The case CAS 2016/A/4502 Patrick Leeper v. International Paralympic Committee (IPC) revolves around a dispute concerning doping violations and the interpretation of the IPC Anti-Doping Code (IPC Code). Patrick Leeper, a Paralympic athlete, tested positive for benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, during an in-competition urine sample in June 2015. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged Leeper with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) under Article 2.1 of the IPC Code. An independent American Arbitration Association (AAA) Panel initially imposed a two-year ineligibility period on Leeper, as he failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered his system under Articles 10.4 and 10.5 of the IPC Code. Leeper appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and later reached a settlement agreement with USADA, reducing his ineligibility period to one year and withdrawing his appeal.
The case examines several key legal issues under the IPC Code, including the relationship between the right to appeal decisions and the recognition of decisions under Articles 13 and 15 of the IPC Code. The panel concluded that appeals take precedence over recognition, and both provisions are mutually exclusive. However, the IPC is not obligated to appeal a decision if the requirements for recognition under Article 15.1 are not met. The term "appealable decision" is interpreted broadly to include agreements between anti-doping organizations and athletes regarding consequences for alleged violations. The IPC Code differentiates between the results management stage and the appeal stage, with the right to appeal only applicable to decisions from the results management stage. Settlement agreements designed to terminate CAS appeal proceedings are not subject to further appeals under Articles 13 or 15.1.
The panel also addressed whether third parties are bound by private settlement agreements, concluding there are no procedural reasons for such binding. Article 15.1 of the IPC Code requires signatories to recognize "testing, hearing results, or other final adjudications," interpreted broadly to include private agreements between athletes and anti-doping organizations. The IPC cannot refuse recognition solely because the decision takes the form of an agreement. Additionally, the panel considered the application of Article 10.5.2 of the IPC Code regarding reductions in ineligibility periods for social or recreational drug use. While the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) does not differentiate between types of drugs, the panel found that knowingly ingesting cocaine outside competition could qualify for a reduction under No Significant Fault or Negligence. However, in Leeper's case, his use of cocaine while intoxicated did not demonstrate minimal fault, warranting a normal degree of negligence.
The case underscores the complexities of anti-doping regulations and the interplay between appeals, recognition, and settlement agreements. It highlights the need for harmonized approaches to recreational drug use while emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the scope of adjudication under the IPC Code. The panel's decision provides clarity on the interpretation of key provisions and their application to real-world disputes in anti-doping governance. Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of the IPC, dismissing Leeper's appeal and affirming that the IPC had no obligation to recognize the settlement agreement. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of the WADC and IPC Code, ensuring consistency and fairness in anti-doping sanctions.