Sports Law

ASADA v Van Tienen

 ASADA alleged an anti-doping violation against the athlete on the basis of “admissions” made by her in interviews with ASADA’s investigating officers (the athlete denied that she had “admitted” the offence in the interviews, she argued that ASADA was interpreting her answers correctly), plus a positive test result for BZP (albeit that there was no B-sample). The positive test was based on a re-analysis of the original A-sample. The original test result was negative, it had not been tested for BZP. The B-sample had therefore been destroyed. CAS found the anti-doping violation established. The “admissions” (albeit disputed by the athlete as to their meaning) were sufficient, in this case, to overcome the absence of the B sample.

This case raises the potential for future athletes to refuse to be interviewed by investigating officers, particularly in light of the Kabeava and Beaton and Scholes decisions (dealing with the absence of a B-sample), and the Landaluce and Tasha Jenkins decisions (where laboratory failures to accord with Test protocols invalidated the anti-doping result).