CAS 2009/A/1914 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Federation of Bodybuilding & Fitness (IFBB) & Kelli Johnson

• Bodybuilding
• Doping (possession of prohibited substances)
• Applicable law
• Scope of the appeal
• Significant fault or negligence excluding a reduction of the sanction
• Admission of a doping offense as mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction of the sanction
• Credit for delays in the proceedings not attributable to the athlete

1. If the rules contained in the three different versions of a federation’s Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) for 2007, 2008, 2009 are in all material respects the same in respect of the anti-doping violations committed by an athlete, the findings of violations are not affected by the fact that a federation hearing body may have been having regard to the wrong edition of the ADR. The fact that the last edition of the ADR contain different provisions in respect of penalties is not material in considering the violations alleged. Unlike the substantive anti-doping rules, the new procedural rules adopted by the federation apply as of the day of their entry into force.

2. The matter before the CAS panel is an appeal against the decision of the federation’s hearing body which was dealing with a specific allegation and found specific facts. It is not possible for WADA to seek to bring into the appeal matters with which the athlete was never charged and to seek to base the introduction of these matters on a copy of a document which was not in existence at the time of the federation’s hearing, the provenance of which was not the subject of any evidence.

3. So far as the “no significant fault” provision is concerned, it is well established that to benefit from a reduction of the otherwise applicable sanction an athlete must establish that s/he did not know or suspect and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of the utmost caution, that s/he had used or been administered the prohibited substance. The burden on an athlete seeking to establish “no significant fault or negligence” is high. Athletes are notably responsible for the choice of their medical personnel. The failure for a doctor to check the prescribed substance does not exclude the personal responsibility of the athlete especially if no evidence establish that the latter had taken any steps by way of precaution.

4. An athlete’s “admissions” of a doping offence cannot be taken into account as basis for mitigating the applicable penalty when such admissions are made because of the findings of the offending products in the athlete’s possession by the national customs.

5. Under the IFBB ADR, for a first violation, possession of prohibited substances should be sanctioned by a period of two years. If there have been delays in the proceedings which cannot in any way be attributed to the athlete, fairness requires that not only should the athlete be given credit for the period of ineligibility already served but that the remaining period should be treated as commencing before the date on which the decision is published.

This arbitration concerns the penalty of 6 months ineligibility imposed on Ms Johnson by a decision of the IFBB Hearing Panel dated 7 December 2008 for her violation of the IFBB Anti-Doping Rules (IFBB ADR), i.e. possession of the prohibited substances Prasterone (Dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA) and Testosterone.

Hereafter in July 2009 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IFBB decision of 7 December 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IFBB and the Athlete failed to respond in this appeal.

The CAS Panel observes that in first instance the IFBB hearing panel determined that the period should be reduced to six months, to run as to three months before the date of the IFBB decision and three months thereafter. The basis of that decision appears to have been

• (1) that Ms Johnson was guilty of no significant fault or negligence in committing the offence and
• (2) that she had admitted a doping offence without there being any other reliable evidence of a violation.

This would have entitled the IFBB hearing panel to reduce the period of ineligibility under rule 10.5.4 of the 2009 edition of the Rules if

• (a) the relevant rules were the 2009 edition of the Rules,
• (b) the admission was made before she had received first notice of the admitted violation and
• (c) at the time of the admission the admission was the only reliable evidence of the violation.

The Panel concludes that the IFBB hearing panel was not entitled to reduce the period of ineligibility and deems that the Appealed Decision of the IFBB hearing panel was flawed. Further the Panel determines that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2010:

1.) The appeal of the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the IFBB Hearing Panel rendered on 7 December 2008 is allowed.

2.) Ms Kelli Johnson is sanctioned with a two year period of ineligibility, the period of six months ineligibility which she has already served being credited against that period and the remaining period of 18 months should be treated as commencing six months before the date of this award.

3.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Kelli Johnson from 7 September 2008 to the date of this award shall be disqualified with the consequent forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes.

4.) (…).

5.) Any further claims for relief are dismissed.

CAS A4/2006 Australian Weightlifting Federation vs Camilla Fogagnolo

In January 2006 the Australian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Camilla Fogagnolo after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Benzylpiperazine.

Following notification - without a provisional suspension - the case was referrred to the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues, she had mentioned the supplements she used on the Doping Control Form and she had properly checked the safety of the products before using.

The Athlete stated that she had used a Fortius Synephrine product in order to reduce her body weight. She was not aware that this product contained the prohibited substance due to Benzylpiperazine was not listed as an ingredient on the lable of the bottle.

