TAS - CAS 2110 de 2010 ( colombia)

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2110 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. Colombian Athletics Federation (CAF) & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011

Panel: Mr Efraim Barak (Israel), President; Mrs Alexandra Brilliantova (Russia); Prof. Denis Oswald,

(Switzerland) Athletics Doping (stanozolol) Obligation of IAAF Members to abide by the IAAF Rules and Regulations Election of the governing law by tacit agreement No participation of the respondent in doping proceedings and procedural fairness Obligation of a doping control officer to deliver the samples to the laboratory “as soon as practically possible” Departure from the ISL and cause of the adverse analytical finding

1. According to the IAAF Constitution, the IAAF members agree to abide by the IAAF Constitution and by its Rules and Regulations. Furthermore, the IAAF members have the obligations to comply with all applicable IAAF Rules and Regulations. In this regard, the application for membership to the IAAF by a national governing body for athletics must include a formal undertaking to observe and abide by the IAAF

Constitution, Rules and Regulations.

2. The election of governing law by tacit agreement is possible. For instance, by their behaviour, the parties could have clearly given their assent to the application of a specific law. Nevertheless, to admit this, it must undoubtedly emerge through the parties’ conclusive acts, that they agreed on the applicable law when they entered into the disputed contractual relationship.

3. The participation of the respondent is mandatory in an appeal, otherwise the appeal would be inadmissible due to the absence of a valid legal procedural relationship between the parties to the proceedings. Especially in doping proceedings concerning the magnification of the sanction imposed on the athlete, it would be procedurally unacceptable to make a decision on the merits if the athlete concerned has not been properly included in the proceedings or, at least, received knowledge of the proceedings

in such a way that enables the person to legally defend himself. If the respondent was aware of the proceedings and had the opportunity to present his case, the legal relationship can be adequately established between the parties and the nonparticipation of the respondent should not put into question the validity of the proceedings in respect of procedural fairness.

4. The International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) do not prescribe a more specific period of time from the samples collection to their delivery to the laboratory but only stipulate that this should be done “as soon as practicably possible”. The phrase CAS 2010/A/2110 2

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 undoubtedly implies that transportation should be made at the first reasonable opportunity. A delay of ten days from the date of collection to the date of delivery should be justifiable only in exceptional circumstances, whereas an excuse in relation to other professional commitments is untenable. When a person accepts to assume the responsibility of a doping control officer, he must dedicate himself to comply and fulfil all the required duties expected of him and constantly be aware of the seriousness of his mission as well as the severe consequences that his actions may have upon the career of an athlete. Once a sample is collected, the requirement of “as soon as practicably possible” receives priority over other work commitments. Therefore, a ten-day delay is totally unacceptable and constitutes a departure from the ISL.

5. A delay in the transportation of the samples to the laboratory and/or their storage conditions cannot reasonably cause the materialization of an exogenous steroid where it was not otherwise present.

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF or the “Appellant”) is the international federation governing the sport of athletics world-wide. It has its registered seat in Monaco. The Colombian Athletics Federation (CAF) is the national federation governing the sport of athletics in Colombia. It has its registered seat in Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia and is affiliated with the IAAF.

Ms Johanna Trivino-Urrutia (“the Athlete”) is a track and field athlete competing in the triple jump and the long jump disciplines. She is a registered member of the CAF. On 23 May 2009, the Athlete participated in the 54th Colombian Senior Championship, which took place in Bogotá, Colombia. On that occasion, she was subject to in-competition drug testing. The doping control form signed by the Athlete gives the following indications: The time of notification was 16:40hrs and the sampling time was 18:10hrs. The urine provided by the Athlete was dispatched in two bottles. Their code number was A 2910 and B 2910. No comment was made on the sample collection procedure. The Athlete signed a statement confirming that all the sample collection procedures were respected. Dr Nestor Mejia was in charge of the doping control station. He is a trained and experienced doping control officer, who has been working for the Colombian National Anti-Doping Agency since 2004. As such, he has conducted over 500 sample collection sessions. Dr Nestor Mejia also works at the emergency department of two different hospitals in Bogotá, Colombia.

