Delivered by: Arbitral Award delivered by the Court of Arbitration for Sports
Panel: Mr ConnyJörne klint, Chief Judge in Kalmar, Sweden Arbitrators: Mr Mark Hovell, Solicitor in Manchester, England Justice Mukul Mudgal, Former Chief Justice Punjab and Haryana High Court, India
Appellant: World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA),
Respondents: Nirupama Devi Laishram[Manipur, India] &National Anti-Doping Agency of India (NADA) [New Delhi, India]
Facts of the case: Further to an In-Competition test performed on a urine sample provided by the Athlete at the Senior Judo Championship in Kolkata on 11 January 2012 referred to as the "Event" I this discussion, both the A-sample and B-sample tested positive for Methylhexaneamine. The Event was not an International Event. Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) is a prohibited substance, which is classified under "S6 (b)" (Specified Stimulants) on the 2012 WADA Prohibited List. It is prohibited in-competition. The Athlete was notified of the positive test on 18 April 2012. A hearing was held before the Anti-DopingDisciplinary Panel of India(the "ADDPI") on 12 July 2012. Both the Athlete and NADA were represented at this hearing. The ADDPI rendered a written decision on 17 July 2012 (the "First Instance Decision"). The First Instance Decision sanctioned the Athlete with a reprimand and no period of ineligibility in respect of her anti-doping rule violation. NADA Appealed the First Instance Decision to the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (the "ADAPI") who confirmed the First Instance Decision and dismissed NADA’s appeal on 10 September 2012, ("the Appealed Decision").
It is the Decision which is the subject of the present appeals proceedings.
Judgement: Several Articles and Provisions of the WADA code related to the presence of the prohibited substances in the system of the concerned athlete and costs incurred in these proceedings along with the period of ineligibility were read and applied in the proceedings. According to article 10 of the NADA ADR the following sanctions were applicable:
10.1 Disqualification of Results in Event during which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation Occurs - An Anti-Doping Rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete's individual results obtained in that Event with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.2. as -If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Athlete's individual results in the other Competition shall not be Disqualified unless the Athlete's results in Competition other than the Competition in which the anti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation.
10.2 Imposition of Ineligibility for Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods. The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Code Article 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), Code Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) and Code Article 2.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods) shall be as follows, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.5, or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Article 10.6, are met:
First violation was found and the results were two years of Ineligibility.
The final arbitral order read as follows:
‘The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that:
1. The appeal filed by WADA on 12 November 2012 is upheld.
2. The decision of the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel of India is set aside.
3. Nirupama Devi Laishram is sanctioned by a two year period of ineligibility, which shall commence on 1 May 2013. The period of voluntarily served provisional suspension of 89 days shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4. All competitive results obtained by Nirupama Devi Laishram from 11 January 2012, including the results in the Senior Judo Championships in Kolkata, shall be disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5. The costs of arbitration, to be determined and notified by the CAS Court office, shall be borne entirely by Nirupama Devi Laishram.
6. Each party shall bear its own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.’