This product was recommended by another weightlifter and considered safe to use. Yet, the Athlete was later advised that other weightlifters also had tested positive after using this product.

In January 2006 Fortius Products confirmed that the batch in question used by the athletes was contaminated with Benzylpiperazine. On being asked their manufacturer and supplier of this product failed to provide an explanation about this contamination.

The AWF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that she acted with No (Significant) Fault or Negligence. She failed to read the read the warnings on the website of the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) nor had checked properly her supplements before using the products.

The Sole Arbitrator 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.

Undisputed is that the product Fortius Synephrine was the source of the prohibited substance and that the violation was not intentional. Considering the Athlete's conduct the Arbitrator finds that she acted with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the products she had used.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 February 2006 that:

1.) Camilla Fogagnolo has breached Article 5.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation and has thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

2.) Camilla Fogagnolo's individual results obtained in the Australian Weightlifting Championships held in Brisbane, Queensland in October 2005 are disqualified; accordingly Camilla Fogagnolo forfeits her second placing achieved at that Championship including all medals, points and prizes, pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) Camilla Fogagnolo is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 3 February 2006 and expiring at midnight on 2 February 2008.

4.) Camilla Fogagnolo is required to pay the sum of $1000.00 in respect of costs to the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

CAS A3/2007 ASADA v/ Belinda Van Tienen

In October 2005 four Australian weightlifters tested positive for the prohibited substance Benzylpiperazine due to they had used the supplement Fortius Synephrine containing this banned substance.

Thereupon an investigation conducted by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) established that the weightlifter Belinda Van Tienen was involved in the sale of this product. Furthermore reanalysis in the UCLA Laboratory of her test results revealed the presence of Benzylpiperazine.

Accordingly ASADA in November 2007 reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete. Following notification the Athlete accepted a provisional suspension whereas the case was referred to the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She acknowledged that she had used and sold supplements and that she was not aware that any batches of Synephrine contained Benzylpiperazine contaminations.

Following assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The computer data produced by the analysis of the Athlete's A sample in June 2005 is evidence of substantial weight and probative value.
• ASADA has established that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete had used Synephrine from the same batch the other athletes had used.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 June 2008 that:

1.) Belinda Van Tienen has breached Article 5 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation and has thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Viotation.

2.) Belinda Van Tienen's individual results obtained in the Mermet Cup competition or event held in the USA in June 2005 are disqualified; accordingly Belinda Van Tienen forfeits all
placings, medals, points and prizes obtained in that competition or event.

3.) Belinda Van Tienen is ineliglble to compete during the period commencing on 27 November 2006 and expiring at midnight on 26 November 2008.

4.) Save for the Court fees whlch have been paid by the Applicant each party shall contribute equally to the Court's costs. The final assessment of the arbitration costs will be served by the CAS Court Office after the communication of the present award.

5.) The Award be made public.

CAS A2/2006 Australian Weightlifting Federation vs. Jenna Myers

In January 2006 the Australian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Jenna Meyers after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Benzylpiperazine.

Following notification - without a provisional suspension - the case was referrred to the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues, she had mentioned the supplements she used on the Doping Control Form and she had properly checked the safety of the products before using.

The Athlete stated that she had used a Fortius Synephrine product in order to reduce her body weight. She was not aware that this product contained the prohibited substance due to Benzylpiperazine was not listed as an ingredient on the lable of the bottle.

This product was recommended by another weightlifter and considered safe to use. Yet, the Athlete was later advised that other weightlifters also had tested positive after using this product.

In January 2006 Fortius Products confirmed that the batch in question used by the athletes was contaminated with Benzylpiperazine. On being asked their manufacturer and supplier of this product failed to provide an explanation about this contamination.

The AWF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that she acted with No (Significant) Fault or Negligence. She failed to read the read the warnings on the website of the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) nor had checked properly her supplements before using the products.

The Sole Arbitrator 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.

Undisputed is that the product Fortius Synephrine was the source of the prohibited substance and that the violation was not intentional. Considering the Athlete's conduct the Arbitrator finds that she acted with Significant Fault or Negligence regarding the products she had used.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport Rules that:

1.) Jenna Myers has breached Article 5.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation and has thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

2.) Jenna Myers individual results obtained in the Australian Weightlifting Championships held in Brisbane, Queensland in October 2005 are disqualified; accordingly Jenna Myers forfeits her first placing achieved at that Championship including all medals, points, national records and prizes, pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) Jenna Myers is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 3 February 2006 and expiring at midnight on 2 February 2008.

