CAS ADD - Sentencia 56

CAS Anti-Doping Division Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS 2022/ADD/ 56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

ANTI-DOPING DIVISION

OF THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition: Sole Arbitrator: Mr John Boultbee, Lawyer, Sydney, Australia in the arbitration between International Surfing Association (ISA), USA Represented by Mr Adam Klevinas, Counsel, International Testing Agency (“ITA”), Lausanne, Switzerland Claimant and Vasco Ribeiro, Portugal Represented by Ms Matilda Costa Dias, 14 Sports Law Firm, Porto, Portugal Respondent Palais de Beaulieu Avenue Bergières 10 CH-1004 Lausanne Tel : +41 (21) 613 50 00 antidoping@tas-cas.org Château de Béthusy Av. de Beaumont 2 CH-1012 Lausanne Tel: +41 (21) 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 2 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

I. PARTIES

1. The Claimant, the International Surfing Association (“ISA”) is the International Federation which promotes the development of the sport of surfing throughout the world. The ISA is a Signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code, and conducts a doping control program, the rules of which are set out in the ISA Anti-Doping Rules, 2021 (the “ISA Rules”).

2. The Respondent, Vasco Ribeiro (“the Athlete”) was at the time of the hearing, a 29-year-old surfer from Portugal. He is considered an International-Level Athlete within the meaning of the ISA Rules.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. This dispute concerns the Athlete’s refusal to submit to an out-of-competition urine doping test at his residence in Cascais, Lisbon, on 17 April 2022, which is alleged to constitute an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) under Article 2.3 of the ISA Rules which provides that: “Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorized Person” constitutes an ADRV.

4. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Request for Arbitration filed by the ISA, the Answer filed by the Athlete, the Parties’ written submissions and exhibits, witness statements filed by the parties and evidence adduced at the hearing. Additional facts and allegations found in the above-mentioned documents, submissions and evidence may be set out where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. Whilst the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations. legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, he refers in his Award only to the submissions and evidence considered necessary to explain his reasoning.

5. As an international-level surfer, the Athlete was notified of his inclusion in the ISA’s registered testing pool (“RTP”) on 24 January 2022.

6. On 28 January 2022, the Athlete returned a signed Acknowledgment of Receipt form, through which he confirmed that inter alia “I understand that I am part of the [IF] International Registered Testing Pool.”

7. The notification of inclusion in the RTP indicated that the Athlete was obligated to “submit to Testing at any time and place upon request of an ADO [Anti-Doping Organisation] with Testing Authority over him” and that the Athlete was “personally responsible at all times for any failure to comply with the requirements of the [ISA Rules]” and the Athlete could find the current ISA Rules on the ISA website.

8. At 9.00 p.m. on 17 April 2022, Mr Mario Simoes (“Mr Simoes”) a Doping Control Officer working

for a sample collection company retained by the ISA was tasked with collecting an out-ofcompetition urine sample from the Athlete at the address provided by the Athlete in his whereabouts information as required by his being included in the RTP.

9. It is common ground between the parties that Mr Simoes rang the bell at the gate to the property and the Athlete’s mother Mrs Pessoa came to the yard and spoke to him. He identified himself and asked to see the Athlete. Mrs Pessoa confirmed that the Athlete was at home and returned to the house. The Athlete then came out of the house and confirmed his identity to Mr Simoes. At that stage Mr Simoes advised him that he was there on behalf of the ISA and that the Athlete had been selected for an out-of-competition urine sample. The Athlete then returned to the house with his mother. After some time, Mrs Pessoa came out again and told Mr Simoes that the Athlete had 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 3

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS telephoned his coach who had advised him not to give a sample, as he had been out drinking alcohol the previous night. Mr Simoes indicated to her that he would have to write the test down as a refusal to be tested and asked her to speak to the Athlete. Later the Athlete came out again and said he was not going to do the test as advised by his coach because he had been drinking alcohol the previous night. After some discussion the Athlete went back to the house and Mr Simoes did not see him again. Mrs Pessoa came out another time and confirmed that the Athlete refused to provide the sample and apologised. Mr Simoes called the Athlete’s phone after that but it was not answered. He concluded the testing mission and left at about 9.33 p.m.

