The case of Darko Stanic, a professional handball player, highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations enforced by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Stanic tested positive for benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine, metabolites of cocaine, after a match in April 2006. He claimed the positive result was due to unknowingly smoking a cigarette laced with cocaine, offered to him by a stranger in a Zurich discotheque four days prior. The Swiss Olympic Association initially accepted his explanation of "no significant fault or negligence," reducing his suspension from the standard two years to six months. However, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this decision, arguing the Swiss Olympic misapplied its statute by not imposing the mandatory two-year suspension under strict liability rules.
The CAS panel reviewed the case and emphasized that athletes must prove how a prohibited substance entered their system to claim no fault or negligence, using the balance of probabilities standard. The panel found Stanic’s account speculative and insufficient, as he could not definitively prove the cigarette contained cocaine. His delayed recollection of the incident, unclear testimony from his friend, and lack of scientific evidence on how long the metabolites would remain detectable further weakened his claim. The panel also noted the improbability of someone offering a stranger a cigarette containing expensive cocaine, as cocaine is typically snorted rather than smoked. Consequently, the CAS overturned the Swiss Olympic decision, reinstating the two-year suspension under the strict liability principle.
The ruling reinforced the importance of strict liability in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are held responsible for any prohibited substances in their system regardless of intent. The case clarified the evidentiary standards athletes must meet to avoid sanctions, requiring concrete proof of how the substance entered their body rather than speculative explanations. The panel stressed that merely suggesting innocent explanations or denying deliberate doping is insufficient. The suspension period was set to begin on 22 May 2006, the date Stanic effectively stopped playing official games following the positive test. The decision underscores the high burden of proof athletes face in challenging positive test results and the necessity of maintaining the integrity of anti-doping policies. The CAS ruling did not imply Stanic was untruthful or intentionally doped but simply that he failed to meet the required evidentiary standards to reduce his suspension. This case serves as a precedent for the rigorous application of strict liability in anti-doping cases, ensuring consistent enforcement across sports organizations.