4.) Jenna Myers is required to pay the sum of $1000.00 in respect of costs to the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

CAS A1/2007 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority vs. Sevdalin Marinov

Related case:

CAS 2007_A_1311 Sevdalin Marinov vs ASADA
September 26, 2007

On 14 November 2003 three packets each containing substances later certified to contain derivatives of prohibited substances were found by two members of the Victoria Police Force on a shelf in a wardrobe in a bedroom occupied by the Bulgarian Coach Sevdalin Marinov from August 2003 until sometime in November 2003.

Previously the Police had intercepted the car belonging to the owner of the house and found illegal drugs in his car. After the police obtained a search warrant to search the house they found great quantities of other illegal substances including the three packets in the bedroom belonging to the Coach.

Three years later in December 2006 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Coach for the possession and trafficking of prohibited substances in November 2003.

Thereupon in February 2007 the case was referred to the CAS Oceania Registry in February 2007 for a first instance decision.

ASADA contended that the Tribunal should be comfortably satisfied that the Coach was in continued occupation of the second bedroom in the house and the contents of the
wardrobe, from about July 2003 until he left for Canada on 12 November 2003, and knew that the three packets were in the wardrobe on the shelf during all or part of that period and
that the packets contained prohibited substances.

The Coach denied the violations and argued that there was no corroborating evidence that he was involved in possession and trafficking of prohibited subsances. He stated that at the material time that the packets were found in the wardrobe he was not longer living in that house whereas he was out of the country and had been out of the country for some time.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The Coach was the sole occupier of the bedroom on the
  first floor of the house from sometime in August 2003 until
  sometime after 14 November 2003.
• There were sufficient items of his clothing and personal effects in the bedroom, including photographs of his children, to conclude that he had not moved out.
• The Coach had custody or control of the three packets on 14 November 2003 and since August 2003.
• He occupied the bedroom exclusively from August 2003.
• He had custody or control (possession) of the room and its contents in which the prohibited substances were found.
• There is no evidence that the Coach was involved in supplying, distributing, offering, selling, exchanging or brokering the prohibited substances.
• The Coach committed a doping offence of trafficking by possessing and holding prohibited substances.
• Because this is the Coach his second anti-doping rule violation a lifetime period of ineligibility shall be imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2007 that:

1.) The respondent has committed a doping offence contrary to clause 3.2(a) of the 2002 Australian Weightlifting Federation Anti-Doping Policy by being knowingly involved in trafficking constituted by his possessing and holding, in November 2003, prohibited substances, namely anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents.

2.) The respondent is, for the period of his life, banned from selection to represent Australia in international competition, from competing in any events and competitions conducted by or under the auspices of the Australian Weightlifting Federation, from receiving direct or indirect funding assistance from the Australian Weightlifting Federation and from holding any position within the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) The period of ineligibility is to commence from 14 November 2003 the date of the offence.

4.) The respondent is to contribute the sum of $7000 towards the applicant’s costs to be paid within 60 days of this Award unless the parties come to an arrangement for payment to be made on terms acceptable to them.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office and served on the parties in due course, shall be borne by the parties in the following proportions: 50% of the costs by the Appellant and 50% of the costs by the Respondent.

6.) This Award and the annexed Partial Awards be made public.

CAS 2010/A/2293 Saeid Ali-Hosseini v. International Weightlifting Federation

CAS 2010/A/2293 Saeid Ali-Hosseini vs IWF

• Weightlifting
• Doping (metandienone)
• Athlete’s notification of the date, time and place of the B-sample test
• Federation’s policy imposing lifetime bans on athletes and revision of the WADA Code

1. There is no violation of an athlete’s rights with regard to the testing of the B sample if the athlete returned the filled-out doping control report requesting the B sample be tested and declining to be present for the B sample analysis. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for the federation to notify the athlete of the date, time and place of the B sample test, and the federation does not violate the athlete’s rights in failing to do so.

2. Even if under earlier versions of the WADA Code a federation had a policy of imposing lifetime bans in an effort to deter doping, it is article 10.7.1 that provides for the range of possible sanctions on athletes who committed a second anti-doping rule violation under the revised 2009 WADA Code and IWF Anti-Doping Policy. In light of this, a federation’s past policy is not necessarily relevant in deciding the appropriate sanction under the current version of article 10.7.1.

On 20 September 2010 the IWF Hearing Panel decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility in the Iranian weightlifter Saeid Ali-Hosseini for his second anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methandienone.

Hereafter in November 2010 the Athlete appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul the imposed sanction.

