It recently came to light that US athlete, Christian Coleman has been sanctioned after an investigation by an independent disciplinary panel, (“the Panel”) for breaching an Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) in relation to a whereabouts failure.
Coleman won the gold medal in the Men’s 100m Final at the 2019 World Championships in Doha in a time of 9.76 seconds, the 6th fastest time in history and was certainly one of the favourites for gold at the now postponed Tokyo 2020 Olympics.
This blog will explain the ADRV in question, what happened in this particular case and the implications of this decision.
Rule Violation
The rule violation central to this investigation was Rule 2.4 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (WADA) code which highlights Whereabouts Failures as ‘any combination of three Missed Tests and/or Filing Failures as defined in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, within a twelve- month period, by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool’.
All athletes who are in the Registered Testing Pool must provide a location where they will be available one hour every day for daily drug testing. This includes training venues and over night stays. Coleman had been in the Testing pool since 2016.
It is important to note that during the decision making process, there is no allegation that Mr Coleman took a prohibited substance.
Alleged breach
Mr Coleman missed three tests on three different dates and therefore has violated Rule 2. 4 above. It is a known fact that Coleman did not contest the first missed test on 16th January 2019, but the latter two he did.
Date: 26 April 2019 – Coleman was at a Relay event in a different state and failed so change his location. He had indicated that he would be a sporting premises in Kentucky and his available time slot that day would place him at a Kentucky Residence. However, he was actually at an event in Iowa and therefore his ‘whereabouts information’ should have been updated to reflect this. It is quite common for athletes to be required to change there ‘whereabouts’, and are required to do so has soon as circumstances change.[1] The Panel stated that Coleman did not change this information until a doping control officer had attended his address in Kentucky, two days after he had arrived in Iowa and three days after he knew he would be competing at the event. The Panel are satisfied that there was a breach of Art 1.35 and a filing failure on this date.
Date: 9th December 2019 – A Doping Control Officer (DCO) was authorised by World Athletics to attempt an Out- of –Competition test on the athlete. Coleman’s whereabouts information stated he would be at his Kentucky residence. The DCO attended this address and knocked on the door multiple times and waited for 60 minutes but no response. Coleman explained he had been on a shopping trip at a nearby complex, but had returned home within his one- hour window and then gone out again. His defence was the testers must have left his property or clocked off early. The Panel did not accept Coleman’s evidence and said:
‘it would have been simply impossible for him to purchase a chipotle at 7:53pm (the store being 5-9 minutes to his residence), drive home, park the car, go into his residence, eat the chipotle, then watch the kick-off of the football game which only started at 8:15pm, and thereafter go out again in his car, drive to the store and pick up 16 items at the Walmart Supercenter so as to be able to pay for them by 8:22pm. And this notwithstanding the fact that, according to his version, the Athlete at least when he arrived before 8:15pm should have directly passed and seen the two DCOs, who also did not discover him and stated that at no time was a light turned on in the house – on a dark December evening.‘
There was an argument that the DCO should have phoned the athlete, but Article I.4.3 highlights ‘Because the making of a telephone call is discretionary rather than mandatory, and is left entirely to the absolute discretion of the Sample Collection Authority, proof that a telephone call was made is not a requisite element of a Missed Test, and the lack of a telephone call does not give the Athlete a defence to the assertion of a Missed Test.”
The Panel found that this alleged breach resulted in a missed test.
Outcome
The Panel were satisfied that Rule 2.4 of the WADA code had been breached and Coleman was handed a two year ban commencing from 14th May 2020, which means he will miss the postponed Tokyo 2020 Olympics due to commence in July 2021. The Panel also made reference to Coleman’s missed tests as ‘the Athlete’s attitude to his obligations can fairly be described as entirely careless, perhaps even reckless.
Appeal
Coleman can appeal this decision and his lawyer Howard Jacobs has confirmed he will appeal. Under the WADA code, this can be reduced to one year –‘depending on the athletes degree of fault’ [2]. If Coleman is successful, he will have the green light to perform at the postponed Olympics next year.
[1] Article 1.35 International Standard for Testing and Investigations.
[2] Article 10.3.2 WADA code.
A Sporting Insight 