CAS 2003/A/447 Anna Stylianou v/ FINA

On 29 August 2002 the Cyprus Amateur Swimming Association decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the minor Cypriot swimmer Anna Stylianou (16) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After deliberations the case was referered to the International Swimming Federation (FINA) and 19 February 2003 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

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

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance and requested for a reduced sanction. She argued that the Appealed Decision is based on a misinterpretation of the FINA Doping Rules. Also the Athlete asserted that the FINA decision is neither substantiated nor clear.

The Athlete explained that she had purchased and used three supplements recommended by her coach. She and her doctor had checked the labels of these products before using.

Analysis of two supplements revealed no prohibited substance. Analyisis of the third supplement Inosine was not possible due she had used all capsules. Also the supplement was not available anymore in Cyprus and withdrawn from the market. She asserted that these capsules in question were the source of the positive test.

FINA contended that the had acted with negligence and failed to establish that the supplement Inosine was the source of the positive test. In accordance with the new FINA Doping Control Rules FINA accepted to apply in favor of the Athlete and to reduce the sanction from 4 years to a 2 year period of ineligibility.

The Panel deems that Athlete accepted the test results and that a 2 year period of ineligibility is the appropriate sanction in this case. The Panel finds that FINA failed to show cause as to why the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Panel concludes that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case because she acted negligently with her supplements, nor established how the substance had entered her system. The Panel considers that the reduction of the sanction by 2 years is a de jure consequence of the adoption of the Amended WADA Code by FINA. Accordingly the Athlete did not receive the reduction as requested.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 January 2004 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Athlete on March 17, 2003 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of FINA dated February 19, 2003 is hereby amended:

- a) A term of ineligibility of two years is imposed on the Athlete, commencing as of June 16, 2002.
- b) All results achieved by the Athlete during the period from June 16, 2002 until July 2, 2002 shall be deemed cancelled.

3.) This award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.00 (Five Hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellant, which shall be retained by the CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear its own respective costs.

CAS 2003/A/448 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) / Fédération Camerounaise d’Athlétisme (CMR)

• Athletics
• Doping (nandrolone)
• Hearing de novo
• Consumption of wild boar meat
• Exceptional circumstances

1. By virtue of IAAF Rule 21.9, all appeals before the CAS constitute a re-hearing de novo of the issues raised by the case, and that in doping cases before the CAS the IAAF shall have the burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that a doping offence has been committed. However, the only issue raised by the present case concerns the sanction applicable in the circumstances, the athlete having apparently decided not to appeal the decision of the national federation acknowledging the doping offence. In that context, there is simply no need for the IAAF to revisit in its appeal materials the factual and scientific evidence of a doping offence.

2. The unintended consumption of foodstuffs or supplements responsible for the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s body is hardly an unusual occurrence, let alone a "truly exceptional circumstance". It is, rather, one of the very “mischiefs” at which the anti-doping provisions of the IAAF Rules, as indeed the rules of other sports federations, are aimed. Even if the athlete were able to demonstrate that the meat she consumed could, and did, cause the elevated levels of norandrosterone detected in her samples, indeed even if the entirety of the athlete’s evidence were taken as true, the wholly "unexceptional" nature of her explanation would preclude the Panel from making the recommendation to the IAAF Council that the period of ineligibility be reduced.

In May 2002 the Cameroon Athletics Federation (FCA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete (-M) after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

The Athlete submitted that her consumption of meat from an uncastrated male wild boar constituted, in the circumstances, a reasonable and plausible explanation for the elevated level of norandrosterone in her urine at the time of the testing in question.

The FCA accepted the Athlete's statement and decided on 15 January 2003 to impose a warning on the Athlete. Hereafter in March 2003 the IAAF appealed the FCA decision with the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel unanimously finds that all of the elements of a doping offence are proven and that the IAAF has carried its burden of demonstrating that the athlete committed a doping offence within the meaning of the CAS Code and the IAAF Rules, which impose a two-year minimum suspension.

Given that the athlete competed several times while she knew that she was suspended and that the last date on which she competed was 8 May 2003, her period of ineligibility should run as of that date.

M.’s explanation regarding the cause of her elevated norandrosterone levels does not, in the opinion of the Panel, reveal circumstances of a truly exceptional nature such as to persuade it to recommend to the IAAF Council that the period of ineligibility be reduced in accordance with IAAF Rules.

The Athlete's request that the Panel recommend that the IAAF Council reduce such period of ineligibility is therefore denied, without prejudice to the athlete's right to apply directly to the IAAF Council for such a reduction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 October 2003:

1.) The jurisdiction of CAS is affirmed.