The Athlete contended that there are 3 different grounds for annulment of the Appealed Decision. However, in his Appeal Brief and at the hearing the Athlete only developed his argument that the Panel should annul the Decision because he was not given an opportunity to attend or be represented at the opening and testing of his B sample.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete’s request to annul the Decision is rejected in its entirety.
• The Iran WF was acting on the Athletes behalf when it requested testing of the his B sample and declined to be present during the B-sample analysis.
• Under these circumstances, IWF did not violate the Athlete's fundamental rights when it failed to inform him of the time, date and place of the B-sample analysis.
• The results of the B-sample analysis stand and confirm the results of the A-sample analysis.
• IWF has established that the Athlete committed a second doping violation.
• Taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of this case a sanction of 12 years is imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 August 2011:

1.) The appeal of Mr. Hosseini is partially upheld.

2.) The Decision dated 20 September 2010 of IWF’s Doping Hearing Panel is annulled only to the extent it imposed a lifetime ban on Mr. Hosseini.

3.) Mr. Hosseini’s period of ineligibility shall be for twelve years from 24 October 2009.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

CAS 2008/A/1473 Joe Warren v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Related case:

AAA 2007 No. 30 190 00782 07 USADA vs Joe Warren
January 14, 2007

• Wrestling
• Doping (marijuana)
  Presence of a specified substance
• Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on exceptional circumstances
• Condition of reduction of the ineligibility period based on the principles of proportionality
• Determination of the applicable sanction for a second violation for the use of a specified substance

1. An anti-doping rule violation has been committed when the presence of a “specified substance” at a concentration greater than what is authorised in an athlete’s bodily specimen has been demonstrated.

2. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can establish the existence of exceptional circumstances. A pre-condition to obtaining a reduced period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances is that the appellant must establish how the prohibited substance entered his system. Under the circumstances of a particular case, it is not necessary to require the athlete to establish with precision when the prohibited substance use giving rise to the positive test occurred in order for him to meet his burden of establishing how the substance entered his system. Doubts about when and/or how often the athlete used the substance could, however, have a bearing on the athlete’s credibility generally. In any event, where the medical evidence demonstrates that the athlete was able to differentiate between right and wrong it cannot be accepted that his actions and decisions can be relegated to the category of “no significant fault or negligence” especially when the use of the prohibited substance was neither prescribed nor medically necessary. In this regard, the acute stress the athlete was under can be at best understandable, but not excusable.

3. To benefit from a reduced sanction, an athlete can also persuade the panel that the proportionality principle can and should be applied to reduce the otherwise applicable sanction. However, it is not appropriate to invoke principles of proportionality to vary a sanction which, even though it seems severe in all of the circumstances, is nevertheless in accordance with the rules in force at the time of the infraction, at the time of the hearing before the first instance authority and at the time of the hearing before the CAS panel.

4. If a doping violation involving a specified substance occurs for the second time for the same athlete and if the athlete concerned has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, no reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances can be granted. Moreover where there is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality, the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility.

On 14 January 2008 the American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel (AAA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the wrestler Joe Warren for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

Hereafter in February 2008 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision 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 admitted that he had committing an anti-doping violation for which the minimum penalty is a two year period of ineligibility. He asserted that in first instance the Panel misapprehended the evidence and erred in failing to reduce the sanction based on exceptional circumstances and/or application of the principles of proportionality.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Panel determines:

• a.) The Athlee has committed an anti-doping rule violation, namely, the presence in his Bodily Specimen of Carboxy-THC at a concentration greater than 15 ng/mL;
• b.) Carboxy-THC is a cannabinoid and, as such, a “specified substance” for the purposes of Article 10.3 of the Regulations;
• c.) This violation is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation, the first such violation having involved the same Prohibited Substance and having occurred in April 2006;
• d.) The violation arises from the Athlete’s use of marijuana prior to the test which gave rise to the positive finding noted above;
• e.) The Athlete has not established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for this anti-doping rule violation and, as such, the Tribunal declines on that basis to set a reduced sanction based on exceptional circumstances under Article 10.5.2 of the Regulations;
• f.) There is no basis for departing from the sanctions provided for by the Regulations based on the proper application to the principles of proportionality;
• g.) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 July 2008:

1.) The appeal filed at the Court of Arbitration for Sport by Mr Joe Warren on 2 February 2008, against the United States Anti-Doping Agency, is dismissed.

2.) The period of ineligibility of 2 years from 23 July 2007, imposed by the Doping Tribunal on Mr Warren, is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

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.