The Council of State, by order of the 25 August 2017, dismissed the application for interim measures of a swimming coach suspended by the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) on the ground that it had Opposed to the control of swimmers it entails.
Refusal to appear for an unannounced doping control
During an anti-doping test during training 18 October 2016, the coach of the Club of the swimmers of Marseille, Romain Barnier, refused to present some of his swimmers and would have requested the postponement of the check.
A report of the refusal of the coach was then drawn up by the two samplers sent by the AFLD.
The coach had indeed "Asked the collectors to wait for the end of the training then informed them of its decision to "refuse the check on the grounds of the mandatory waiting time after physical activity, swimmers having a second training during the day at 16 hours"".
By a decision of February 1, 2017, the FFN's first-instance anti-doping disciplinary body released the trainer.
The ALFD then seized the case. By decision No. 2017-58 of 6 July 2017, the disciplinary formation of the AFLD canceled the decision of the FFN and then pronounced "lShall be prohibited from participating, directly or indirectly, for six months in the organization and running of competitions and sporting events authorized or organized by the French Federation of Swimming and in training therein, and decided Publication in excerpts from the Official Bulletin of the ministry responsible for sports and in various magazines".
The coach therefore appealed to the High Administrative Court for interim relief in order to urgently suspend the effects of the AFLD's decision.
The refusal of control report signed by the coach eliminates serious doubt
The Council of State rejected the request of the coach who justified his request for postponement by holding for one of the swimmers a "Session of important osteopathy"And by the search for a"alternative solution"He considered that he had discussed the appropriateness of the control with regard to the training schedule but had not refused it firmly.
For the judge hearing the application for interim measures, this was not a valid justification for refusal, referring to the report mentioning the refusal of the coach, which he also signed on the day of the incident.
The Council of State therefore holds that "The supplementary report drawn up during his discussions with the supervisory officers mentions his decision to oppose the review and to refuse it in clear terms on the scope of which he was unable, as a professional Already undergone many checks, misunderstand. He signed this document without reservations or any contrary view".
The coach challenged, moreover, the proportionality of the sanction, a method rejected by the administrative court.
Following the rejection of the application for suspension of the effects of the sanction, the sanction applies until further consideration of the coach's appeal to the Council of State.