10. There are some differences in the evidence given by both Parties about the details of the conversations between Mr Simoes and the Athlete, and Mr Simoes and Mrs Pessoa, and about the Athlete’s demeanour, which will be discussed later. Otherwise the facts in the previous paragraph are uncontested.

11. Mr Simoes thereafter filed a detailed “Unsuccessful Attempt Report” to his employer, and that report was submitted in evidence. The relevant parts of that report are as follows: “the athlete’s mother SOFIA PESSOA, came to the yard and asked me who was I. I asked for the athlete and identified myself and his mother confirmed he was home and went in. Just a few seconds after the athlete comes out to the yard together with his mother and he comes to the wall and we are face to face with a 1.50 meters height wall in between us. He confirmed he is VASCO RIBEIRO and I notify him verbally at 21.01 I was very clear when notifying the athlete, telling him my name, that I was there on behalf of ISA and that the athlete had been selected or a OOC [Out of Competition] urine only test, and when I am preparing to show the AL

[Authority Letter] and my DCO [Doping Control Officer] card the athlete just says ok and turns his back to me and walks back into the house together with his mother that was close to the house door. At this point I thought he had gone into the house to open the door of the gate but I am waiting and nothing happens. I wait for 4 minutes and nothing happens and during this 4 minutes I thought about ringing the bell again but then at 21.05 I see his mother SOFIA PESSOA, coming out and walks towards me close to the wall and tells me that her son, the athlete VASCO RIBEIRO, will not do the doping control test, she tells me that the athlete has phoned his coach and has instructions from his coach not to do the test because the athlete

went out on the previous night and had been drinking on the previous night. I ask her to call the athlete out in order to speak with him again. She says he is not coming out since he refuses to do the test. I tell her that a refusal is something very serious and there can be severe consequences for the athlete. She then goes in and at 21.11 the athlete comes out again and tells me immediately that he refuses to do the test and that he has spoken with his coach on the phone and that his coach has instructed him to refuse to do the test because the athlete had been drinking alcohol on the previous night. I again inform him that he has been selected by ISA for an OOC urine test and I try to show him the authorization letter and my DCO cards and keep telling him that a refusal can have severe consequences. The athlete then asks me to do a UA [Unsuccessful Attempt] instead of a refusal which of course I immediately tell him that this is not possible, he has been notified and this is not a UA and that I cannot act as I didn’t notify him. He says again he refuses and does not want to see the authority letter so I ask him if I can speak with his coach but the athlete refuses. I ask him to sign the DCF [Doping Control Form] and to write the reason why he refuses to do the test but he refuses and walks towards the house. I still tell him not to refuse and to call his coach again but he went into the house and this was the last time I saw the athlete. 3 minutes after his mother comes out and meets me again. She says she is sorry but her son, the athlete, refuses to do the test and that he is following the instructions of his coach. I ask who is the coach but she doesn’t say the name. I keep asking her to convince the athlete, her son, to do the test by showing her the authorization letter with the athlete’s name and telling her that there can be severe

consequences, if he refuses. She looks at the authorization letter and says that there is no point because he refuses. 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 4 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS I then ask her if its possible for her to ask the athlete to sign the notification and to write the reasons for the refusal or if she speaks English will she at least speak with my PM but SOFIA PESSOA tells me “I won’t ask him anything else or speak with anyone else. He has his 2 young daughters in the house and is actually putting the youngest one to sleep and he won’t do the Doping control test and that is it. I am very tired because I have been working all day and I am not in the mood or have the strength to argue with him” She then says she is sorry and leaves. This was the last time I saw them. It was now 21.22. At 21.25 I called the athlete’s number provided in his whereabouts in order to again try to convince him to do the test but the phone was disconnected and went immediately into voicemail after listening to the mobile provider recording saying that the number was not available. At 21.33 I left.”

