L?Association mauricienne d?Athlétisme amateur (AMAA) avait promis de clore le dossier Casquette dans les délais les plus brefs, et elle a tenu ses promesses.

C?est hier, au siège de l?AMAA, à la Primo Nebiolo House au stade Maryse Justin, à Réduit, que l?instance dirigeante de l?athlétisme local a, officiellement, annoncé la sanction à l?ensemble de la presse après avoir reçu le rapport et les recommandations du comité disciplinaire, composé du docteur Satish Boolell, Harold Munso et Daniel Capiron.

Arnaud Casquette, contrôlé positif au cannabis le 12 décembre 2005 à Niamey lors des Jeux de la Francophonie, écope donc d?une sanction de six mois, période durant laquelle il devra subir des contrôles réguliers.

Après une audience avec l?athlète incriminé le 26 décembre, le comité disciplinaire a donc décidé, à la lumière des informations recueillies, d?infliger à Arnaud Casquette une sanction de six mois à dater du 12 décembre 2005, et notre spécialiste du saut en longueur pourra retrouver le chemin de la compétition à partir du 12 juin 2006. Il est à noter que, durant cette période, il aura, tout de même, le droit de poursuivre ses séances d?entraînement.

?Je m?attendais à ce que ce soit entre trois et six mois. Je penchais plus pour trois mois, mais le comité disciplinaire en a choisi autrement. Je ne conteste aucunement cette décision. Je vais donc rater deux grands rendez-vous, mais heureusement, je pourrais tout de même être présent aux Championnats d?Afrique qui se tiendront chez nous au mois d?août. C?est quelque chose d?important à mes yeux, et je vais bosser dur pour être à mon meilleur niveau pour cette échéance africaine?, commente Arnaud Casquette, avant d?ajouter : ?Je voudrais remercier l?Association mauricienne d?Athlétisme amateur, mes parents, ma famille proche, tous mes amis et DL pour leur soutien depuis l?annonce de mon contrôle positif?.

Sanction exemplaire

Avec ces six mois de suspension, Arnaud Casquette ratera deux rendez-vous importants du calendrier 2006, en l?occurrence les Mondiaux en salle de Moscou prévus du 10 au 12 mars et les Jeux du Commonwealth qui se tiendront à Melbourne du 15 au 26 mars.

?C?est vraiment dommage, car c?étaient deux rendez-vous auxquels j?aspirais, mais vu ma suspension, je ne pourrais malheureusement pas y être présent?, soupire Arnaud Casquette.

Finalement, le comité disciplinaire a opté, comme on s?y attendait un peu, pour une sanction exemplaire, sans pour autant aller dans l?extrême d?une sanction maximale. ?Mr Casquette is an athlete of high standing. His presence on the international scene is an indication of his status. He should know that drugs, however soft they may be, and sport do not mix. This is actually the philosophy behind the classification of cannabis on the prohibited list. We believe that a strong message should be sent to the sport community and to the youth in this country to promote their awareness in respect of doping and drugs in sport?, souligne le comité disciplinaire dans son rapport soumis à l?AMAA.

L?autre élément fort du rapport reste que l?instance chargée de faire la lumière sur cette affaire n?est pas convaincue par l?explication fournie par Arnaud Casquette concernant la consommation de thé mauritanien?

?It is beyond reason to accept the defence presented by Mr Casquette on this issue. His theory of ingestion of a cannabis laced tea in a games village compound is farfetched and does not hold water. The likelihood of active inhalation of the product through smoking is a distinct possibility compatible with the scientific evidence in this case?, souligne le comité disciplinaire.

Mais l?essentiel, reste que cette affaire a été traitée rapidement et surtout d?une façon très professionnelle par l?AMAA. Arnaud Casquette aura à purger sa peine de six mois de suspension, et l?AMAA, à travers son secrétaire administratif, Vivian Gungaram, a clairement fait ressortir que l?instance dirigeante de l?athlétisme local lui apportera son soutien durant cette période.

Les conclusions du comité disciplinaire

1. Under rule 32.2a (i) of the IAAF doping rules, it is each athlete?s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his body tissues or fluids. Athletes are warned that they are responsible for any prohibited substance found to be present in their bodies. It is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on an athlete?s part be demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping rules violation.

2. Under rule 40.5(a) an antidoping rule violation carries a minimum period of two years ineligibility unless the athlete can establish that use of such a specified substance was not intended to enhance performed in which case the period of ineligibility applicable under rule 40.1(a) shall be replaced by first violation.

Minimum: a public warning and disqualification from the event and subsequent events in which the athlete competed in the competition.

Maximum: one year?s ineligibility.

3. Mr Arnaud Casquette has to bear the full responsibility of the presence of cannabis in his urine. Though he does not challenge the findings and apologies for cannabis presence, he is fairly unrepentant in his attitude, blaming herbal tea bought on the games village premises.

4. We are agreeable to the fact that the cannabis did not in any way enhance his performance as an athlete.

5. There are a few discrepancies between his story and the testimonies given at short notice by the members of the delegation.

6. We find it hard to believe that at an international meeting under IAAF rules he sale of cannabis laced tea could have been so openly tolerated and readily available.

If this were the case a majority of participants would have been tested positive for cannabis.

7. Cannabis may be ingested. It may also be inhaled actively or passively. With a maximum half life 12 to 18 hrs it should disappear from body fluids within 24 to 36 hrs.

The presence of cannabis in one?s body fluids beyond this time interval may only suggest repeated ingestion / inhalation. The level acceptable for passive inhalation of cannabis is of the order of 15ng/ml. The level detectable in this particular case was of the order of 24.5 ng/ml.

It is beyond reason to accept the defence presented by Mr Casquette on this issue. His theory of ingestion of a cannabis laced tea in a games village compound is farfetched and does not hold water. The likelihood of active inhalation of the product through smoking is a distinct possibility compatible with the scientific evidence in this case.

In the light of the above we agree that rule 40.1(a) shall apply as the substance consumed by the ahlete has not enhanced his performance.

Mr Casquette is an athlete of high standing. His presence on the international scene is an indication of his status. He should know that drugs, however soft they may be, and sport do not mix. This is actually the philosophy behind the classification of cannabis on the prohibited list.

We believe that a strong message should be sent to the sport community and to the youth in this country to promote their awareness in respect of doping and drugs in sport.

Athletes of International status should be reminded that they are ambassadors of the Nation and any shortcomings on their part reflect on the country.

Consequently we recommend that Mr Arnaud Casquette be disqualified from participating in all competitions organised by the MAAA or the IAAF for a period of not less than six months with effect from 12th December 2005, notwithstanding the application of other measures that are provided for in the rules of the Association for the practical application of the sanction.

We expect the athlete to be regularly screened for cannabis during the period of suspension as per provision under the antidoping rules.

Finally we wish to express our thanks and our appreciation to the MAAA for the professional way in which they have handled this delicate issue.

A certain amount of undue pressure has been borne upon the members of the committee by the athlete concerned. He has chosen to present his defence through the media and this, despite our request during the hearing that he shows some restraint. Though we prone transparency in this matter, we have to submit to IAAF rules on confidentiality. Our decision has however not been influenced by this undue pressure.