International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Athletics Federation of India (AFI) & Akkunji Ashwini, Priyanka Panwar, Tiana Mary Thomas & Sini Jose (2012)
Under Rules 32.2(a), 38.15 & 40.2 of the IAAF Rules
(Appeal allowed, decision of ADDP set aside )
PANEL: Mr Mark Hovell
FACTS:
On 2 September 2010, the World Anti-Doping Agency received a tip-off that the Athletes may be engaged in doping. In late 2010 the Athletes’ coach, Yuri Ogorodnik , claims to have purchased Ginseng Kianpi pills from the Athletes Village at Guangzhou at the Asian Games. The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) collected samples from the athletes and It was established that the ingestion of Ginseng Kianpi Pil has resulted in the presence of prohibited substances in the samples of the Athletes. On 29 February 2012, the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (ADAP) held a hearing following which the it upheld the sanction of 1 year’s ineligibility.
ISSUE:
Whether the Athletes were negligent or at fault while ingesting Ginseng Kianpi Pill provided by the coach under Rule 38.15
APPELLANT’s SUBMISSIONS:
· That the Athletes completely failed in their duty to ensure that no prohibited substance entered their system.
· That the Athletes failed to make enquiry of the manufacture or arrange for the supplement to be tested before using them
· That the Athletes have not met their burden of proving on the balance of probability that the Kianpi Pills were the source of their adverse analytical findings.
RESPONDENT’s SUBMISSIONS:
· That no documents made available by the IAAF to the Athletes regarding this “review” as per Rule 37.3 of the IAAF Rules
· Ginseng is a herb and not a medicine. There would therefore be no mention of steroids on the website for the Kianpi Pills nor on the list of ingredients
· That the Athletes were under the impression that the supplements, including the Kianpi Pills Pills, in particular Ginseng were supplied by the AFI via their Coach with a notion of trust.
JUDGEMENT:
The appeal filed on 5 April 2012 by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against the decision of the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel issued on 17 March 2011 is admissible and upheld. Ms. Ashwini, Ms. Panwar, Ms. Mary Thomas and Ms. Jose shall be all declared ineligible for a period of two (2) years starting from the date of the present award, given credit of the period of their previous period of ineligibility and subsequent provisional suspension already served.
