Jacquelin Honeywood v Australian Weightlifting Federation and Sport Integrity Australia

The Applicant competed in the sport of Olympic Weightlifting at the Masters level. On 4 March 2023, the Applicant competed at the Masters World Cup in Auckland, New Zealand, and won the Age Group W45 Category 64 event. A subsequent “in competition” doping control test was administered by Drug Free Sport New Zealand. A sample was provided by the Applicant. The sample was tested by the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory, which returned an adverse analytical finding of a metabolite of Tibolone. Tibolone is an anabolic androgenic steroid listed under Class S1.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code – International Standard – Prohibited List 2023. The Applicant was charged with Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs), and consequently issued a four-year Period of Ineligibility by the Second Respondent, pursuant to Article 10.2.1 of the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy 2021 (NAD Policy). 

In 2020, the Applicant was prescribed Tibolone for a confidential medical condition. In March 2022, the Applicant commenced competitive Olympic Weightlifting, and became aware of Sport Integrity Australia restrictions on athletes taking prohibited substances. In February 2023, the Applicant became aware that Tibolone was a prohibited substance and filed a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) application with the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee. At the time of competition at the Masters World Cup, the Applicant’s TUE application was not yet approved. 

The Applicant accepted that the ADRVs occurred, however submitted that the issued Period of Ineligibility should be reduced to six months. Specifically, as her conduct was unintentional pursuant to Article 10.2.1 of the NAD Policy, she acted without significant fault or negligence pursuant to Article 10.6.2 of the NAD Policy, and because she made admissions regarding the use of Tibolone prior to the sample collection, pursuant to Article 10.7.2 of the NAD Policy. 

The First Respondent did not provide any submissions. 

The Second Respondent refuted the claims of the Applicant concerning Articles 10.2.1 and 10.6.2 of the NAD Policy. However, the Second Respondent admitted that because the Applicant did disclose Tibolone use prior to her sample collection, Article 10.7.2 of the NAD Policy was applicable, and an appropriate reduction in the Athlete’s Period of Ineligibility was from four years to three years and nine months.

The Panel considered leading Court of Arbitration for Sport decisions, commentary on the NAD Policy, and submissions made by the Parties. The Panel held that the Applicant knew her conduct constituted an ADRV, or that such conduct might result in an ADRV, the actions of the Applicant were not without fault or negligence, and agreed with the admission of the Second Respondent in shortening the Applicants Period of Ineligibility as proposed.