CAS 2010/A/2110 3

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 As the 23 May 2009 was a Saturday, Dr Nestor Mejia could not send the collected samples to the competent anti-doping laboratory on the same day. Consequently, he stored the Athlete’s sample, together with nineteen other samples, in an adequate container specifically designed for transportation. He placed the said container in the trunk of his car and drove home. On arrival at his apartment, he deposited the samples in a fridge used exclusively for this purpose of maintaining samples until their delivery to the laboratory. In a written witness statement dated 20 May 2010 and filed by the IAAF in support of its appeal

before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Dr Nestor Mejia stated that his apartment was secure and that no one could enter it, except his wife, Ms Adriana Herrera and himself. Ms Adriana Herrera is a trained doping control assistant and, in this quality, often assists her husband when the latter is required to conduct a sample collection procedure. On 2 June 2009, Dr Nestor Mejia instructed his wife, Ms Adriana Herrera, to deliver the samples to the Laboratorio de Control al Dopaje of the Colombian Institute of Sport, Coldeportes, a WADAaccredited laboratory located in Bogotá, Colombia (LCD). In a complementary form attached to the sample container, Dr Nestor Mejia explained that he was unable to convey the samples any earlier due to other professional commitments. On 2 June 2009, Ms Adriana Herrera transported the samples directly from her apartment to the LCD, where she arrived at 12:52hrs. At that moment, she handed the twenty samples – among which the sample 2910 - over to Ms Sandra Quiroga, a sample reception technician of the LCD. Ms Sandra Quiroga inspected the shipping container and found that it was in satisfactory condition. She checked the samples one by one in the presence of Ms Adriana Herrera and did not identify any anomaly. Having observed that there were no irregularities with the incoming samples, Ms Sandra Quiroga completed and signed the Lab Receipt Form (countersigned by Ms Adriana Herrera) and the Chain of Custody Form. On 5 June 2009, Dr Gloria Gallo Isaza, head of the LCD, conducted the screening analysis on the Athlete’s A sample, which tested positive for 3-OH stanozolol. Five days later, she conducted a confirmatory analysis on the Athlete’s A sample, which corroborated the presence of 3-OH stanozolol. On 16 June 2009, the LCD informed IAAF President, Mr Lamine Diack, that “in the sample 2910 was

detected the presence of 3-OH stanozolol (metabolite of STANOZOLOL), prohibited substance by WADA list, so it is a considered as an adverse analytical finding for Anabolics”. On 22 June 2009, the IAAF Anti-Doping Administrator, Mr Gabriel Dollé, informed the Secretary of the CAF that the “urine sample code n° 2910 collected on 23rd May 2009 at the ‘54 Campeonato Nacional Mayores’ held in Bogotá, contained the prohibited substance Stanozolol”. On 26 June 2009, the CAF Disciplinary Commission informed the Athlete a) of the adverse analytical finding of her A-sample, b) of the fact that it was requested to instigate disciplinary proceedings against her and c) that it decided to provisionally suspend her for 30 days with immediate effect.

CAS 2010/A/2110 4

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 At no moment did the Athlete request the analysis of the B-sample. On 20 August 2009, the CAF Disciplinary Commission held that the Athlete was guilty of an antidoping rule violation and decided to declare her ineligible for two years. All the Athlete’s results, awards and prizes obtained during the 54th Colombian Senior Championship were forfeited. On 2 September 2009, the CAF informed the IAAF that the two-year suspension imposed upon the Athlete was to run from 28 August 2009 to 28 July 2011, i.e. two years less the month of provisional suspension already served from 24 June 2009. On 7 September 2009, the Athlete challenged the decision of the CAF Disciplinary Commission before the General Disciplinary Commission (GDC), with the consequence that her suspension was immediately lifted. On appeal, the Athlete alleged that she had never taken voluntarily any prohibited substance. She also

