III. Sanctions on individuals

<strong>III</strong>. <strong>Sanctions</strong> on individuals
• On the intent to enhance sport performance, there are some contradictory CAS
awards:
‣ CAS 2010/A/2107 Flavia Oliveira v. USADA: the athlete did not know she was
taking a prohibited substance as it was labelled on the product differently than on
the WADA list of prohibited substances. Only the use of the substance should be
taken into consideration when assessing the intent (CAS 2011/A/2645 UCI v.
Alexander Kolobnev & RCF)
‣ CAS A2/2011 Kurt Foggo v. National Rugby League: the use of the product shall
be taken into consideration when assessing the intent, not only the substance
‣ CAS 2012/A/2804 Dimitar Kutrovsky v. ITF: an athlete’s knowledge or lack of
knowledge that he has ingested a specified substance is relevant to the issue of
intent but cannot of itself decide it. Foggo approach must be followed
• When the Panel does not have to address the issue of intent, it automatically looks at
the product itself and not the substance (CAS 2011/A/2495 FINA v. Cielo & CBDA)
• The first draft of the WADA Code for 2015 clearly states that the Oliveira approach
should not be favored. WADA now seems to go towards a deletion of the intent