12. On 24 May 2022, the ITA notified the Athlete on behalf of the ISA that the ITA was considering asserting an ADRV against him. The Athlete was invited to provide written submissions, which he provided on 15 June 2022. In those submissions he explained that he is a single parent with two young girls and around 17 April 2022 he was having a hard time with his girlfriend. To cheer him up his friends from the surfing community organised a party on 16 April 2022 at which the Athlete consumed alcohol and was also offered and used cannabis and cocaine.

13. He explained that when Mr Simoes came to test him, he was putting his kids to bed and was startled by what he had consumed the night before and called a coach seeking advice, and was told not to take the test. He said he was stressed and was experiencing a high level of anxiety and could not think clearly. He had never had anti-doping education and did not know about the consequences of being included in in the ISA Registered Testing Pool and did not know that refusing to submit to sample collection constituted an ADRV, and his refusal could have been avoided had he received some anti-doing education from his national federation. He submitted the following factors in mitigation of any period of ineligibility: - His subsequent full cooperation and express acknowledgement of taking the Substances of Abuse the night before the test. - This is his first warning regarding a potential ADRV. - The economic and professional impact that a period of ineligibility might cause him especially as a single parent. - His availability to submit to sample collection in the days following the test to prove that he did not consume any prohibited substances other than potentially marijuana and cocaine.

14. On 2 August 2022, the ITA issued a Notice of Charge notifying the Athlete of an asserted ADRV under Article 2.3 of the ISA Rules for Refusing to Submit to Sample Collection. The Notice set out the potential consequences under Article 10.3.1 of the ISA Rules, being a period of ineligibility of four years, the fact that the period could be increased in a case of Aggravating Circumstances under Article 10.4 of the ISA Rules, and that all the results obtained by the Athlete from the date of the ADRV (17 April 2022) until the date of the period of ineligibility may be disqualified under Article 10.10 of the ISA Rules. 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 5

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

15. On 22 August 2022, the Athlete through his legal counsel challenged the assertion of an ADRV and indicated he did not accept the proposed consequences contained in the Notice of Charge and requested that the ITA reconsider the assessed period of ineligibility failing which the Athlete requested that proceedings before the CAS Anti-Doping Division (“ADD”) be initiated.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

16. On 6 December 2022, the ITA on behalf of the ISA filed a Request for Arbitration under Article 8.1 of the ISA Rules and Article 13 of the CAS ADD Rules.

17. On 24 January 2023, the Athlete filed his Answer to the Request for Arbitration.

18. On 25 January 2023, the Parties were notified that the President of the CAS ADD had appointed Mr. John Boultbee, Lawyer of Sydney, Australia, to act as Sole Arbitrator in accordance with Articles A16 and A17 of the CAS Anti-Doping Division Rules, and the Parties were invited to indicate if they considered that a hearing would be necessary in this procedure.

19. On 25 and 31 January 2023 respectively, the Athlete and the ISA both requested that a hearing be held.

20. On 1 March 2023, the Athlete and the ISA signed and returned the Order of Procedure.

21. The Parties filed statements from the witnesses they wished to call to give evidence.

22. On 27 April 2023, a video hearing was held. The Sole Arbitrator was assisted by Mr Fabien Cagneux, Managing Counsel of the ADD, and joined by the following: For the Claimant: • Mr Adam Klevinas, External Legal Counsel of the ITA

• Mr. Mario Simoes, Witness

For the Athlete: • Mr Vasco Ribeiro • Ms Matilde Costa Dias, Counsel for the Athlete • Mr Aakash Batra, Counsel for the Athlete

• Mr Jorge Viegas Faria, Witness

• Mr João Aranha, Witness
• Mrs Sofia Pessoa, Witness
• Mr Pedro Coelho, Witness
• Mr Nuno Telmo Bispo Florêncio, Witness

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Claimant

23. In its Request for Arbitration the Claimant outlined evidence of the inclusion of the Athlete in the ISA Registered Testing Pool and his notification thereof, as set out in paragraphs 5 to 7 above, and of the testing mission of the 17 April 2022, set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 above, and the details of the correspondence between the Parties set out in paragraphs 12 to 15 above. 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 6

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

24. In support of its submissions the Claimant filed a witness statement from Mr Simoes, the Doping Control Officer, which attached a copy of the Unsuccessful Attempt Report which he had completed on 18 April 2022, and which is set out in paragraph 11 above.