claimed that the CAF Disciplinary Commission violated her right to a fair hearing and tarnished her name and reputation as it found her guilty of an anti-doping rule violation based on the mere assumption that the anti-doping tests were flawless, because they were carried out by a WADAaccredited laboratory. The Athlete contended that, in her case, the disciplinary proceeding suffered of many inconsistencies as she was sanctioned in spite of the fact that the following questions did not find any answer: “What happens to a sample when it is not stored under proper conditions? What happens to an unidentified sample in the mailing or marketing systems? Is it possible for certain substances be turned into substances prohibited by WADA’s list when the samples are being analyzed at the laboratory, as in the case of Maria Luisa Calle? It is possible that an athlete who has given adverse positive results may yield a negative result five days later without a doping marker being spotted in the second sample? (…) The commission did not research nor looked for a positive or negative scientific explanation regarding the fact that the sample gave out a positive result in Bogota and a negative result in Cali. Even though they were independent samples, there should have been some traces of a possible marker or residues of the substance”. The Athlete was of the opinion that the CAF Disciplinary Commission committed a denial of justice when it refused her persistent request to conduct serious investigations in order to obtain answers to the above questions. In particular, the Athlete asserted that a breach in the chain of custody occurred as there was no justification of the “exaggerated, disproportionate and unlawful length of time it took for the sample to reach the laboratory, considering the time the urine sample was taken at the competition.(…). It is inadmissible that from May 23rd, 10 days go by to reach the anti-doping laboratory, a fact that is even more absurd if we consider that the event in which the sample was taken was held in Bogota, the capital of Colombia, the place where the anti-doping laboratory is located”. According to the Athlete, such a delay in the

delivery of the samples does not comply with the International Standards for Laboratories. The Athlete also alleged that Articles 5.2 and 6.4 of the WADA Code must be closely followed. The GDC found that the ten-day delay to deliver the collected samples was incompatible with the applicable standards for WADA accredited laboratories. According to this authority, such a delay was especially unjustified as the event where the samples were retrieved, took place in the very same city where the LCD is located. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that, during this ten-day period, a) there is no indication as to where the samples actually were and how many people had access to them, b) that the samples did not remain under the constant supervision of the doping control officer CAS 2010/A/2110 5 IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 formally in charge, c) that the person who delivered the samples was Ms Adriana Herrera, who was not identified and whose connection with the LCD was not established, the GDC held that a sample manipulation could not be excluded. Furthermore, it deemed that “the fact that the questions raised by the athlete did not receive a prompt response either by the national Anti-doping Organization or by the Disciplinary Committee of first instance […] violated the right to counsel and the contradiction of evidence”. Based on the foregoing, the GDC considered that “in this case there was a flagrant and unjustified violation of the chain of custody of the sample leading to the invalidity of the same. The latter, the EVIDENCE in support of the sentence at first instance is irreparably flawed of Nullity; it is illegal evidence and therefore cannot be the basis for the imposition of disciplinary sanction”. Consequently, on 12 February 2010, the GDC decided the following: “ARTICLE ONE: To declare the nullity of the Evidence for the sampling conducted to the athlete Johana

Trivino-Urrutia on May 23, 2009 in the framework of the 54th National Senior Championship held in Bogota, for the reasons stated herein.

ARTICLE TWO: To repeal in its entirety Resolution No. 06 of August 20, 2009 and Number 07 of September 9, 2009, issued by the Disciplinary Commission of the Colombian Federation of Athletics through which athlete Johana Trivino was found responsible for a serious offense. The athlete was disqualified from the medals, points and prizes and was sanctioned with a suspension of two (2) years to participate in any sporting competition.

ARTICLE THREE: To declare athlete Johana Trivino-Urrutia (…) NOT responsible for the alleged offence in Resolution No. 03, Investigation Opening Writ dated June 24, 2009, issued by the Disciplinary Commission of the Colombian Federation of Athletics.

ARTICLE FOUR: Send communications due by Law ARTICLE FIVE: No appeal proceeds against this Resolution”.

