CAS 2016/A/4746 Sibel Özkan Konak v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Related case:
IOC 2016 IOC vs Sibel Özkan
July 21, 2016
- Weightlifting
- Doping (stanozolol)
- Automatic consequences of anti-doping rule violation
Article 2.1 of the Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008 (the Rules) foresees that the presence of a prohibited substance (or its metabolite) in an athlete’s system constitutes an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). Furthermore, Article 8 of the Rules makes disqualification and forfeiture of medals, points and prizes an automatic sanction for such an ADRV. Therefore issues of how and why a prohibited substance was present in an athlete’s system or the existence or degree of fault, if any, on the part of the athlete for its presence, are irrelevant to the outcome of an appeal by which the athlete is seeking annulation of a first instance decision under which all his medals, results etc. won had been disqualified.
Ms. Sibel Özkan is a Turkish Athlete competing the 48kg Weightlifting event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.
In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation with the intentional use of a prohibited substance and decided on 21 July 2016 to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained to the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games and ordered her to return her silver medal, pins and diploma obtained thereat.
Hereafter in August 2016 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete requested the Sole Arbitrator Panel to set aside the IOC decision and argued that the violation was unintentional and the result of contaminations in the supplements she took. Also the Athlete offered substantial assistance to the IOC by disclosure of sensitive information about the Turkish Weightlifting Federation.
The IOC requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and argued that Athlete failed to provide any evidence of the contamination by stanozolol of the supplement said to be taken by her during the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. The Athlete’s offer of substantial assistance is considered not a matter for the IOC.
The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under the Rules because of the presence of a metabolite of a prohibited substance stanozolol in the Athlete’s system with disqualification and forfeiture of medals, points and prizes. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that issues of how and why the Stanozolol was in the Athlete’s system or the existence or degree of fault, if any, on the part of the Athlete for its presence, are therefore irrelevant to the outcome of the appeal. The Sole Arbitrator sees no need to address them or to resolve the competing arguments of the parties on such issues nor, in his view, would any useful purpose be served by his so doing.
The Sole Arbitrator notes that the ability to reanalyse samples with the benefit of advanced techniques, reflected in this case, is a valuable weapon in the battle against doping in sport and should further deter athletes from deliberate cheating and further encourage them to take care not inadvertently to ingest prohibited substances.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 November 2016 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Ms Sibel Özkan Konak on 11 August 2016 against the decision rendered on 21 July 2016 the IOC Disciplinary Commission is dismissed.
2.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1’000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Ms Sibel Özkan Konak, which is retained by the CAS.
3.) Each party shall bear her/its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
