- The Bench: Mr. Michele A. R. Bernasconi (Sole-Arbitrator)
- Date of Judgment: 2014
- Court: Court of Arbitration for Sport
- Citation: CAS 2014/A/3639
- Parties: Amar Muralidharan (Appellant)
National Anti-Doping Agency, New Delhi, India & National Dope Testing Laboratory, New Delhi, India & Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, New Delhi, India (Respondents)
Facts -
Amar M participated in the 64th National Aquatic Championships in India between the dates 24-28 August 2010. On 26th August he was randomly selected by the NADA for a doping control test. On 4th Sept 2010 he was made aware that there was MHA found in the urine which is a prohibited substance as per the WADA 2009 list on the same. He was suspended from the competition and later asked for a test to be conducted on the B sample given with an independent observer. The B sample, as similar to the A sample contained the prohibited substance.
Contentions
Appellant
That the Decision of the previous court must be annulled owing to the clerical error that was made and the lack of evidence in proving the violation of Article 2.1 as claimed by the Respondents. Further he has provided that his samples were not processed as per the NADA Anti-Doping regulation and therefore must be struck down. Finally, he argued that he has been denied justice owing to the delay in the hearings.
Respondent
The NADA strictly follow the rules set by WADA and the same guidelines were followed by the agency. Though there were some clerical errors, there was no discrepancy in the testing as all the samples included in the alleged “error” tested positive for MHA. Further, the Appellant had been given adequate time to present his case and all related documents have been provided.
Judgment
The Arbitrator found that the errors that were alleged were purely typographical and cannot be assumed to have had an impact on the integrity of the tests that were conducted. These errors were not so fundamental that they require action against the Agency. It was further held that though the delays were excessive did not violate any of Mr. Amar’s fundamental or procedural rights. The decision of the ADAP was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