The above decision was initially written in Spanish. The IAAF was notified of that decision (the “Appealed Decision”) on 25 February 2010. The English translation of the Appealed Decision of the GDC was received by the IAAF on 17 March 2010. On 29 April 2010, the IAAF filed a statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). On the same day, the IAAF Doping Review Board decided to provisionally suspend the Athlete. On 24 May 2010 and within the authorized time extension, the IAAF filed its appeal brief. This document contains a statement of the facts and legal arguments accompanied by supporting documents. It challenged the above-mentioned Appealed Decision, submitting the following request for relief: “39. In conclusion, therefore, the IAAF respectfully submits that: 39.1 Ms Trivino-Urrutia committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with IAAF Rule 32.2(a);

and consequently, CAS 2010/A/2110 6 IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 39.2 In accordance with IAAF Rule 40.1, all of Ms Trivino-Urrutia’s results at the Colombian Senior Championships shall be disqualified; 39.3 In accordance with IAAF Rule 40.2, Ms Trivino-Urrutia shall be declared ineligible for a minimum period of two years from the date of the hearing of this matter, less any period of provisional suspension already served; 39.4 In accordance with IAAF Rule 40.8, all of Ms Trivino-Urrutia’s competitive results since 23 May 2009 shall be disqualified.

40. In addition, the IAAF requests that the CAF and/or Ms Trivino-Urrutia reimburse the IAAF for the CAS Court Office Fee of CHF 500 that it has paid and make a contribution to its costs, including legal costs, in bringing this appeal, with such costs to be ascertained”.

The Respondents failed to submit a response to the aforementioned submissions of the IAAF either within the given time limit or subsequent to the expiry of it. On 21 July 2010, the IAAF confirmed to the CAS Court Office that it agreed to waive a hearing. The Respondents were formally invited to inform the CAS Court Office whether they preferred a hearing to be held or whether the Panel should issue an award on the basis of the written submissions. They failed to communicate their position in this regard. In the above circumstances and pursuant to article R57 of the Code of Sport-related Arbitration (the “Code”), the Panel decided to refrain from holding a hearing. Nevertheless, On 14 October 2010, the Panel requested both parties to file additional documentation and to answers to a list of questions raised by the Panel which were essential for the decision. The Appellant filed its observations as well as some documentation on 25 October 2010 whereas the Respondents failed to do so and did not

response at all to the Panel’s request. LAW CAS Jurisdiction

1. CAS jurisdiction to decide on the present dispute was not disputed and was actually confirmed by all the parties by means of their signing the Order of procedure. Still, in the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds important to discuss and deal with two main issues which are important in the context of CAS jurisdiction.

2. These main issues to be discussed and resolved by the Panel are:

A. Is there an “arbitration clause”?

B. Is the Athlete an international-level athlete or a national-level athlete?

CAS 2010/A/2110 7

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011

A. Is there an “arbitration clause”?

a) The IAAF Constitution

3. It is obvious and undisputed that the CAF is the national governing body for athletics in Colombia and is affiliated to the IAAF.

4. According to article 4.1 of the IAAF Constitution, the IAAF members agree to abide by the IAAF Constitution and by its Rules and Regulations. Furthermore, and pursuant to article 4.8

(b) of the IAAF Constitution, the IAAF members have the obligations to comply with all applicable IAAF Rules and Regulations. In this regard, it can be observed that the application for membership to the IAAF by a national governing body for athletics must include a formal undertaking to observe and abide by the IAAF Constitution, Rules and Regulations (Article 4.3 (f) of the IAAF Constitution). b) The IAAF Competition Rules

5. Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the IAAF Competition Rules (IAAF Rules) provide the following: “30.1 The Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to the IAAF, its Members and Area Associations and to Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who participate in the IAAF, its Members and Area Associations

by virtue of their agreement, membership, affiliation, authorisation, accreditation or participation in their activities or competitions. 30.2 All Members and Area Associations shall comply with the Anti-Doping Rules and Regulations. The Anti-Doping Rules and Regulations shall be incorporated either directly, or by reference, into the rules or regulations of each Member and Area Association and each Member and Area Association shall include in its rules the procedural regulations necessary to implement the Anti-Doping Rules and Regulations effectively (and any changes that may be made to them). The rules of each Member and Area Association shall specifically provide that all Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons under its jurisdiction shall be bound by the Anti-Doping Rules and Regulations”.

