III. Sanctions on individuals
III. Sanctions on individuals
III. Sanctions on individuals
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>III</str<strong>on</strong>g>. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Sancti<strong>on</strong>s</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>individuals</strong><br />
‣ Article 10.5.2 No significant fault or negligence<br />
If an athlete establishes that she/he bears no significant fault or negligence,<br />
the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be reduced but such<br />
reducti<strong>on</strong> may not be less that <strong>on</strong>e-half of the period of ineligibility otherwise<br />
applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is a lifetime, the<br />
reduced period may not be less than eight years. The athlete must also<br />
establish how the prohibited substance entered her/his system (for Article<br />
2.1 cases)<br />
‣ Cases where CAS held that the athlete proved how the substance entered<br />
her/his system and established the she/he bears no significant fault or<br />
negligence: CAS 2005/A/951 Guillermo Cañas v. ATP, CAS 2006/A/1025 Mariano<br />
Puerta v. ITF<br />
‣ Cases where CAS held that the athlete proved how the substance entered<br />
her/his system (but not the absence of fault or significant fault): CAS<br />
2006/A/1067 IRB v. Jas<strong>on</strong> Keyter, CAS 2006/A/1130 WADA v. Darko Stanic &<br />
Swiss Olympic, TAS 2006/A/1038 Joseph N’Sima c. FIBA & AMA
Change language