Traves Smikle, a Jamaican discus athlete, appealed a two-year suspension imposed by the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) after testing positive for hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), a prohibited substance under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code. The suspension followed a positive urine test during the JAAA National Senior Championships in June 2013. Smikle denied the anti-doping rule violation, but the Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel upheld the suspension, which was later affirmed by the Jamaica Anti-Doping Appeals Tribunal in February 2015. Smikle then sought urgent relief from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting a stay of the suspension to avoid irreparable harm to his career, including missing major competitions like the Pan-American Games, World Championships, or Olympic Games.
CAS provisionally granted the stay on 20 February 2015, pending JADCO’s response. After reviewing submissions from both parties, CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R37 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, as JADCO’s rules designate CAS as the final appellate body for anti-doping decisions. The appeal was deemed admissible, as Smikle filed within the required timeframe. CAS evaluated the stay request based on three criteria: the necessity to prevent irreparable harm, the likelihood of success in the substantive appeal, and whether the athlete’s interests outweighed those of JADCO. These criteria, established in prior CAS rulings, must all be met for a stay to be granted.
Smikle argued that the suspension would cause irreparable harm by preventing him from qualifying for major events and jeopardizing his academic scholarship at the University of the West Indies. He also claimed his appeal had a reasonable chance of success, citing procedural similarities to a previous CAS case. JADCO countered that Smikle could still train and that his scholarship remained unaffected. They also disputed the likelihood of success, noting differences from the cited case, particularly the lack of an environmental contamination claim.
The CAS President found that Smikle had demonstrated irreparable harm due to the timing of his career and the potential loss of competitive opportunities. While the full merits of the appeal would be assessed later, the President acknowledged Smikle’s plausible arguments. The balance of interests favored Smikle, as the stay would not undermine anti-doping efforts but would protect his career and scholarship. The President granted the stay, allowing Smikle to compete in qualifying events while the appeal was pending. The decision emphasized that each case must be assessed individually and deferred the final cost determination to the full appeal proceedings.
This ruling highlights the delicate balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and safeguarding athletes from undue career disruption, particularly when major competitions are at stake. The stay ensures Smikle’s rights are protected while maintaining procedural fairness, with the final decision on the suspension’s validity to be determined in the full appeal.