Australian Swimmer Suspended For Two YearsApril 16, 2021
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) acting as a first instance authority in Australia has issued its decision in the arbitration procedure between the Australian swimmer Shayna Jack, Swimming Australia Ltd (Swimming Australia) and the Australian Sports AntiDoping Authority (ASADA; now “Sport Integrity Australia”).
Shayna Jack is found to have committed a violation of Article 2.1 of the Swimming Australia Ltd AntiDoping Policy 2015 and is suspended for a period of two years commencing as from the date of her provisional suspension, i.e. 12 July 2019. On 26 June 2019, Shayna Jack was subject to an out-of-competition doping control. The sample returned a positive result for “ligandrol”, an anabolic agent which is prohibited at all times according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. On 12 July 2019, Swimming Australia imposed a provisional suspension on her. Following an investigation, on 19 December 2019, ASADA, on behalf of Swimming Australia, sent an Infraction Notice to the athlete in accordance with Article 7.9A of the Swimming Australia Ltd Anti-Doping Policy 2015, informing her that, subject to any procedure she would initiate at CAS, a four-year period of ineligibility would be imposed on her, commencing from 12 July 2019, as a result of the anti-doping rule violation. On 2 January 2020, Shayna Jack filed a request for arbitration with the CAS Oceania Registry (CAS first instance). A hearing took place on 25 and 28 September 2020 with participants attending either in-person or by videoconference, due to the current sanitary restrictions. The Sole Arbitrator in charge of this matter found, on the balance of probabilities, that Shayna Jack did not intentionally ingest ligandrol and considered that she had discharged her onus of proving that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional. As a consequence, the Sole Arbitrator imposed a reduced period of ineligibility of two years, commencing on the date of her provisional suspension. This first-instance decision may be challenged before the international CAS by any of the parties involved in this matter, and also by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) and by WADA.