Graham and Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding a decision by the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP) to assert that Mrs Graham may have committed an anti-doping rule violation. The dispute arose from Mrs Graham's refusal to grant entry to Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) officers at a bodybuilding competition. Mrs Graham and her husband, through their company Muscle & Fitness Pty Limited, are involved in promoting and conducting bodybuilding and fitness events, and they describe themselves as the Australian representatives of the International Federation of Bodybuilding & Fitness (IFBB).

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether Mrs Graham qualified as a "support person" under the National Anti-Doping Scheme (NAD Scheme); and second, whether the participants in the bodybuilding competition were considered "athletes" for the purposes of the NAD Scheme. The resolution of these issues was critical, as Mrs Graham's conduct could only constitute tampering under the NAD Scheme if both these conditions were met.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the definitions within the NAD Scheme and the governance structure of bodybuilding in Australia. It examined the relationship between Muscle & Fitness, IFBB Australia (which is a registered business name, not a legal entity), and the international IFBB. The Tribunal considered evidence regarding registration and membership requirements for competitors, particularly concerning eligibility for international events. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the participants in the bodybuilding competition were not "athletes" for the purposes of the NAD Scheme, and consequently, Mrs Graham could not be considered a "support person" in relation to them.

Based on its findings, the Tribunal concluded that the ADRVP's decision to assert a possible anti-doping rule violation by Mrs Graham was not the correct or preferable decision on the material before it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the ADRVP.