Nandrolone in Judo? Bouras v. IJF

The case is that of Bouras v. International Judo Federation (Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Lausanne, 20.12.99, CAS 99/A/230). What was at issue for Bouras was the length of suspension and whether the results achieved while the doping tests had not yet been announced were valid and the athlete could thus keep his trophies.

Djamel Bouras was a judoka and member of the French Judo Federation (FFJDA). At the request of the French Ministry of Youth and Sport, Bouras was subjected to an out-of-competition drug test on 2 October 1997. He tested positive. On 18 April 1998, the FFJDA Anti-doping Commission, to which the case had been referred, decided to impose a two-year suspension on Bouras, with one year suspended.

Bouras filed an appeal against this decision with the FFJDA Anti-Doping Appeals Commission, which decided that the case was outside its jurisdiction. The French Minister of Youth and Sport then asked the National Anti-Doping Commission for its opinion. The Commission suggested that the sanction imposed by the FFJDA should not be increased because of doubts surrounding the origin of the nandrolone metabolites found in Bouras’ samples.

Based on this opinion, the Minister of Youth and Sport ruled in a decree of 9 July 1998 that Bouras should be suspended for one year. The International Judo Federation (IJF) took up the case and its Executive Committee heard the athlete and the FFJDA President on 9 October 1998. On 10 October 1998, since Bouras had said that a further analysis was about to prove his innocence, the IJF Executive Committee postponed its final decision, considering that Bouras had been suspended since 2 October 1997.

On 14 October 1998, Djamel Bouras appealed to the CAS, which decided to set aside the IJF’s decision of 10 October and to suspend Bouras for fifteen months, i.e. until 19 March 1999, taking into account the period of suspension already served (“time served”). On the basis of this decision, the IJF decided to nullify the results achieved by Bouras at the World Championships in Paris in October 1997 and to withdraw the silver medal awarded on that occasion.

On 25 June 1999, Bouras filed an appeal against this decision with the CAS, arguing that: 1) the IJF’s decision had been taken without the involvement of both parties; 2) the IJF had not been competent to rule on the case once it had been referred to the CAS; 3) under the “non bis in idem” rule, disciplinary action could not be taken against an athlete more than once for the same offence (our “double jeopardy”); 4) since the test had not been carried out during a competition, the IJF’s decision had no legal foundation.

On 30 August 1999, the IJF filed its response, in which it stated that a distinction should be drawn between the disciplinary sanction, i.e. suspension, and the sporting sanction, i.e. disqualification and forfeiture of the medal, which it thought were automatic.

The CAS declared Bouras’ appeal admissible and set aside the decision taken by the IJF Executive Committee in April 1999, in which it disqualified the appellant from the 1997 World Championships and ordered the forfeiture of the medal he won on that occasion. The grounds for this decision were, firstly, that the decision to disqualify the athlete had no valid foundation either in the IJF Anti-doping Regulations, which at the time made no provision for out-of-competition drug tests, nor in the IOC Medical Code, which only made provision for suspension, rather than disqualification, as a result of this type of test. Furthermore, the appellant’s results could not be invalidated, since he had not been suspended when participating in the World Championships. At the time of the event, the IJF regulations stated that suspensions should begin on the date on which the test result was announced rather than the day when the sample was given.

Share This:

May a Banned Athlete Sue for Economic Damages?

The issue above was answered by the High Court in 1997 in the case of Edvards v. BAF (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, United Kingdom, 23.6.97). Let us examine it closer.

The substance in question in the case below is not mentioned. However, we know that the most favored anabolic steroid among powerlifters is Deca (Nandrolone), also mentioned in the previous article, and Dianabol. Many athletes take Deca because it fuels the synovial fluid and helps joints recover and endure the stress of high poundage. Dianabol increases nitrogen retention and protein synthesis. It is the only steroid that was developed (by the Russians, of course) in order to enhance athletic performance.

Paul M. Edwards was an amateur athlete and member of the British Athletic Federation. On 22 October 1994, pursuant to the rules of the IAAF, the British Athletic Federation suspended Edwards for four years after he tested positive for anabolic steroids. He became a tabloid piece and was never overly hypocritical about the use. Once he claimed that the tests were wrong because “all his ampules were broken by the airport handlers,” indicating that, therefore, he was “drug-free.”

