The case involves an appeal by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against a decision by the Hungarian National Anti-Doping Organisation (HAA) regarding Hungarian discus thrower Zoltan Kövágó. The IAAF alleged that Kövágó violated anti-doping rules by refusing or failing to submit to sample collection without compelling justification under IAAF Rule 32.2(c). Kövágó, an elite athlete with significant achievements, was part of the IAAF Registered Testing Pool in August 2011. The IAAF sought to overturn the HAA's decision, arguing Kövágó should face a two-year ineligibility period, disqualification of competitive results, and reimbursement of legal costs. The Hungarian Athletics Association and Kövágó, in response, requested the appeal's dismissal and confirmation of the original decision, along with compensation for legal expenses.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) heard the case under an expedited procedure due to the proximity of the London Olympic Games. The panel, consisting of Judge James Robert Reid QC, Professor Richard McLaren, and Mr. John Faylor, conducted a de novo hearing, reviewing the case anew rather than merely assessing the HAA's decision. Jurisdiction was uncontested, with all parties agreeing CAS had authority under IAAF and CAS rules. The applicable law was Monegasque law, and proceedings were conducted in English. The burden of proof rested on the IAAF to demonstrate the anti-doping violation to the panel's comfortable satisfaction, a standard higher than the balance of probabilities but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case centered on events on August 11, 2011, when a doping control officer (DCO) and his assistant attempted to conduct an out-of-competition test on Kövágó at his regular training gym. The IAAF claimed Kövágó was notified of the test but left without providing a sample, thereby evading the test without compelling justification. Kövágó denied any interaction with the doping control officials, stating he was unaware of their presence and had no intention of avoiding testing, as evidenced by his compliance with a subsequent test the following day. The DCO, an experienced professional, had reviewed Kövágó’s whereabouts via the ADAMS system and confirmed his availability at the gym during the specified time. However, Kövágó had sent an email late the previous evening updating his location to a military base, which was not processed until later on the day of the attempted test.
The DCO and his assistant arrived at the gym early and claimed to have interacted with Kövágó, who allegedly appeared uncomfortable, made phone calls mentioning "doping," and then left without completing the test. Kövágó maintained he was never approached and had no knowledge of the test attempt. The case hinged on conflicting accounts of whether Kövágó was properly notified and whether his actions constituted evasion. The IAAF asserted Kövágó’s behavior was deliberate, while Kövágó argued the lack of interaction and his clean testing record supported his innocence.
The panel evaluated witness statements, photographs, and phone records to determine credibility. The DCO’s account was deemed more credible due to his unimpeachable service and lack of motive to fabricate the story. Kövágó’s version, suggesting the DCO concocted an elaborate false narrative, was found implausible. Witnesses supporting Kövágó’s account were considered biased, as they were acquaintances with reasons to favor his story. The panel concluded Kövágó evaded the doping test by leaving the gym and driving away, upholding the IAAF’s appeal. Consequently, Kövágó was sanctioned with a two-year ban starting from the hearing date, with credit for any prior suspension. All competitive results from the violation date to the hearing were disqualified. The panel noted this was not a case of refusal due to force majeure, as Kövágó never claimed he was required to return to his post. The CAS ruled to uphold the IAAF’s appeal, set aside the HAA's initial decision, and imposed the sanctions while dismissing all further claims.