The case involves an appeal by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against a decision by the Brazilian Athletics Confederation (CBAt) concerning athlete Simone Alves da Silva, who tested positive for recombinant EPO during a 10,000-meter race in Brazil on August 3, 2011. The urine sample analysis, conducted by a WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal, confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance. The athlete was provisionally suspended but later cleared by the CBAt Disciplinary Committee, which cited discrepancies in sample code numbers and procedural flaws. The IAAF appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing this was the athlete’s second anti-doping violation, as she had previously served a three-month suspension in 2010 for another doping offense involving Oxilofrine. The athlete disputed this, claiming the prior sanction was administrative rather than a formal anti-doping violation.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator reviewed the case, emphasizing the authority to examine new evidence under CAS rules and the jurisdictional scope of national federations in anti-doping matters. The arbitrator concluded that participation in a competition under a national federation’s jurisdiction subjects the athlete to its disciplinary processes, and any suspension for doping must be considered a first offense, with subsequent violations treated accordingly. The case highlights procedural complexities in anti-doping adjudication and the importance of consistent application of regulations across jurisdictions.
The athlete contested the anti-doping results, alleging procedural errors in sample collection, including discrepancies in sample codes, improper handling of the sample bottle, and lack of documentation for leaving the doping control station. The IAAF countered these claims, stating the athlete was chaperoned by officials and that the alleged procedural errors did not affect the integrity of the samples. The arbitrator found the athlete’s arguments insufficient to rebut the laboratory’s findings, as she failed to provide expert medical evidence or corroborate her claims about how the substance entered her body.
The arbitrator also dismissed the athlete’s claim that a handwriting error in laboratory records invalidated the results, noting the error was minor and did not affect the reliability of the findings. The arbitrator concluded that the athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation, as the procedural errors cited were not material enough to invalidate the laboratory’s findings or the principle of strict liability.
The case was further complicated by the athlete’s prior violation, which the IAAF argued warranted a stricter penalty. Under IAAF rules, a second violation involving a prohibited substance carries a standard sanction of two years' ineligibility, but given the prior offense, the penalty could range between four and six years. The IAAF sought a six-year ban, citing the athlete’s high degree of fault and the nature of the violation (blood doping). The athlete argued for leniency, citing her humble background and limited literacy, but the arbitrator found these factors insufficient to mitigate the sanction.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld the IAAF’s appeal, imposing a five-year ban on the athlete, effective from the date of the award, with credit for the provisional suspension served since October 14, 2011. The athlete was also required to forfeit all titles, awards, medals, points, and prize money earned from the date of the violation until her provisional suspension. The decision underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the consequences of repeated violations, while also highlighting the challenges athletes face in contesting adverse findings without substantial evidence.
The ruling reaffirms the importance of procedural fairness and the need for clarity in distinguishing between administrative sanctions and formal anti-doping violations to ensure uniform enforcement of doping rules. The case serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards applied in anti-doping adjudications and the significant repercussions for athletes found in violation.