2.) The appeal filed by the IAAF on 17 March 2003 is upheld.

3.) The decision issued by the Cameroon Athletics Federation on 15 January 2003 is annulled.

4.) M. shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing on 8 May 2003.

5.) (...)

CAS 2003/A/452 IAAF v/MAR and Brahim Boulami

Arbitration CAS 2003/A/452 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v/ Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme (MAR) and B.

• Athletics
• Doping (r-EPO)
• Reliability of the testing method
• Accreditation of the testing laboratory

1. The direct urine test used by the laboratory is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine (the respondents have failed to cast doubt on the evidence brought forth by the IAAF that 80% is a reasonable cut-off point that largely eliminates the risk of false positives in urinary r-EPO test); this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes.

2. The laboratory’s lack of specific accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing is not fatal to the legal validity of its r-EPO tests. However, the lack of specific accreditation shifts the burden to the federation to show that the laboratory conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practices and procedures, and that it satisfied itself as to the validity of the method before using it. Such a burden-shifting rule provides the necessary balance between the needs of IOC laboratories to implement new, reliable testing methods as quickly as possible, on the one hand, and the interests of athletes and the sporting community in ensuring trustworthy test results, on the other.

In August 2002 the Marrocco Athletics Federation (Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme, MAR) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brahim Boulami after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

On February 6, 2003, the MAR Disciplinary Commission found the Athlete not guilty of a Doping Offense. The MAR provided the following reasons for the decision to the IAAF in a fax dated February 11, 2003:

i.) The athlete was not notified of his right to be accompanied by a representative when he provided a urine and blood sample on 15 August 2002 in breach of paragraph 2.9 of the IAAF's Procedural Guidelines;

ii.) The "B" sample which was provided on 16 August 2002 was analyzed even though the "A" sample result had never been communicated to the athlete;

iii.) The MAR representative Professor Stambouli was denied the opportunity to attend the analysis of the 15 August "B" sample (numbered B071981 in breach of IAAF Procedural Guidelines;

iv.) No results had been provided concerning the athlete's blood sample;

v.) The r-EPO method of testing has not been recognized scientifically or validated by the international scientific community;

vi.) The Lausanne laboratory does not have specific ISO accreditation to conduct r-EPO testing; and

vii.) The athlete categorically denies administering r-EPO.

Hereafter in April 2003 the IAAF appealed the MAR decision of 6 February 2003 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes that:

(i) on August 15, 2002, the prohibited substance r-EPO was present in the Athlete's urine,

(ii) the direct urine test used by LAD in this case, described both above and elsewhere, is a valid and reliable test for the detection of r-EPO in urine,

(iii) this direct urine test has sufficient international acceptance for the purpose of detecting r-EPO in the urine of athletes, and

(iv) LAD conducted its testing in accordance with the scientific community's practice and procedures for r-EPO testing, and adequately satisfied itself as to the test’s validity prior to use.

For all these reasons, the Panel finds the Athlete guilty of a Doping Offense under the IAAF Rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that B. should be declared ineligible for two years, pursuant to IAAF Rule 60.2 (a)(i), with credit for suspension time already served from August 28, 2002, until the date of this Award. B. should therefore be eligible for competition on August 28, 2004.

Therefore 19 November 2003 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

1.) Grants the appeal filed by the IAAF asking the Court to find B. guilty of a Doping Offense under IAAF Rules, and asking the Court to find that the Athlete should be declared ineligible for two years, less the period of suspension served by the athlete.

2.) Declares that the Athlete shall be declared ineligible for two years from August 28, 2002.

3.) (...).

CAS 2003/A/455 W. v/ UK Athletics

• Athletics
• Doping (testosterone)
• Right to a fair hearing
• Equal treatment
• Sanction in case of multiple doping offences

1. Not every cause justifies the postponement of a hearing, rather the cause must in any event be a "just" cause. A hearing date requires extensive preparation and usually requires a great number of people to be present. The fact that one party says it will not attend the hearing does not in itself constitute just cause. Instead, just cause requires that a party cannot attend for no fault of his own.

2. Whether an offence constitutes a first offence or whether it constitutes a second offence is matter for debate. Common usage of language would suggest that one must look at the chronological sequence of the offences. Pursuant to the Doping Rules and Procedures of UK Athletics, a doping offence is deemed to have been committed when "a prohibited substance is found to be present within an athlete's body tissue or fluids". The decisive factor is therefore the date when the prohibited substance was found in the athlete's body. That is either the date when the A sample was analysed or the date of the taking of the sample. It is not the date of the hearing.

