GRANADA FEI Passport No: 104DK01/ITA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL dated 14 July 2017 Positive Anti-Doping Case No.: 2016/BS09 Horse: GRANADA FEI Passport No: 104DK01/ITA Person Responsible/NF/ID: Allegra Ieraci/ITA/10097333 Represented by: Studio Legale Avv. Claudio Brugnatelli, Strada Nuova n. 53, 27100 Pavia, Italy Event/ID: CSI3*-W – El Jadida (MAR) - 2016_CI_0722_S_S_01 Date: 13 – 16 October 2016 Prohibited Substances: Oripavine, Morphine and Codeine I. COMPOSITION OF PANEL Mr. Erik Elstad, one member panel II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 1. Memorandum of case: By Legal Department. 2. Summary information provided by Person Responsible (PR): The FEI Tribunal duly took into consideration all evidence, submissions and documents presented in the case file, as well as during the oral hearing, as also made available by and to the PR. 3. Oral hearing: 6 July 2017 – via telephone conference call. Present: The FEI Tribunal Panel Ms. Erika Riedl, FEI Tribunal Clerk For the PR: Mr. Claudio Brugnatelli, Legal Counsel Mr. Giovanni Ieraci, PR’s father Page 1 of 19 For the FEI: Ms. Anna Thorstenson, FEI Legal Counsel III. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE FROM THE LEGAL VIEWPOINT 1. Articles of the Statutes/Regulations which are applicable: Statutes 23rd edition, effective 29 April 2015 (“Statutes”), Arts. 1.4, 38 and 39. General Regulations, 23rd edition, 1 January 2009, updates effective 1 January 2016, Arts. 118, 143.1, 161, 168 and 169 (“GRs”). Internal Regulations of the FEI Tribunal, 2nd edition, 1 January 2012 (“IRs”). FEI Equine Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication Regulations ("EADCMRs"), 2nd edition, effective 1 January 2016. FEI Equine Anti-Doping Rules ("EAD Rules"), 2nd edition, effective 1 January 2016. Veterinary Regulations (“VRs”), 13th edition, effective 1 January 2016, Art. 1055 and seq. FEI Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse. 2. Person Responsible: Ms. Allegra Ieraci 3. Justification for sanction: GRs Art. 143.1: “Medication Control and Anti-Doping provisions are stated in the Anti-Doping Rules for Human Athletes (ADRHA), in conjunction with the World Anti-Doping Code, and in the Equine Anti- Doping and Controlled Medication Regulations (EADCM Regulations).” EAD Rules Art. 2.1.1: “It is each Person Responsible's personal duty to ensure that no Banned Substance is present in the Horse's body. Persons Responsible are responsible for any Banned Substance found to be present in their Horse's Samples, even though their Support Personnel will be considered additionally responsible under Articles 2.2 – 2.8 below where the circumstances so warrant. It is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use be demonstrated in order to establish an EAD Rule violation under Article 2.1.” EAD Rules Art. 10.5.1.1 – Specified Substances: ”Where the EAD rule violation involves a Banned Substance that is a Specified Substance, and the Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel can Page 2 of 19 establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault. Where the Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel intends to establish that he/she bears No Fault or Negligence, Article 10.4 shall apply.” EADCMRs APPENDIX 1 – Definitions: “Fault. Fault is any breach of duty or any lack of care appropriate to a particular situation. Factors to be taken into consideration in assessing an Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel’s degree of Fault include, for example, the Person Responsible’s and/or member of the Support Personnel’s experience, whether the Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel is a Minor, special considerations such as impairment, the degree of risk that should have been perceived by the Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel and the level of care and investigation exercised by the Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel in relation to what should have been the perceived level of risk. In assessing the Person Responsible’s and/or member of the Support Personnel’s degree of Fault, the circumstances considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Person Responsible’s and/or member of the Support Personnel’s departure from the expected standard of behaviour. Thus, for example, the fact that the Person Responsible would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility, or the fact that the Person Responsible only has a short time left in his or her career, or the timing of the sporting calendar, would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.5.1 