6. Pursuant to IAAF Rule 37.2, first sentences “In the case of an International-Level Athlete, the results management process shall be conducted by the IAAF Anti-Doping Administrator and, in all other cases, it shall be conducted by the relevant person or body of the Athlete or other Person’s National Federation. The relevant person or body of the Athlete or other Person’s National Federation shall keep the IAAF Anti-Doping Administrator updated on the process at all times”. c) In casu

7. The CAF pointedly makes reference directly or indirectly to the IAAF Rules and Regulations: - On 22 June 2009, following the receipt of the LCD results, the IAAF informed the CAF that “this matter should now be dealt with in accordance with the results management procedure set out in IAAF Rule 37. (…) In accordance with IAAF Rule 37.2, please note that you must now keep CAS 2010/A/2110 8

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 [Mr Gabriel Dollé, IAAF Anti-doping Administrator] updated in the conduct of this case at all times”. On 16 July 2009, the CAF informed the IAAF that it would comply with the latter’s

request and report back to it on the evolution of the proceedings initiated against the Athlete. - On 28 August 2009, the CAF sent to Mr Gabriel Dollé the decision issued by its Disciplinary Commission on 20 August 2009 (in accordance with IAAF Rule 37). - On 2 September 2009 and answering IAAF’s request of 31 August 2009, the CAF gave more details in relation with the Athlete’s two-year ineligibility (in accordance with IAAF Rule 37). - On 25 February 2010, the CAF notified the IAAF of the Spanish version of the Appealed Decision of its GDC. At the request of the IAAF, the CAF translated the said document into English and sent it to the IAAF on 17 March 2010 (in accordance with IAAF Rule 42.13).

8. Additionally, on 16 June 2009, the LCD sent the results of its analysis to the IAAF as required by IAAF Rule 36.6.

9. In an e-mail dated 12 May 2010 and sent to the CAS Court Office, the Athlete explained that she was hoping for a quick resolution of the dispute. At no moment did she question the jurisdiction of the CAS. On the contrary, on 15 and 16 May 2010, she expressly appointed Ms Alexandra Brilliantova as arbitrator and signed the order of procedure, without making any reservation.

10. It results from the foregoing that the CAF is and considers itself subject to the IAAF Rules and Regulations. Furthermore none of the Respondents has never contested the application of the IAAF Rules and the athlete herself made reference to the WADA Code and, therefore, to international regulations. Therefore, the Panel has no doubt that IAAF Regulations, in particular IAAF Competition Rules, can be deemed applicable to the Athlete (either through an agreement, a license or through her accreditation for the competition at hand, pursuant to which

the Athlete acquiesced to the IAAF Rules, or through a chain of references to the IAAF Rules in by-laws or other regulations).

B. Is the Athlete an international-level athlete or a national-level athlete?

11. The available appeal remedies vary depending on whether the Athlete is a national-level athlete or an international-level athlete. In the latter case, the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the CAF should have been appealed exclusively to the CAS.

CAS 2010/A/2110 9

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 a) The IAAF Competition Rules

12. IAAF Rules 42.3 and 42.4 read as follows: “42.3 Appeals involving International-Level Athletes: in cases involving International-Level Athletes or their Athlete Support Personnel, the decision of the relevant body of the Member may be appealed exclusively to CAS in accordance with the provisions set out below. 42.4 Appeals which do not involve International-Level Athletes: in cases which do not involve InternationalLevel Athletes or their Athlete Support Personnel, the decision of the relevant body of the Member may (unless Rule 42.8 below applies) be appealed to an independent and impartial body in accordance with rules established by the Member. The rules for such appeal shall respect the following principles: - a timely hearing; - a fair, impartial and independent hearing panel; - the right to be represented by counsel at the Person’s own expense; - the right to have an interpreter at the hearing at the Person’s own expense; and - a timely, written, reasoned decision.

The decision of the national level appeal body may be appealed in accordance with Rule 42.7 below”.