Subsequently, Edwards applied to the IAAF for reinstatement, asking for remission of the last two years of the ban. His application was refused. Hence, Edwards sued BAF, challenging the lawfulness of this refusal on the grounds that similar requests by other athletes had been granted. These “other athletes” were members of other athletic associations both within and outside the European Union (EU) whose local laws limited the length of such bans to two years (we have already mentioned in a previous post the case of Katrin Krabbe whose suspension in excess of two years was held “disproportionate to a first offence of doping” by the Munich Appeals Court).

Following Krabbe’s decision, the German Athletic Federation wrote to the IAAF Council, requesting that it reinstate two of its members, Martin Bremer and Ms. Tiedkte, who had been suspended for four years under the IAAF Rules, on the grounds of “exceptional circumstances” as defined in IAAF Rule 60.8. The IAAF did so, specifying what the “exceptional circumstances” provided for in Rule 60.8 mean: they exist when an athlete’s national law (or court ruling) prohibits a four-year ban.

Several other athletes have been reinstated as a result, hence Edwards claimed that: 1. the IAAF could not lawfully treat his application differently because the four-year ban was lawful in Great Britain; 2. the refusal of his application constituted discrimination against him which was unlawful under the Treaty of Rome (Articles 59 to 66 – on freedom to provide services within the EU). The IAAF challenged this contention, while the British Athletic Federation adopted a neutral position.

The court first had to ask whether Edwards was providing services within the EU, within the meaning of Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty of Rome. The second issue would be if Articles 59 to 66 applied to IAAF Rule 60, i.e. would his be considered “exceptional circumstances” and, if so, did the application by the IAAF of Rule 60 constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality in the sense prohibited under Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty of Rome?

To put it in plain English: did the shot-putter have a job and was he making money, and would this restriction be that of “services” in the EU applied unevenly (4 years instead of 2).

Edwards contended that the four-year ban constituted interference with his freedom to earn his living as an athlete within the EU. Therefore the IAAF Rule 60 should be held invalid because it contravened Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty of Rome. The IAAF maintained that Rule 60 lay outside the scope of Articles 59-66 because it was a “sporting rule” only. For instance a rule regarding the length of matches is a sporting rule. To what extent a “banned substance” positive finding prohibition could be considered merely a sporting rule was yet to be decided.

IAAF claimed that the purpose of IAAF Rule 60 was to regulate the sporting conduct of athletes and to ban cheating by taking drugs. The sanctions were therefore essential to the sport. Arguably, the four-year ban was reasonable and justified. Any economic consequences, however serious, were incidental to the sporting rule, whose primary goal was to regulate sporting conduct.

IAAF also showed that Rule 60 did not constitute discrimination based on nationality because it applied equally to all members, even though its impact was different in different states because of their national laws. There was no discriminatory intent in the rule itself. States have the right to determine the length of sanctions. German decisions Edwards cited had no precedential value in England, thus no value in the EU.

In conclusion, a sporting rule regarding prohibited substances is of more importance than any economic impact on the athlete it may have, simply because banning drugs in sport is more important – to both the health of the athlete as well as the quality and ethics of sport – than money. Athletes should always bear this in mind before they consider that first “shortcut” dose. Economic damages is a non-issue.

Share This:

Nandrolone in Long Distance Swimming

Nandrolone is one of the powerful androgenic steroids, available on the market under the trade name Deca-Durabolin. Its inevitable side effects include severe masculization in women, erectile dysfunction and gynecomastia in men, and cardiovascular damage in all. When you hear about the numerous bodybuilders who have died from heart disease or suffered from heart issues, Deca is the culprit.

This is a case of David Meca-Medina v. FINA and Igor Majcen v. FINA (Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, 29 February 2000, CAS 99/A/234 and CAS 99/A/235)

David Meca-Medina was a member of the Spanish Swimming Federation (for non-swimmers, FINA stands for “Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur” transl. “International Amateur Swimming Federation”). Igor Majcen was a member of the Slovenian Swimming Federation (also FINA affiliate). They placed first and second respectively at the World Cup in Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, on 1/31/1999. They were tested at the end of the race. The two cases were heard jointly.

First, the plaintiff (FINA) must meet the burden of proof that a doping offence had been committed, which is provided by the positive test. The Sanction is issued and the defendants appeal the sanction, which is why we refer to them as appellants. The appellants (the swimmers here) must rebut this proof by showing how the substance got into their system and that they neither harbored the intent to use it nor were negligent in consumption of supplements that contained it.

