CAS 2021/A/8529 WADA v. International Boxing Association & Rohan Polanco Emiliano
In July 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Boxing Association (IBA), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American boxer Rohan Polanco Emiliano. The ITA deemed that the Athlete had 3 Wherabouts Failures within a 12 month period:
- a Filing Failure on 6 October 2020;
- a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 2 December 2020;
- a Filing Failure on 14 April 2022.
Although the Athlete submitted his explanations to the AIU the Whereabouts Failures were recorded. Also the Athlete's request for an adminstrative review regarding the 2nd and 3rd Whereabouts Failure were dismissed in June 2021.
However on 19 November 2021 an IBA Decision deemed that there was no anti-doping rule violation because the 1st Whereabouts Failure should not have been recorded. The ITA established that due to IT specificity of ADAMS' system the Athlete's Whereabouts Filings was not properly processed.
Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IBA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the Athlete for his 3 Whereabouts Failures.
WADA contended that prior the Athlete was duly notified about his RTP obligations and failed to make whereabouts filings by the applicable deadline. Furthermore the Athlete acted negligenty in his failure to meet his filing requirements.
The IBA confirmed the Athlete's 2nd and 3rd Filing Failures. However the IBA questioned the 1st Filing Failere as to whether the rules had been complied with by the Athlete in all the circumstances.
The Athlete’s asserted in his submissions that:
- he does not read, write or understand English;
- he may have received but never read and never understood the various correspondences sent to him by the IBA in relation to his whereabouts obligations;
- while he accepts that it is his signature on the “Acknowledgement Form” appended to the RTP Letter, he does not remember signing and he did not and does not understand what it says because it is in English and no one has explained it to him; and
- the emails sent from his email account (in English) were not sent by him but by an FDB administrator.
The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the Parties' arguments and determines that:
- The Athlete was duly notified about his RTP obligations.
- He did not provide all of the required information before the set deadline of 30 September 2020 regarding his 1st Filing Failure.
- WADA properly established that the Athlete's 2nd and 3rd filing failures have been made out.
- The Athlete had 3 Filing Failures within a 12 month period and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
- The Athlete acted with a higher degree of negligence.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 May 2023 that:
1.) The appeal filed on 27 December 2021 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against International Boxing Agency Association and Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano with respect to the decision rendered by the International Boxing Agency Association on 19 November 2021 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the International Boxing Association (comprised of an operative decision dated 14 July 2021 and a reasoned decision dated 19 November 2021), through its mandated agent the International Testing Agency, is set aside.
3.) Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.4 of the IBA ADR 2020 and/or the IBA ADR 2021.
4.) Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of twenty (20) months from the date of this Award. Any period of provisional suspension effectively served before the entry into force of this Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
5.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano from and including 1 April 2021 until 11 July 2021 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).
6.) The present award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee, which WADA has already paid and is retained by the CAS.
7.) (…).
8.) (…).
9.) All other or further requests for relief are hereby dismissed.
