The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on an appeal involving a field hockey player who tested positive for cannabis during a doping control. The athlete admitted to regular cannabis use during a professional stay in Canada, with his last consumption occurring 13 days before the test. Swiss Olympic's disciplinary chamber imposed a nine-month suspension, citing the high level of Carboxy-THC (a cannabis metabolite) and the athlete's role in coaching juniors as aggravating factors. The athlete appealed, arguing the sanction was disproportionate, as cannabis does not enhance performance and his use occurred entirely outside a sporting context. He also referenced recent cases where lighter three-month suspensions were issued for similar offenses.
The CAS acknowledged that cannabis does not improve athletic performance and that the detected quantity should not be the sole basis for sanctions. It also ruled that the athlete's coaching role should not be considered an aggravating factor, as his cannabis use was unrelated to his responsibilities. However, the CAS noted that his consumption was not an isolated incident, which could justify a stricter penalty. While the CAS emphasized its role as a judicial review body rather than a primary disciplinary authority, it stated it would intervene only if the original decision was objectively incorrect, not merely because it might have reached a slightly different conclusion.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the nine-month suspension, agreeing with the disciplinary chamber's reasoning that the sanction was appropriate given the athlete's prolonged use and the need to ensure he missed a significant portion of the competitive season. The decision also maintained the financial penalties imposed for doping analysis and procedural costs. In a related case (TAS 2005/A/972), the CAS partially admitted an appeal, reducing a nine-month suspension to six months. The tribunal found the initial sanction overly severe, as the quantity of cannabis and the athlete's youth involvement were irrelevant to the offense. It also questioned the logic behind extending the sanction to ensure effectiveness, noting that six months already covered key competitive periods. The tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial restraint but intervened due to insufficient objective justification for the original penalty.
In the second case, the tribunal considered the athlete's admission of cannabis use, the sanction's impact during competition and rest periods, and his sincere regret. It found him credible in his commitment to avoid future violations and reduced the suspension to six months, starting from September 9, 2005. The tribunal upheld the disciplinary chamber's cost decisions, though it suggested better transparency in explaining varying cost amounts across cases. While the athlete requested no press release due to professional concerns, the tribunal allowed standard publications by Swiss Olympic and the CAS. The final decision balanced enforcement of anti-doping rules with consideration of contextual factors, particularly when performance enhancement was not a factor.