The case involves Canadian triathlete G., who was selected for the 2002 Commonwealth Games but was provisionally suspended after his "A" sample tested positive for nandrolone or its precursors. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) informed Triathlon Canada (TC) of the result, leading to G.'s immediate suspension under Canadian Doping Control Regulations and his removal from the team. After the "B" sample also tested positive, G.'s legal team argued he was suspended without a fair hearing and sought reinstatement. When denied, G. filed an urgent application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division. The CAS panel examined two main issues: its jurisdiction and the validity of G.'s removal. It found jurisdiction based on a dispute resolution clause in G.'s Entry Form, binding both G. and Commonwealth Games Canada (CGC). On the removal's validity, the panel ruled that International Triathlon Union (ITU) rules and English law, governing the Entry Form, did not require a pre-suspension hearing. It upheld the CCES's actions, noting provisional suspensions are standard in anti-doping cases and do not negate later fair hearings. The panel dismissed G.'s application, affirming his suspension and removal.
G. argued his eligibility should be determined solely by Article 24 of the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) Constitution, which outlines general eligibility criteria, including compliance with international federation rules and no disqualifications. He claimed ITU rules entitled him to a hearing before suspension. The CAS panel rejected this, stating Article 24 was not exhaustive and did not override G.'s contractual obligations, including immediate ineligibility for a positive test. The panel emphasized the binding nature of arbitration clauses and anti-doping policies, ruling in favor of the respondents.
The document also explores doping control rules, noting Article 24 of the CGF Constitution requires compliance with international federation, IOC, and WADA rules but allows national bodies to set additional criteria. ITU Doping Control Rules permit national federations to create their own regulations if they substantially comply with ITU guidelines. These rules emphasize fair hearings, athlete rights, and strict liability for doping offenses, with ineligibility starting from the sample date. The document clarifies ITU rules do not mandate pre-suspension hearings, focusing instead on procedural fairness in later stages. It highlights the balance between international standards and national autonomy, ensuring rigorous yet fair doping control.
In the final appeal, G. contended his provisional suspension violated ITU rules requiring a fair hearing before eligibility decisions. The CAS panel found ITU rules do not require pre-suspension hearings, noting interim suspensions are provisional and justified by the public interest in clean sport. Under English law, such suspensions are common, with athlete rights protected by subsequent hearings. The panel found no evidence to challenge the testing procedures or sample integrity and dismissed G.'s reinstatement request, upholding the suspension under Canadian regulations, which did not conflict with ITU rules. The decision underscores the need for swift anti-doping action while safeguarding procedural rights through later appeals.