Rivista di Diritto ed Economia dello Sport - Rdes.it

CAS 2005/C/976 & 986, FIFA & WADA 233131 Athletes have a rigorous duty of care towards their competitors andthe sports organization to keep their bodies free of prohibited substances.Anti-doping rule violations do not “just happen” but are, in most cases, theresult of a breach of that duty of care. This justifies to presume that theathlete acted with fault or negligent and to shift the burden of proof from thesanctioning body to the athlete to exonerate him- or herself. On the otherhand, to impose to the sanctioning body to demonstrate that the athleteacted with fault or negligence would make the fight against doping extremelydifficult or even impossible. The shifting of the burden of proof to the athleteto demonstrate that he or she acted without (significant) fault does notconstitute a violation of Swiss law 71 provided that there is a fair and equalstandard of proof. 721.4 Limits on the Power of an Association to Impose Sanctions132 When imposing a sanction, the sanctioning body must observe thefollowing limits:1.4.1 The Principle of Fault 73133 There is no legal definition of fault in Swiss law. 74 The concept offault under Swiss law is broad and covers a wide range of different forms offault, from light fault to serious fault and intention. Fault is generally definedas an error or defect of judgment or of conduct respectively or as a breachof duty imposed by law or contract. 75 Negligence is generally defined as theomission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinaryconsiderations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or thedoing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. 76____________________71See also, in an international context, Kaufmann-Kohler/Malinverni/Rigozzi (cf. footnote 11),sec. 131 et seq., especially sec. 134.72CAS 2005/A/830 G. Squizzato v/ FINA, sec. 10.17; ECHR Salabiaku v/ France, Decision ofOctober 7, 1998, para. 27, A114-A (1998); Scherrer, Strafrechtliche und strafprozessualeGrundsätze bei Ver-bandssanktionen, in Fritzweiler (Ed.), Doping - Sanktion, Beweise, Ansprüche,Bern 2000, p. 127 et seq.; Scherrer, Vereinsstrafe - mit oder ohne Verschulden, in: Jusletter 6.September 2004, N 9.73FIFA, in its request, uses the term “culpability”, while the FDC refers to the “player’s guilt”.Conversely, WADA and the WADC use the term fault”. This Panel, in line with CAS jurisprudence,uses the term “fault” for the following reason: “Fault” is the term used in civil law (Black,Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., St. Paul 1990, p. 608; Romain/Bader/Byrd, Dictionary of Legaland Commercial Terms, 5th ed., Munich/Basle/Vienna 2000, p. 315) and CAS is an arbitrationcourt dealing with civil matters. On the other hand, “guilt” is derived from criminal law (Black,p. 708; Romain/Bader/Byrd, p. 355), while “culpability” cannot be assigned to a specific field oflaw.74Gauch/Schluep/Schmid/Rey, Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, 8thed, Zu-rich 2003, N 2766.75Black (cf. footnote 73), p. 608; Gauch/Schluep/Schmid/Rey (cf. footnote 74), N 2766.76Black (cf. footnote 73), p. 1022.