CAS 2009/A/1805 IAAF v. RFEA & Josephine Onyia
CAS 2009/A/1847 IAAF v. RFEA & Josephine Onyia
In September 2008 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Spanish Athlete Josephina Onyia after her A and B samples - provided on two occasions in Lausanne and in Stuttgart in September 2008 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol and Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
However on 21 January 2009 and on 12 March 2009 the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (RFEA) concluded in both cases that the Athlete had committed no anti-doping rule violation and decided to lift the ordered provisional suspension.
The RFEA concluded regarding the reported presence of Clenbuterol that:
- the found concentration was below the Minimum Required Performance Limit;
- the Cologne Lab did not comply with the ISL;
- the presence of Clenbutrol could be caused by the ingestion of contamined meat; and
- the Athlete did not commit any punishable intentional doping conduct.
In the matter of the reported presence of Methylhexaneamine the RFEA concluded that:
- this substance was not prohibited under the WADA 2008 Prohibited List;
- when listed the substance should be classified as a Specified Substance;
- it was unlikely she would have committed a doping violation given the probalility to be tested;
- no stimulants were found in her other samples provided in the same month; and
- the Lausanne erred to quantify the substance that was found.
Hereafter in April 2009 the IAAF appealed the two Spanish decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The IAAF rejected the grounds to exonerate the Athlete and argued that:
- the Cologne Lab tests results were valid;
- the Cologne Lab was obliged to analyse samples in accordance with the ISL and the relevant WADA Technical Document;
- Methylhexaneamine was no specifically mentioned, yet classified in the Prohibited List as related substances under section 6.
- the Athlete failed to establish in both cases how the substances had entered her system; and
- under the IAAF Rules there was no need to prove that the violation was intentional.
The Panel finds that in each case the Athlete was shown, to the requisite standard of proof (i.e. to a standard greater than a mere balance of probability), to have a prohibited substance in her samples. In each case therefore she has been shown to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Panel determines that in neither case was the Athlete able to impugn the analysis or provide evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, how the Prohibited Substance had come to be in her samples. She was therefore not in a position to assert that she bore no, or no significant, fault or negligence for the violations.
The appeals by the IAAF will therefore be allowed. The two anti-doping rule violations are to be considered as one single first anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 September 2009 that:
1.) The appeals of the International Association of Athletics Federations are allowed.
2.) Ms Josephine Onyia is declared ineligible for all competition in respect of the two anti-doping rule violations for a period of two years, commencing on 22 September 2009.
However, credit is given for the periods of ineligibility already served because of the provisional suspensions totaling 316 days from 30 September 2008 to 21 January 2009 and from 4 March 2009 to 21 September 2009.
3.) Ms Josephine Onyia is disqualified from the 100m hurdles at the IAAF Golden League meeting "Athletissima" held in Lausanne on 2 September 2008 and from all subsequent events until the commencement date of the period of ineligibility with all resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
4.) (…)
