The case revolves around Sevdalin Marinov, a former Olympic and Commonwealth Games gold medalist and head coach of an Australian weightlifting team, who was accused by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) of violating the 2002 Australian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) Anti-Doping Policy. The allegations stemmed from the discovery of prohibited substances, including anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents like androlone phenylpropionate, testosterone compounds, and stanozolol, in a bedroom Marinov occupied at a residence in Warrandyte, Victoria, in November 2003. ASADA recorded these findings in its Register of Findings, and the AWF referred the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for arbitration.
The initial CAS tribunal, led by Henry Jolson QC, found Marinov guilty of trafficking under the AWF Anti-Doping Policy, defining trafficking as knowingly possessing, holding, or storing prohibited substances. The tribunal imposed a lifetime ban from international competition and ordered Marinov to contribute $7,000 toward ASADA’s costs. Marinov appealed, arguing he lacked control over the substances to constitute trafficking. The CAS Appeals Panel, comprising Justice Tricia Kavanagh, John Winneke QC, and Alan Sullivan, reexamined the legal definition of trafficking under the AWF Policy. They emphasized that trafficking requires both knowledge of the prohibited substances and the ability to exercise control over them, though exclusive control is not necessary. The panel concluded that Marinov’s occupancy of the room under a bare license—a non-exclusive, gratuitous permission from the homeowner—did not confer control over items belonging to others. Under Australian law, a bare licensee lacks legal possession or control over such items unless they are their property. The panel found that mere knowledge of the substances’ presence was insufficient to establish trafficking without evidence of control.
The standard of proof required was "comfortable satisfaction," meaning the evidence must support inferences that are more probable than not, without speculation. The Appeals Panel determined that the initial tribunal had erred in drawing inferences without sufficient objective facts to establish Marinov’s control over the substances. Consequently, the Appeals Panel set aside the original award, dismissed the allegations against Marinov, and ordered ASADA to remove the entry from its Register of Findings. The decision clarified the legal requirements for proving trafficking in anti-doping cases, particularly the necessity of demonstrating control over prohibited substances.
The case highlights the complexities of proving anti-doping violations, especially when direct evidence of knowledge or intent is lacking. The Tribunal’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, such as the visibility of the substances and Marinov’s occupancy, was deemed insufficient to meet the required standard of proof. The Appeals Panel’s ruling underscored the importance of distinguishing between physical presence and legal control in determining possession. The outcome also emphasized the severe consequences for repeat violations under anti-doping policies, though in this instance, the evidence failed to establish Marinov’s guilt. The Court of Arbitration for Sport ultimately ruled in favor of Marinov, upholding the appeal and reserving decisions on costs related to the primary hearing and the appeal. The case serves as a significant precedent in anti-doping jurisprudence, clarifying the legal thresholds for proving possession and trafficking in such matters.