The case involves Jeffrey Adams, a disabled track-and-field athlete who tested positive for cocaine during a doping control test after winning the ING Ottawa Marathon Wheelchair Competition in 2006. Adams argued that the positive result was due to contamination from a reused catheter, which had been exposed to cocaine when an unknown woman placed her fingers in his mouth at a bar. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) found Adams in violation of anti-doping rules under the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP) and imposed a two-year competition ban and permanent loss of government funding. Adams contested the decision, claiming procedural errors and involuntary ingestion, and appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS examined several legal issues, including whether the CCES, as a private entity, was subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or human rights legislation. The tribunal ruled that the Charter did not apply to the CCES, as it operates independently despite receiving government funding. It also found no evidence of discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, as Adams failed to prove the CCES denied him reasonable accommodation for his disability. The case was governed by strict liability rules, meaning the mere presence of a prohibited substance constituted a violation, regardless of intent.
Adams’s testimony and supporting witness accounts were deemed credible, leading the tribunal to conclude that the positive test resulted from catheter contamination rather than intentional drug use. However, it ruled that the CCES had no duty at the time to warn athletes about catheter risks or provide sterile catheters, as the risks were not well understood. Despite upholding the strict liability violation, the tribunal eliminated Adams’s ineligibility period, recognizing he bore no fault or negligence. His competition results were disqualified, but he remained eligible for government funding.
The case underscores the challenges of balancing strict anti-doping enforcement with individual circumstances, particularly for disabled athletes. While the tribunal affirmed the violation, it acknowledged the unique context and lack of fault, resulting in a reduced penalty. The decision highlights the evolving nature of anti-doping rules and the importance of considering exceptional cases where contamination occurs without the athlete’s knowledge or negligence.