PDF - 3MB - Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

91. This particular fails to have been established based upon the interpretation of the
CA Anti-Doping Policy as it pertains to having the requisite degree of knowledge.
In the absence of knowledge there can be no aiding and abetting under the policy.
This matter falls away on the findings and conclusions above in (ii) on trafficking.
CONCLUSION
92. Based upon all of the foregoing this Panel has been unable to uphold the
conclusions of Arbitrator Holmes QC at first instance save for the cross-appeal
which, in being dismissed by this Panel, upholds the relevant finding of the
Arbitrator. These proceedings have under the ASC and CA Anti-Doping policies
been a rehearing and cross-appeal -by order of the Panel under the CAS Rules. In
such circumstances this award replaces that of the first instance award and
becomes the final and binding award in this matter.
93. In replacing the first instance award it is necessary to terminate immediately the
sanction of a period of ineligibility for two years because of the finding of a
breach of the ASC and CA Anti-Doping policies. The concomitant result is that
the fine of $1,000 Australian dollars imposed for breach of those same policies is
without any foundation and must be returned to the Appellant.
94. At first instance the Arbitrator in the Final Award ordered that (i) a trek road bike
belonging to the ASC be returned; (ii) financial assistance in the amount of $
12,031.37 be returned to the ASC and (iii) costs of $20,000 be paid by the
Appellant to the ASC towards their costs of the first instance proceedings. These
matters and the costs of this rehearing and cross-appeal will be the- subject of
subsequent written submissions by the parties.
24