The trouble with Ostarine: Jimmy Wallhead’s
16th March 2018
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) have lost appeals that sought to double a two year ban issued to Shayna Jack, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) announced yesterday. WADA and SIA both appealed on the basis that the Australian swimmer had not shown how Lingradol had entered her system, arguing that a four year ban was therefore applicable.
The original CAS Decision outlined that under the World Anti-Doping Code, it is not strictly necessary for an athlete to prove the origin of a prohibited substance in order to prove that an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) is not intentional. Article 10.2.3 of the Code outlines that the term ‘intentional’ is designed to identify athletes who cheat; and Article 10.5.2 establishes that an athlete can establish no significant fault or intent in cases where an ADRV doesn’t involve a specified substance or contamination isn’t established – but in these cases, the applicable sanction can only be halved.
This is what has played out in Jack’s case. In the original CAS Decision, the sole Arbitrator was satisfied that Jack had shown her ADRV not to be intentional. She initially blamed supplements for her adverse analytical finding (AAF – or ‘positive test’), but had no proof that they were the cause. Yesterday’s CAS announcement said that the Panel agreed, but not with the original sole Arbitrator’s reasoning.
‘The majority of the Panel determined that while it disagreed with the reasoning set out in the Appealed Decision it nevertheless upheld its ultimate holding, for different grounds: the finding of an ADRV and the sanction of a two-year period of ineligibility, on the basis that Shayna Jack had, on the balance of probabilities, established that she did not intentionally or recklessly consume the prohibited substance and could therefore benefit from a reduction in the period of ineligibility from four years to two years’, reads yesterday’s statement. ‘The Arbitral Award will be published on the CAS website in the coming days’.
It appears that SIA is unhappy with yesterday’s CAS Panel Decision, but it considers the matter closed. ‘Sport Integrity Australia’s decision to appeal the original ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport was based on the need for clarity in the application of key anti-doping legal principles’, read a statement. ‘Sport Integrity Australia is taking time to review the full decision in detail prior to making any assessment on the application of those principles going forward.
‘Sport Integrity Australia CEO David Sharpe said the matter is now closed. “This matter wasn’t about pursuing an individual athlete, it was very much about providing clarity and consistency to athletes and sports in the application of the World Anti-Doping Code”.’ WADA has yet to comment.
‘After a 2 year and 3 month battle, I have finally received my final decision that my appeal case has been dismissed by the Court of Arbitration’, read a statement from Jack on Instagram (below). ‘I am now free to do what I love with no restrictions and am so overwhelmed with joy. I am now going to take some time to myself to cherish this moment and reflect on what I have endured. The nightmare is finally over.’
This week’s SII Anti-Doping Monitor recorded 22 doping cases involving 21 Athletes and a Coach...
• At least ten international professional tennis players from France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands...
• Body composed of three chambers to become operational on 1 October • New procedural...