25. Mr Simoes also gave evidence at the hearing and was cross-examined by the Athlete’s counsel.

26. The Claimant’s principal submissions were that: - There was no dispute that the Athlete had refused or failed to submit to sample collection under Article 2.3 of the ISA Rules - The only issues to be determined were

(i) whether there was “compelling justification” for the refusal or failure as set out in Article 2.3 as a defence to the charge, or (ii) whether there were other reasons to reduce the 4-year period of ineligibility to be imposed under Article 10.3.1 of the ISA Rules, being that the Athlete could establish that his actions were “a failure to submit” and were not intentional, which would lead

to a reduction to 2 years, or (iii) that the Athlete can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the period of ineligibility if the athlete’s actions were “a refusal”, in which case the period will be in a range from 2 to 4 years depending on the Athlete’s degree of fault, and (iv) whether the Athlete was properly warned of the consequences of a refusal or failure to submit by the DCO at the time of the attempted testing and whether that might constitute compelling justification or exceptional circumstances. - The athlete was properly warned by Mr Simoes at the time of the testing, - The evidence does not establish that he was in a state of extreme anxiety which deprived him of cognitive ability, such that it would constitute compelling justification, rather the evidence shows an awareness of the situation and of the consequences. - The directions given by the coach were not relevant to amount to compelling justification. - The Athlete’s claim of a lack of anti-doping education was not established and did not amount to exceptional circumstances which warranted a reduction of the sanction of a 4year period of ineligibility.

B. The Athlete

27. In his Answer the Athlete noted that he did not contest the jurisdiction of the CAS ADD to adjudicate upon the present matter, and there was no contest as to admissibility, or the applicable law.

28. The Answer went on to assert that it was erroneous to maintain that the Athlete had not provided evidence of “compelling justification” as required in Article 2.3 of the ISA Rules and that the relevant evidence in this regard was: - the events of the night of 16 April 2022 which made him incapable at that time of measuring the consequences of sharing some weed-cigarettes and cocaine, and his being oblivious to the possibility of an out of competition test; 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 7

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS - his being startled when confronted with the visit of the DCO when he was putting his children to sleep, and his realisation of what he had consumed the night before, which caused him severe anxiety and panic, which deprived him of his rationality and cognitive sense to take a reasoned decision; - his desperation in telephoning one of his coaches Mr Nuno Telmo Bispo Florêncio, who had no training on doping related matters, and the wrong advice he received; - his ignorance of the relevant anti-doping policies and of the consequences that his conduct could cause to his career, including the lack of any education from the Portuguese Surfing Federation or any other institution; - the fact that the DCO only informed him and his mother that there could be serious consequences, and did not advise that one such consequence would be the possibility of a 4-year period of ineligibility. - At the hearing the Athlete’s counsel submitted that the issue of compelling jurisdiction should be assessed on a case by case basis, on both objective and subjective grounds on the balance of probabilities, and additionally referred to the effect of ingestion of cocaine on 16 April 2022 which did affect his anxious state and his ability to deal with the situation the next day, - the taking of advice from an uneducated coach on that day, and - his later actions to deal with his addiction and other mental health issues.

29. In respect of any sanction to be applied the Athlete first submitted that the provisions of Article 10.2.4.1 of the ISA Rules (relating to ingestion of substances of abuse) should apply, on the basis of the evidence of his ingestion of cocaine the night before the attempted test, rather than the period of ineligibility set out in Article 10.3.1 (relating to refusal or failing to submit to sample collection).