or 10.5.2.” “No Fault or Negligence. The Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had administered to the Horse, or the Horse’s system otherwise contained, a Banned or Controlled Medication Substance or he or she had Used on the Horse, a Banned or Controlled Medication Method or otherwise violated an EAD or ECM Rule. Except in the case of a Minor, for any violation of Article 2.1, the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system.” “No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Person Responsible and/or member of the Support Personnel establishing that his fault or negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for No Fault or Negligence, was not significant in relationship to the EADCM Regulation violation. Except in the case of a Minor, for any violation of Article 2.1 of the EAD Rules, the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system.” Page 3 of 19 IV. DECISION Below is a summary of the relevant facts, allegations and arguments based on the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced during the oral hearing. Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. Although the Tribunal has fully considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence in the present proceedings, in its decision it only refers to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning. 1. Factual Background 1.1 GRANADA (the “Horse”) participated at the CSI3*-W in El Jadida, Morocco, from 13 to 16 October 2016 (the “Event”), in the discipline of Jumping. The Horse was ridden by Ms. Allegra Ieraci who is the Person Responsible in accordance with Article 118.3 of the GRs (the “PR”). 1.2 The Horse was selected for sampling during the Event, on 14 October 2016. 1.3 Analysis of urine and blood sample no. 5545007 taken from the Horse at the Event was performed at the FEI approved laboratory, the LGC Newmarket Road Laboratory (the “Laboratory”) in Fordham, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom. The analysis of the sample revealed the presence of Oripavine, Morphine and Codeine in the urine. 1.4 The Prohibited Substances detected are Oripavine, Morphine and Codeine. Oripavine is an opiate analgesic and is classified as a Banned Substance under the FEI Equine Prohibited Substances List (the “FEI List”). Equally, Morphine and Codeine are opiate analgesic and are classified as Controlled Medication Substances. Therefore, the positive finding for Oripavine, Morphine and Codeine in the Horse’s sample gives rise to an Anti-Doping Rule violation under the EAD Rules. Oripavine, Morphine and Codeine are Specified Substances, Prohibited Substances identified as Specified Substances on the Prohibited List. 2. The Further Proceedings 2.1 On 13 December 2016, the FEI Legal Department officially notified the PR through the Italian National Federation (“ITA-NF”) and the Owner of the Horse, of the presence of the Prohibited Substances following the laboratory analysis, the possible rule violation and the possible consequences. 2.2 The Notification Letter included that – in accordance with Articles 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 - the FEI may, but does not provisionally suspend the PR since the presence of Oripavine in combination with Morphine may indicate that the source of the positive finding might be due to contamination. Page 4 of 19 2.3 The Notification Letter further included notice, in accordance with Article 7.4 of the EAD Rules, that the Horse was provisionally suspended for a period of two (2) months, from the date of Notification, i.e., 13 December 2016, until 12 February 2017. The above Provisional Suspension of the Horse has been challenged, but was maintained, and the Horse has served the entire period of Provisional Suspension. 3. The B-Sample analysis 3.1 Together with the Notification Letter of 13 December 2016, the PR and the Owner of the Horse were also informed that they were entitled (i) to the performance of a B-Sample confirmatory analysis on the positive sample; (ii) to attend or be represented at the B-Sample analysis; and/or (iii) to request that the B-Sample be analysed in a different laboratory than the A-Sample. 3.2 Neither the PR nor the Owner of the Horse did ask for the B-Sample to be analysed, and thus accepted the results of the A-Sample analysis. 4. Preliminary Decision 4.1 On 12 January 2017, and prior to the Preliminary Hearing, the PR and the Owner of the Horse – at the time represented by a different legal counsel - requested the lifting of the two (2) months Provisional Suspension of the Horse for the reasons as follows.