Simona Halep and International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) (cross-appeals)

At a glance

Parties

Simona Halep (Romania) v. International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), with ITIA's cross-appeal

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/10025 & CAS 2023/A/10227

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure (CAS Code); 2022 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP); English law applies subsidiarily

Tribunal

Annabelle Bennett (President), Jeffrey Benz, Ulrich Haas

Sector

Tennis; anti-doping

Outcome

Halep's appeal partly upheld and ITIA's appeal dismissed. The ABP charge was dismissed, and the four-year ban was replaced by nine months' ineligibility from 7 October 2022 for the Roxadustat violations.

Amount

Not applicable. Results from 29 August 2022 to 7 October 2022 were disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, titles, ranking points and prize money. The costs orders are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Simona Halep is a Romanian professional tennis player and a former world number 1. Her in-competition urine sample taken at the US Open on 29 August 2022 contained Roxadustat, a non-specified erythropoiesis-stimulating substance. Separately, her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was declared an Adverse Passport Finding, based mainly on Sample 48 of 22 September 2022. The ITF Independent Tribunal found violations of TADP Articles 2.1 and 2.2 on both charges and imposed four years' ineligibility. Halep appealed. She argued that the Roxadustat came from a contaminated supplement, Keto MCT with Marine Collagen (Schinoussa). She also argued that the ABP abnormality had innocent explanations, relying on a private blood test of 9 September 2022 taken before nasal surgery. The ITIA denied that the supplement was contaminated and argued that it could not, in any event, explain the concentration in her urine. By its cross-appeal it sought a longer ban of up to six years for aggravating circumstances.

Key holdings

1. To show that the detected Prohibited Substance 'came from' a Contaminated Product under TADP Article 10.6.1.2, read with the WADC, the player must show causation. Showing only that the substance was present in the product is not enough. Whether causation is shown depends on the evidence. ¶ 139
2. On the balance of probabilities, the Keto MCT that Halep consumed was contaminated with Roxadustat. The Panel accepted Prof. Alvarez's positive detection, even though two WADA-accredited laboratories did not detect the substance; it reasoned that repeated false positives are harder to explain than false negatives. ¶¶ 155–156
3. The pharmacokinetic evidence did not make the contamination explanation implausible. The calculations had several confounding factors, and there was no reason why Halep would take a sub-therapeutic dose from a second source. The Roxadustat came from the supplement, the violation was not intentional, and Halep bore no significant fault or negligence. ¶¶ 160–169
4. The transport temperature did not invalidate Sample 48, and its values were abnormal even though they stayed within Halep's individual limits. Privately collected samples cannot be entered into the ABP, but reliable private results may be weighed in defence. None of the confounding factors raised (thyroid condition, cortisol, anaesthesia, detraining, menstruation, blood loss) explained Sample 48. ¶¶ 185, 191, 196, 210
5. The ABP charge was dismissed. Even when all non-doping explanations are excluded, doping must still be a plausible explanation. Once the private blood sample of 9 September 2022 and the chronology were considered (Halep stopped competing after the US Open and had surgery), the remaining doping scenarios were possible but not plausible. The Panel was not comfortably satisfied that a violation had occurred. ¶¶ 212–224
6. Halep was at fault. She used a new, uncertified supplement obtained at short notice, relied on a physiotherapist's check of the ingredient list, and did not consult the doctors available at the Mouratoglou Academy. The Panel imposed nine months' ineligibility from 7 October 2022, with credit for the provisional suspension. It declined to backdate the start date. ¶¶ 237–245

Procedural history

1. 29 August 2022In-competition urine sample collected at the US Open; it later tested positive for Roxadustat.
2. 7 October 2022Notice of the adverse analytical finding and provisional suspension.
3. 12 April 2023Adverse Passport Finding declared in ADAMS.
4. 22 September 2023The First Instance Tribunal finds violations on both charges and imposes four years' ineligibility.
5. 28 September 2023Halep files her Statement of Appeal (CAS 2023/A/10025).
6. 14 December 2023ITIA files its cross-appeal (CAS 2023/A/10227) together with its Answer.
7. 7–9 February 2024Hearing at CAS headquarters in Lausanne.
8. 5 March 2024Operative part notified: ineligibility reduced to nine months and the ABP charge dismissed.
9. 20 September 2024Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Annabelle Bennett President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Jeffrey G. Benz Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Ulrich Haas Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Howard Jacobs · Claude Romani · Bogdan Stoica · Katy Freeman

For the respondent

ITIA (in-house) · Richard Liddell · Lauren Pagé · Chris Lavey · Magnus Wallsten

Experts

Jean-Claude Alvarez (claimant) · Pascal Kintz (claimant) · Anthony Raizis (claimant) · Paul Scott (claimant) · Douwe de Boer (claimant) · Daniel Eichner (respondent) · Christiane Ayotte (respondent) · Peter Van Eenoo (respondent) · Jakob Mørkeberg (respondent) · Laura Garvican-Lewis (respondent) · Giuseppe D'Onofrio (respondent) · François Pralong (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Halep
• Roxadustat
• contaminated product
• Keto MCT
• Schinoussa
• Athlete Biological Passport
• blood doping
• Tennis Anti-Doping Programme
• World Anti-Doping Code
• Article 10.6.1.2
• no significant fault or negligence
• private blood sample
• pharmacokinetics
• plausible doping scenario
• nutritional supplements
• period of ineligibility
• cross-appeal
• aggravating circumstances

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.