The case involves an appeal by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) regarding the disqualification of the Currumbin Barbarians Surf Life Saving Club Men’s Open Surf Boat Team following an anti-doping violation by one of its members, Mr. Atkins, during the 2009 Australian Surf Life Saving Championships. While Atkins tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol, the other four team members tested negative and were unaware of his violation. Initially, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) arbitrator David Grace QC ruled that only Atkins should be disqualified, allowing the team to retain their victory. ASADA appealed this decision, arguing that under Articles 9 and 11 of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the entire team should be disqualified. The key legal issue was whether the surf boat competition was classified as an individual or team sport under the WADC, which hinges on whether substitutions were permitted during the event.
The respondents argued that the appeal was inadmissible under the Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) Anti-Doping Policy, which they claimed limited appeals to decisions affecting individual athletes, not team outcomes. They also contended that the competition rules allowed substitutions, meaning Article 11 (applicable to team sports) should apply, sparing the team from collective disqualification. The CAS panel, however, rejected these jurisdictional arguments, finding that the appeal was valid under Article 16 of the Policy, which permits broader determinations. The panel also examined the classification of the sport, concluding that since substitutions were not allowed during the race, it qualified as an "individual sport" under the WADC, even though participants competed as a team. This classification meant Article 9 applied, mandating automatic disqualification of the team's results due to Atkins' violation.
The panel emphasized that the WADC's definitions of individual and team sports are exhaustive, leaving no gaps. An "individual sport" includes any competition where substitution is not permitted, regardless of whether participants compete as a team. The panel found it illogical that larger teams would face collective sanctions while smaller teams or crews would not, absent explicit wording in the WADC. The ruling clarified that the "result" in such cases belongs to the team as a whole, not individual members, necessitating the forfeiture of the team's win, medals, and prizes. The panel upheld ASADA's appeal, disqualifying the Currumbin Barbarians team and adjusting the rankings of the other competing teams accordingly.
The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping enforcement and the importance of competition rules in determining the application of the WADC. It also highlights the complexities of balancing fairness to clean athletes with the need for consistent enforcement in team sports. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases, clarifying that teams in non-substitutable competitions face collective consequences for individual violations. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction to impose sanctions on all team members under Article 9, ensuring a coherent and fair application of anti-doping rules across all sports.