III. Sanctions on individuals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<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
<strong>III</strong>. <strong>Sanctions</strong> on individuals • Article 10.5 – Elimination or reduction of period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances ‣ Article 10.5.1 No fault or negligence If the athlete establishes that she/he bears no fault or negligence, the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility shall be eliminated. The athlete must also establish how the prohibited substance entered her/his system (for Article 2.1 cases). If this article is applied, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the purpose of determining the period of ineligibility for multiple violations under Article 10.7 ‣ Cases where CAS held that the athlete proved how the substance entered her/his system and established the she/he bears no fault or negligence: CAS 2005/A/990 Oleksandr Pobyedonostsev v. IIHF, CAS 2009/A/1926 & 1930 ITF & WADA v. Richard Gasquet
Page 1 and 2: Issues relating to doping matters W
Page 3 and 4: I. Introduction • In 2003, the Wo
Page 5 and 6: I. Introduction ‣ Article 2.5 - t
Page 7 and 8: II. Proof of doping • WADA-accred
Page 9: III. Sanct
Page 13 and 14: III. Sanct
Page 15 and 16: IV. Consequences to teams • If mo
Page 17: Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of

III. Sanctions on individuals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?