13. IAAF Rules 42.6 and 42.7 state the following, where relevant: “42.6 In any case which does not involve an International-Level Athlete or his Athlete Support Personnel, the following parties shall have the right to appeal the decision to the national level appeal body:

(a) the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision being appealed; (b) the other party to the case in which the decision was rendered; (c) the Member; (d) the National Anti-Doping Organisation of the Athlete or other Person’s country of residence or where the Athlete or other Person is a national or licence holder; and (e) WADA. The IAAF shall not have the right to appeal a decision to the national level appeal body but shall be entitled to attend any hearing before the national level appeal body as an observer. The IAAF’s attendance at a hearing in such capacity shall not affect its right to appeal the decision of the national level appeal body to CAS in accordance with Rule 42.7 below. 42.7 In any case which does not involve an International-Level Athlete or his Athlete Support Personnel, the following parties shall have the right to appeal the decision of the national level appeal body to CAS: (a) the IAAF; (…)”.

CAS 2010/A/2110 10

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011 b) In casu

14. On 14 October 2010, the Panel requested the parties to take position on whether the Athlete was of national or international level at the moment of the sample collection procedure on 23

May 2009.

15. In response, the IAAF submitted that the Athlete was not an international-level athlete in accordance with the IAAF definition at the time of the 54th Colombian Senior National Championship. This submission is consistent with the facts of the case as, in accordance with IAAF Rule 42.4, the decision of the CAF Disciplinary Commission was appealed before the GDC and not directly before the CAS, as IAAF Rule 42.3 would have required in the presence of an international-level athlete.

16. Based on the above and in the absence of any evidence to counter IAAF’s submission and since the Respondents did not take position on this issue, the Panel does not see any reason to

question the fact that the Athlete was of national-level.

17. In any event, it appears that all internal procedures and legal remedies available to the parties have been exhausted prior to the appeal before the CAS. As a matter of fact, the appeal by the Athlete before the GDC was obviously the final appeal at national level. This is confirmed by article 5 of the operative part of the Appealed Decision, according to which “No appeal proceeds against this Resolution”.

18. Pursuant to IAAF Rule 42.4, the decision of the national-level appeal body may be appealed in accordance with IAAF Rule 42.7. Following IAAF Rule 38.11, the Appealed Decision of the GDC thereby became a decision of the CAF, challengeable before the CAS by the IAAF in accordance with IAAF Rule 42.7.

C. Conclusion

19. The CAS therefore has jurisdiction to decide on the present dispute. Moreover, its jurisdiction in the present case is not being disputed and was actually confirmed by the Order of procedure duly signed by all the parties.

20. Under article R57 of the Code, the Panel has the full power to review the facts and the law. The Panel did not therefore examine only the formal aspects of the appealed Decision but held a trial de novo, evaluating all facts and legal issues involved in the dispute.

Applicable law

21. According to the IAAF, its Regulations are applicable to the proceedings.

CAS 2010/A/2110 11

IAAF v. CAF & Johanna Trivino-Urrutia, award of 31 January 2011

22. Given that the samples were retrieved from a national competition and that the Athlete did not comply with the definition of an international-level athlete at the relevant time, the application of the IAAF Regulations can be questioned. Consequently, the Panel requested the parties to submit their detailed and substantiated opinions in respect of the issue of the law applicable to the present matter.

23. Once more, the Respondents failed to submit any response to the Panel’s request.

24. In its letter dated 25 October 2010, the IAAF restated the application of its Regulations. To support its position, the IAAF relied on IAAF Rule 38.11 pursuant to which the Appealed Decision of the GDC was final and became a decision of the CAF for the purposes of an appeal of the IAAF to the CAS as provided under IAAF Rule 42.7. Pursuant to IAAF Rule 42.22 in respect of appeals brought before the CAS involving the IAAF, “the CAS and the CAS Panel shall be bound by the IAAF Constitution, Rules and Regulations (including the Anti-Doping Regulations)”.

25. Moreover, the IAAF considered as irrelevant the fact that the in-competition drug testing took place at the 54th Colombian Senior Championship. According to the IAAF, Colombia is a signatory to the International Convention against Doping in Sport and, thereby, is bound to adopt the measures at national level which are consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code.

Furthermore, the IAAF contended that, under IAAF Constitution, the CAF, as the member federation of the IAAF for the territory of Colombia, is required to apply IAAF Anti-Doping Rules which are in harmony with the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code. IAAF Rule