The specialist in the middle distance and fivefold champion of France had been controlled positive at the EPO in September 2019.
Le Monde with AFP
The Council of State suspended the athlete Ophélie Claude-Boxberger for four years, two years more than what the sanctions committee of the French agency for doping (AFLD), for having been controlled positive at the EPO on September 18, 2019.
This specialist in half -land events had from the start his innocence. On November 29, 2019, at the end of his police custody in the face of the gendarmes of the OCLAESP (Central Office for the Fight against Environmental and Public Health), his ex-Beau-Père and ex-coach Alain Flaccus confeated to have doped without his knowledge during a massage.
The AFLD had claimed eight years of suspension and had appealed before the Council of State for the decision of the Sanctions Commission, independent body, to pronounce a two -year sanction against the specialist of half -bottom. The four -year sanction had been required by the public rapporteur. The latter had estimated at the hearing that the “particular circumstances” raised by the defense of the athlete did not make it possible to reduce the suspension. On the other hand, he did not retain the supposed offense of falsification.
Indeed, in addition to taking EPO, the AFLD asked that the athlete be sanctioned also for falsifying elements of anti-doping control, in particular by influencing the testimony of his ex-coach. The AFLD estimated that this witness had been manipulated by the athlete, and had also lied about his geolocation on the days preceding his control.
Alain Flaccus, who had defended this thesis of an unsolicited doping, had declared, on June 26, 2020 to the agency France-Presse, which he had never committed such a gesture. In September 2021, Alain Flaccus, prosecuted by Ophélie Claude-Boxberger for “poisoning”, had been released by the Montbéliard court (Doubs).
“enlightening” decision
AFLD said on Tuesday, in a statement, “satisfied” that the Council of State applies the four-year sanction “under the presence of EPO”.
With regard to falsification, the decision is “enlightening” for the AFLD. It “confirms that encouraging a witness to lie about the origin of a prohibited substance is likely to characterize an offense of falsification, as, depending on the circumstances, the fact of lacking its location obligations”. But, in this case the Council of State considered that “the level of evidence was not sufficient”. The AFLD sanctions committee had not followed it on this path of falsification.
AFLD, now provided with investigation powers, believes that they will allow it in the future to “better establish the falsifications encountered in anti-doping procedures”.