In May 2002 UK Athletics has reported 2 separate anti doping rule violations against the Athlete:
- Athlete’s April 2002 sample showed abnormal proportion of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E-ratio).
- Athlete’s May 2002 sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 17-epimethandienone.

On October 24, 2002, the IAAF informed UK Athletics that it would not oppose any action to treat the findings of the Athlete’s April sample and May sample as two separate offences.
On 11 February 2003 the Disciplinary Committee found the Athlete guilty of two doping offences and decided an ineligibility to complete in athletics events within the UK and abroad, for life.

In April 2003 the Athlete appealed against UK Athletics Disciplinary Committee's decision of 11 February 2003, regarding his ineligibility for life.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decided on 21 August 2003:

1.) The appeal filed by Appellant on 16 April 2003 is allowed in part.

2.) The decision by the Disciplinary Committee of UK Athletics dated 11 February 2003, the grounds of which were given on 21 February 2003, is upheld.

3.) The decision by UK Athletics dated 12 February 2003 by which Appellant was declared ineligible to take part in any athletic event within the United Kingdom or abroad for life is varied as follows:
Appellant is declared ineligible to take part in any athletic event within the United Kingdom or abroad until 11 June 2006.

CAS 2003/A/459 Van Herk v/FINA

On 9 September 2002 the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Dutch Swimming Federation (KNZB) decided to impose a 4 year period perod of ineligibility on the minor Dutch swimmer (14) Linda van Herk for committing an anti-doping rule violation. 6 months of this sanction was unconditional and 42 months with a probation period of 2 years.

Here the Athlete failed to provide a sample despite several attempts. The Athlete's father requested to stop the sample collection due to business appointments and she left the Doping Control Station while she was warned about the consequences of her refusal.

In September 2002 the Appellant appealed and on 26 October 2002 the KNZB Appeal Committee decided to annul the decision of the KNZB Disciplinary Committee, and to acquit the Athlete.

Thereupon the FINA Disciplinary Committee decided on 11 April 2003 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for her refusal to provide a sample.

Hereafter in July 2003 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel considered the arguments filed by the Athlete and finds that it has jurisdiction in this case and that the admitted departure by the KNZB from the doping control procedures is certainly regrettble. However the Panel holds that the non-compliance by officials with the procedures does not justifies an acquittal of the Athlete.

Considering the circumstances the Panel concludes that the Athlete intentionally refused to submit to doping control by providing a sample although there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2003:

1.) The appeal filed by ihe Appellant on 8 July 2002 is upheld in part and the decision of the FINA Doping Panel varied in part.

2.) The Appellant's suspension is reduced to one-year period to expire on 25 October 2003. The FINA Doping Panel's decision otherwise stands.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs. except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500.-- (five hundred Swiss francs) aheady paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.

CAS 2003/A/484 Kicker Vencill vs USADA

Related documents:

• AAA No. 30 190 00291 03 USADA vs Kicker Vencill
  July 24, 2003
• CAS 2003_A_484 Kicker Vencill vs USADA - Interim award
  November 18, 2003
• USADA - Supplement 411 - Kicker Vencill, Introduction Video
  May 24, 2012

On 23 June 2003 the North American Court of Arbitration (NACAS) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the American swimmer Kicker Vencill after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in July 2003 the Athlete appealed the NACAS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Athlete argued a number of issues in support of his appeal, ranging from:

• questions concerning the chain of custody of his sample;
• alleged violations of his right to be present for the testing of his B sample;
• supposed inaccuracies in the results reported by the UCLA Lab; and
• allegations to the effect that the low concentration of 19-norandrosterone found in the athlete's sample is consistent with endogenous production as opposed to exogenoμs administration or ingestion of a prohibited substance.

The Panel finds that there is no question that the Athlete is guilty of committing an anti-doping rule violation and he failed to establish that the chain of custody of his sample was anything other than intact. Further the Panel concludes that the laboratory analysis was correctly conducted, the Athlete’s samples had not deteriorated or been contaminated and the proper laboratory procedures had been followed.

The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that laboratory analysis revealed that the supplement in question was contaminated. However the Athlete showed also a total disregard of his positive duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his body.

As a result the Panel holds that the Athlete’s Fault or Negligence in the circumstances is exceptionally significant in relation to the doping violation.

