The case revolves around an appeal by the International Rugby Board (IRB) against a decision by the Rugby Football Union (RFU) concerning a doping violation by professional rugby player Jason Keyter. Keyter tested positive for Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, during an in-competition urine test in October 2005. The initial disciplinary panel accepted Keyter’s claim that the substance entered his system unintentionally through a spiked drink at a nightclub, reducing his suspension from the standard two years to one year due to "no significant fault or negligence." The IRB appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Keyter failed to sufficiently prove how the substance entered his body and that his negligence was significant.
Under anti-doping regulations, the burden of proof initially lies with the party alleging the violation, requiring evidence to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the hearing body. Once a violation is established, the athlete faces strict liability, meaning the presence of a prohibited substance is sufficient for a violation, regardless of intent. The athlete can rebut this by proving no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence, but this must be demonstrated on the balance of probabilities.
The IRB contended that Keyter did not meet the first requirement of establishing the route of ingestion. His claim of a spiked drink, without corroborating evidence beyond character references, was deemed insufficient. The IRB also argued that Keyter’s behavior—accepting drinks from strangers in a nightclub—demonstrated significant negligence, as he failed to exercise caution. The CAS panel agreed, emphasizing that an athlete’s failure to establish how the substance entered their body precludes a reduction in sanction. Additionally, the panel rejected the notion that intoxication or lack of memory could excuse negligence.
The CAS ultimately ruled in favor of the IRB, overturning the RFU’s reduced suspension and imposing the standard two-year ban. The decision reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases and clarified that athletes must provide credible evidence to support claims of unintentional ingestion to avoid full sanctions. The case underscores the high standards of proof required for athletes to mitigate penalties in doping violations and highlights the importance of adhering to anti-doping regulations to maintain fairness in sports.