30. In terms of Article 10.3.1 of the ISA Rules, the Athlete contended that his conduct was not intentional and within Article 10.3.1.(i), or alternatively that there were exceptional circumstances

within Article 10.3.1 (ii) of the ISA Rules.

31. The facts put forward by the Athlete as amounting to exceptional circumstances are the same as those propounded as compelling justification, and are set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 above, and certain elements which were described as mitigating factors, and are set out in paragraph 13.

V. JURISDICTION

32. The CAS ADD’s jurisdiction was invoked by Article 8.1.1 of the ISA ADR and this was not contested as confirmed by both Parties in their written submissions and the signed Order of

Procedure.

VI. APPLICABLE LAW

33. As confirmed by the Parties in the Order of Procedure, and in accordance with Article A20 of the CAS ADD Rules, the applicable Anti-Doping Rules, being the ISA Rules, apply to the merits to be decided by the Arbitrator, and in the absence of any choice of the laws of a particular jurisdiction, Swiss law applies. 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 8

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

VII. MERITS

34. The ADRV alleged to have been committed on 17 April 2022 by the Athlete is that set out in Article 2.3 of the ISA Rules: Evading Sample collection, or refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorized Person The evidence relating to the attempted doping control on 17 April 2022

35. The three persons present on the 17 April 2022, being the DCO Mr Simoes, the Athlete, and the Athlete’s mother Mrs Pessoa, all gave evidence at the hearing.

36. Mr Simoes’ statement incorporated the Unsuccessful Attempt Report which is set out in paragraph

11. In evidence at the hearing he confirmed the story outlined in his Report. He stated that the

Athlete did not look anxious at all at any time. He said he was very calm, never excited, nor changed his tone of voice and was very normal. He also said that when the Athlete came out the second time (after calling the coach) he was very calm, not stressed, but said he was not going to do the test, and that he never looked panicked but was very calm.

37. Mrs Pessoa gave evidence in a statement where she stated the words of Mr Simoes “had affected him in such a way that it triggered an extreme anxiety and panic reaction in my son, who unfortunately has a recurring history of these reactions in stressful situations” and “I felt him extremely disoriented” and that when talking to the coach “he told him he was extremely worried and embarrassed because he had been the night before with some friends with whom he had consumed cocaine, that would surely be confirmed if he were to be submitted to a urine test.” She said “the coach had advised him not to provide any urine sample, which further increased my son’s state of panic and anxiety, who - in a clear moment of pressure – asked me to go outside and inform [Mr Simoes] that he refused to provide a urine sample”. Her statement further said that at a later time “he, in a state of rage, went to the door and said directly to [Mr Simoes] that he refused to provide a urine sample.” In her evidence at the hearing Mrs Pessoa said she did not recall the 17 April 2022 in absolute detail.

Of her son, she said variously that he was very agitated, that he was distressed, and that she has seen him at that level of anxiety not often. When asked whether the Athlete was calm or stressed during the visit of Mr Simoes, she said that he was putting his daughters to bed, he was calm at first but then agitated when he understood that Mr Simoes was a Doping Control Officer.

38. The Athlete’s evidence at the hearing was that when Mr Simoes told him he was from the doping or

international federation he got nervous, panicked, and went inside. He described himself generally as “calm, chilled” but when using drugs, he was more agitated and would react way more. He gave evidence that he went into the house and tried to call the President and coach from the Federation, but got no answer, and called Nuno (Mr Nuno Telmo Bispo Florêncio), his coach. He said “I was scared because I did cocaine and would test positive.” He gave evidence that when Mr Simoes visited it was 21 hours after he took cocaine and so he was still under the influence of the cocaine – “I was not at my best, but not inhibited”. Importantly, when asked whether there was no impediment preventing him from following the DCO’s instructions he answered “No”. Also when asked in cross-examination whether it was incorrect to say he was suffering so much anxiety to prevent him going out to the DCO, he responded that “It was severe but I didn’t think about it. If I went out I could hide it.”

