be served by Mr Danil Lysenko shall be suspended for a period of twenty-four (24) months in consideration of the Substantial Assistance
   provided by Mr Lysenko to the Athletics Integrity Unit, pursuant to Article 10.7.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules of the World Athletics in force from 1 January 2021.
6. All competitive results of Mr Danil Lysenko as from 1 July 2018 until 2 August 2018 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, titles,
   ranking points and prize and appearance money).
7. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by World Athletics.
8. World Athletics and Mr Danil Lysenko shall bear their own legal costs.
9. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020/A/7377 El Mahjoub Dazza v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs El Mahjoub Dazza
July 24, 2020

In January 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Moroccan Athlete El Mahjoub Dazza after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in October 2019 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 24 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in August 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Without a hearing the Panel rendered an Award based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete denied the violation and supported by an expert witness he disputed the validity of the ABP. He asserted that the values in his ABP could be explained as a result of high altitude and his training regime.

Further the Athlete argued that in First Instance several of his procedural rights were violated and that these violations should lead to the annulment of the Appealed Decision and the four-year period of ineligibility imposed on him.

The Panel holds that even in case the Athlete's procedural rights had been violated in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, any such violation was in any event cured in the present arbitration before CAS under its de nova competence.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel deems that the values detected in the Athlete's ABP were highly abnormal and indicated a high probability of doping while the Athlete had not submitted any contradictory evidence.

On that account the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the abnormal values were caused by a blood doping scenario.  Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed and anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 19 August 2020 by Mr El Mahjoub Dazza with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the decision rendered on 24 July 2020 by the World Athletics (IAAF) Disciplinary Tribunal is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered on 24 July 2020 by the World Athletics (IAAF) Disciplinary Tribunal is confirmed.

3.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr El Mahjoub Dazza, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) Mr El Mahjoub Dazza is ordered to pay to World Athletics (IAAF) the amount of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards its the legal fees and expenses incurred in relation to the present proceedings.

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

CAS 2020/A/7250 Gomathi Marimuthu v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Gomathi Marimuthu
May 26, 2020

In June 2019 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete Gomathi Marimuthu after her A and B samples, provided during four competitions in March and April 2019, tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 26 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In First Instance the Disciplinary Panel deemed that the Athlete had failed to explain how exactly the alleged departures in sample collection, handling and analysis could potentially influence the outcome of the laboratory analysis.

Further the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to produce evidence that she suffered from a medical condition nor demonstrated with evidence how this medical condition or her physical activity could have effected the 19-norandrosterone level in her system.

Hereafter in June 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 26 May 2020 and for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

The Athlete asserted that there had been several departures from the ISTI and ISL regarding the chain of custody and the storage of the samples. Also she claimed that her miscarriage and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) could explain the high concentration of endogenous 19-Norandrosterone in her system.

World Athletics contented that the alleged discrepancies regarding the Athlete's samples are not significant departures of the ISL and ISTI and they would not invalidate the test results. Also the Athlete's alleged miscarriage and PCOS cannot explain the presence of the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone in her system.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete's PCOS, her pregnancy and miscarriage cannot explain the high concentration of 19-Norandrosterone in her samples. Regarding the sampling and the testing process the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the alleged discrepancies were significant departures that could have caused the positive test results.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete failed to show the absence of guilt or negligence. Conversely from the beginning she has expressed consternation and disbelief, and cannot account for the presence of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 22 June 2020 by Ms Gomathi Marimuthu against World Athletics with respect to the Decision issued on 26 May 2020 by World Athletics' Disciplinary Tribunal is rejected.

2.)The Decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on 26 May 2020 is upheld.

3.) This arbitral award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Ms Gomathi Marimuthu, which is retained by CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear their own legal and other costs.

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

• CAS 2020/A/6695 Nicole Walker v. PANAM Sports
• CAS 2020/A/6700 Equestrian Canada v. PANAM Sports
• CAS 2020/A/7386 PANAM Sports v. Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada

Related case:

FEI 2019 FEI vs Nicole Walker
June 4, 2021

In August 2019 the Pan American Sports Organization (PASO) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canadian Athlete Nicole Walker after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

On 11 December 2019 the Panam Sports Disciplinairy Commission decided to disqualify the Athlete and her results. Consequently under the PANAM Rules Team Canada's 4th place result in the Team Competition was also disqualified.

Hereafter in January 2020 the Athlete and Equestrian Canada appealed the PANAM Sports Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). PANAM Sports filed a Cross-Appeal in March 2020. Each of the appeals was heard together and all are dealt with collectively in this one single award.

In these appeals also the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), the Argentinian Equestrian Federation (FEA) and the Argentinian Olympic Committee (COArg) particpated and filed their positions in this matter.

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the PANAM Sports Decision and to reinstate her results obtained at the PANAM Games. Equestrian Canada appealed only in relation to the issue of the substraction of the Athlete's scores from Team Canada's results. It adopted, in writing and orally, all arguments and submissions made on behalf of the Athlete.

The Athlete demonstrated with corroborating evidence that the positive test was the result of her ingestion of tea at the hotel where she stayed at the occasion of the Pan American Games. She was not aware at that time that the green tea she took was in fact coca tea.

The Athlete did not challenge the disqualification of her individual results obtained on 7 and 9 August 2019 but did challenge the disqualification of her results she had obtained on 6 and 7 August 2019 for the team competition which consequently resulted in disqualification of Team Canada's 4th place result.

