The case of Mariano Puerta v. the International Tennis Federation (ITF) centers on a doping violation involving the prohibited substance etilefrine, detected in Puerta's urine sample after the 2005 French Open final. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed key legal and procedural issues, emphasizing the need to interpret the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) consistently with Swiss law to ensure global uniformity. Puerta, a professional tennis player, had previously been sanctioned in 2003 for an inadvertent doping offense involving clenbuterol, receiving a reduced nine-month ban due to lack of intent. In the 2005 case, the ITF Tribunal imposed an eight-year ban, considering it a second offense under the WADC. However, the CAS panel found this sanction disproportionate, as both offenses involved "No Significant Fault or Negligence." The panel highlighted a gap in the WADC, which does not differentiate between degrees of fault for repeat offenses, and invoked the principle of proportionality to justify a reduced sanction.
Puerta argued that the etilefrine entered his system inadvertently through contamination from his wife’s medication, Effortil, which contained the substance. He claimed strict precautions were taken to avoid exposure, but on the day of the final, his wife mistakenly added the medication to a glass he later drank from. The ITF Tribunal accepted that the contamination was inadvertent and not performance-enhancing, given the low concentration of etilefrine, but ruled Puerta negligent for drinking from an unattended glass. The Tribunal initially imposed an eight-month suspension, balancing strict anti-doping enforcement with fairness. The CAS panel, however, criticized the Tribunal’s speculative reasoning and lack of evidence, concluding that Puerta’s negligence was slight and warranted a reduced sanction.
The panel grappled with whether Puerta’s 2005 violation should be treated as a first or second offense, given his prior violation under pre-WADC rules. The ITF Tribunal considered it a second offense, but Puerta argued that applying the stricter 2005 rules retrospectively was unfair. The panel rejected this, emphasizing the need for consistency in anti-doping enforcement. However, it found the eight-year ban disproportionate, as both offenses involved minimal fault and the substance had no performance-enhancing effect. The panel reduced the sanction to two years, aligning it with principles of justice and proportionality.
The case underscores the tension between strict anti-doping enforcement and fairness in individual circumstances. The panel acknowledged the WADC’s general effectiveness but noted its rigidity in rare cases like Puerta’s, where inadvertent ingestion and minimal fault warranted leniency. The decision upheld the disqualification of Puerta’s results from the 2005 French Open and subsequent events, including forfeiture of prize money and ranking points, but reduced his ineligibility period to two years. The ruling highlights the balance between deterring doping and ensuring sanctions are just and proportionate, particularly in exceptional cases. The panel stressed that such exceptions are rare and do not undermine the WADC’s overall robustness. The case serves as a reminder of the challenges athletes face in avoiding inadvertent doping and the importance of exercising utmost caution to prevent accidental ingestion of banned substances.