Therefore the of Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 March 2004 that:

1.) The jurisriction of the CAS is affirmed;

2.) The appeal filed by Mr. Vencill on 14 July 2003 is dismissed;

3.) Save for the applicable period of ineligibility as specified in paragraph 4 below, the decision in this matter issued by the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel dated 23 June 2003 is upheld;

4.) Kicker Vencill shall be declared ineligible for competition for two years commencing as of 22 May 2003:

5.) The Court Office fee of CHF 500 already paid by Mr. Vencill shall be retained by the CAS;

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

CAS 2003/A/484 Kicker Vencill vs USADA - Interim award

The Court of Arbitration decides on 18 November 2002:

1. The Jurisdiction oif CAS is affirmed;

2. Ibe appeal filed by mr. Vencill on 14 July 2003 is dismissed;

CAS 2003/A/505 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) v. Alicia Pitts, USA Cycling, Inc. & United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

• Cycling
• Doping (methadone)
• CAS Jurisdiction
• Presence of a prohibited substance in the athlete’s body
• Duty of the athlete of have knowledge of the regulations
• Determination of the sanction in view of mitigating circumstances

1. Absent any adjudication procedure consistent with the international standards in anti-doping policy provided by the competent national federation’ rules, the basis for the CAS jurisdiction can be the information on the closing of a case made by a national anti-doping agency. This information can indeed be considered to be the final ruling made at the level of the national federation asked for by UCI Anti-doping Examination Regulations (AER). UCI is therefore entitled to appeal before the CAS against such ruling according to its rules and within the meaning of article R47 of the CAS Code.

2. The presence of a prohibited substance such as methadone in the body of a rider constitutes an offence of doping. It does not matter whether the substance of methadone can be considered a performance enhancing substance or not. It is also not relevant whether the rider ingested any methadone in the three days prior to the event or during an unknown period before. Methadone is not allowed to be used for medical treatment under the UCI AER.

3. No athlete can invoke his or her unawareness of the existence of anti-doping rules or the impossibility of having knowledge of these rules. When signing the backside of his/her licence, a rider has to declare that s/he undertakes to respect the Constitution and Regulations of the UCI, its Continental Confederations and its National Federations. It is his/her responsibility to make sure that s/he knows what s/he is signing to. Being the expression of the general principle of law that “ignorance of law is no excuse”, art. 7 UCI AER rules that it is “the personal responsibility of every rider to ensure that they neither use any prohibited substance or prohibited method nor permit any such substance or method to be used”. This includes the obligation to achieve knowledge on the respective provisions.

4. The gravity of the medical condition of a rider, the well-documented prescription of methadone as pain reliever in his/her condition, his/her advanced age and the specific circumstances of the aims why s/he participated at the event, his/her role model for youths in the fight against doping in sports over years and his/her honesty and personal integrity, constitute sufficient elements under UCI AER to reduce the duration of suspension to the minimum, which is half a year. According to UCI AER, the period of inactivity will be automatically added to the period of suspension.

In May 2003 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Alicia Pitts after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methadone.

Thereupon the USADA Anti-Doping Review Panel established that the Athlete had a legitimate medical condition well documented by her physician that requred her use of Methadone. Also the Athlete had not used the substance in the preceding 3 days and therefore not mentioned on the Doping Control Form as stipulated. As a result the Review Panel ruled that no doping violation occurred.

After deliberations regarding disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete the UCI appealed the USADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction on the Athlete.

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

Considering the applicable Rules the Panel holds that it does not matter whether the substance of Methadone can be considered a performance enhancing substance or not. It is also not relevant for this fact whether the Athlete ingested any Methadone in the three days prior to the event or during an unknown period before.

The Panel agrees that the USADA Doping Control Form in question only asks for declaration of medication and supplements taken during the preceding 3 days and does not provide for a place on the form to declare medications taken earlier. The Panel deems this Form is not in full line with the applicable UCI Rules.

Further the Panel determines that there are sufficient grounds for a reduced sanction, although the Panel regrets that the UCI Rules allows no exceptional circumstances for exclusion of a suspension.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 December 2003

1.) The appeal filed by the UCI on 21 August 2003 is upheld.

2.) The decision of USADA of 29 May 2003, 1 July 2003 and communicated on behalf of USADA on 3 July 2003 is annulled.

3.) Mrs. Pitts is sanctioned as follows:

• disqualification from the Track World Cup Qualifier of 28 March 2003 in Hollywood, Florida, USA;
• suspension for six months from 20th December 2003 to 31 July 2004.

(…).