The results obtained here showed consumption of nandrolone precursors (substances such as Nandrox, available on the market in a pill form – whereas Deca usually has to be injected), a recognized cause of several positive tests (CAS 98/214, Bouras v. IJF). The appellants argued that the source of the prohibited substance was their innocent consumption of pork the night before. This is so unlikely that it is laughable, but, being presented in court, they would have to have a solid proof, such as a piece of pork or an expert testifying thereto, which they failed to produce. Finally, the restraint on livelihood to the appellants’ freedom within the European Community was justified (Wilander v. Tobin (ITF), 1997; see also the previous case Johnson v. Athletics Canada and IAAF).

It must be added that Meca-Medina has made it more difficult for sports organizations and bodies to issue “sporting rules” – because in order for a sporting rule to be characterized as such by the court, it must not have an economic impact, which means it must be narrowly-tailored to the particular sport without affecting the athlete economically which, in today’s world, is practically impossible.

Share This:

Doping, Restraint of Trade, Denial of Natural Justice

 

Case of Johnson v Athletics Canada and IAAF (Ontario Court of Justice, Canada, 25.7.97)

Issues: Doping; lifetime ban; validity of sanction; restraint of trade; denial of natural justice

Ben Johnson, was banned for two years in 1988 at the Olympic Games in Seoul, where he ran 100m sprint in 9.79 second! He tested positive for stanozolol, the use of which his coach did not deny. He was attacked by Carl Lewis, who was given the gold medal. Linford Christie moved up to the silver medal and won gold at the next Games. All of them, including Dennis Mitchell and Desai Williams, were at some point suspected of doping.

In 1993, Ben Johnson competed in Montreal and was tested after the race. The sample tested positive and Johnson did not exercise his right of appeal under the rules of Athletics Canada (AC) and the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF). He was therefore banned for life. Johnson applied to the Ontario Court of Justice for a declaration that the lifetime ban issued against him by AC and the IAAF, which barred his participation in athletics events, was contrary to the common law doctrine of restraint of trade.

In his application, Johnson claimed that he had not appealed because of apprehension regarding the partiality of the Appeal Committee. Johnson’s primary submission was that the lifetime ban constituted restraint of trade. He also claimed that he had been denied justice under Natural Law because the proceedings of the IAAF and AC in 1993 had been unfair.

Under the Restraint of Trade issue, Johnson contended that the lifetime ban constituted restraint of trade in the form of an activity from which he earned his livelihood. The Court of Justice accepted that the lifetime ban was in restraint of trade because AC and IAAF enabled Johnson to exploit his talents in order to earn a living. It was clear that the financial gain resulted from participation in competitions.

However, the ban was deemed reasonable and was not an illegal restraint of trade because it was necessary to protect Johnson from the effects of use of prohibited substances for the sake of his own health. It was also necessary to protect the right of athletes to fair competition and to know that the race involved only their own skill, strength and spirit rather than their pharmacologist. The public also had an interest in the protection of the integrity of the sport.

As to the Denial of Natural Justice, Johnson argued that the actions and proceedings of the IAAF and AC in 1993 had been unfair and that, as a result, he had been denied natural justice. The constituent elements of natural justice had been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren v Hoffer (1992): “The content of the principles of natural justice is flexible and depends on the circumstances in which the question arises. However, the most basic requirements are that of notice, opportunity to make representations and an unbiased tribunal.” Johnson was at all times represented by counsel, entitled to hearings and presentation of evidence, but had failed to avail himself of any of the various opportunities available to him for further hearings on the merits. Thus, degree of fairness under the Natural Law was met.

Ben Johnson’s case is actually one of the long line of stanozolol cases – so long that Wikipedia has its own entry: List of Doping in Sport, Stanozolol Sec. 1.6. Stanozolol abuse began almost immediately after it was discovered and brought to market in 1962 under the tradenames Winstrol and Stromba. It can be legitimately used in senile post-menopausal osteoporosis, debility in elderly patients, some gastrointestinal disorders, trauma, anemia, during post-operative convalescence, and it is also used as a veterinary drug to stimulate appetite and weight gain; but even in veterinary medicine, it is used sparingly because it may cause tumors.

Share This: