CCES & Frans. Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) Joe Frans Canadian Curling Association (CCA) & Government of Canada Doping Richard H.

Transcription

1 Introduction Claimant: Respondent: Intervenor(s): Type of Dispute: Arbitrator: Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) Joe Frans Canadian Curling Association (CCA) & Government of Canada Doping Richard H. McLaren Date of Decision: June 2 nd, 2005

2 Dispute Summary Joe Frans is a curler who failed a random drug test at the 2005 Canadian Brier in Edmonton. As required under Canada s Anti-Doping Program (CADP), a tribunal was ordered through the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) to determine whether an anti-doping rule violation had been committed and, if so, to identify the appropriate sanction.

3 Background Facts While competing in the 2005 Canadian Brier, Joe Frans was randomly selected for a doping test. Laboratory results found evidence of cocaine in the urine sample. Cocaine is one of the substances on the Prohibited List produced by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). As part of an initial review of the case, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) requested that Mr. Frans provide an explanation. In an , the athlete explained that, while he had consumed alcohol and smoked cigarettes during the Brier, he had not ingested cocaine, nor had he witnessed any evidence of its use. About three weeks after the positive lab test, the CCES issued a notice asserting that a doping infraction had occurred and proposing a two-year sanction from competition and permanent ineligibility from direct financial support from the Government of Canada. As required by the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP), a hearing was held by the SDRCC to determine whether a doping infraction had occurred and if so, the appropriate penalty.

4 Background Facts (cont d) Mr. Frans did not participate in a pre-hearing conference call on May 3 rd, A variety of methods were used to contact the athlete in order to serve the necessary papers and to encourage him to participate in the SDRCC hearing. By May 24 th, Mr. Frans had not responded and the arbitrator, Richard McLaren, concluded that the athlete was unwilling to cooperate. Therefore, the arbitrator s ruling was based on written documentation only.

5 Claimant s Position The CCES case was based on the results of a random doping test which found evidence of cocaine in Mr. Frans urine sample. The CCES argued that the athlete had been properly selected for testing and that the process of obtaining, transporting and testing the sample was fully consistent with the Canadian Anti-Doping Program.

6 Respondent s Position Mr. Frans sent an to the CCES: To admit to having partied hard at the Brier; To admit to drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes every night after competition; To deny ever having ingested cocaine; and, To state that he had no explanation for the presence of cocaine in his urine sample.

7 Arbitrator s Analysis In his ruling, Mr. McLaren noted that the CADP makes the athlete responsible for any prohibited substance found in the urine sample. Based on the evidence, the arbitrator concluded that an anti-doping violation had occurred. In the absence of an explanation from the athlete, the arbitrator determined he had no choice but to impose the mandatory sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation under the CADP.

8 Ruling The arbitrator imposed the mandatory two-year sanction from competition along with permanent ineligibility from direct financial support from the Government of Canada. Click here for the full text of this ADRsportRED judgment.

9 Lessons Learned 1. Denial or inability to explain the presence of a banned substance in the athlete s body is not sufficient evidence to rebut the occurrence of a doping infraction.