PANAM Sports contended that the Athlete had failed to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was the result from the consumption of tea containing Cocaine at the relevant time. Further PANAM Sports asserted that under the PANAM Rules it was clearly mandated to automatically disqualify the results of the Athlete and Team Canada because of the Athletes anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel:

• (a) Accepts that the Athlete did not intentionally ingest Cocaine at any relevant time on or prior to 7 August 2019;
• (b) Accepts that there was no unintentional ingestion of cocaine by the Athlete at any relevant time prior to 7 August 2019;
• (c) Finds that the AAF was the result, and only the result of, the unintentional ingestion of cocaine by the Athlete on the morning of 7 August 2019 as a result of her using a teabag containing cocaine which she took from the breakfast service area of the Los Incas Lima Hotel.

The Panel deems that PANAM Sports was mandated under the Rules to disqualify the results of Team Canada obtained on 7 August 2019. However the Panel finds that there is no basis for the automatic disqualification of the Athlete's results obtained on 6 August 2019.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 April 2021 (Operative Part 12 January 2021) that:

1. The appeals filed by Ms Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada on 2 January 2020 against PANAM Sports with respect to the decision rendered by the PANAM Sports Disciplinary Commission on 11 December 2019 are dismissed.

2. The appeal filed by PANAM Sports on 14 March 2020 against Ms Nicole Walker and Equestrian Canada with respect to the decision rendered by the PANAM Sports Disciplinary Commission on 11 December 2019 is partially upheld.

3. The results for Team Canada in the jumping competition at the 2019 Pan Am Games are disqualified, which includes forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4. The costs of the arbitration to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office shall be borne by ¼ by Ms Nicole Walker, ¼ by Equestrian Canada and ½ by PANAM Sports.

5. Each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

6. The amici curiae, Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), Federation Internationale Equestre (FEI), the Argentinian Equestrian Federation (FEA) and the Argentinian Olympic Committee (COARG), shall each bear their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

The Athlete's anti-doping rule violation was referred to FEI in November 2019. Both the Athlete and FEI agreed that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence with a light degree of Fault or Negligence. The Athlete accepted the proposed FEI sanction and agreed to fulfil the Education Requirement within 1 year.

Therefore the FEI Tribunal decides on 4 June 2021 in accordance with the mutual consent of the Parties to impose a fine and a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 26 September 2019.

CAS 2020/A/7528 Christian Coleman v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Christian Coleman
October 22, 2020

In June 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an an anti-doping rule violation against the American Athlete Christian Coleman for his Whereabouts Filing Failure and 2 Missed Tests in a 12 month period.

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 22 October 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In First Instance the Panel rejected the Athlete's allegations that the authorities had developed a strategy in an effort to catch him out, and finds that he persisted in an exculpatory version of events as to what happened on 9 December 2019. The Panel deemed that the Athlete's behaviour was very careless at best and reckless at worst.

Hereafter in November 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 22 October 2020 with the 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 did not challenge the Missed Test of 16 January 2019 or the Filing Failure of 26 April 2019. The challenge is
limited to the Missed Test of 9 December 2019. It follows that, if the Missed Test of 9 December 2019 is sustained, then there will be three Missed Tests and/or Filing Failures within a 12-month period and an ADRV will have been committed.

The Athlete asserted that the Doping Control Officer (DCO) did not do what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete on 9 December 2019. Specifically because the World Athletics had instructed the DCO not to call the Athlete thereby precluding the DCO from doing what was reasonable.

World Athletics contended that the Athlete in fact was not home at any time during the 60-minute slot. Futher the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to try and locate the Athlete at that time on that date. The fact that the DCO was instructed not to call the Athlete does not mean that the DCO failed to act reasonably.

The Panel concludes that, on 9 December 2019, the DCO did do what was reasonable in all the circumstances, given the nature of the residential premises and the time of day, to try to locate the Athlete at his home in Lexington, Kentucky. On the evening of 9 December 2019, the DCO knocked on the door and rang the bell in such a manner, as is accepted by the Athlete, that if anyone were home at the time they would have been made aware that the DCO was there.

The Panel is more than satisfied that, had the Athlete been at home, the attempts made by the DCO on the night in question would have been perfectly adequate to let the Athlete know that someone was at the door. Had he been at home and answered the door, the test could have been conducted without issue.

The Panel does not accept the Athlete's evidence and finds the Athlete's account wholly implausible. The Panel concludes that there was no evidence supporting any claim that the Athlete was at the location identified by him at any time during the 60-minute slot specified by him for testing on 9 December 2019.

By contrast the Panel holds there is no reason at all not to accept the evidence of the officers that they were at the Athlete's home on 9 December 2019 during the 60-minute slot.

The Panel considers the Athlete's conduct on 9 December 2019, and deems that the his degree of fault falls to be characterised as "medium", i.e. within the 16-20 months band, with a midpoint of 18 months.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Christian Coleman against World Athletics on 19 November 2002 is partly upheld.

2.) The decision of the AIU Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2020 is set aside and replaced as follows:

Mr Christian Coleman has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.4 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules and shall serve a period of ineligibility of eighteen (18) months as from 14 May 2020.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Christian Coleman, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) Mr Christian Coleman is ordered to pay World Athletics a total amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) as contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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