By Nam Hyun-woo
‘Proving intent critical in doping case’
Seoul: One year before the revelations that Olympic star swimmer Park Tae-hwan had failed a drug test after being injected with a banned substance, Korean gold medalist in badminton, Lee Yong-dae, shocked the nation with a doping scandal of his own.
In January 2014, Lee, the 2013 Beijing Olympic champion, was given a one-year suspension for missing doping tests designated by the Badminton World Federation (BWF). However, he was later reinstated when the BWF cancelled the ban before he could appear before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); the BWF acknowledged that Korea’s local badminton association had failed to inform him of the required tests and ruled he had no intent to dodge screening.
Lee was joined at that time by another Korean badminton player who had received a doping ban, Kim Ki-jung, and their battle with the badminton body was led by Park Eun-young, head of the international arbitration practice at top Korean law firm, Kim & Chang. With Park Tae-hwan set to undergo a similar legal dispute, the Kim & Chang lawyer told The Korea Times that proving intent is “critical and significant” in a doping case.
“We (lawyers, prosecutors and judges) look into a case on the base of the principle of presumption of innocence, but in doping case hearings, panels presume an athlete to be guilty,” Park said.
According to him, Lee did not receive a banned substance or test positive in a doping test, but failed to provide reliable information about his whereabouts for possible drug testing.
“That caused the BWF to be suspicious that Lee had the intent to take a banned substance,” Park said.
At the first BWF hearing, Lee and his compatriot Kim each received a one-year ban. “It was more like a court trial than a hearing,” Park said. “Because the rights and wrongs are judged by relevant laws and respective international federation’s rules based on the World Anti-Doping Agency Code.”
At the time Lee and Kim were given bans, the Badminton Korea Association (BAK) was also held responsible for failing to inform the athletes about the tests.
“Thus, it can be seen as natural that local sports association and federations are trying to help the jeopardized athlete.”
Park Tae-hwan is scheduled to appear before an International Swimming Federation (FINA) hearing in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Feb. 27. If he disagrees with the decision, he can appeal to the CAS.
At the CAS, a case undergoes two sessions of reviewing written documents and hearing an appeal from an athlete.
According to Park, Lee did not stand before a CAS court, because the BWF cancelled the ban to avoid controversy should the arbitrators side with Lee.
“His case occurred because the local federation (BAK) failed to deliver the BWF’s doping test notification properly. Our logic to defend Lee was that the CAS ruling was tantamount to the court’s acknowledgement that there was a problem in the BWF’s international federation-to-local federation delivery system.
“In that case, the BWF will likely have to deliver such notifications to athletes directly. That will cost a lot for the federation,” the lawyer said. “Thus we negotiated with the BWF that if the federation lifts the ban, we would cancel the appeal.”
Park will fly to Lausanne on Feb. 22 to meet Antonio Rigozzi, a partner at legal firm Levy Kaufmann-Kohler who is charge of sports arbitration practice and a world-renowned expert in doping cases.
Before that, the swimmer is required to submit documents to FINA before Feb. 13. His agency will collect proof such as the prosecutors’ investigation reports showing Park had no intention to take an illegal substance, in a bid to get a favorable judgment.
Korea Times