39. The Athlete and his mother also gave evidence that he became addicted to cocaine to the extent that he sought and received treatment, but that was not until September 2022 according to the witness statement of Mr Jorge Viegas Faria, a therapist in the “O Farol ATT” therapeutic unit. The statement also referred to his diagnosis of cocaine/alcohol consumption disorder on 8 September 2022, his admission to that unit, and his treatment until 4 October 2022. Mr Faria gave evidence at the hearing that some symptoms of such addiction could be anxiety, craving, inability to stop, and a desire for 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 9

Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS help, and that a loss of cognitive ability could be an effect which can diminish the ability to make

sober decisions. Mr Faria did not know the Athlete in April 2022, and agreed that he was unaware of his state at that time. However, he agreed that in general terms, that having taken cocaine the day before the visit, that mental confusion, and anxiety can occur when the cocaine wears off and that could affect decision making. Refusal or Failure to Sample Collection under Article 2.3

40. There is no allegation on the part of the Athlete to suggest that he did not refuse to subject himself to the sample collection on 17 April 2022. There is no suggestion that the Athlete was not notified by a duly authorised person, being Mr Simoes. Nor is there any suggestion that the circumstances constituted a failure to submit, rather than a refusal to submit to the sample collection. The distinction is of some importance because of Article 10.3.1 of the ISA Rules, where “failing to submit” is treated differently from “evading or refusing to submit” to a sample collection.

The language used by both Parties was always in terms of a refusal, and the submissions of the Athlete related mainly to the issue of compelling justification under Article 2.3 or exceptional circumstances under Article 10.3.1.

41. Thus on this basis and on the totality of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the fact of a refusal to submit to sample collection is clearly established and so finds.

Failure of the DCO to warn as to the consequences

42. The evidence of Mr Simoes in his report is that he advised the Athlete’s mother that “a refusal is something very serious and there can be severe consequences for the athlete” and that he did “keep telling him [the Athlete] that a refusal can have severe consequences”. At the hearing he went a bit further and said he mentioned “consequences on your career”.

43. In her statement Mrs Pessoa said that Mr Simoes “warned me that my son’s refusal to submit to urine

collection could have serious consequences, but he never specifically mentioned what kind of consequences, let alone that sanctions could be imposed that would prohibit him to compete for a determined period of time”. At the hearing her evidence was that he said he would write down that he refused but he did not detail any consequences, and that he did not mention an impact on his career.

44. The Athlete’s evidence was that he did not recall if he was told the consequences but agreed that the time spent with him was short (7-8 minutes) and there was no time to explain specific consequences.

45. In his Answer the Athlete claimed that his conduct would have been different if the DCO had sufficiently informed him of the potential consequences for refusal to provide a sample, and that Mr Simoes’ failure to advise the Athlete or his mother of the potential imposition of a four-year ineligibility period contravened the WADA International Standard for Testing and Investigations, 2021 (“ISTI”), specifically Article 5.4.1 which relevantly provides: When initial contact is made, the….DCO…..shall ensure that the Athlete ……is informed…of the Athlete’s responsibilities, including the requirement to…..comply with Sample collection procedures (and the Athlete should be advised of the possible Consequences of a Failure to Comply) [emphasis added]

46. The evidence above establishes that Mr Simoes, even on his own admission, did not refer to the specific possibility of a four-year period of ineligibility for a refusal to submit to sample collection.

However, both his and Mrs Pessoa’s evidence is clear that he spoke about serious consequences, although the Athlete cannot recall that. The Sole Arbitrator accepts this evidence. 613 50 00 Fax: +41 (21) 613 50 01 procedures@tas-cas.org CAS Anti-Doping Division 2022/ADD/56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro - Page 10 Chambre Anti-dopage du TAS

47. The CAS jurisprudence has considered the question of whether the DCO or other person unde